On Dec. 4, 2013, city administrator Steve Powers attended his first DDA board meeting as a member. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also considered a resolution added to the agenda on the day of the meeting, related to the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) parking agreement for the 624 Church St. project – but ultimately decided to table that resolution pending further review at the committee level.

The DDA’s Dec. 4 resolution allocating $280,000 for the Main Street light pole replacement ended the political wrangling over who should pay for those downtown Ann Arbor light poles. Replacement of the deteriorating poles was identified by the city as a need in the first half of 2012. The source of an estimated $600,000 required for the project was specified in the city’s CIP (capital improvements plan) that year as coming from the DDA – though the funds were at that time not authorized by the board.

In the spring of 2013, the city council weighed how it might clarify the city’s ordinance that restricts the DDA TIF (tax increment finance) capture. In that context, DDA executive director Susan Pollay told the council that the DDA might not be able to afford to pay for the Main Street light pole project – if the council changed the ordinance language to clarify the calculations in a way that did not favor the DDA. The question of the DDA’s TIF capture was not ultimately settled until the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

In the interim, the city council voted at its May 20, 2013 meeting to request that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the $580,000 light pole project. After the council then declined at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting to approve a budget allocation for the remaining $280,000 that was needed for the project, the DDA board passed its Dec. 4 resolution, citing the urgency of replacing at least 36 of the poles as the reason for its decision.

According to the DDA’s resolution, staff will use the DDA funding to begin now with replacement of those poles most in need of being removed, with the remainder replaced in the summer of 2014.

Also at its Dec. 4 meeting – in connection with the city’s pending sale to Dennis Dahlmann of the former Y lot, at William Street and Fifth Avenue – the DDA board passed a resolution that waived claim to $1,439,959 in reimbursements from the sale that the DDA has calculated it might be owed. The city council adopted a policy on Oct. 15, 2012 that included depositing net proceeds (after reimbursements) from the former Y lot sale into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

So the DDA board’s action is an attempt to increase the amount that will be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. The resolution passed by the DDA board also calls on the city council to waive the city’s claim to reimbursements. The city purchased the property in 2003 for $3.5 million and has made interest-only payments for the last 10 years on a loan for that amