This work session takes place one week before the council is scheduled to deliberate on its FY 2015 budget and adopt it – at its May 19 regular meeting. The work session proceedings can be followed live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Updated at 4 p.m. Now available: Staff responses to councilmember questions about FY 2015 budget.

Hourly temperature data from WeatherSpark for part of November and December 2013. Chart by The Chronicle. Yellow horizontal line is 25 degrees. The red horizontal line is 10 degrees. The “weather amnesty” threshold – when the Delonis Center shelter opens for daytime hours – is 10 degrees. Advocates for the homeless community spoke at the city council’s Dec. 16 meeting in favor of a 25-degree threshold.

In some of its more significant business of the night, the council voted unanimously to deposit almost $1.4 million into the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund. The council’s final vote was unanimous, although Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offered an amendment to cut that amount in half, which failed on a 2-9 vote. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) joined Lumm in supporting that failed amendment.

The dollar figure of $1,384,300 million reflects the $1.75 million in gross proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs, from the sale of a downtown city-owned parcel known as the old Y lot. In 2003, the city paid $3.5 million for the property, located on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The council approved the sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The city has made interest-only payments on a $3.5 million loan for the last 10 years.

Public commentary during the meeting was dominated by residents advocating in support of the Y lot resolution – several on behalf of the homeless community. A current point of contention for several of the speakers is the fact that the Delonis Shelter does not operate a warming center during daytime hours. Instead, the center allows the homeless to seek refuge there during the day when the temperature or wind chill drops to 10 F degrees. Addressing that issue is one of several possible ways to spend the money from the affordable housing trust fund. Others include using it to renovate properties managed by the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Two items in which the council also invested considerable time at its Dec. 16 meeting involved traffic safety. The council wound up adopting unanimously a resolution that directs city administrator Steve Powers to present a strategy for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, by specific dates starting next year. The final version adopted by the council reflected a compromise on the exact wording of the resolution – which among other changes eliminated explicit mention of any specific technology. The original resolution had specifically cited rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), as does the non-motorized plan.

Thematically related to the funding plan for non-motorized transportation improvements was a proposal to allocate $125,000 from the current general fund reserve to pay for police overtime for traffic enforcement. The debate on police overtime centered on the question of whether chief of police John Seto had a plan to spend the money, which equates to about 70 additional hours a week for the remaining six months of the fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2014. The resolution eventually won the support of all members of the council except for mayor John Hieftje.

The police overtime item was sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by Hieftje. The text of that veto was attached to the council’s Dec. 16 meeting agenda as a communication.

The council’s focus on traffic and pedestrian safety will continue next year, on Jan. 6, when the council is supposed to make appointments to a pedestrian safety task force, which it established at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

Also generally related to the public right-of-way on streets at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting was an item that was postponed from the Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The council was asked to consider assigning a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space caused by a development: $45,000. The original postponement stemmed from a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action. One person spoke at the public hearing on Dec. 16, and the council deliberated about a half hour before deciding to postpone again.

The council voted unanimously to make a roughly $65,000 allocation from the solid waste fund balance to pay for an initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds will cover an increased level of service at the compost processing facility – daily versus weekly grinding. The funds will also cover the cost of counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage, and a subsidy for the sale of additional brown compost carts. Some of that allocation is expected to be recovered through reduced landfill tipping fees.

Also on Dec. 16, the council accepted a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service to be spent on a tree pruning initiative focused on the city’s largest street trees.

The council metered out its time generously on items involving large and small dollar amount alike at its Dec. 16 meeting. So nearly a half hour of deliberations went into a resolution that directed the city administrator to include $10,000 of support for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair as he develops next year’s (FY 2015) budget. The council voted unanimously to support that resolution.

The council postponed an item that formally terminated a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan on the demised Fuller Road Station project. It had been added to the agenda the same day as the meeting, and that was the reason it was postponed. However, it was clear from remarks at the meeting that when the council takes up the resolution next year, it will have support.

Y Lot Proceeds

The council considered a resolution that deposits the proceeds of the sale of the city-owned former Y lot into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Affordable housing fund activity.

The approved $5.25 million sale price of the former Y lot will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. The original resolution on the council’s agenda designated $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Later, before the meeting started, a revision was made to the resolution, which reduced the amount to $1,384,300 to accommodate the seller’s closing costs at well.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building that stood on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example, Chronicle coverage: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions this summer that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

The history of the city policy on proceeds of land sales goes back at least 20 years.

The most recent history includes the following:

• Oct. 15, 2012: City council approves a policy that ultimately leaves the policy on the use of proceeds of city land to case-by-case decisions, but indicates that for the Y lot, the proceeds will:
  

  … first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;”

• Nov. 8, 2012: City council transfers $90,000 from proceeds of the land sale to Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority into the affordable housing trust fund.
• March 4, 2013: City council directs the city administrator to select a broker for the Y lot.
• July 3, 2013: City administrator Steve Powers announces that he’s selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the marketing of the property.
• Nov. 18, 2013: City council approves the sale of the former Y lot for $5.25 million to Dennis Dahlmann.
• Dec. 4, 2013: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board waives its claim to reimbursement from the sale of the Y lot.

The Dec. 16 resolution reflected a departure from the most recent policy adopted by the city council – which called for reimbursements for various costs before net proceeds of the Y lot sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

But the resolution eliminates any wrangling between the city and the Ann Arbor DDA over how much in reimbursements might be owed for various purposes. The city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 in interest reimbursements could be owed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building. The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board has voted essentially to waive that claim.

It’s not clear if the DDA can waive all of that claim in light of the fact that the DDA used at least some TIF (tax increment finance) funds to pay for items like demolition and some of the interest payments on the loan. [.pdf of DDA records produced in response to Freedom of Information Act request by The Chronicle] If that were analyzed as a distribution of TIF to the city of Ann Arbor, then under state statute, the DDA would need to distribute a proportional amount to the other jurisdictions whose taxes are captured in the DDA district.

Y Lot Proceeds: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, several people addressed the council in support of the council’s resolution on the proceeds from the Y lot sale. Several of them mentioned the 10-degree threshold used by the Delonis Center shelter to determine when the homeless can seek refuge during the day.

Ray Gholston expressed his support for the allocation of funds from the proceeds of the Y lot sale to support affordable housing.

Tracy Williams introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor. He said that 700 people died from exposure last year, at least one of them here in Ann Arbor – someone who was a friend of his. “Shorty was a little guy but had a big heart,” Williams said. People like “Shorty” need more help, he added. The agencies who work in this area are doing the best they can, he said, but the Delonis Center weather “amnesty” of 10 degrees is too cold.

Mary Browning spoke on behalf of Religious Action for Affordable Housing. She said she was talking about affordable housing at the 30% of AMI (area median income) level, not 80% AMI. Folks who get help from the shelter need a place to go, she said. She strongly urged that the funds from the Y lot sale go toward affordable housing.

Ryan Sample told a story from three months ago, before the warming center opened. He was sleeping at the Baptist Church. He had to give his blanket to someone who needed it. Even at 40 degrees, when your clothes are wet, there can be the potential for hypothermia, he said, which isn’t covered by the “weather amnesty” of 10 degrees at the shelter. He wished he had a job and was able to work, he concluded.

Jim Mogensen spoke in support of the council’s resolution. The whole process has seemed endless, he said. He recounted the history from the mid-1980s, when the YMCA decided to create the 100 units of SRO housing, and tried to do that with conventional bank loans. That’s why the city of Ann Arbor had become involved, he said – to sign for the loans. And that’s why the city of Ann Arbor had a right of first refusal. The Y had not finally repaid what it owed the city until 2009, he pointed out. He wanted the council to think about those historical lessons as they thought about how to use the money that’s in the affordable housing trust fund.

Former city councilmember and former planning commissioner Jean Carlberg said that Mogensen had given a good history. She served on the city council when it faced the challenge of how to preserve the housing on the Y lot. The council felt it was in the public interest to exercise its right of first refusal on the Y lot, when the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority wanted to purchase the property. She urged the council to allocate the proceeds of the sale of the Y lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. With the loss of the Y housing, that increased the need for units – as determined in the Blueprint to End Homelessness – from 500 units to 600 units. The city council on which she served, she said, never expected the city to be repaid from the proceeds. It’s a chance to create a “pile of money” to be used for affordable housing.

Suzanne William was there to support her friends and family in the homeless community. She’d heard about and experienced the homeless situation in Washtenaw County for a long time, and said she supported the council’s resolution. She has a job in downtown Ann Arbor, she said, but can’t afford “affordable housing.” She told the council she earns $150 a week. It’s just absurd, she said, that the Delonis Center’s “weather amnesty” has a threshold of 10 degrees. She recalled curling up in a cardboard box even in the summer at 40 degrees and was cold. People are out there trying, she said, and they’re really hard workers. She suggested some counseling for those housed in affordable housing units.

James Hill asked all those who supported the agenda item on the Y lot proceeds to stand. At least 25 people stood up. He said that the council shouldn’t “skim off the top” for financial accounting reasons. He asked the council to inquire why the weather amnesty at the shelter’s warming center has been reduced from 25 degrees to 10 degrees.

Y Lot Proceeds: Weather Amnesty

During council communications, which came after the public commentary, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) talked about the “weather amnesty” that many public speakers mentioned. The Delonis Center had experimented with changing it from 10 degrees and making it 25 degrees last year. So the change to 10 degrees is the reversion to the previous policy, she explained. Briere’s reporting was based on talking to Ellen Schulmeister, head of the Delonis Center. [The Delonis Center operates an overnight warming center from mid-November to mid-March. It has a capacity of 65 beds, with another 25 spots in a rotating shelter. The discussion at the Dec. 16 council meeting focused on the possibility of a daytime warming center.]

Later, during public commentary at the end of the meeting, Seth Best allowed that the homeless community might have a short memory with respect to the weather amnesty policy changes, but he pointed out that when you’re homeless, you’re in survival mode, thinking about what to do tonight.

In a follow-up phone interview, Schulmeister confirmed Briere’s understanding – that the 25-degree weather amnesty for the daytime warming center was tried briefly last year, but that the 10-degree threshold had been a long-standing policy.

Schulmeister told The Chronicle that the experience they’d gained from the brief trial last year of a 25-degree weather amnesty policy was that it basically translated to operating an ongoing daytime warming center. [That conclusion is supported by hourly temperature data. Google Spreadsheet charting out hourly temps for 2013] She has estimated the cost of operating a daytime warming center at the Delonis Center at $160,000-$180,000 from November through March. The bulk of that cost would be for staffing, she said, though some would be needed for items like bathroom supplies, and increased water and electricity usage.

Y Lot Proceeds: Council Deliberations

During council communications near the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she should have alerted the public to a revision to the dollar amount on the Y lot proceeds. The actual amount available is estimated to be $1,384,300, she said. The amount is an estimate, because the sale has not yet taken place, she stressed.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

During mayoral communications, mayor John Hieftje invited Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor housing commission, to the podium to address the council. She described the single resident occupancy (SRO) units at the former Y. It had a staffed front door and a desk, and was actually a “hotel,” she said. The front door staffing helped the residents maintain their tenancy, she noted. Hall described working with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, Washtenaw County’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS), and others to convert an AAHC property, Miller Manor, to a front-door staffed facility.

Hall said they’re working on a plan right now to secure the funding. She would be requesting some of the proceeds from the Y lot to make those services at Miller Manor happen. The maintenance area at Miller Manor is being converted to offices to facilitate the front-door staffing arrangement, she told the council.

When the council reached the resolution on its agenda, Briere reviewed how much money is in the affordable housing trust fund. She noted that the council still hasn’t heard from the Shelter Association – which runs the Delonis Center – about what it needs to get through the inclement weather. In the past, the council has used money from the affordable housing trust fund to support the shelter’s warming center, she said. [At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the council authorized $25,000 in stop-gap funding for the shelter's overnight warming center – from the city's general fund reserve.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). In the background is Dave DeVarti, former city councilmember and former Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member who has been a staunch advocate for affordable housing.

Briere noted that the city has not been effective at putting money back into the affordable housing trust fund. The strategy of having PUDs (planned unit developments) contribute to the trust fund has not been used much recently, she said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for city CFO Tom Crawford. She said it’s a significant amount of money, and asked Crawford to walk the council through how much has been committed to affordable housing compared to the other council priorities.

After some back-and-forth between Lumm and Crawford, Briere pointed out that Crawford was talking about new and unique expenditures. Briere then reviewed various expenditures from the affordable housing trust fund.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d support the resolution. Given the history of the property, it’s a relatively happy end to the story, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted clarification of why eight votes were required. He wanted to know what would happen if this resolution failed. In broad strokes, Crawford explained, most of it would go to the general fund. Kunselman said he’d support the resolution, venturing that most of the money would go to support the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Lumm characterized the amount as a huge transfer from the general fund to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Crawford replied that it’s important to weigh all the city’s needs. He described how much general fund balance would remain if the resolution passed.

Lumm asked for an amendment to reduce the amount of the transfer by half, to roughly $692,000.

Y Lot Proceeds: Amendment to Reduce by Half

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) responded to Lumm’s previous point about how much is spent on the council’s different priorities, by talking about how much the city spends on public safety compared to affordable housing – pointing out that the city spends $39.5 million a year on public safety.

Warpehoski’s remarks:

We say one of our budget priorities is police and fire. That gets $39.5 million dollars in our budget. It’s the biggest chunk of our budget. We say it’s a priority and that’s where we are putting our money – in police and fire. Infrastructure is one of those – roads is $14 million. We say it’s a priority, we are putting most of the money in those areas. But we say affordable housing is a priority – compared to the big ones, it’s minuscule. If this is a priority, let’s fund it. When the Y came down, there were two big losses to the community. One was the hundred units.

But the other loss we heard was the one that Jennifer Hall was telling us about. We lost the site that best served our most needy community members, by providing them a site that had a safe, 24-hour, seven-days-a-week staffed front door – for long-term housing. We don’t have anything else that does that. So for people who are hard to house – fighting addiction, worried about getting abused by people in their lives – they can walk in and they’ve got somebody stopping, watching their back when they get to the door, so they don’t get bullied or re-victimized and hurt. That’s the other thing we lost.

And that is why I was so delighted when I talked to Jennifer all last week, and she said: We have a plan [for converting Miller Manor to a front-door staffed facility] … Compared to what else we’re spending, we’re not putting the same money that we’re putting onto what we’re doing on the other priorities. … It still doesn’t help us move forward in terms of providing beds for those people we heard from who don’t have a warm place to sleep – tonight or when the warming shelter isn’t open. And so I think we need to be looking for other opportunities….

When I voted yes to sell the Y site to Dennis Dahlmann, I wasn’t doing it just to get the debt off the books – that was a good thing. I certainly wasn’t doing it to help him have one more property that wasn’t going to be a hotel to compete with him. I was doing it because I thought it was going to be a path to get money to fund affordable housing. This is our opportunity. We’re not going to get a lot of opportunities like this to put some money aside for affordable housing. We’ve got the needs. The 11 of us will all have a warm place to sleep tonight. We have a responsibility to do what we can to provide that for the rest in our community. Thank you.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) followed Warpehoski with three words: “What he said.” Briere was nearly as brief in saying she wished she could have said it as well as Warpehoski.

Lumm responded by expressing concern about the pressure that this would put on the general fund, saying she felt torn.

Outcome: The amendment to cut the amount in half failed on a 2-9 vote. Only Jane Lumm (Ward 3) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) voted for it.

Y Lot Proceeds: More Council Deliberations

Lumm noted that the council reached a different conclusion about what the policy should be last year after a long discussion – that there would be reimbursements. So she was torn, she said.

Eaton said he’d support the resolution, but he expressed concern that the city hasn’t approached the policy questions adequately. He allowed that more should be done for affordable housing, but said the city needs to “aim at the right targets.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Kunselman pointed out that the money is not actually being spent by passing the resolution. Rather, it would go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Kunselman noted that previous councils have made decisions about this policy, but this council will make its own decision. The council has heard a lot of voices calling for the council to do something to support affordable housing, he said. The money is not going anywhere until the council spends it, he concluded.

Briere ventured that more than 30% of funding for affordable housing has been cut – by the federal Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and by the state. That came in response to Lumm’s citing the percentage reduction in funding and staffing levels for the Ann Arbor police department.

Briere allowed that Lumm’s point about 10% of proceeds that the council set as a policy last year is accurate for city-owned properties – but she pointed out that the resolution separated out the Y lot from other downtown properties. Briere noted that if the city tried to repay the reimbursements, there wouldn’t be much left. She also pointed out that this is the last year that this trust fund will exist separately as a fund – due to new accounting standards. In the future, it will simply be general fund money that’s allocated to affordable housing. It will no longer be a separate fund, she said.

By way of more specific background, city finance director Karen Lancaster explained in an emailed response to a Chronicle query that the relevant standard is GASB 54. The standard states, among other things, that if transfers from the general fund are the primary revenue source, then that fund must be displayed as part of the general fund.

During council deliberations, Briere noted that currently, the city’s housing and human services advisory board must make a recommendation on how money in the affordable housing trust fund is spent. She was not sure how that will play out in the future.

Hieftje then talked about how federal funding for affordable housing has been drying up. He didn’t think it was appropriate to include the public safety budget in this discussion. He called the recent turnaround at the Ann Arbor housing commission spectacular.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to deposit $1,384,300 million – the entire proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs – from the sale of the former Y lot into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Y Lot Proceeds: More Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, four people addressed the council with remarks related to the vote on the Y lot. Dave DeVarti thanked the council for their unanimous vote. He pointed out the property has never been on the tax rolls, because the Y is a nonprofit. He asked the council to look at the tax receipts from that property and consider using that revenue to fund supportive services.

By way of additional background, during his period of service on the DDA board, DeVarti was a staunch supporter of funding for affordable housing. DeVarti was not reappointed, and in late 2008 Keith Orr was appointed to replace him. After DeVarti left, board members sometimes have quipped that they were “channeling Dave DeVarti” when they spoke in support of affordable housing.

Caleb Poirier.

During public commentary at the DDA board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, DeVarti had addressed the topic of the former Y lot, suggesting that the DDA purchase the lot outright, so that the need to repay the loan would be removed as the impetus for selling the lot. That approach would give the city a lot more flexibility, he had argued.

During the final public commentary at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, Seth Best wished the council happy holidays. He thanked councilmembers for their vote on the Y lot. He invited councilmembers to participate in national homelessness awareness day, on Dec. 21. He told the council that the homeless community operates in “survival mode.” When the “weather amnesty” temperature changes, they have a short memory, he said, because they are thinking about what they have to do tonight. He talked about the proposal from McKinley for affordable housing on South State Street – which considers “affordable housing” to start at $900 a month.

Caleb Poirier updated the council on a property that the homeless community has acquired. He alerted councilmembers that there will eventually be requests coming to the council in connection with that property.

Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Funding

The council considered a directive to the city administrator to provide a funding plan for elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan.

The council approved the updated plan at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Additional flashing beacon locations identified in Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

The Dec. 16 resolution – which is co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – was structured in part based on those main sections.

Among other specific instructions, the resolution directed city administrator Steve Powers to present a strategy for funding the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB).

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

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.”

Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands.

Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

Non-Motorized Plan Funding: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led things off by reviewing the content of the resolution. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked for systems planning unit manager Cresson Slotten to field questions. She first got confirmation from Slotten about a correction to the plan – that there are supposed to be only 20 RRFBs in the plan, not 24. She asked how the RRFBs were determined as the technology to be deployed as solutions. Slotten regretted that transportation program manager Eli Cooper was out of town, because Cooper could give a more detailed answer.

But Slotten assured Kailasapathy that a detailed analysis had been done. He allowed that Pat Cawley and Les Sipowski, city traffic engineers, had been involved in the determination of the RRFBs as solutions and their locations.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Kailasapathy wanted to propose an amendment to make clear that traffic engineers would be involved in the final determination, which she then moved.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) ventured that the sponsors of the resolution had not contemplated any other engineering solutions other than RRFBs. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responded to Eaton by asking Slotten a series of questions.

Briere asked if it’s always the case that when a city plan calls for putting some type of infrastructure in a location, that the infrastructure specified in the plan is always installed. Slotten described how there’s a lot more detailed analysis when a project is actually measured out in the field. Briere asked who would do that work. Slotten said that city traffic engineers working with in-house surveyors would probably do that work. In response to another question from Briere, Slotten allowed that sometimes the final project is not the same as what was in the plan.

Mayor John Hieftje then engaged in some back-and-forth with Slotten to establish what the role of traffic engineers is in determining RRFBs as a solution in a particular location. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she wanted to know that staff has the latitude to determine the exact locations and details. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that a plan is a plan, and that plans change. Kunselman got confirmation from Slotten that there could be conditions that warrant looking outside the plan for a solution. Kunselman supported Kailasapathy’s amendment.

Taylor noted the “juicy bit” that the council was talking about removed specific reference to the RRFBs. The idea is not to predetermine what engineering features go into any particular crosswalk, Taylor said – which made sense to him. So Taylor indicated support for at least part of Kailasapathy’s amendment.

Kailasapathy explained that she wanted to avoid creating the impression for staff that there is a “mandate” for RRFBs. Briere said that plans are not solid but rather a little “squishy.”

Briere cited some of the specific words from Kailasapathy’s amendment: “implement recommendations of the city’s traffic engineers.” Briere ventured that “as applied by the city traffic engineers” could work.

City administrator Steve Powers weighed in by suggesting that if the direction from the council is to revisit previous evaluations and recommendations that are contained in the non-motorized transportation plan, then that direction from the council needed to be made clear.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that a lot of improvements had been made in engineering technology. Anglin asked if the locations designated for RRFBs are not eligible for HAWK signals. He contended that RRFBs ask motorists to interpret a yellow light as requirement to stop. He appeared to be advocating for HAWK signals instead of RRFBs. Anglin said he’s heard that HAWK lights are too expensive, but asked what the cost of safety should be.

Hieftje responded to Anglin by venturing that the city traffic engineers are up to date on the latest technology. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) raised the question of how this resolution relates to the establishment of the pedestrian safety task force.

Eaton said his understanding is that there’s no detailed and particularized engineering study that’s been done of the general locations of the RRFBs in the non-motorized plan. He wanted to make sure it’s done right.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that there were three elements to the amendment offered by Kailasapathy: (1) it should be technology neutral; (2) traffic engineers should be involved; and (3) the downtown is highlighted specifically. Warpehoski said he was fine with (1). He thought (2) was redundant but didn’t have a problem with it. He had some ideas about (3).

At that point the council decided to recess to hammer out some language they could all agree on. The language the council considered after emerging from recess was as follows:

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by January 1, 2014, his plan to enhance and improve traffic enforcement at and around crosswalks;

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by March 1, 2014, his plan to fund, effect, and otherwise implement the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan’s actionable recommendations to improve midblock crosswalks;

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by April 21, 2014, his plan to fund, effect, and otherwise implement actionable Near-term Recommendations of the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan;

RESOLVED, The City Council directs the City Administrator to report to the City Council by March 1, 2014, his plan to direct the City’s traffic engineers to recommend solutions to improve pedestrian safety in downtown;

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by June 30, 2014, his plan to fund, effect, and otherwise implement actionable Long-term Recommendations of the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan; and

RESOLVED, That the City Council desires that the foregoing plans include elements of the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan related to pedestrian, driver, and cyclist education; improved signage; improved engineering of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle interface zones; and increased enforcement attention to pedestrian safety.

Kunselman said he wanted remove the dates specified in the resolution, saying that he wanted to give the city administrator more flexibility. He pointed out that the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, would have a lot of responsibility for the implementation of the non-motorized plan. Kunselman took the occasion to reiterate the fact that he dislikes the fact that Cooper serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Kunselman said he’d prefer that all of Cooper’s energy go into his responsibilities as transportation program manager and none of it go into the AAATA. [Kunselman voted against Cooper's appointment two years ago at the council's Dec. 19, 2011 meeting.]

In response to a question from Hieftje, Taylor said that the dates in the resolution were characterized by the city administrator as “feasible.” Lumm indicated support for the amendment, saying she’d support it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to present a funding and implementation plan for the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. The version passed by the council was amended at the table. [.pdf of amended non-motorized implementation resolution]

$125K for Traffic Enforcement

The council considered an allocation of $125,000 from the general fund balance to pay for police overtime required for additional traffic enforcement. The item began conceptually as a $500,000 allocation described by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who was persuaded by co-sponsors Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that $125,000 would be a more reasonable amount to spend.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicate policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

$125K for Traffic Enforcement: Council Deliberations

During council communications at the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported on a meeting on traffic safety held at Bach Elementary School the previous week. His remarks were largely positive.

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

About 100 people attended, he said. This is the kind of approach the city should be taking, he said, noting that the meeting was well attended by staff. Three councilmembers attended, he said, including Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1)

When the council reached the item on the agenda, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led things off by quipping that the discussion should be short, because the resolution was short. He allowed that he’d wanted to put a lot more funding in police chief John Seto’s hands than the $125,000 that’s in the resolution. Revenues have been down from traffic citations, he noted. And there’s a need to curtail motorists from speeding. Things like cars passing stopped school buses have also been raised as concerns, he said.

Lumm thanked Kunselman for leading this effort. She thought everyone could support the idea that increased traffic enforcement is an important part of improving traffic safety.

Mayor John Hieftje said he understood the motivation for the resolution. But it’s unusual to give staff money to spend without asking how staff would specifically solve the problem the council has identified, he said. He also pointed to the timesheet breakdown for police officers showing that officers may have time to implement additional traffic enforcement within the existing staffing levels, without using overtime.

Briere wanted Seto to explain how this money would be spent. Seto said there’s not a specific plan for using this overtime money. There are various general ways: individual officers assigned to specific locations, or officers can be dedicated to a promotion and educational effort. Briere asked Seto if he could provide a specific plan and a budget for implementation by Jan. 22, the council’s second meeting in January. “It depends,” replied Seto.

Briere observed that even if Seto just followed the simple resolution, he’d still have to come up with a plan. She wanted Seto to tell the council how much it might cost to implement increased traffic enforcement. She ventured there might be various levels of implementation – which could cost even more than $125,000. She wanted Seto to develop a specific plan for implementation.

Seto said that if the council directed him to do so, he could come back with a specific traffic enforcement enhancement plan. He said that the $125,000 translates into 1,800 additional hours and indicated a lack of certainty that it could all allocated right now. Briere asked if Seto could come back with the cost for a plan that he would implement.

In a reference to a remark by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) from a previous council meeting, Kunselman exclaimed: “Talk about micromanaging!” He noted that the $125,000 figure came from the city administrator. Seto didn’t have to spend it all, Kunselman said. He called it a small amount in response to community concerns. He allowed that it would require eight votes to pass [because it was a budget amendment] and he invited those who wanted to vote against it to do so.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Seto for attending the Bach Elementary School meeting on traffic safety. He ventured that Seto has heard directly about some of these citizen concerns.

Responding to Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Seto said that $125,000 translates to 26 weeks of eight 8-hour shifts.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution, citing concerns that were reflected in the recent National Citizens Survey. [For the open-ended response survey item, which asked respondents to identify the city leaders’ top three priorities to maximize the quality of life in Ann Arbor, public safety was one of the top three items, with 19% of the open-ended responses identifying safety, crime and police as a concern. Also cited in 19% of responses were government, taxes and communication. However, the dominant concern in the open-ended responses was mobility issues – as 57% of responses were coded as related to roads, transportation, traffic, traffic enforcement, bikes and pedestrians.]

Warpehoski said that traffic safety is the one area where increased investment in safety services is justified. He said he was frustrated that he wasn’t able to get benchmark data about traffic safety. The question Warpehoski had submitted to staff before the meeting and its response was as follows:

Question: Do we have any data by which to benchmark Ann Arbor’s traffic safety compared to other communities (e.g. within the SEMCOG region, peer cities of similar size, or other appropriate comparisons)? In particular, I would like to see data for accidents per vehicle miles traveled, excluding freeways such as I-94, US-23, and M-14. (Councilmember Warpehoski)

Response: We do not have data on vehicle miles traveled within the City of Ann Arbor.

Taylor said that he didn’t disagree that traffic enforcement is deeply important. But he thought that the resolution the council was considering amounted to pre-funding a plan that’s not yet in front of the council. [He was referring to the council's direction to city administrator Steve Powers, taken earlier in the meeting, to develop an implementation strategy for the non-motorized transportation plan.] Taylor wanted to postpone until the next meeting.

$125K for Traffic Enforcement: Council Deliberations – Postponement

Petersen punched the air, raising her hand to be called on. She argued against Taylor’s contention that this resolution was somehow at odds with the previous resolution on the non-motorized transportation plan. She contended that this police overtime actually strengthens that resolution “I don’t know why we wouldn’t do this now,” she said.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Kailasapathy said that this resolution is basically choosing something that seems reasonable – echoing Warpehoski’s sense that this amount is roughly the equivalent of adding an FTE for traffic enforcement. She said she’d support the resolution.

Responding to a question from Hieftje, Seto said there are currently four traffic enforcement staff, plus one administrative position. On Jan. 1 Seto was already planning to assign an additional person to traffic enforcement. This resolution would essentially bring the total to six.

Eaton said that it’s important to be safe – not just from rapes and murders. He described some neighborhoods where cars speed so fast that they leave the roads and run into people’s houses.

Hieftje said he wanted to hear the plan before the council throws the money at it. He supported the postponement. Lumm said she wouldn’t support the postponement. She talked about the overall staffing levels of the AAPD, noting that the number of sworn officers currently is down to 119. She cited the number of emails that she receives asking for more traffic enforcement.

Kunselman said he wouldn’t support a postponement, contending that Seto has already described a plan. He indicated that success will be measured by the number of traffic citations issued.

Taylor pointed out that the previous resolution on implementation of the non-motorized transportation plan does address enforcement around crosswalks.

Outcome on postponement: The motion for postponement failed with support only from Hieftje, Briere and Taylor.

$125K for Traffic Enforcement: More Council Deliberations

Warpehoski noted that the “results” that Kunselman had highlighted are in terms of revenue and citations, but Warpehoski wanted results measured in a way that’s related to traffic safety. He didn’t think police services should be treated as a cash register.

Hieftje said one reason that traffic citations are down is that penalties – for drunk driving, for example – are harsher and people pay more attention. Hieftje said he didn’t want to just throw money at a problem.

Teall echoed Hieftje’s sentiments. She was concerned about a possible backlash from increased enforcement. Briere affirmed there are as many people who are angry about lack of traffic enforcement as who are angry about too much traffic enforcement. Briere described herself as not very gung ho when it comes to rules, but she believed in traffic enforcement. She’d prefer that Seto tell the council how much money he needed, rather than the council tell the chief.

Briere asked Seto if 70 additional hours a week in traffic enforcement is actually feasible. Seto described how his intent would not be to just implement some speed traps – saying that high crash locations can be targeted using a new city system. Seto said he can start this additional enforcement on Jan. 1. Petersen said she couldn’t think of a better day to start than Jan. 1, because of the NHL’s Winter Classic that’s planned for that day.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Petersen asked for and received confirmation that the figure of $125,000 had been vetted with the city administrator and that Seto had called it feasible. Kunselman followed up on Petersen’s remarks by saying that not only had the number been vetted, but Seto had also described a plan for implementation. He agreed with Warpehoski’s point that revenues are not the only measure of success. He said he wouldn’t mind hearing complaints about too much traffic enforcement.

Taylor allowed that the $125,000 had been “vetted.” He asked Seto if the plan that starts Jan. 1 will cost about $125,000. Seto replied: “It could.” Taylor allowed that the existence of a budget doesn’t necessitate the spending of that budget. Seto agreed that it might not be necessary to spend all of that $125,000.

Taylor concluded by saying “I think this is sloppy,” pointing out that the council is a couple weeks away from having a plan with a dollar figure on it [an allusion to the non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy the council had voted to direct the city administrator to develop earlier in the meeting]. It’s not a professional way to approach things, Taylor said. But he had a lot of confidence in Seto’s ability to produce a plan the city is proud of – a plan that will be effective and not just burn through the money just because it is there.

Outcome: The council voted over the lone dissent of mayor John Hieftje to approve $125,000 to pay for overtime so that Ann Arbor police officers can provide additional traffic enforcement.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

Postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting was a resolution that would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution was sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an onsite parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738 space Library Lane structure]

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a past candidate for public office. To his knowledge, he said, the resolution contained no language specifying how parking spaces should be provided for pickup and dropoff for people with disabilities. He said that the proposal should be referred back to a committee for further review. He said the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been functioning as a stealth government, an agent of the city of Ann Arbor.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the item by saying there had been several amendments to the resolution and he hoped that the amendments had been disseminated. [.pdf of amended version of policy]

Taylor then reviewed the resolution: It would charge developers for removing parking meters. He characterized the process as a “long and slow burn.” He called the charge a replacement fee. He argued for having such a fee by saying that the city’s parking system is a finite resource. There’s a choice to allow removal or not, he said. So the amount required to be paid as a fee, he said, is $45,000, which is approximately the cost of creating a new parking space in a structure. There’s a caveat whereby the cost could be waived if the removal is deemed to be a public benefit, he noted.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked for staff to approach the podium to answer some questions, and Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, came forward. Kailasapathy said she saw a parking space as a capital asset. She asked if the money that is paid as a fee should be segregated into a separate fund, saying it should not be treated as simple revenue. Pollay replied that this has not yet been thought through in detail, but the DDA’s operations committee would be taking that up. Kailasapathy wanted to add an amendment that would require the segregation of funds into something like a sinking fund.

Taylor had no objection to segregating the funds, but was not sure that the city council should be telling the DDA exactly how to do the accounting. City administrator Steve Powers weighed in, saying that the city could work with the DDA to reserve the funds in some manner.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offered some generally supportive comments about the concept of charging some kind of fee. Pollay indicated she understood that the council is keen to see the capital funds set aside and separated somehow.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if the money that’s paid could be used to build any capital project or if it had to be a parking space. She was worried about having enough critical mass of funding to undertake the building of a new parking structure. Pollay said that this money to be paid would not necessarily be the only money used to build a new parking structure. The money from the fee would be added to the pot when it comes time to build a new parking structure, Pollay said.

Petersen wanted to know if the money could be used to add on to an existing structure. Pollay’s response was affirmative, as she pointed out that the Fourth and William structure had been extended upward.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that if the money is earmarked for new construction, that makes accounting challenging because it’s not known when construction will happen. Why not just use the money for debt service on parking structures? he asked. Kunselman asked how many spaces have been removed recently. Pollay told Kunselman that about 50 had been removed in the last five years. She allowed that some on-street spaces have also been added through projects like the Fifth and Division street improvement project.

Mayor John Hieftje asked the council to think about whether the issue could be worked out that evening or if it should be put off. Taylor then read aloud wording of a proposed amendment about “financial controls” to segregate the funds so that they can be reinvested in construction of new parking spaces. Kailasapathy wanted the language to be flexible enough to construct new spaces or also replace existing spaces.

The wording of the amendment, which had been forwarded to the press during the meeting by city clerk Jackie Beaudry on request of the council, was: “Therefore, the City of Ann Arbor and the DDA will establish financial controls to segregate cash flows from the removal of on-street parking in order to reinvest these funds in the creation of parking spaces.”

Hieftje asked again if it might be a good idea to put off the question. Taylor was content to see it postponed, as was Kailasapathy.

Lumm then raised an issue she described as a “nit.” There are references in the resolution to development projects taking spaces out of the system, she noted. Lumm asked if the DDA operations committee would consider describing it differently, when that committee reviewed the policy. Many of the spaces that have been “gobbled up” recently have not been by developers but rather by UM or the city itself, Lumm said.

Petersen then said she had an amendment she wanted to add into the mix. Hieftje told her to send it to the DDA operations committee for their discussion.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone until the first meeting in January a vote on a policy that sets the price for removal of an on-street parking space at $45,000.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings

The council considered allocating $64,550 from the solid waste fund to support a food-scrap composting initiative. That request came in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

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

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

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

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

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

The $64,550 allocation breaks down this way:

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

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

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings – Public Commentary

Barbara Lucas spoke in support of the expanded food waste composting. Her family had participated in a pilot program. Where she currently lives, there are various wildlife that makes composting food scraps challenging. She said that during the pilot program, there wasn’t a problem with odor. When there’s other yard waste in the composting cart, that helps, she said.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) confirmed that this resolution would not change the seasonal compost collection schedule. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie was invited by mayor John Hieftje to demonstrate the counter-top containers, which would be offered free to residents.

City solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie demonstrates a counter-top food-scrap storage container that the city will be giving away to residents to encourage them to place their food waste in brown compost carts instead of the regular trash.

Eaton asked how many households use a garbage disposal and would not use this service. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she thought that the estimates of how many tons would be added to the compost and diverted from garbage are optimistic. She called the giveaways “gimmicky.” But she said it’s not a huge investment to give it a try.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned the viability of the city’s estimates. If the 2,100 ton estimate is not accurate, then the city would pay for the additional service of grinding the compost plus the giveaways, she ventured. McMurtrie allowed that Kailasapathy was right about that.

Kailasapathy wanted to know if a pilot could be conducted, just for Monday route collection, for example. McMurtrie said in such a pilot. it would be logistically difficult to maintain the separation of the material at the composting site.

McMurtrie explained that WeCare set the price for the additional grinding at below its cost, because WeCare wants to see the program succeed. For a pilot, WeCare would need to bring in the equipment for the same frequency – but for a limited pilot, it would be over a much smaller tonnage base.

Briere argued for the resolution. She wondered how residents might deal with raccoons. McMurtrie suggested modifying the compost cart by adding a bungee cord – but cautioned that residents need to remember to take the bungee off when they set out the cart. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) re-confirmed Eaton’s point from early in the deliberations – that compost will still not be collected in the winter months.

Kunselman ventured that a considerable educational effort will be required. He asked about the mention of the MDEQ requirements in the staff memo. McMurtrie explained that the city’s proposal is consistent with MDEQ guidelines. The daily processing is what WeCare views as appropriate procedures for dealing with this type of material, he said.

Kunselman asked about the end product: Will adding food waste have an impact on the quality of the end product? No, said McMurtrie.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appropriate $64,550 to fund the food-scrap composting initiative.

Tree Pruning

The council considered a resolution accepting a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street trees – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle queried those trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the receipt of the $50,000 USDA Forestry Service grant for tree pruning.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

An item added to the Dec. 16 meeting agenda on the day of the meeting would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project – which should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU: Council Deliberations

Kunselman lead off by saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the Fuller Road Station resolution until its next meeting.

Community Events Funding: Street Art Fair

At its Dec. 16 meeting, the council considered a resolution directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the fiscal year 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The city’s FY 2015 begins on July 1, 2014.

A memo supporting the resolution noted that the AASAF has run an annual deficit for several years. An email sent to Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) by Maureen Riley, executive director of the AASAF, specified those annual deficits as follows:

• 2013 – anticipated to be approximately ($8,000)
• 2012 – ($6,316)
• 2011 – ($5,769)
• 2010 – ($6,040)
• 2009 – ($33,693)

Lumm and Taylor sponsored the resolution. Lumm is a former AASAF board member.

The rationale for providing support for the AASAF but not the other three art fairs is based on the additional costs the AASAF has to pay to the University of Michigan, as well as the provision by AASAF of community benefits that reduce its opportunity to gain revenue – including the Demo Zone, Art Activity Zones, Street Painting Exhibition, and the Fountain Stage. The background memo also indicated that the other three art fairs have offered written support for the $10,000 to the AASAF.

The dollar amount roughly corresponds to the allocated cost to the AASAF from the total that is charged by the city for various services to the four art fairs collectively.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, Taylor had announced his intent to bring forward the resolution asking that an additional $10,000 be included in the city’s FY 2015 budget.

Ann Arbor Street Art Fair: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off by reviewing the background of the resolution. He explained why the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair is different from the other art fairs in its revenue challenges.

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Taylor by relating her experience in allocating the community events funding serving on the council’s community events fund committee. She was concerned about doing something for one organization, but possibly not others.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) described her volunteer work with the AASAF and her service on the board. There’s only so much you can raise in booth fees, she said. She then ticked through the specific challenges the AASAF faces. Lumm called the AASAF one of Ann Arbor’s “icons.” She said that $10,000 is a small amount for the city, but is crucial for the AASAF.

Mayor John Hieftje described the AASAF as a special situation, so he’d support the resolution. Hieftje noted that it’s a small item. He then referred to the council budget planning session from Dec. 9, and highlighted the council’s expressed desire at that session to keep its meetings moving along. He hoped this item could be dispatched without a lot more discussion.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) asked if the proposal is for the support of the AASAF to be recurring. Taylor replied by saying he’d expect it to be reconsidered in each subsequent year.

The executive director of the AASAF, Maureen “Mo” Riley, was asked to come to the podium. She responded to a question by saying that the rent paid to the University of Michigan is about $5,000.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that this approach doesn’t guarantee that AASAF would get the money as a result of the community events funding disbursements. He pointed out that the funds could have been appropriated from this year’s FY 2014 budget and the council would then be done with the issue.

Teall responded to Kunselman’s point by saying that typically when community events are funded, the council would ask what exactly the money would go toward. Taylor responded by ticking through some of the background in the memo. Teall said she can’t not support it, calling the AASAF her favorite art fair.

But Teall said she questioned this resolution partly because the AASAF is required to pay rent to the UM, and she wished UM would “pony up,” too. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated that she considered the art fairs a kind of public art. By way of background, Petersen had submitted a question to staff in advance of the meeting exploring the possibility that public art funds could be tapped. From the staff responses to councilmember questions:

Question: What is the current balance of the City’s various funds dedicated to public art. Can these funds be tapped to support this effort? (Councilmember Petersen)

Response: $1,392,395.72. No. All of these funds are restricted for purposes related to their origin. Most of the funds were derived from the utility funds and streets. [.pdf of staff answers to pre-meeting (Dec. 16, 2013) councilmember questions]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) pointed out that the community events fund does fund FestiFools, Dancing in the Streets, and other nonprofit events – for the fees that they incur from the city. So he tied the resolution back to that aspect – the fees that AASAF must pay to the city of Ann Arbor for various services.

Lumm spoke again in support of the resolution. Teall said she thought that this should go through the regular community events fund allocation process – through the council’s committee. She was very hesitant. She wanted to see an application from AASAF for the funding.

Responding to Teall, Hieftje said that he thought this was a completely different category from other events. It’s more like the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, he said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to include $10,000 of funding for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair when he prepares next year’s (FY 2015) budget.

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: Snow Plowing

City administrator Steve Powers invited public services area administrator Craig Hupy to report on the snow plowing activity after the Friday and Saturday snowfall. Hupy summarized the snow accumulation citywide at 5.5-7.5 inches. He said there was some drifting due to wind. The city’s goal is to have all roads plowed within 24 hours. For this storm, it took 26 hours to plow the travel lanes and 30 hours for the cul de sacs, Hupy said.

Comm/Comm: Self-Discipline, Dissemination of Information

The council discussed a couple of issues involving how councilmembers behave during meetings. The first issue involved dissemination of information during meetings and the second involved councilmembers exceeding the time limits on their speaking turns.

During council communications time toward the end of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that he had a previous practice of announcing that he was breaking the rules when he disseminates information during the meetings. [Those occasions involve the text of amendments made to resolutions during the meeting, which councilmembers send via email.] He’d missed an instance of that, so he wanted to rectify that by announcing it retroactively. He said that as a member of the rules committee, he will work on an “above-board” ways of disseminating information.

Related to the topic of disseminating information, the staff’s answers to the council’s “caucus questions” – submitted in advance of the meeting – were attached to the city’s online Legistar agenda management system under the city administrator’s communications. [.pdf of staff answers to pre-meeting (Dec. 16, 2013) councilmember questions]

Also during council communications time toward the end of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje took the pulse of the council for their view on managing councilmember speaking time. Under the council’s rules, for each question before the council, councilmembers get two turns – five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn.

Hieftje raised the possibility of having the city clerk time councilmember speaking turns. [This possibility had been broached at a rules committee meeting last summer on June 13, 2013. The consensus at that meeting had been that it would put the clerk in an awkward spot, and would require her to exercise judgment on whether to start the timer if a councilmember was simply asking questions of staff, or whether the councilmember then also used the time to argue for a position.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that councilmembers should set their own timers. Hieftje said he thought a solution where councilmembers self-policed their speaking time would be best, because it would be a burden on the clerk to ask her to do that. Kunselman quipped that he’d bring forward a budget resolution for kitchen timers.

Comm/Comm: Local Officers Compensation Commission

During council communications at the start of the meeting, Jack Eaton (Ward 4) reported that he was disappointed that the agenda didn’t include any appointments for the local officers compensation commission.

From the LOCC meeting of Dec. 16, which failed to achieve a quorum: Roger Hewitt and Eunice Burns.

The commission has only two members, but it needs four commission members to achieve a quorum, he noted.

He pointed out that the city attorney and several councilmembers had received an email from Dave Askins [this reporter and Chronicle editor] in May of this year noting the vacancies on the commission.

A few minutes later during mayoral communications, mayor John Hieftje reported that the LOCC had met but had not achieved a quorum.

Hieftje said that he saw no harm in not having a quorum this year. [For more background, see "Ann Arbor Mayor, Council Pay: No Action" and " Column: What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?"]

Comm/Comm: Rabhi Says Thanks

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi addressed the council, saying he was attending the meeting as a citizen. But as one elected official to others, he thanked them for serving with honor, dignity and respect. The thoughtful discussion that evening was telling of their willingness to come to the table to work in good faith, he said. As the year wraps up, he wanted to extend a thank you.

Comm/Comm: Blighted Properties

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti told the council about eight properties that were coming before the building board of appeals at its meeting later in the week, on Dec. 19. He said it’s unfortunate that many properties are now in need of demolition.

Comm/Comm: Winter Classic

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen reminded the council that the NHL’s Winter Classic is coming up. He drew a laugh – because Petainen hails from Canada and has previously plugged the event to the council. He told councilmembers that they’ll need some additional police, but stated “I’m sure the Canadians will be nice.” He told John Hieftje, in a light-hearted way, that it would not be a good idea to meet with the mayor of Toronto if he requests a meeting. Hieftje responded by saying: “He may have smoked crack cocaine, but I believe him when he said he did it during one of his drunken stupors.”

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He said he plans to campaign for office in the future as well – to make sure there’s a candidate committed to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. He referred to the recent murder of a 71-year-old Ann Arbor resident, saying that residents deserve the respect of the council. Residents deserve discrimination-free planning, he said. If every item on the agenda were passed, there still won’t be any progress in protecting the most vulnerable residents, he said.

Present: Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Jane Lumm, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Christopher Taylor, Jack Eaton, Margie Teall, Mike Anglin, Chuck Warpehoski, John Hieftje.

Next council meeting: Monday, Jan. 6, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The additional money was allocated at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting on a 10-1 vote. Dissenting was mayor John Hieftje.

The three co-sponsors were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by Hieftje. So motorists are still required to stop for pedestrians who are at the curb, even if they have not yet entered the part of the roadway marked as a crosswalk. The text of Hieftje’s veto was attached to the council’s Dec. 16 meeting agenda as a communication.

The debate on the crosswalk law featured support from all sides for the idea that enforcement was an important component of making the city safer for pedestrians and motorists. The resolution to fund additional police overtime came forward also in the context of increased concern among residents about motorists speeding on city streets.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicated policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

With the 10-1 vote, the resolution achieved the eight-vote majority it needed on the 11-member council. Under the city charter, changes to the budget require an eight-vote majority.

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

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s last regular meeting of the year, set for tonight, features an agenda with about a dozen substantive voting items.

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

Added to the agenda on the Friday before tonight’s meeting is an item that relates to proceeds from the city’s sale of property known as the former Y lot. The sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003.

The item added to the Dec. 16 agenda would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

That would reflect a departure from the policy set in a 2012 council resolution, which called first for reimbursement of costs out of the proceeds, including interest paid over the last 10 years, before depositing those net proceeds into the affordable housing trust fund.

Although the city administrator is not required to present next year’s FY 2015 budget to the council until April 2014, at least three items on the council’s Dec. 16 agenda could have an impact on preparation of that budget. Some of those items relate to mobility and traffic issues.

First, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the FY 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair.

Second, the council will consider directing Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

Thematically related to the funding plan for non-motorized improvements is a third budget item: a proposal to allocate $125,000 from the current general fund reserve to pay for police overtime for traffic enforcement.

That item is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. And the text of that veto is attached to the council’s meeting agenda as a communication.

Also generally related to the public right-of-way on streets is a Dec. 16 item that was postponed from the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The item assigns a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space caused by a development: $45,000. The postponement stemmed from a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action.

Several of the other Dec. 16 items relate generally to the theme of the environment. In the area of solid waste management, the council will consider a roughly $65,000 allocation from the solid waste fund balance. That allocation will pay for an initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds will cover an increased level of service at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The funds will also cover the cost of counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage, and a subsidy for the sale of additional brown compost carts. Some of that allocation is expected to be recovered through reduced landfill tipping fees.

Other solid waste items on the Dec. 16 agenda include one to allocate about $63,000 to rebuild a baler at the city’s materials recovery facility. And the council will consider an amendment to the contract with Waste Management, which provides commercial waste collection services – to factor in special event service pricing on Sundays for up to five collection containers that are otherwise serviced daily. The council will also consider authorizing the purchase of about 150 300-gallon carts per year ($42,000) for the next four years – which will be used as part of the city’s commercial and multi-family recycling program.

Also part of the environmental theme on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that accepts a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service to be spent on a tree pruning initiative focused on the city’s largest street trees.

Additional items include two standard rezoning approvals in connection with annexations from townships into the city. The recommending body for zoning approvals is the city planning commission. Also on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that asks the council to approve changes to the planning commission bylaws. Those bylaws changes relate to the required notice for special accommodations like a sign-language interpreter – changing the notification requirement from 24 hours to two business days.

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

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the Dec. 16 meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Updates might begin somewhat sooner.

Y Lot Proceeds

The history of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land and the connection to the city’s affordable housing trust fund goes back at least 20 years.

Affordable housing fund activity.

Some highlights are laid out in a timeline below.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building that stood on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions this last summer that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

The approved $5.25 million sale price of the former Y lot will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. At the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution that would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

This would reflect a departure from the most recent policy adopted by the city council, but would eliminate any wrangling between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority over how much in reimbursements might be owed for various purposes. The city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 in interest reimbursements could be owed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building. The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board has voted essentially to waive that claim.

It’s not clear if the DDA can waive all of that claim in light of the fact that the DDA used at least some TIF funds to pay for items like demolition and some of the interest payments on the loan. [.pdf of DDA records produced in response to Freedom of Information Act request by The Chronicle] If that were analyzed as a distribution of TIF to the city of Ann Arbor, then under state statute DDA would need to distribute a proportional amount to the other jurisdictions whose taxes are captured in the DDA district.

In timeline overview form:

• April 15, 1996: City council establishes a policy that put half of the proceeds from city-owned land sales into the affordable housing trust fund. The minutes of the meeting show that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against an amendment, made at the council table, to divide the proceeds of land sales (less costs) between “infrastructure needs and the housing trust fund regardless of budget year.” But the minutes show that the vote on the amended resolution was declared unanimous on a voice vote (not a roll call). In 1996, part of the impetus for consideration of a land sale policy was driven by city-owned property at Packard and Main, which eventually became a part of the Ashley Mews development.
• Nov. 5, 1998: City council votes to increase the portion of proceeds of city-owned land sales that would be earmarked for the affordable housing trust fund – from half to all. Lumm joined her Ward 2 colleague David Kwan in voting against this policy shift.
• Dec. 8, 2003: City council approves purchase of Y property – on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – for $3.5 million, financing the purchase with a five-year loan. The Ann Arbor DDA had agreed to pay some of the interest on that loan through an action taken not by its full board, but rather by its executive committee, on Dec. 5, 2003.
• Oct. 20, 2005: Pipe bursts in YMCA building, displacing residents. The building is ultimately determined to be not worth the cost of renovation.
• June 4, 2007: City council votes to rescind the policy that put the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land into the affordable housing trust fund. The policy shift in 2007 took place as part of a relatively small land transaction: The city was selling a piece of land on East Eisenhower for $23,750. The proceeds were earmarked for the construction fund of the new municipal center, built at the corner of Fifth and Huron. But in order to put the money from the sale into that construction fund, the council needed to change the existing policy on land sales. So one of the “resolved” clauses in the resolution was the following:
  

  RESOLVED, That City Council revoke Resolution R-481-11-98 which provided that the proceeds from the sale of excess City property be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;

  In the course of deliberations, the council agreed to amend the resolution so that the $23,750 in proceeds from this particular land sale would still be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund – but left the basic policy change intact. The council had an eye toward changing the policy anyway – so that the roughly $3 million in proceeds of the sale of the First & Washington parcel (to Village Green for construction of the City Apartments project) could be put toward the new police/courts building.

• Dec. 1, 2008: City council authorizes five-year extension of the renewal on terms from the Bank of Ann Arbor to finance the Y lot loan. During deliberations, some of the focus is on the need to divest the city of the property. Sandi Smith (Ward 1), at her second meeting after winning election to the council a month earlier, put the interest payments in the context of the cost of supporting a homeless person:
  

  In deliberations, councilmember Sandi Smith said that she would support the continued financing of the property, because they had no other choice, but that she urged her colleagues to begin thinking of master planning the area so that the city could divest itself of the property as soon as possible. [The master planning of the area was eventually realized in the form of the Connecting William Street project.] Smith noted that given the $5,000 cost of supporting a homeless person, the interest-only payments could be used to support 27 people. The math goes like this: ($3,500,000)*(.0389)/5,000.

• Sept. 19, 2011: City council approves the sale of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The total parcel area of the strip was 792 square feet.
• April 26, 2012: Board of the AAATA approves the purchase of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center.
• Sept. 5, 2012: DDA board passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing.
• Sept. 5, 2012: Washtenaw County board of commissioners passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing. [At the time, county commissioner Leah Gunn served on the DDA board, along with former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who continues to serve on the board.]
• Sept. 17, 2012: City council considers but postpones action on a policy for proceeds of the sale of city-owned land.
• Oct. 15, 2012: City council approves a policy that ultimately leaves the policy on the use of proceeds of city land to case-by-case decisions, but indicates that for the Y lot, the proceeds will:
  

  … first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;”

• Nov. 8, 2012: City council transfers $90,000 from proceeds of the land sale to AAATA into the affordable housing trust fund.
• March 4, 2013: City council directs the city administrator to select a broker for the Y lot.
• July 3, 2013: City administrator Steve Powers announces that he’s selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the marketing of the property.
• Nov. 18, 2013: City council approves the sale of the former Y lot for $5.25 million to Dennis Dahlmann.
• Dec. 4, 2013: DDA board waives its claim to reimbursement from the sale of the Y lot.

Community Events Funding

At its Dec. 16 meeting, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the fiscal year 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The city’s FY 2015 begins on July 1, 2014.

The memo supporting the resolution notes that the AASAF has run an annual deficit for several years. An email sent to Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) by Maureen Riley, executive director of the AASAF, specified those annual deficits as follows:

• 2013 – anticipated to be approximately ($8,000)
• 2012 – ($6,316)
• 2011 – ($5,769)
• 2010 – ($6,040)
• 2009 – ($33,693)

Lumm and Taylor are sponsoring the resolution. Lumm is a former AASAF board member.

The rationale for providing support for the AASAF but not the other three art fairs is based on the additional costs the AASAF has to pay to the University of Michigan, as well as the provision by AASAF of community benefits that reduce its opportunity to gain revenue – including the Demo Zone, Art Activity Zones, Street Painting Exhibition, and the Fountain Stage. The background memo also indicates that the other three art fairs have indicated written support for the $10,000 to the AASAF.

The dollar amount roughly corresponds to the allocated cost to the AASAF from the total that is charged by the city for various services to the four art fairs collectively.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, Taylor had announced his intent to bring forward the resolution asking that an additional $10,000 be included in the city’s FY 2015 budget.

Traffic Enforcement

On the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that would allocate $125,000 from the general fund balance to pay for police overtime required for additional traffic enforcement. The item began conceptually as a $500,000 allocation described by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who was persuaded by co-sponsors Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that $125,000 would be a more reasonable amount to spend.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicate policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

Council deliberations on the $125,000 overtime allocation could feature a discussion of the ability of the AAPD to conduct additional traffic enforcement activities, without drawing on overtime.

Non-Motorized Plan Funding

On the Dec. 16 agenda is a directive to the city administrator to provide a funding plan for elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan.

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

The council approved the updated plan at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

And the Dec. 16 resolution – which is co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – is structured in part based on those main sections.

The resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

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

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.”

Additional flashing beacon locations identified in Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands.

Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

Postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting is a resolution that would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget. The DDA has exercised its statutory right to extend the deadline in response to a request from The Chronicle for that information under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings

The Dec. 16 city council agenda item – to allocate $64,550 from the solid waste fund to support a food-scrap composting initiative – comes in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

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

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

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

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

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

The $64,550 allocation from the solid waste fund balance on the Dec. 16 agenda would pay for the initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds break down this way:

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

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

Tree Pruning

The council will be considering the receipt of a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street trees – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle queried those trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

4:31 p.m. Agenda addition: Fuller Road Station MOU termination. An agenda item added this morning, Dec. 16, would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16, 2013 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project – which should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

4:47 p.m. Council questions. Councilmembers have now received written responses to several questions about agenda items, which they submitted to staff prior to the meeting. [.pdf of staff answers to pre-meeting (Dec. 16, 2013) councilmember questions]

5:01 p.m. Revision to Y lot resolution: The council will be considering a revised version of the resolution previously made public. The revision adjusts the amount of the proceeds from the Y lot sale downward to reimburse not just the broker’s commission, but also the seller’s closing costs. The revised amount to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund is $1,384,300. [For more background, see Y Lot Proceeds above.]

6:19 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Council chambers are empty. The sound of custodial staff vacuuming the second floor clerk’s office lobby area is audible. City clerk’s staffer Anissa Bowden arrives and distributes the council nameplates to their respective places at the table.

Police chief John Seto comes through the chambers and asks Bowden if he can get a copy of the council’s agenda. Yes, she says, they’re coming “hot off the presses” in the clerk’s office. So Seto continues through the council workroom to the clerk’s office. CTN technician is now testing mics.

6:39 p.m. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves has arrived. He’s setting up a laptop with a presentation on the Detroit DIA Inside|Out program, which is receiving a proclamation tonight. Seagraves ventures that it will be public art commissioner John Kotarski who gives the presentation.

6:41 p.m. Audience members are starting to arrive. About 10 people here so far, most in support of the resolution designating proceeds of the Y lot sale for the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Point of conversation: “the working homeless.”

6:46 p.m. No councilmembers have arrived yet. Check that. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is the first councilmember arrive.

6:49 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has now arrived. His neckwear features snowmen and Christmas trees.

6:53 p.m. People are starting to arrive at a brisk clip. Former city councilmember Jean Carlberg, who’s signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time, is among those to arrive.

6:57 p.m. Kotarski has now arrived. His choice of neckwear: bowtie.

7:03 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is the only councilmember not yet spotted in chambers.

7:09 p.m. Call to order. And we’re off.

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

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. The agenda is approved.

7:15 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers announces the regular holiday trash collection. He invites public services area administrator Craig Hupy to report on the snow plowing activity after the Friday and Saturday snowfall. Hupy summarizes the snow accumulation citywide at 5.5-7.5 inches. He says there was some drifting due to wind. The city’s goal is to have all roads plowed within 24 hours. For this storm, it took 26 hours to plow the travel lanes and 30 hours for the cul de sacs, Hupy says.

7:15 p.m. INT-1 Proclamation for Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out Program. The mayoral proclamation honors the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum, the Ann Arbor Art Center, and the Ann Arbor public art commission for their collaboration on implementing the Detroit Institute of Arts Inside|Out program in Ann Arbor this past summer. The program features installations of framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection in public places. Volunteer docents led 20 tours that included a total of 150 people, according to the text of the resolution. Chronicle coverage of the public art commission’s meetings on the topic includes the Jan. 23, 2013 meeting. At least one of the tours was noted in a Stopped.Watched. item: “Fourth & Catherine.”

7:16 p.m. Public art commissioner John Kotarski is now at the podium giving a presentation on the Inside|Out program.

7:21 p.m. Representatives of the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum and the Ann Arbor Art Center are now approaching the podium, and mayor John Hieftje is now reading forth the proclamation.

7:22 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight speakers and two alternates are signed up to speak on the issue of the allocation of funds from the proceeds of the sale of the old Y lot: Ray Gholston, Tracy Williams, Mary Browning, Ryan Sample, Jim Mogensen, Jean Carlberg, Suzzanne William, James Hill, Tate Williams and Deborah Clark. Barbara Lucas is signed up to speak about the food waste composting item. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about general issues like ending discrimination and to call for the resignation of Gov. Rick Snyder and mayor John Hieftje, as well as the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

7:27 p.m. Ray Gholston expresses his support for the allocation of funds from the proceeds of the Y lot sale to support affordable housing.

7:29 p.m. Tracy Williams introduces himself as a resident of Ann Arbor. He says that 700 people died from exposure, at least one of them here in Ann Arbor, who was a friend of his. “Shorty was a little guy but had a big heart,” Williams says. People like “Shorty” need more help, he adds. The agencies who work in this area are doing the best they can, he says. The Delonis Center weather “amnesty” of 10 degrees is too cold, he says.

7:31 p.m. Mary Browning is speaking on behalf of Religious Action for Affordable Housing. She says she’s talking about affordable housing at the 30% of AMI (area median income) level, not 80% AMI. Folks who get help from the shelter need a place to go, she says. She strongly urges that the funds from the Y lot sale go towards affordable housing.

7:34 p.m. Ryan Sample tells a story from three months ago, before the warming center opened. He was sleeping at the Baptist Church. He had to give his blanket to someone who needed it. Even at 40 degrees when your clothes are wet, there can be the potential for hypothermia, he says, which isn’t covered by the “weather amnesty” of 10 degrees at the shelter. He wishes he had a job and was able to work, he concludes.

7:37 p.m. Jim Mogensen speaks in support of the council’s resolution. The whole process has seemed endless, he says. He’s recounting the history from the mid-1980s, when the YMCA decided to create the 100 units of SRO housing and tried to do that with conventional bank loans. That’s why the city of Ann Arbor had become involved, he says – to sign for the loans. And that’s why the city of Ann Arbor had a right of first refusal. The Y had not finally repaid what it owed the city until 2009, he pointed out. He wanted the council to think about those historical lessons as they thought about how to use the money that’s in the affordable housing trust fund.

7:40 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He says he plans to campaign for office in the future as well – to make sure there’s a candidate committed to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. He refers to the recent murder of a 71-year-old Ann Arbor resident, saying that the residents deserve the respect of the council. Residents deserve discrimination-free planning, he says. If every item on the agenda is passed, there still won’t be any progress in protecting the most vulnerable residents, he says.

7:43 p.m. Barbara Lucas speaks in support of the expanded food waste composting. Her family had participated in a pilot program. Where she currently lives, there are various wildlife that makes composting food scraps challenging. She says that during the pilot program, there wasn’t a problem with odor. When there’s other yard waste in the composting cart, that helps, she says.

7:47 p.m. Jean Carlberg says that Mogensen had given a good history. She served on the city council when it faced the challenge of how to preserve the housing on the Y lot. The council felt it was in the public interest to exercise its right of first refusal on the Y lot, when the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority wanted to purchase the property. She’s urging the council to allocate the proceeds of the sale of the Y lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. With the loss of the Y housing, that increased the need for units – as determined in the Blueprint to End Homelessness – from 500 units to 600 units. As a city council, she says, they never expected the city to be repaid from the proceeds. It’s a chance to create a “pile of money” to be used for affordable housing.

7:50 p.m. Suzzanne William is here to support her friends and family in the homeless community. She’s heard and experienced and known about the homeless situation in Washtenaw County for a long time. She’s supporting the council’s resolution, she says. She has a job in downtown Ann Arbor, she says, but can’t afford “affordable housing.” She says she earns $150 a week. It’s just absurd, she says, that the “weather amnesty” is for 10 degrees. She recalls curling up in a cardboard box even in summer at 40 degrees. People are out there trying, she says, and they’re really hard workers. She suggests some counseling for those housed in affordable housing units.

7:53 p.m. James Hill asks all those who support the agenda item on the Y lot proceeds to stand up. At least 25 people are standing. He says that the council shouldn’t “skim off the top” for financial accounting reasons. He asks the council to inquire with the shelter why the weather amnesty at the warming shelter has been reduced from 25 degrees to 10 degrees.

7:53 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:55 p.m. Sabra Briere is talking about the “weather amnesty” that many public speakers mentioned. The Delonis Center had experimented with changing it from 10 degrees and making it 25 degrees. So the change to 10 degrees is the reversion to the previous policy. Briere’s reporting is based on talking to Ellen Schulmeister, head of the Delonis Center.

7:57 p.m. Mike Anglin is reporting out on a meeting at Bach School last week on traffic safety. His remarks are largely positive. About 100 people attended, he says. This is the kind of approach the city should be taking, he says, noting that the meeting was well attended by staff. Three councilmembers attended, he says.

7:59 p.m. Jack Eaton says he’s disappointed that the agenda doesn’t include any appointments for the local officers compensation commission. The commission has only two members, but it needs four commission members to achieve a quorum, he says.

8:00 p.m. Briere says she should have also alerted the public to the revision to the dollar amount on the Y lot proceeds. The actual amount available is estimated to be $1,384,300, she says. The amount is an estimate, because the sale has not yet taken place.

8:00 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayoral communications are typically just the nominations and confirmations of appointments to various city boards and commissions.

8:00 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of Edith Bletcher to the Elizabeth Dean fund committee. This nomination was made at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Nomination at one meeting followed by confirmation at the next is the standard process for appointments to city boards and commissions. For some historical background on the Elizabeth Dean Fund, see “Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed.”

8:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has confirmed the appointment of Edith Bletcher to the Elizabeth Dean fund committee.

8:01 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Tonight Kristin Tomey is being nominated to fill a vacancy left by Wiltrud Simbuerger on the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) and Benjamin Bushkuhl is being nominated for reappointment to the city’s historic district commission (HDC).

8:02 p.m. Hieftje says that the LOCC had met but not achieved a quorum. Hieftje says that he saw no harm in not having a quorum this year.

8:08 p.m. Hieftje has now invited executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to the podium to address the council. She’s describing the SRO units at the Y. It had a staffed front door and a desk and was actually a “hotel,” she says. The front door staffing helped the residents maintain their tenancy, she says. She’s describing working with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, Washtenaw County’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS), and others to convert Miller Manor to a front-door staffed facility. Hall says they’re working on a plan right now to secure the funding. She’ll be requesting some of the proceeds from the Y lot to make those services at Miller Manor happen. The maintenance area at Miller Manor is being converted to offices to facilitate the front-door staffing arrangement, she says.

8:08 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Three public hearings appear on tonight’s agenda. The first two are standard rezoning requests – from township zoning to city residential zoning. This type of rezoning is a routine part of annexation of property into the city.

The third public hearing is on the cost to be charged to a developer ($45,000) for causing an on-street metered public parking space to be removed. The item was postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting to allow for a public hearing to be held.

8:11 p.m. PH-1 Higgins zoning. Thomas Partridge is addressing the council, saying that he hope the next mayor will not begin every public hearing with a series of warnings. Hieftje responds by saying Partridge has to speak on the topic of the hearing. Partridge says he is doing that. He characterizes the zoning change as involving “redlining.”

8:12 p.m. No one else speaks on PH-1.

8:12 p.m. PH-2 Weller zoning. No one speaks on this public hearing.

8:15 p.m. PH-3 Policy on removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a candidate for public office. To his knowledge, he says, the resolution contains no language specifying how parking spaces should be provided for pickup and dropoff for people with disabilities. He says that the proposal should be referred back to a committee for further review. He says the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been functioning as a stealth government, an agent of the city of Ann Arbor.

8:15 p.m. Minutes. Approval of the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes an amendment to the contract with Waste Management, which provides commercial waste collection services – to factor in special event service pricing on Sundays for up to five collection containers that are otherwise serviced daily. Also a part of the consent agenda is the authorization of the purchase of about 150 300-gallon carts per year ($42,000) for the next four years – which will be used as part of the city’s commercial and multi-family recycling program.

8:16 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does this.

8:16 p.m. The council has approved the consent agenda.

8:16 p.m. B-1 Higgins zoning. This is a standard rezoning request of 0.51 acre from TWP (township district) to R1A (single family dwelling district), for the Higgins property, 2121 Victoria Circle, as a result of annexation into the city.

8:17 p.m. John Hieftje notes that this property is someone’s house. Sabra Briere describes the property as off Newport Road. Recently the city extended sewer and water service. It makes it possible for these properties to be annexed, she says. They’re not affected by the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume.

8:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Higgins rezoning.

8:17 p.m. B-2 Weller zoning. This is a standard rezoning request 0.51 acre from TWP (township district) to R1A (single family dwelling district) for the Weller property at 2119 Victoria Circle, as a result of annexation into the city.

8:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Weller rezoning.

8:17 p.m. DC-1 City policy on removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. This resolution would establish the cost for removing a metered on-street parking space at $45,000. [For more background, see How Much Is a Parking Space Worth? above.]

8:20 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says that there are several amendments to the resolution and he hopes that the amendments have been disseminated. Here’s the amended version: [.pdf of amended version of policy]

8:22 p.m. Taylor is now reviewing the resolution – it would charge developers for removing parking meters. He characterizes the process as a “long and slow burn.” It’s a replacement fee, he says. The parking system is a finite resource. There’s a choice to allow removal or not, he says. So the amount required to be paid as a fee, he says, is $45,000. That’s approximately the cost of creating a new parking space in a structure. There’s a caveat whereby the cost could be waived if the removal is deemed to be a public benefit.

8:23 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asks for staff. Executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay comes to the podium. Kailasapathy says she sees a parking space as a capital asset. She asks if this money that is paid should be segregated into a separate fund.

8:25 p.m. Kailasapathy says it should not be treated as simple revenue. Pollay says that this has not yet been thought through in detail, but the DDA’s operations committee would be taking that up. Kailasapathy wants to add an amendment that would require the segregation of funds into something like a sinking fund.

8:26 p.m. Taylor has no objection to segregating the funds, but is not sure that the city council should be telling the DDA exactly how to do the accounting.

8:27 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers says that the city could work with the DDA to reserve the funds in some manner.

8:29 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offers some generally supportive comments. Pollay says she understands that the council is keen to see the capital funds set aside and separated somehow.

8:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asks if the money that’s paid could be used to build any capital project or if it had to be a parking space. She’s worried about having enough critical mass of funding to undertake the building of a new parking structure.

8:31 p.m. Pollay says that this money to be paid would not necessarily be the only money used to build a new parking structure. The money would be added to the pot when it comes time to build a new parking structure, Pollay says.

8:32 p.m. Petersen wants to know if the money could be used to add on to an existing structure. Pollay points out that the Fourth and William structure had been extended upward.

8:33 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that if the money is earmarked for new construction, that makes accounting challenging because we don’t know when construction will happen. Why not just use the money for debt service on parking structures? he asks.

8:34 p.m. Kunselman asks how many spaces have been removed recently. Pollay says about 50 in the last five years. She allows that some on-street spaces have also been added through projects like the Fifth and Division street improvement project.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje asks if this can be worked out tonight or if it should be put off.

8:36 p.m. Taylor reads aloud a proposed amendment about “financial controls” to segregate the funds so that they can be reinvested in construction of new parking spaces.

8:37 p.m. Kailasapathy wants the language to be flexible enough to construct new spaces or also replace existing spaces.

8:38 p.m. Hieftje asks again if it might be a good idea to put it off. Taylor is content to see it postponed, as is Kailasapathy.

8:40 p.m. Lumm offers what she calls a “nit.” There are references to development projects taking spaces out of the system. She asks if the DDA operations committee would consider describing it differently. Many of the spaces that have been “gobbled up” recently have not been by developers but rather by UM or the city itself.

8:42 p.m. Here’s the text of the amendment as forwarded by city clerk Jackie Beaudry: “Therefore, the City of Ann Arbor and the DDA will establish financial controls to segregate cash flows from the removal of on-street parking in order to reinvest these funds in the creation of parking spaces.”

8:43 p.m. Petersen has an amendment she wants to add into the mix. Hieftje says that she should send it to the DDA operations committee for their discussion.

8:44 p.m. Hieftje has been trying to move the council toward postponing this, which seems where it’s headed.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone until the first meeting in January a vote on a policy that sets the price for removal of an on-street parking space at $45,000.

8:45 p.m. DC-2 Non-motorized transportation strategy. This resolution would instruct the city administrator to develop a non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy. Specifically, the resolution directs Steve Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan. [For more background, see Non-Motorized Plan Funding above.]

8:46 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the content of the resolution.

8:51 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for Cresson Slotten to field questions. She says there’s just supposed to be 20 RRFBs in the plan, not 24, which Slotten confirms. She asks how the RRFBs were determined as solutions. Slotten regrets that  transportation program manager Eli Cooper is out of town, because he could give a more detailed answer, but he assures Kailasapathy that a detailed analysis had been done. He allows that Pat Cawley and Les Sipowski, city traffic engineers, had been involved in the determination of the RRFBs as solutions and their locations.

8:53 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to propose an amendment to make clear that traffic engineers would be involved in the final determination. It’s not clear what the exact language of the amendment is, but it’s now before the council for its consideration.

8:54 p.m. Eaton ventures that the sponsors of the resolution have not contemplated any other engineering solutions other than RRFBs. Briere is responding to Eaton by asking Slotten a series of questions.

8:57 p.m. Briere asks if it’s always the case that when the plan says to put some type of infrastructure in a location, that the infrastructure specified in the plan is always installed. Slotten describes how there’s a lot more detailed analysis when a project is actually measured out in the field. Briere asks who would do that work. Slotten says that city traffic engineers working with in-house surveyors would probably do that work.

8:58 p.m. Slotten allows, in response to a question from Briere, that sometimes the final project is not the same as what was in the plan.

9:00 p.m. Hieftje is establishing with Slotten what the role of traffic engineers is in determining RRFBs as a solution in a particular location.

9:01 p.m. Teall says she wants to know that staff has the latitude to determine the exact locations and details. Kunselman ventures that a plan is a plan and that plans change. Kunselman gets confirmation from Slotten that there could be conditions that warrant looking outside the plan.

9:03 p.m. Kunselman supports the amendment. Taylor says the “juicy bit” that the council is talking about removes specific reference to the RRFBs. The idea is not to predetermine what engineering features go into any particular crosswalk, Taylor says, which makes sense to him.

9:05 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to avoid creating the impression for staff that there is a “mandate” for RRFBs. Briere says that plans are not solid but rather a little squishy. Briere cites some of the specific words from Kailasapathy’s amendment: “implement recommendations of the city’s traffic engineers.”

9:08 p.m. Briere ventures that “as applied by the city traffic engineers” could work. City administrator Steve Powers suggests that if the direction is to revisit previous evaluations and recommendations that are contained in the non-motorized transportation plan, then that direction from the council needs to be made clear.

9:09 p.m. Anglin is talking about the improvements in engineering technology. Anglin asks if the locations designated for RRFBs are not eligible for HAWK signals. He thinks that RRFBs ask motorists to interpret yellow as stop. He seems to be advocating for HAWK signals instead of RRFBs.

9:10 p.m. Anglin said he’s heard that HAWK lights are too expensive, but asks what the cost of safety should be.

9:12 p.m. Hieftje responds to Anglin by venturing that the city traffic engineers are up to date on the latest technology. Petersen raises the question of how this resolution relates to the establishment of the pedestrian safety task force.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says his understanding is that there’s no detailed and particularized engineering study that’s been done of the general locations of the RRFBs in the non-motorized plan. He wants to make sure it’s done right.

9:17 p.m. Warpehoski says that there’s three elements to the amendment: (1) it should be technology neutral; (2) traffic engineers should be involved; and (3) the downtown is highlighted specifically. Warpehoski says he’s fine with (1). He thinks (2) is redundant but doesn’t have a problem with it. He has some ideas about (3).

9:17 p.m. The council decides to recess to work out the language of the amendment.

9:17 p.m. Recess. We are in recess.

9:26 p.m. We’re back.

9:30 p.m. The amendment on the floor is now being distributed by Taylor to the other councilmembers and the clerk.

9:32 p.m. Kunselman wants to remove the dates specified in the resolution. He takes the occasion to reiterate the fact that he dislikes the fact that the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Taylor says, in response to a question from Hieftje, that the dates were characterized by the city administrator as “feasible.”

9:32 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support it.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to present a funding and implementation plan for the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. The version passed by the council was amended at the table.

9:33 p.m. DC-3 Street Art Fair community events resolution. This resolution would instruct the city administrator to incorporate $10,000 of funding in the FY 2015 community events funding budget to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. [For more background, see Community Events Funding above.]

9:34 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the background of the resolution. He’s explaining why the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair is different from the other art fairs in its revenue challenges.

9:38 p.m. The resolution on the non-motorized transportation plan was passed in this form, based on what the city clerk has forwarded: [.pdf of non-motorized implementation resolution ]

9:40 p.m. Teall relates her experience in allocating the community events funding. She’s concerned about doing something for one organization, but possibly not others.

9:41 p.m. Lumm describes her volunteer work with the AASAF and her service on the board. There’s only so much you can raise in booth fees, she says. She’s ticking through the specific challenges the AASAF faces.

9:43 p.m. Lumm calls the AASAF one of Ann Arbor’s “icons.” She says that $10,000 is a small amount for the city but is crucial for the AASAF.

9:45 p.m. Hieftje says it’s a special situation, so he’ll support this resolution. Hieftje notes that it’s a small item. He references the budget planning session from Dec. 9, and highlights the council’s expressed desire to keep its meetings moving along. He hopes this item can be dispatched without a lot more discussion.

9:46 p.m. Eaton asks if the proposal is for this support to be recurring. Taylor says he’d expect it to be reconsidered in each subsequent year.

9:47 p.m. The executive director of the AASAF, Maureen “Mo” Riley, says that the rent paid to UM is about $5,000.

9:48 p.m. Kunselman notes that this approach doesn’t guarantee that AASAF would get the money as a result of the community events funding disbursements. He points out that the funds could have been appropriated from FY 2014 and they’d have been done with it.

9:50 p.m. Teall says that typically when community events are funded, the council would ask what exactly the money would go toward. Taylor responds by ticking through some of the background in the memo. Teall says she can’t not support it. She calls the AASAF her favorite art fair.

9:51 p.m. Teall says that she questions this partly because the AASAF is required to pay rent to the UM, and she wishes UM would “pony up” too. Petersen says she considers this a kind of public art.

9:53 p.m. Warpehoski points out that the community events fund does fund FestiFools, Dancing in the Streets, and other nonprofit events – for the fees that they incur from the city. So he ties the resolution back to that aspect – the fees that AASAF must pay to the city of Ann Arbor for various services.

9:55 p.m. Lumm is speaking again in support of the resolution.

9:55 p.m. Teall says she thinks that this should go through the regular community events fund allocation process – through the council’s committee. She’s very hesitant. She wants to see an application from AASAF for the funding.

9:57 p.m. Responding to Teall, Hieftje says that he thinks this is a completely different category from other events. It’s more like the Summer Festival, he says.

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to include $10,000 of funding for the Ann Arbor Street Art fair when he prepares next year’s (FY 2015) budget.

9:57 p.m. DC-4 Resolution to allocate $125,000 to fund police overtime for traffic enforcement. This resolution comes after a long debate about a change to the city’s crosswalk ordinance that resulted in a 6-4 vote at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – to eliminate a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who are at the curb next to a marked crosswalk, not just within a crosswalk. But mayor John Hieftje exercised his power of veto on that change. So the law will remain intact.

That debate featured support from all sides for the idea that enforcement was an important component of making the city safer for pedestrians and motorists. This item also comes forward in the context of increased concern about motorists speeding on city streets. As a change to the budget, this will require an 8-vote majority. [For more background, see Traffic Enforcement above.]

9:57 p.m. Kunselman quips that the discussion should be short, because the resolution is short.

9:58 p.m. He allows that he’d wanted to put a lot more funding in police chief John Seto’s hands. Revenues have been down from traffic citations, he notes. And there’s a need to curtail motorists speeding. Things like cars passing stopped school buses have also been raised as concerns, he says.

10:00 p.m. Lumm thanks Kunselman for leading this effort. She says that she thinks everyone can support the idea that increased traffic enforcement is an important part of improving traffic safety.

10:02 p.m. Hieftje says he understands the motivation for the resolution. It’s unusual to give staff money to spend without asking how staff would specifically solve the problem the council has identified. He also points to the timesheet breakdown for police officers that showed that officers may have time to implement additional traffic enforcement within the existing staffing levels, without using overtime.

10:04 p.m. Briere wants Seto to explain how this money would be spent. Seto says there’s not a specific plan for using this overtime money. There are various general ways: individual officers assigned to specific locations, or officers can be dedicated to a promotion and educational effort. Briere asks Seto if he could provide a specific plan and a budget for implementation by Jan. 22, the council’s second meeting in January. “It depends,” says Seto.

10:06 p.m. Briere says that even if Seto just followed the simple resolution, he’d still have to come up with a plan. She wants Seto to tell the council how much it might cost to implement increased traffic enforcement. She ventures there might be various levels of implementation – which could cost even more than $125,000. She wants Seto to develop a specific plan for implementation.

10:07 p.m. Seto says that if the council directs him to do so, he can come back with a specific traffic enforcement enhancement plan. He says that the $125,000 translates into 1,800 additional hours and he seems unsure that could be re-allocated right now. Briere asks if Seto can come back with the cost for a plan that he would implement.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman says, “Talk about micromanaging!” He notes that the $125,000 figure came from the city administrator. Seto doesn’t have to spend it all, Kunselman says. He calls it a small amount in response to community concerns. He allows that it will require 8 votes and invites those who want to vote against it to do so.

10:11 p.m. Anglin thanks Seto for attending the Bach School meeting on traffic safety and ventures that Seto has heard directly some of these citizen concerns. Responding to Petersen, Seto says that $125,000 translates to 26-weeks of eight eight-hour shifts.

10:13 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the resolution, citing concerns that were reflected in the recent National Citizens Survey. He says that traffic safety is the one area where increased investment in safety services is justified. He says that he’s frustrated that he wasn’t able to get benchmark data about traffic safety.

10:16 p.m. Taylor says that he doesn’t disagree that traffic enforcement is deeply important. But he thinks that this resolution amounts to pre-funding a plan that’s not yet in front of the council. He wants to postpone this until the next meeting.

Petersen punches the air, raising her hand to be called on. She’s arguing against Taylor’s contention that this resolution is somehow at odds with the previous resolution on the non-motorized plan. She contends that this police OT actually strengthens it. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t do this now,” she says.

10:17 p.m. Kailasapathy says that this is basically like choosing something that seems reasonable – echoing Warpehoski’s sense that this is roughly the equivalent of adding an FTE for traffic enforcement. She’ll support this.

10:18 p.m. Responding to a question from Hieftje, Seto says there are four traffic enforcement staff, with one administrative. On Jan. 1 Seto was already planning to assign an additional person to traffic enforcement. This resolution would essentially bring the total to six.

10:20 p.m. Eaton says that it’s important to be safe – not just from rapes and murders. He describes some neighborhoods where cars speed so fast that they leave the roads and run into people’s houses.

10:20 p.m. Hieftje says he wants to hear the plan before the council throws the money at it. He supports the postponement. Lumm says she won’t support the postponement.

10:22 p.m. Lumm is talking about the overall staffing levels of the AAPD, noting that the number of sworn officers currently is down to 119. She cites the number of emails that she receives asking for more traffic enforcement.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support a postponement, noting that Seto has already described a plan. He indicates that success will be measured by the number of traffic citations issued.

10:25 p.m. Taylor points out that the previous resolution on implementation of the non-motorized transportation does address enforcement around crosswalks.

10:26 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The postponement fails with support only from Hieftje, Briere and Taylor.

10:27 p.m. Warpehoski notes that the “results” that Kunselman has lifted up are in terms of revenue and citations, and he wants results that are related to traffic safety. He doesn’t think police services should be treated as a cash register.

10:28 p.m. Hieftje says one reason that traffic citations are down is that penalties – for drunk driving, for example – are harsher and people pay more attention. Hieftje just doesn’t want to throw money at a problem.

10:31 p.m. Teall echoes Hieftje’s sentiments. She is concerned about a possible backlash from increased enforcement. Briere says there are as many people who are angry about lack of traffic enforcement as who are angry about too much traffic enforcement. She’s not very gung ho when it comes to rules, but she believes in traffic enforcement. She’d prefer that Seto tell the council how much money he needed, rather than the council tell the chief.

10:33 p.m. Briere asks Seto if 70 additional hours a week in traffic enforcement is actually feasible.

10:34 p.m. Seto describes how his intent would not be to just implement some speed traps – saying that high crash locations can be targeted using a new city system.

10:35 p.m. Seto says he can start this additional enforcement on Jan. 1. Petersen can’t think of a better day to start than Jan. 1, because of the NHL’s Winter Classic.

10:35 p.m. Petersen asks for confirmation that the $125,000 number has been vetted with the city administrator and that Seto has called it feasible.

10:37 p.m. Kunselman follows up on Petersen’s remarks by saying not only has the number been vetted, Seto has also described a plan for implementation. He agrees that revenues are not the only measure of success. He wouldn’t mind hearing complaints about too much traffic enforcement.

10:38 p.m. Taylor allows that the $125,000 has been “vetted.” He asks Seto if the plan that starts Jan. 1 will cost about $125,000. Seto says: “It could.”

10:40 p.m. Taylor allows that the existence of a budget doesn’t necessitate the spending of that budget. Seto agrees that it might not be necessary to spend all of that $125,000.

10:41 p.m. Taylor says “I think this is sloppy,” pointing out that the council is a couple weeks away from having a plan with a dollar figure on it. It’s not a professional way to approach things, he says. But he has a lot of confidence in Seto’s ability to produce a plan the city is proud of – a plan that will be effective and not just burn through the money just because it is there.

10:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted over the lone dissent of mayor John Hieftje to approve $125,000 to pay for overtime so that Ann Arbor police officers can provide additional traffic enforcement.

10:42 p.m. DC-5 Y Lot proceeds resolution. The sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. This item, added to the Dec. 16 agenda last Friday, originally designated $1.56 million of that amount – which was all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The council will be considering a revised version of the resolution that also subtracts the seller’s closing costs from the amount to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That results in a total amount to be deposited into the trust fund of $1,384,300. [.pdf of revised resolution] [For more background, see Y Lot Proceeds above.]

10:44 p.m. Briere is reviewing how much money is in the affordable housing trust fund. She notes that the council still hasn’t heard from the Shelter Association – which runs the Delonis Center – about what it needs to get through the inclement weather. In the past, the council has used money from the affordable housing trust fund to support the shelter’s warming center.

10:46 p.m. Briere notes that the city has not been effective at putting money back into the affordable housing trust fund. The strategy of having PUDs (planned unit developments) contribute to the trust fund has not been used much recently.

10:48 p.m. Lumm asks for city CFO Tom Crawford. She says it’s a significant amount of money. She asks Crawford to walk the council through how much has been committed to affordable housing compared to the other council priorities.

10:51 p.m. Briere points out that Crawford was talking about new and unique expenditures.

10:57 p.m. Briere is reviewing various expenditures from the fund.

10:58 p.m. Hieftje says he’ll support the resolution and says that given the history of the property, it’s a relatively happy end to the story.

11:00 p.m. Kunselman wants clarification of why 8 votes are required. He wants to know what would happen if this resolution failed. In broad strokes, most of it would go to the general fund. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution, venturing that most of the money would go to support the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

11:04 p.m. Lumm says it’s a huge transfer from the general fund to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Crawford replies that it’s important to weigh all the city’s needs. He’s describing how much general fund balance would remain if the resolution passed. Lumm asks for an amendment to reduce the amount of the transfer by half, to roughly $692,000.

11:06 p.m. Warpehoski is comparing how much the city spends on public safety compared to affordable housing, pointing out that the city spends $49 million $39.5 million a year on public safety. The amount that the city spends on affordable housing is miniscule in comparison, he says. He’s pleased with the news shared by Jennifer Hall, executive director of the housing commission, about the plan to convert Miller Manor to a front-desk staffed facility.

11:08 p.m. Warpehoski says he did not vote to sell the property to Dahlman in order to get the debt off the books, or to give Dahlmann a way to avoid competition for his hotels.

11:08 p.m. Taylor follows Warpehoski with: “What he said.” Briere says she wishes she could have said it as well as Warpehoski.

11:10 p.m. Lumm responds by talking about the pressure that this puts on the general fund.

11:10 p.m. Outcome: The amendment to cut the amount in half fails on a 2-9 vote. Only Lumm and Eaton vote for it.

11:11 p.m. Lumm notes that the council reached a different conclusion last year after a long discussion – that there would be reimbursements. So she’s torn, she says.

11:15 p.m. Eaton says he’ll support the resolution, but he’s concerned that the city hasn’t approached the policy questions adequately. He allows more needs to be done for affordable housing, but says the city needs to “aim at the right targets.” Kunselman points out that the money is not actually being spent with this resolution. Rather, it will go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Kunselman notes that previous councils have made decisions about this policy, but this council will make its own decision. The council has heard a lot of voices calling for the council to do something to support affordable housing. The money is not going anywhere until we spend it, he concludes.

11:16 p.m. Briere ventures that more than 30% of funding for affordable housing has been cut – by HUD and by the state. This is a response to Lumm’s citation of the percentage reduction in funding and staffing levels for the Ann Arbor police department.

11:19 p.m. Briere allows that Lumm’s point about 10% of proceeds that the council set as a policy last year is accurate for city-owned properties – but she notes that the resolution separated out the Y lot from other downtown properties. Briere notes that if the city tried to repay the reimbursements, there wouldn’t be much left. She also points out that this is the last year that this fund will exist separately as a fund – due to new accounting standards. In the future, it will simply be general fund money that’s allocated to affordable housing. It will no longer be a separate fund, she says.

11:20 p.m. Briere notes that currently HHSAB (the city’s housing and human services advisory board) must make a recommendation on how money in the affordable housing trust fund is spent. She’s not sure how that will play out in the future.

11:21 p.m. Hieftje is talking about how federal funding for affordable housing has been drying up. He doesn’t think that it’s appropriate to include the public safety budget in this discussion. He calls the recent turnaround at the Ann Arbor Housing Commission spectacular.

11:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to deposit $1,384,300 million (the entire proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs) from the sale of the former Y lot into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

11:25 p.m. Fuller Road Station MOU termination. Kunselman says he would like to postpone it. Hieftje and Briere say they’ll vote for it and don’t want to postpone it. Kunselman still wants to postpone, because it was added late to the agenda.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the Fuller Road Station resolution until its next meeting.

11:26 p.m. DS-1 Planning commission bylaws. The bylaws change relates to the required notice for special accommodations like a sign-language interpreter – changing the requirement from 24 hours to two business days. The planning commission is currently weighing another change to its bylaws, that’s not a part of this change. [See Chronicle coverage of the planning commission's Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.] That additional change would define speaking turns during public hearings. This change was postponed from an earlier council meeting, with an eye towards having the council approve both bylaws changes at the same time. But the planning commission has not yet taken action on that second change.

11:27 p.m. Briere notes there’s also another bylaws revision possibly pending and indicates a desire to postpone.

11:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the revision to the planning commission’s bylaws until the second council meeting in February.

11:28 p.m. DS-2 Food waste composting. The resolution would appropriate $64,550 from the solid waste fund balance to fund the city’s intiative to allow residents to add food scraps for regular collection in their curbside compost carts. Here’s how the allocation breaks down:

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

It will require an 8-vote majority. [For more background, see Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings above.]

11:30 p.m. Briere introduces the resolution.

11:30 p.m. Eaton confirms that this resolution would not change the seasonal compost collection schedule.

11:30 p.m. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie is demonstrating the counter-top containers, which would be offered free to residents.

11:32 p.m. Eaton asks how many households use a garbage disposal and would not use this service. Lumm says she thinks that the estimates of how many tons would be added to the compost and diverted from garbage are optimistic. She calls the giveaways “gimmicky.” But she says it’s not a huge investment to give it a try.

11:34 p.m. Kailsaspathy questions the viability of the city’s estimates. If the 2,100 ton estimate is not accurate, then we’ll pay for the additional service of grinding the compost plus for the giveaways. McMurtrie allows that Kailasapathy is right about that.

11:35 p.m. Kailaspathy wants to know if a pilot could be conducted, just for Monday route collection, for example. McMurtie says it would be logistically difficult to maintain the separation of the material at the composting site.

11:36 p.m. McMurtrie says that WeCare set the price at below its cost, because they want to see the program succeed. For a pilot, WeCare would need to bring in the equipment for the same frequency – but for a limited pilot, it would be over a much smaller tonnage base.

11:39 p.m. Briere is arguing for the resolution. She wonders how residents might deal with raccoons. McMurtrie suggests modifying the compost cart by adding a bungee cord – but cautions that residents need to remember to take the bungee off when they set out the cart. Kunselman re-confirms that compost will still not be collected in the winter months.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that a considerable educational effort will be required. He asks about the mention of the MDEQ requirements. McMurtrie says the city’s proposal is consistent with MDEQ guidelines. The daily processing is what WeCare views as appropriate procedures for dealing with this type of material. Kunselman asks about the end product: Will adding food waste have an impact on the quality of the end product? No, says McMurtrie.

11:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to appropriate $64,550 to fund the food scrap composting initiative.

11:41 p.m. DS-3 Accept and appropriate USDA Forest Service grant ($50,000). This resolution would authorize receipt of a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street streets – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater. [For more background, see Tree Pruning above.]

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve the receipt of the $50,000 USDA Forestry Service grant for tree pruning.

11:42 p.m. DS-4 MRF baler rebuild. This resolution would reimburse Resource Recovery Systems for the cost of repairing a baler at the city’s material recovery facility, which has already been done. The cost is $62,613.

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to authorize $62,613 for the baler repair.

11:44 p.m. Communications from council. Warpehoski says that he had a previous practice of announcing that he was breaking the rules when he disseminates information from the meetings. He’d missed an instance of that, so he wanted to rectify that by announcing it retroactively. He says that as a member of the rules committee, he will work on “above-board” ways of disseminating information.

11:46 p.m. Hieftje is taking the pulse of the council on the issue of having the clerk time councilmember speaking turns. Kunselman ventures that councilmembers should set their own timers. Hieftje says he thinks that would be best, because it would be a burden on the clerk. Kunselman quips that he’ll bring forward a budget resolution for kitchen timers.

11:47 p.m. Clerk’s report. The clerk’s report has been received.

11:47 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:50 p.m. Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi is addressing the council. He’s attending the meeting as a citizen. As one elected official to another, he’s thanking them for serving with honor, dignity and respect. The thoughtful discussion today is telling of their willingness to come to the table to work in good faith, he says. As the year wraps up, he’s extending a thank you.

Dave DeVarti thanks the council for their unanimous vote on the Y lot. He points out the property has never been on the tax rolls. He asks the council to look at the tax receipts from that property and consider using that revenue to fund supportive services.

11:52 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council on the eight properties that are coming before the building board of appeals at its meeting on Thursday of this week. He says it’s unfortunate that there are that many properties that are now in need of demolition.

11:55 p.m. Seth Best is now wishing the council happy holidays. He thanks the council for their vote on the Y lot. He invites councilmembers to homelessness awareness day, on Dec. 21. He tells the council that the homeless community operates in “survival mode.” When the “weather amnesty” temperature changes, they have a short memory, he says, because they are thinking about what they have to do tonight. He talks about the proposal from McKinley for affordable housing on South State Street – which considers “affordable housing” to start at $900 a month.

12:00 a.m. Kai Petainen reminds the council that Winter Classic is coming up and draws a laugh. He tells the council that they’ll need some additional police, though he says “I’m sure the Canadians will be nice.” He tells Hieftje, in a light-hearted way, that it’s not a good idea to meet with the mayor of Toronto. Hieftje responds by saying: “He may have smoked crack cocaine, but I believe him when he says he did it during one of his drunken stupors.”

Caleb Poirier follows Petainen by updating the council on a property that the homeless community has acquired. He says that there will eventually be requests coming to the council.

12:01 a.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition and written attorney-client privileged communication. Briere dissents on the vote, which has no effect.

12:36 a.m. The council has returned to open session.

12:36 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

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

Added to the agenda on Friday before the Monday meeting is an item that relates to proceeds from the city’s sale of property known as the former Y lot. The sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003.

The item added to the Dec. 16 agenda would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

That would reflect a departure from the policy set in a 2012 council resolution, which called first for reimbursement of costs out of the proceeds, including interest paid over the last 10 years, before depositing those net proceeds into the affordable housing trust fund.

Although the city administrator is not required to present next year’s FY 2015 budget to the council until April 2014, at least three items on the council’s Dec. 16 agenda could have an impact on preparation of that budget. Some of those items relate to mobility and traffic issues.

First, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the FY 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair.

Second, the council will consider directing Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

Thematically related to the funding plan for non-motorized improvements is a third budget item: a proposal to allocate $125,000 from the current general fund reserve to pay for police overtime for traffic enforcement.

That item is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. And the text of that veto is attached to the council’s meeting agenda as a communication.

Also generally related to the public right-of-way on streets is a Dec. 16 item that was postponed from the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The item assigns a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space caused by a development: $45,000. The postponement stemmed from a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action.

Several of the other Dec. 16 items relate generally to the theme of the environment. In the area of solid waste management, the council will consider a roughly $65,000 allocation from the solid waste fund balance. That allocation will pay for an initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds will cover an increased level of service at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The funds will also cover the cost of counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage, and a subsidy for the sale of additional brown compost carts. Some of that allocation is expected to be recovered through reduced landfill tipping fees.

Other solid waste items on the Dec. 16 agenda include one to allocate about $63,000 to rebuild a baler at the city’s materials recovery facility. And the council will consider an amendment to the contract with Waste Management, which provides commercial waste collection services – to factor in special event service pricing on Sundays for up to five collection containers that are otherwise serviced daily. The council will also consider authorizing the purchase of about 150 300-gallon carts per year ($42,000) for the next four years – which will be used as part of the city’s commercial and multi-family recycling program.

Also part of the environmental theme on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that accepts a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service to be spent on a tree pruning initiative focused on the city’s largest street trees.

Additional items include two standard rezoning approvals in connection with annexations from townships into the city. The recommending body for zoning approvals is the city planning commission. Also on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that asks the council to approve changes to the planning commission bylaws. Those bylaws changes relate to the required notice for special accommodations like a sign-language interpreter – changing the requirement from 24 hours to two business days.

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

Y Lot Proceeds

The history of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land and the connection to the city’s affordable housing trust fund goes back at least 20 years.

Affordable housing fund activity.

Some highlights are laid out in a timeline below.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building that stood on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions this last summer that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

The approved $5.25 million sale price of the former Y lot will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. At the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution that would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

This would reflect a departure from the most recent policy adopted by the city council, but would eliminate any wrangling between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority over how much in reimbursements might be owed for various purposes. The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board has voted essentially to waive that claim. And the city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 in interest reimbursements could be owed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building.

In timeline overview form:

• April 15, 1996: City council establishes a policy that put half of the proceeds from city-owned land sales into the affordable housing trust fund. The minutes of the meeting show that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against an amendment, made at the council table, to divide the proceeds of land sales (less costs) between “infrastructure needs and the housing trust fund regardless of budget year.” But the minutes show that the vote on the amended resolution was declared unanimous on a voice vote (not a roll call). In 1996, part of the impetus for consideration of a land sale policy was driven by city-owned property at Packard and Main, which eventually became a part of the Ashley Mews development.
• Nov. 5, 1998: City council votes to increase the portion of proceeds of city-owned land sales that would be earmarked for the affordable housing trust fund – from half to all. Lumm joined her Ward 2 colleague David Kwan in voting against this policy shift.
• Dec. 8, 2003: City council approves purchase of Y property – on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – for $3.5 million, financing the purchase with a five-year loan. The Ann Arbor DDA had agreed to pay some of the interest on that loan through an action taken not by its full board, but rather by its executive committee, on Dec. 5, 2003.
• Oct. 20, 2005: Pipe bursts in YMCA building, displacing residents. The building is ultimately determined to be not worth the cost of renovation.
• June 4, 2007: City council votes to rescind the policy that put the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land into the affordable housing trust fund. The policy shift in 2007 took place as part of a relatively small land transaction: The city was selling a piece of land on East Eisenhower for $23,750. The proceeds were earmarked for the construction fund of the new municipal center, built at the corner of Fifth and Huron. But in order to put the money from the sale into that construction fund, the council needed to change the existing policy on land sales. So one of the “resolved” clauses in the resolution was the following:
  

  RESOLVED, That City Council revoke Resolution R-481-11-98 which provided that the proceeds from the sale of excess City property be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;

  In the course of deliberations, the council agreed to amend the resolution so that the $23,750 in proceeds from this particular land sale would still be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund – but left the basic policy change intact. The council had an eye toward changing the policy anyway – so that the roughly $3 million in proceeds of the sale of the First & Washington parcel (to Village Green for construction of the City Apartments project) could be put toward the new police/courts building.

• Dec. 1, 2008: City council authorizes five-year extension of the renewal on terms from the Bank of Ann Arbor to finance the Y lot loan. During deliberations, some of the focus is on the need to divest the city of the property. Sandi Smith (Ward 1), at her second meeting after winning election to the council a month earlier, put the interest payments in the context of the cost of supporting a homeless person:
  

  In deliberations, councilmember Sandi Smith said that she would support the continued financing of the property, because they had no other choice, but that she urged her colleagues to begin thinking of master planning the area so that the city could divest itself of the property as soon as possible. [The master planning of the area was eventually realized in the form of the Connecting William Street project.] Smith noted that given the $5,000 cost of supporting a homeless person, the interest-only payments could be used to support 27 people. The math goes like this: ($3,500,000)*(.0389)/5,000.

• Sept. 19, 2011: City council approves the sale of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The total parcel area of the strip was 792 square feet.
• April 26, 2012: Board of the AAATA approves the purchase of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center.
• Sept. 5, 2012: DDA board passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing.
• Sept. 5, 2012: Washtenaw County board of commissioners passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing. [At the time, county commissioner Leah Gunn served on the DDA board, along with former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who continues to serve on the board.]
• Sept. 17, 2012: City council considers but postpones action on a policy for proceeds of the sale of city-owned land.
• Oct. 15, 2012: City council approves a policy that ultimately leaves the policy on the use of proceeds of city land to case-by-case decisions, but indicates that for the Y lot, the proceeds will:
  

  … first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;”

• Nov. 8, 2012: City council transfers $90,000 from proceeds of the land sale to AAATA into the affordable housing trust fund.
• March 4, 2013: City council directs the city administrator to select a broker for the Y lot.
• July 3, 2013: City administrator Steve Powers announces that he’s selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the marketing of the property.
• Nov. 18, 2013: City council approves the sale of the former Y lot for $5.25 million to Dennis Dahlmann.
• Dec. 4, 2013: DDA board waives its claim to reimbursement from the sale of the Y lot.

Community Events Funding

At its Dec. 16 meeting, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the fiscal year 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The city’s FY 2015 begins on July 1, 2014.

The memo supporting the resolution notes that the AASAF has run an annual deficit for several years. An email sent to Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) by Maureen Riley, executive director of the AASAF, specified those annual deficits as follows:

• 2013 – anticipated to be approximately ($8,000)
• 2012 – ($6,316)
• 2011 – ($5,769)
• 2010 – ($6,040)
• 2009 – ($33,693)

Lumm and Taylor are sponsoring the resolution. Lumm is a former AASAF board member.

The rationale for providing support for the AASAF but not the other three art fairs is based on the additional costs the AASAF has to pay to the University of Michigan, as well as the provision by AASAF of community benefits that reduce its opportunity to gain revenue – including the Demo Zone, Art Activity Zones, Street Painting Exhibition, and the Fountain Stage. The background memo also indicates that the other three art fairs have indicated written support for the $10,000 to the AASAF.

The dollar amount roughly corresponds to the allocated cost to the AASAF from the total that is charged by the city for various services to the four art fairs collectively.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, Taylor had announced his intent to bring forward the resolution asking that an additional $10,000 be included in the city’s FY 2015 budget.

Traffic Enforcement

On the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that would allocate $125,000 from the general fund balance to pay for police overtime required for additional traffic enforcement. The item began conceptually as a $500,000 allocation described by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who was persuaded by co-sponsors Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that $125,000 would be a more reasonable amount to spend.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicate policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

Council deliberations on the $125,000 overtime allocation could feature a discussion of the ability of the AAPD to conduct additional traffic enforcement activities, without drawing on overtime.

Non-Motorized Plan Funding

On the Dec. 16 agenda is a directive to the city administrator to provide a funding plan for elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan.

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

The council approved the updated plan at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

And the Dec. 16 resolution – which is co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – is structured in part based on those main sections.

The resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

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

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.”

Additional flashing beacon locations identified in Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands.

Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

Postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting is a resolution that would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would have be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget. The DDA has exercised its statutory right to extend the deadline in response to a request from The Chronicle for that information under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings

The Dec. 16 city council agenda item – to allocate $64,550 from the solid waste fund to support a food-scrap composting initiative – comes in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

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

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

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

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

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

The $64,550 allocation from the solid waste fund balance on the Dec. 16 agenda would pay for the initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds break down this way:

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

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

Tree Pruning

The council will be considering the receipt of a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street streets – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle queried those trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s Dec. 2, 2013 agenda is comparatively light, but might not lead to an especially short meeting.

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

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue was aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus was rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law. The caucus drew six councilmembers and a dozen members of the public, and lasted three hours.

Another topic that could extend the Dec. 2 meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules would be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

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

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the Dec. 2 meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Updates might begin somewhat sooner.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. When The Chronicle interviewed Traverse City code enforcement officer Lloyd Morris by telephone, he indicated that a pedestrian merely standing at the curb, not in the roadway, would not be considered to be “within a crosswalk.” But he allowed that Traverse City enforces the language to mean that a pedestrian who is not in the roadway but approaching the crosswalk with a clear intent to enter the roadway should be given the right-of-way. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except being in the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

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

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

As that report from 2011 indicates, the abatement applies to “personal property” that’s used in book production. If that equipment is moved to the Edwards Brothers Jackson Road plant, as part of the company’s effort to consolidate operations, then that equipment would no longer qualify for the tax abatement. That’s because it will have been moved outside of the industrial development district (IDD) where the 2011 abatement was granted.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement, which now pays the city 17% of the gross parking revenues. But it also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The $45,000 proposed amount is based on an average of the estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space, as estimated in 2009. By way of background the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 per space annually.

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, and were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review by the rules committee, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted on Dec. 2. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

5:48 p.m. Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition board chair Erica Briggs has forwarded to the city council three documents – including a letter of support, and names of more than 600 people who’ve signed an online petition supporting the existing crosswalk ordinance. [.pdf of comments from supporters] [.pdf of WBWC letter to mayor and council] [.pdf of names of 668 people supporting existing crosswalk law]

6:35 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:38 p.m. Here in council chambers, the partitions are already pulled back in anticipation of a large crowd on the crosswalk ordinance. Folding chairs are set up to provide additional seating. Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living is here. Three members of the city’s commission on disability issues attended yesterday’s council caucus: Larry Keeler, Lloyd Shelton, Linda Evans.

6:49 p.m. Erica Briggs has arrived, as has Lloyd Shelton. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. City administrator Steve Powers is now here. Assistant city attorneys Mary Fales and Abigail Elias are also in council chambers.

6:49 p.m. Firefighters to be introduced have also now arrived.

6:52 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has now arrived. Chambers are beginning to fill up.

6:55 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are now here.

7:07 p.m. Chambers are now packed. We’re shoulder-to-shoulder. Much of the supplementary seating is now occupied. It will still be standing-room-only despite the additional seats.

7:12 p.m. Professor Jonathan Levine is here, as are several others who could be counted as public transportation and non-motorized advocates.

7:12 p.m. We appear to be nearly ready to begin.

7:14 p.m. And we’re off.

7:15 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance, roll call of council. All except for Margie Teall (Ward 4) are present.

7:15 p.m. Teall’s absence might affect the council’s ability to achieve a political compromise on the crosswalk ordinance.

7:15 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:17 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wants to swap the order of public hearings so that the crosswalk ordinance has its public hearing after the others. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wants to move C1 before B1. That’s Traverwood Apartments rezoning before the crosswalk ordinance.

7:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda as amended.

7:18 p.m. INT-1: Introduction of new firefighters. The current authorized staffing level for the AAFD is 85. After the FY 2013 was approved last year authorizing staffing at 82, the council approved a subsequent increase to 85, based on the receipt of some grant funding.

7:20 p.m. Assistant fire chief Ellen Taylor is introducing the new firefighters. She’s describing the one-year probationary period. She’s introducing five of the seven new firefighters in the city. They get a round of applause.

7:20 p.m. INT-2: FY 2013 audit results. The 2013 fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. The council’s audit committee reviewed the draft report on Oct. 24, 2013. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction. Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period.

7:26 p.m. Tom Crawford leads with some light humor: “I’m sure the crowd has come to hear this report.” He gets the intended laugh. Now he’s into a discussion of net assets of the city – over a billion dollars. But that’s mostly buildings and roads, not much of which can be used to pay for things, he notes. There’s $82 million that’s actually available. The general fund has a balance of about $14 million. Street repair millage had $18 million in it. Minimum balance for that fund is $9 million. Crawford explains that the apparent excess is partly due to timing of when road repair takes place. He’s talking about the potential liabilities of various funds. He highlights the public market fund – which has an adequate fund balance, but is actually weak in the context of GASB 68 requirements.

7:27 p.m. The pension system is 80% funded. VEBA is 39% funded. Their return achieved 11% last year, Crawford reports. He characterizes the general fund last year as doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. It was a good year for the general fund, he says.

7:27 p.m. INT-3: Volunteer appreciation. Phillip Delekta is being honored with a mayoral proclamation for his volunteer work with the Ann Arbor police department.

7:29 p.m. Delekta is now explaining his work with the citizens emergency response team. He’s thanking the police and fire department personnel who’ve helped. Football games, the Ann Arbor marathon and the art fairs are some events they help with. He gets a round of applause.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes just two speakers: Thomas Partridge and Henry Herskovitz. Partridge is speaking on ending discrimination. Herskovitz will be talking about the council’s 2014 meeting calendar, which will be set tonight.

7:33 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He’s using the hand-held microphone. It doesn’t seem to be working. He says he’s an advocate for all residents of the city, county and state who need advocacy due to various challenges. Sound of kids in the audience makes this tough to hear. He calls for an end to discrimination. He contends that red-lining is practiced in Ann Arbor – with respect to housing and transportation. He says the council needs to be reformed. The council should see the world through the eyes of the most unfortunate among us, he says.

7:37 p.m. Henry Herskovitz says he’s speaking about the establishment of the council’s 2014 calendar. He wants the council reconsider a decision made 10 years ago to give preference to those commenters who want to talk about items on the agenda. That was based on a desire to prevent people from talking about Palestine and Israel, he says. He’d not been able to talk to the council at its previous meeting about “blacklisting of companies by MasterCard” – because it wasn’t an agenda item.

7:37 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:39 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) leads off by announcing he’ll be putting forward a compromise amendment on the crosswalk ordinance. “That will be my first order of business,” he says. “We will not be repealing the pedestrian ordinance,” he says. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says that Kunselman means that he hopes a repeal will not happen. Added late to the agenda, she notes, are the city council committee appointments, including resolutions on the environmental commission and greenbelt commission.

7:41 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is speaking about the crosswalk ordinance. Kunselman’s compromise would strip out language that requires motorists to stop for pedestrians at the curb or curbline, Taylor stresses. Mayor John Hieftje is clarifying that the compromise would still not require motorists to stop for motorists at the curb. Kunselman reads aloud the language.

7:43 p.m. Taylor quips “with summer just around the corner” that a resolution will be brought forward in the near future (not at this meeting) about the art fairs. The council provides financial support for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, and Taylor is indicating that the art fairs should also be supported.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanks several people who are present: Matt Grocoff, Chris Hewett and Erica Briggs. A meeting will take place on Dec. 11 at Bach School at 6:30 p.m. on pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Screaming children in the audience.

7:45 p.m. Briere is calling the public’s attention to a meeting to be held on Dec. 4 at 6:30 p.m. on a presentation of results of the Allen Creek berm opening feasibility study.

7:47 p.m. CC-1 Appointment of 2014 city council committees. [.pdf of committee assignments]

7:47 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventures that nobody wants to spend time with him on the University of Michigan student relations committee.

7:48 p.m. Hieftje says that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) was going to be asked to serve. Eaton asks when it meets. Hieftje explains that it’s not regular. Eaton accepts the assignment.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the committee assignments.

7:50 p.m. Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA) appointment. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to LDFA.

Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Petersen to the LDFA.

7:51 p.m. Planning commission, greenbelt advisory commission. Briere is returned to the planning commission and Taylor to the greenbelt advisory commission by a unanimous vote.

7:52 p.m. Environmental commission. Anglin and Briere are appointed to the environmental commission.

7:52 p.m. Commission on disabilities. The council has established a position for a councilmember and appointed Petersen to that spot.

7:52 p.m. CC-2 Approval of 2014 city council rules. Internal business tonight includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules] That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.”

At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations. [For additional background see Internal Council Business above.]

7:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt its rules for the year.

7:53 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayoral communications fall typically into two categories: (1) nominations to boards and commissions that will be voted on at a subsequent meeting; and (2) requests for confirmation of nominations that have been made at a previous meeting.

7:53 p.m. MC-1 Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the nomination of David Blanchard, put forward at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, to the housing and human services advisory board.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm David Blanchard’s appointment to the housing and human services board. It runs through June 4, 2016.

7:53 p.m. MC-2 Nomination. Elizabeth Bletcher is being nominated to replace Al Gallup on the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee. For some historical background on the Elizabeth Dean Fund, see “Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed.” That nomination will be voted on at a future meeting.

7:53 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight three public hearings appear on the agenda. The first is on the repeal of the crosswalk law. The second is on establishing an industrial development district (to facilitate granting a tax abatement) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. The third is on a site plan to build a three-story addition to Running Fit at the corner of Liberty Street and Fourth Avenue downtown. The order of the hearings was changed at the beginning of the meeting, so that the crosswalk law public hearing will come last.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Establish Industrial Development District at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Luke Bonner, vice president of business development for Ann Arbor SPARK, is addressing the council. The petition was initiated by the property owner, he says. The establishment of a district will allow a tenant there, Mahindra Genze, to then apply for a tax abatement.

7:58 p.m. Alan Clark is addressing the council as a Ward 3 resident working at a start-up, called Mahindra Genze. It was started in the basement of the chief engineer. The location at Phoenix Drive has “max-ed out,” he says. Another new hire came in today, Clark says, and there’s around 25 employees there. Clark moved to Ann Arbor from Washington D.C. to become the seventh employee. He’s describing the product: an electric scooter. They’ll sell the product nationally, he says. There’s international interest in the product as well.

7:59 p.m. Clark says the company is looking to hire another 34 employees and wants to start production early next summer.

8:01 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says he’s usually conservative with respect to such requests. But he’s endorsing this request. He calls for the establishment of a larger district, he says, which was the point of the state’s enabling legislation.

8:02 p.m. Here are the names of the firefighters who were introduced earlier: Brian Schotthoefer; George Allard; Nicholas Kaczor; Christopher McGlothin; John Crowell; Ryan Newkirk; and Christopher Brown.

8:03 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:04 p.m. PH-3 Running Fit addition site plan. Architect Brad Moore is addressing the council. The expansion will add more stories for residential units. He notes that there were previously more stories before it burned back in the 1950s. He notes that the city’s historic district commission gave it a unanimous approval, as did the planning commission.

8:05 p.m. Thomas Partridge contends that there’s been a history of discrimination involved in zoning and site plan approvals. The site plan should be re-examined with respect to accessibility issues, he contends. Affordable housing is needed, he says.

8:07 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Crosswalk ordinance change. Hieftje asks people to line up and be ready to speak.

8:08 p.m. Hieftje advises that it’s not required to use the whole three minutes, but people can do so. Erica Briggs, chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, leads off.

8:11 p.m. Briggs urges the council not to repeal the ordinance. She says that the Kunselman compromise really does amount to a repeal. She’s ticking through familiar points. She’s citing pedestrian crashes so far this year – 36, and  she contends that this reflects a 16% decrease since the ordinance was passed. She cites the community-wide support for the ordinance. She invites people to stand who are against the repeal. The vast majority of people here are standing.

8:15 p.m. James Briggs addresses the council from his wheelchair. City clerk Jackie Beaudry then reads aloud his statement on his behalf. “It boils my blood,” says the statement, to see the ordinance repealed. He calls the approach that some councilmembers are taking one that asks people to “check your brains at the door.”

8:15 p.m. Katie Brion tells the council that she walks to school with her kids crossing Madison to get to Bach Elementary School. After the ordinance passed, she’s seen a huge improvement, she says. Enforcement should be the focus, she says.

8:18 p.m. Judy Stone speaks in favor of retaining the ordinance. She’s relating her experience almost hitting someone. She’s paid more attention to pedestrian crossings, since the installation of flashing lights, she says. The response to say “get rid of this system” goes in the wrong direction. It’s her own responsibility to modify her behavior, she says. Elderly people or people with children in tow shouldn’t have to put themselves in harm’s way, she says. Stone calls for a strong and ongoing educational campaign. “We need to keep at it,” she says. It would be shortsighted to repeal the ordinance, she says.

8:20 p.m. Matt Grocoff introduces himself as a resident of Seventh Street. He relates his experience taking his daughter back home and attempting to cross the street. The traffic was heavy and fast. He waited at the crosswalk with his daughter in his arms. Cars didn’t stop. Then an Ann Arbor Public Schools bus went through the crosswalk as he was already standing there with his child in his arms, he reports. He’s posted a video of the encounter on Safety on Seventh. He calls for a sober, thoughtful process.

8:24 p.m. Cory Snavely supports the ordinance as it stands. The point of contention, he says, is which pedestrians have the right-of-way, so Kunselman’s compromise doesn’t really do anything for that. He applauds the installation of the HAWK signal and pedestrian islands. He noticed a difference, he says, when the ordinance was passed. The only safe street to step into is one with no cars or cars that are stopped, he says.

8:26 p.m. Charles recalls spending a year in the hospital after being struck by a car. “When a car hits you, it wins, no question,” he says. He was proud that the ordinance had been passed and calls it a demonstration that Ann Arbor is a progressive town. He talks about how M.A.D.D. had changed culture with respect to drunk driving. And he calls for a similar cultural change for pedestrian safety.

8:28 p.m. Lloyd Shelton leads off by saying that the setup for addressing the council is not accessible. He’s astounded and disappointed that the city council would leave him out of the equation. “To put the onus on me is wrong. I would wag my finger at you if I could,” he says. Kunselman’s amendment is “exclusionary,” he says.

8:31 p.m. Annie Wolock tells the council she’s lived in Ann Arbor for 35 years. She wonders if repealing or changing the law is the right way to approach citizen safety. She calls for more law enforcement and education. Changing the law now will lead to more confusion, she says. “We need to stay the course,” she says and reevaluate after 10 years. She calls for tabling the issue.

8:34 p.m. Marissa Arnold has been a bus driver at UM for 15 years. She’s noticed a shift in culture for pedestrians. On a daily basis, pedestrians don’t do what their mothers taught them, she says – they just go out into the street. She says that pedestrians think that because they have an ordinance to back them up, they can just walk across the street without checking traffic. She calls for balance. She calls for more education. “Everyone has somewhere they need to go and be,” she says. So she supports the amendment of the ordinance as Kunselman is proposing. It’s too difficult to assess the intent of someone standing at the curb, she says.

8:37 p.m. Jeff Hayner urges the council to increase education, engineering and enforcement of the current ordinance. Failing that, he’s in favor of repealing it. He’s spoken to thousands of people, he says. [He ran for Ward 1 city council earlier this year.] He heard from a lot of people who wanted to see the crosswalk ordinance repealed. But he’s not sure that’s the right thing to do. He says that the lack of engineering leads to people not knowing what to do – giving the example of three crosswalks in succession that are marked in different ways. He calls education of pedestrians and their responsibilities an important priority.

8:39 p.m. Another UM blue bus operator [Kwajalynn Burks] is addressing the council. She wants more HAWK signals. Other drivers are always trying to beat her somewhere, she says. Pedestrians feel entitled, she says, which could lead to a fatality. At some intersections near campus, there’s no end to the pedestrian flow, she says. The “pedestrian rules” type of marketing has pushed pedestrians to adopt that mindset, she says.

8:42 p.m. Helen Aminoff says she’s lived here since 1960. The push to repeal the crosswalk law was prompted by the tragedy of a death in a Plymouth Road crosswalk, she says. That incident was not a result of the crosswalk ordinance, she points out. The driver had passed a car that had been stopped at the crosswalk and struck the pedestrian, she says. There’s room for improvement and tweaking, she allows, but she doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

8:44 p.m. Ted Reynolds relates an experience from 10 years ago. He was in the middle of a crosswalk when he saw a car come through a red light. He dodged the car, but fell and struck his head on the pavement. His brain had lost the connection to his right foot. He has not driven since then. He says he didn’t want to become an old geezer who rams into people in a crosswalk. He’s against anything that makes it easier for drivers to go through crosswalks and strike pedestrians.

8:45 p.m. Emma Wendt is advocating for the current crosswalk ordinance. She says she wants more of her peers to move to Ann Arbor. It’s a walkable, liveable, progressive city, she says. But her friends on the coast find it odd that she likes living in the Midwest. When they hear that Ann Arbor is planning to repeal the crosswalk ordinance, they’re aghast, she says.

8:47 p.m. Chris reports that he was hit in 1980 by a car. He was on the sidewalk on a ramp and the person turned left. A good buddy of his, a “little person” in a wheelchair, was crossing Stone School, he says, and was killed. An apparatus needs to be set up to make cars slow down, he says.

8:48 p.m. The gentleman now addressing the council supports the current ordinance. Before he moved to Ann Arbor, he says, he was director of disability resources for a university in Illinois. Each of you will have a disability if you don’t die first, he tells the council.

8:51 p.m. John Weir is a Ward 4 resident. He walks where he goes – by choice. It matters a lot to him to live in a place where he feels safe and doesn’t need to own a car. That matters to a lot of his peers, he says. The other towns and cities of Michigan are not the only places that compete with Ann Arbor. The norm for Boston, where he’s from, he says, is better education and enforcement than Ann Arbor. “We can do better,” he says.

8:53 p.m. Don Whitaker has lived in Ann Arbor for 28 years and he supports the current ordinance. He’s an automotive engineer and commutes to Detroit every day. He was proud of the council when the council passed the ordinance originally, calling it a progressive move. Walkable cities are good for property values, he says. The main reason we should have the ordinance is safety, but a vision of a better community for everybody is also important. We need to work on education of pedestrians and motorists alike, he says.

8:56 p.m. Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, speaks in favor of keeping the current ordinance. She says there’s a lot of work to be done on engineering and education. She points out that in 1978, the law changed so that you’re supposed to stop for people with white canes. Before the ordinance, it took 35 minutes for someone with a white cane to cross, she says, which is not acceptable. She agreed with the UM bus drivers that pedestrians also need education.

8:58 p.m. Steven Kronenberg cautions against the idea that it should be an issue of motorists versus pedestrians. He points out the link between the amount of traffic on the roads and the number of parents who drive their children to school. He urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:02 p.m. Tricia Jones introduces herself as a Ward 5 resident. She feels for the UM bus drivers who spoke, but says that students have behaved that way forever. The recent data at non-signalized intersections, she says, show that incidents have decreased from 34 to 11 – but she allows that it’s just for 10 months of the year. She urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:03 p.m. Andrew Peters is a student at UM law school. He and his wife chose Ann Arbor over Boulder and Manhattan. They didn’t know about the crosswalk ordinance before they moved here. But when they visited they noticed that people were able to walk around the city. He was concerned that before something is changed – about something that makes Ann Arbor what it is – more thought should be given to it.

9:05 p.m. Julie Grand says that she visited some personal websites of councilmembers. She’s quoting their own sentiments at them to argue for waiting for a recommendation from the pedestrian safety task force.

9:08 p.m. Jonathan Levine said he’s relieved that Kunselman is bringing forward an amendment that would still require motorists to stop. A number of states are updating their laws from “yield” laws to “stop” laws, he says. If Ann Arbor is going to be different from the rest of Michigan, it’s important to think about how it should be different. He argues from the point of view of how to treat the negligent pedestrian versus the patient pedestrian. A law requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians standing at the curb rewards patient pedestrianism, he says.

9:11 p.m. Ken Clark notes that Michigan actually doesn’t have a law on crosswalks. He reviewed all the 2012 pedestrian crashes. 77% of the crashes last year were assessed by the police as the fault of drivers, he says.

9:14 p.m. Jeff Gaynor, a teacher at Clague Middle School who’s on the school’s Safe Routes to School committee, explains how the group had applied for a grant. Three of the engineered crosswalks had been installed on Green Road with that money, he says. In his 35 years of teaching, he’d taken his students on hundreds of field trips and taught them how to cross the street. There has been an increase in the number of cars that stop, he says, but the behavior is not yet universal.

9:15 p.m. Gaynor says that he can’t tell his students to step off the curb and hope that cars will stop.

9:17 p.m. Mike Miller says he logs 30-35 miles a week walking different routes. He thinks that the ordinance has made things better. He thinks Kunselman’s amendment is a step backwards. He calls for more engineering and education. He thinks that stoplights might be put in on certain streets. Through enforcement we could get a more effective law, he says.

9:19 p.m. Julia Roberts is speaking as a resident (she’s an AAATA transit planner). She’s lived in Ann Arbor for eight years – having moved here from Chicago. She’s proud of the ordinance that was passed. The crosswalk law isn’t responsible for reckless driving or walking. She asks for the council to wait for a recommendation by the pedestrian safety task force.

9:20 p.m. Tony Pinnell, a translator for European companies, advises the council that repealing the ordinance would send a bad message – and would be bad business.

9:21 p.m. Chip Smith says he lives in Ann Arbor to give his daughter a chance to walk to school. In the 18 years he’s lived here, the city has made progress but it’s still not a walkable city. He calls for the council to wait until the pedestrian safety task force can make a recommendation.

9:23 p.m. Mary Benson describes the situation as “Russian Roulette.” She thinks the issue isn’t addressed in either version of the ordinance. “I think we need more red lights,” she says. That’s universally understood. People don’t know what the flashing beacons mean. “We can educate until hell freezes over,” she says. There will still be 10,000 new drivers every year, she says. She also calls for enforcement of jaywalking laws.

9:24 p.m. Larry Deck says that he doesn’t see how Kunselman’s amendment gets to the heart of the matter. He encourages the council to wait for the recommendation of the pedestrian safety task force. He calls for a culture of mutual respect.

9:26 p.m. Ed Vielmetti says he started looking at maps of pedestrian crashes. Many of them happen near UM campus and downtown. There are two problems. One is main arteries along big long stretches. The other problem is downtown pedestrian safety, where cars are turning. He cites State Street as a particularly difficult area.

9:30 p.m. Kathy Griswold says that almost 10 years ago she spoke to the council and asked why Ann Arbor couldn’t be more like some other cities. But Ann Arbor doesn’t want to do the work, she said, to enforce existing ordinances. She contends that the crosswalk ordinance was borne out of a desire to help Ann Arbor win awards. Ann Arbor’s crosswalk ordinance isn’t consistent with AAPS school safety rules, she says, or with the state’s UTC. She contends that a professional engineer hasn’t been heard from. She asks if the city wants to work hard or just have an ordinance.

9:31 p.m. Robert Gordon addresses the council as a Ward 3 resident. He says this is a “rush” to repeal. He calls for waiting for the pedestrian safety task force to make its recommendation.

9:34 p.m. Thomas Partridge recounts his various candidacies for public office. He calls for using scientific data and for enacting ordinances to make a better community. Councilmembers come to meetings having made decisions before the meetings, no matter how many people come to the podium to make reasoned, logical arguments, he contends. He’d attended his first caucus meeting yesterday, when they had spoken in emotionally committed ways to the repeal. He calls the language of the ordinance “muddled.” He tells councilmembers to put themselves in a wheelchair and then try to cross Huron Street.

9:36 p.m. Karen Moorhead asks the council to move carefully and slowly. She hopes that the council might reconsider how much the ordinance means. Think about enforcement, engineering, and education, she says.

9:37 p.m. Recess. The public hearing on the crosswalk ordinance is done. We’re now in recess.

9:49 p.m. And we’re back.

9:50 p.m. Approval of minutes from previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just one item: a resolution to approve purchase order for Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) for annual geographic information system (GIS) software maintenance and license agreement ($58,900).

9:51 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration, but no one moves to separate out the one item from itself.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the consent agenda.

9:51 p.m. C-1 Approve rezoning for Traverwood Apartments. The council is being asked to give initial approval for rezoning of a 3.88 acre parcel for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office research light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The site plan for this project, being developed by First Martin Corp., is not being considered by the council tonight. But the $30 million project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. [For additional background, see Traverwood Apartments above.]

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning necessary for the Traverwood Apartments project. A final vote will come at a future council meeting after a public hearing.

9:52 p.m. B-1 Crosswalk ordinance. The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote. Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping. Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. …

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?” [For additional background in the preview above: Crosswalk Law]

9:53 p.m. Kunselman leads off by calling it a great discussion with the citizenry. That had led to the effort not to repeal but to amend the ordinance, he says. It would also make it more consistent with the language on the city’s signs, he says. He now reads forth the ordinance in its entirety.

9:54 p.m. The key part is “shall stop and yield the right of way to every pedestrian within a crosswalk …”

9:55 p.m. Hieftje says that Kunselman can just substitute the amendment in place of the previous repeal, without a vote.

9:57 p.m. Kunselman says that the issue has been talked about for several months. The death on Plymouth Road was very emotional, he says. Whether that death resulted from the words in the ordinance, it was a situation to be taken seriously, he says. Kunselman complains that Erica Briggs of WBWC had taken the conversation he’d had with her and used it as “propaganda.”

9:58 p.m. Kunselman reviews the Traverse City ordinance, which requires stopping, but doesn’t talk about pedestrians anywhere except within a crosswalk.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman argues from the point of view of uniformity. We don’t want to have confusion among drivers trying to guess how to operate, he says. About the crash data, he says, any decrease can’t be attributed to the crosswalk language. He says that the citizenry has called for more enforcement and education. So at the next council meeting, “by golly” he’s going to propose a budget amendment to fund more traffic enforcement.

10:03 p.m. Kailasapathy says that it’s not the case that councilmembers were asking pedestrians to step into traffic. And it’s not acceptable to have to wait a long time to cross the street, she says. “We’re telling you to wait and find a gap,” she says. She calls for HAWK and other signals and infrastructure. She supports any amendments to the budget to support this – like hiring more police, or spending money on infrastructure. The marginal rate of return on pedestrian infrastructure is greater than investing in something like a rail station, she says.

10:06 p.m. Lumm agrees with investing in infrastructure and enforcement capability as budget priorities. She appreciates everyone coming out to speak. She’s talking about the crash data. She says it can’t be used as a definitive argument either way. She’s reviewing the history of the crosswalk ordinance changes.

10:07 p.m. Lumm says she tried back in 2011 to get the crosswalk ordinance language revised to refer only to “within a crosswalk.”

10:10 p.m. Briere says that Lumm is correct that the data doesn’t support a particular conclusion. November and December – for which 2013 data is not available – are months when accidents have historically been higher, she says. Briere says the question is what problem they’re trying to fix. The public has said more education, enforcement and engineering is necessary. So she doesn’t see how changing the ordinance helps. She says that accidents happening with pedestrians are in the crosswalk, not when cars are stopping for pedestrians stopping on the curb.

10:11 p.m. Briere clarifies what a “traffic signal” is: a red-yellow-green light. So it doesn’t include flashing beacons or stop signs, she explains.

10:11 p.m. Briere notes that the ordinance doesn’t apply to most downtown locations.

10:13 p.m. Briere says she’s going to reflect more on this issue. But she says she’ll paraphrase Jeff Hayner, who ran against her this last election – he had called for education, enforcement, and engineering, not repealing the ordinance.

10:14 p.m. Anglin is for spending the money on education and engineering. Right now there are too many irregularities, he says. He notes that many of the drivers are parents driving their kids to school. He says he’ll support the Kunselman amendment, and says it’s important to follow through and support it.

10:15 p.m. We’re in a state of confusion, Anglin says. And until that confusion is removed, we won’t have a safe community.

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski says he doesn’t see how the Kunselman amendment lines up with the rhetoric of uniformity. He likes his irony like he likes his coffee: bitter. Tomorrow is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities, he points out.

10:19 p.m. Warpehoski talks about his goals for the pedestrian safety task force. He’s not convinced that an inappropriate sense of pedestrian empowerment exists. He doesn’t buy that argument – but allows that that’s a data question. That data could be collected, he says, or the council could take a fire-ready-aim approach.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski says that he walks a lot, with his kids. And he says he’s noticed that things have improved since the ordinance was passed. He says he feels safer as a pedestrian since the ordinance was passed. He says he’ll vote no on Kunselman’s proposal.

10:23 p.m. Taylor says he rejects the idea that Kunselman’s proposal is a compromise. He’s ok with Ann Arbor being different with its crosswalk law. No ordinance can protect drivers or pedestrians from negligence, he says. He repeats an argument from the Nov. 18 meeting – that the ordinance can’t be so powerful to embolden pedestrians but too weak to compel motorists to stop. He calls the budgetary amendments that others have talked about “chest thumping.”

10:24 p.m. Taylor says that the alleged confusion and fear has been “sown” and is not real, because the ordinance is very simple.

10:28 p.m. Eaton thanks everyone who showed up to speak. But he also says his vote is informed by those he talked to during his council campaign. The small numbers in the data, he says, mean that conclusions can’t be drawn. Eaton calls for a real education program and a real enforcement regime. “Here were are again tinkering with the ordinance,” he says. Ultimately, the money will have to be spent, like Griswold said, Eaton says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen says that she’s struggled with the logic of the ordinance. She says the data doesn’t show that increasing the right-of-way for pedestrians has increased safety. Petersen is skeptical that enforcement of the current ordinance would actually work. And she’s skeptical that effective education is possible in a transient community. Pedestrians should take full responsibility for their own safety, she says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen puts her faith in engineering. She says she’ll support an ADA compliant pedestrian bridge over Plymouth Road.

10:35 p.m. Warpehoski says he can count votes and realizes that he’s not going to win this one. But some comments of colleagues have gotten under his skin. He responds to Eaton’s characterization of the engineering efforts to date by saying the staff should be applauded for their efforts. Warpehoski explains that Petersen’s characterization of how a pedestrian claims the right-of-way is not correct. He agrees that pedestrians need to take responsibility for their own safety, but argues that pedestrians can best do that when they’re standing on the curb and can expect that motorists can stop.

10:36 p.m. Petersen responds to Warpehoski by saying that what he’s describing is ideal and that there’s not adequate enforcement to get to the point where motorists will actually stop.

10:39 p.m. Taylor says there’s are those who are unable to make the judgment as to whether it’s safe to enter the roadway. Under the current ordinance, it’s proper for the motorist to stop for someone just standing at the curb. Taylor says that the public speaker who talked about the culture change associated with drunk driving made a good analogy. That casts interesting light on where we are as a culture, he says.

10:42 p.m. Briere says that Petersen wants better enforcement, engineering and education and thinks there’s no way to achieve those goals, and thinks that the ordinance needs to be changed. She ticks through a paraphrase of positions taken by Eaton and Kailasapathy. Briere says that as more cars stop for pedestrians, more and more cars will stop for pedestrians. When drivers are not prepared to see a pedestrian – because they don’t have to stop for pedestrians – then they’re not prepared to stop for a person with a white cane or a person in a wheelchair, she says.

10:44 p.m. Briere also says that for “foreigners,” the more they see people stop for pedestrians, the more those “foreigners” will stop for pedestrians.

10:46 p.m. Hieftje says that in light of the closed session that’s scheduled, he would like to have the council suspend the council rule that requires a closed session to begin before 11 p.m. That rule is now suspended. Now back to the crosswalk ordinance.

10:48 p.m. Lumm is arguing against tabling. She says there’s been a lot of debate about the ordinance. Lumm is now holding forth with prepared comments.

10:50 p.m. Lumm’s comments are based essentially on an argument for uniformity across Michigan.

10:53 p.m. Hieftje corrects Anglin’s previous statement that “most bicyclists get hit” saying that some do but most don’t. Hieftje says he doesn’t think there’s a case in the data for changing the ordinance.

10:55 p.m. Hieftje talks about a video that the council had been shown years ago that showed pedestrians not using a pedestrian bridge. That’s a response to Petersen’s expression of support to build a pedestrian bridge on Plymouth Road.

10:56 p.m. Hieftje says that education, better signage, and engineering will help. But he doesn’t see how changing the ordinance will help. He doesn’t see the logic of requiring a person in a wheelchair to roll out into the road to see if cars are going to stop.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-4 to change the ordinance. But Hieftje says he will veto the change.

11:00 p.m. DC-1 Establish 2014 city council calendar. In this item, the council is complying with a charter requirement: “The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month.” The pattern of the council’s regular meetings is: First and third Monday of the month with a work session on the second Monday.

11:00 p.m. Briere raises the question of a conflict with Passover.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm its calendar of regular meetings.

11:00 p.m. DC-2 Approve city policy regarding removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. The council is considering establishing a value for on-street parking spaces, in situations where the builder of a project makes a proposal that results in the loss of an on-street metered parking space. The $45,000 proposed amount is based an average of an estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space.

By way of background the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent financial records show that last year on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually. [For additional background, see Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces above.]

11:01 p.m. Taylor says he’s going to ask for a postponement. A public hearing is recommended, he says, for any kind of fee. So he moves to have it postponed until Dec. 16.

11:01 p.m. Briere asks if there’s sufficient time to give notice or a public hearing. There is.

11:02 p.m. Lumm thanks Taylor for bringing it forward. She agrees with the concept. She thanks staff for their answers to questions.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the question of how much it should cost to remove an on-street parking space.

11:03 p.m. DB-1 Approve Running Fit addition site plan. The site plan entails a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. [For additional background, see Running Fit Addition above.]

11:03 p.m. Hieftje says he supports the project.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Running Fit addition.

11:03 p.m. DB-2 Accept donation of 2.2 acres from W. Martin. The council is being asked to consider of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site for Traverwood Apartments. Earlier in the meeting, the council gave initial approval to a zoning change related to the project. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course. [image of map showing location]

11:05 p.m. Briere says she wants to make sure the official record reflects the correct size of the donation.

11:05 p.m. She thanks Martin for the donation.

11:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the acreage as a donation from Bill Martin to the city.

11:05 p.m. DS-1 Approve contract with Emergency Restoration Company ($729,000). The contract is for asbestos abatement in city hall. The council is being asked appropriate $400,000 in funds for the contract.

11:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract for asbestos abatement in city hall.

11:06 p.m. DS-2 Approve contract with Nova Environmental Inc. ($35,600). This is a contract for an air monitoring project during the city hall asbestos abatement project.

11:08 p.m. Anglin wants to know why this contract would not be included in the one for the work itself. Matt Kulhanek explains that this contractor would be overseeing the work of the other contractor. That’s why the items are separate.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the air monitoring contract.

11:08 p.m. DS-3 Establishing a tax abatement district at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Once an industrial development district (IDD) is established, the property owner can apply for a tax abatement. The consideration of the tax abatement is a separate vote, which will be taken at a future meeting.

11:12 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for CFO Tom Crawford. She gets confirmation that the point is eventually to allow for application for a tax abatement. Crawford says that abatements can be requested for any new investment, not just personal property. She wants to know how much the value of the tax abatement would be. She notes that the company, Mahindra Genze, is a large company in India, like GE here. So it’s not really a small start-up. The amount of the investment would be $1.6 million. That’s $25,000 in total tax and the general fund portion of the city would be less, he says.

11:13 p.m. Crawford responds to Kailasapathy by explaining that the question for the council to weigh is whether the company has alternative locations. Kailasapathy wonders if this isn’t just a “race to the bottom” among various communities vying to attract the company.

11:16 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that another consideration was that it would be a manufacturing operation, which is underrepresented in Ann Arbor. The fact that it’s located in an identified important corridor is also important. Kailasapathy gets confirmation that the tax abatement would likely be around three years, but could be up to 12 years.

11:18 p.m. Eaton reports that he’d had the opportunity to sit down with Luke Bonner of Ann Arbor SPARK and Alan Clark of Mahindra Genze. But he’s skeptical about tax abatements. He gets confirmation that the district is attached to the property, not the tenant. Crawford notes that Ann Arbor’s practice is to close the district after the original intent is fulfilled.

11:21 p.m. Eaton says when he looked up the city’s policy, it has a sunset clause. Crawford says that the policy is supposed to be reviewed. Eaton quotes the policy that makes clear that it does end and has already expired. Crawford: “I stand corrected.” Crawford notes that the prior city policy reflects the state’s criteria, so it’s not as if there’s no guidance.

11:23 p.m. Hieftje says that if the investment weren’t made by this company, the city wouldn’t get any tax revenue. Crawford says there’s a history of neighboring jurisdictions aggressively pursuing companies. Hieftje agrees with Kailasapathy’s characterization of the process as a “race to the bottom.” But these are the rules that the state of Michigan has set up, he says.

11:27 p.m. Petersen asks Crawford how common tax abatement is as an economic development tool. Crawford says that very few are done in Ann Arbor – in his nine years, it’s been done for around nine companies, he thinks. Ann Arbor SPARK’s Luke Bonner clarifies that it was a multi-state competition for the location. There were internal forces within Mahindra Genze that would have preferred the manufacturing location to be in a southern state. Previously, Bonner worked in Sterling Heights, where the personal property tax revenue was about $10 million, which he describes as about what all of Washtenaw County generates. That was a function of a policy to grant tax abatements.

11:31 p.m. Petersen supports this as important for economic development, which is a council priority. “I just think this makes sense for us,” she says.

11:31 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to support this, echoing Hieftje’s comments about these being the rules of the game. Lumm says she’s also not crazy about tax abatements because they pit one community against another. But she thinks the addition of jobs and the particular technology is a good fit for Ann Arbor. Kunselman also says he met with the representatives of the company, and he’s excited about the product. It’s located in one of the poorest parts of the city, he says, and he hopes that some of those jobs go to locals.

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to establish the IDD at 1901 E. Ellsworth.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Approve agreement University Of Michigan for municipal parking citation processing, collections and record management services. This is the renewal of an agreement with the University for processing parking tickets.

11:32 p.m. Hieftje says that last Saturday, UM was clocking speeders on Huron Street. He points out that UM does write tickets on city streets.

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the agreement with UM for parking ticket processing.

11:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve six-month extension of installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor to finance purchase of former Y lot. ($3,500,000). In the event that completion of due diligence on the pending sale of the old Y lot is not done by Dec. 16 – the date on which the city’s $3.5 million balloon payment is due – this approval will allow the city to continue the financing arrangement it has with Bank of Ann Arbor for six months. [For additional background, see Bank of Ann Arbor Loan.]

11:34 p.m. Briere says, “It’s my hope we never use this.” City administrator Steve Powers says that next week might be ambitious, but by the end of the year, the sale would almost certainly be completed. Lumm thanks the Bank of Ann Arbor for the terms, which include no prepayment penalty.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension of the financing arrangement with Bank of Ann Arbor on the former Y lot.

11:37 p.m. Communications from council. Warpehoski follows up on Lloyd Shelton’s comment during the crosswalk public hearing. He says that Shelton is right about the accessibility of the council chambers. “We should be doing better as a seat of government for people with disabilities,” he says. People should not face an undue burden to address the council or be employed, he says. The configuration would not allow for a mayor or city administrator who uses a wheelchair. Briere points out that the chambers was built to serve as a courtroom.

11:37 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:40 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He reminds the council of the commitment to put items on the agenda in time for people to read them in advance and be able to comment on those items. The council appointments had not been added in a timely way, he points out. He also points out that the amendment on the crosswalk ordinance was not added until just minutes before the discussion. People would like to see the agenda settled on Friday, he notes.

11:41 p.m. Kathy Griswold says it was a major omission to not have a professional engineer recommendation for the original ordinance change. Having one person veto the revision puts a great burden on that one person, she says.

11:42 p.m. Closed session. The council is asked to go into closed session. The purpose is to discuss a privileged attorney-client memo that will be in writing, says assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to go into closed session.

12:05 a.m. We’re back.

12:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Dec. 2 meeting agenda.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue might be aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus has been rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, in part to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law.

Another topic that could extend the meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the city shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets –  although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules will be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

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

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

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

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee, which met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Stephen Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

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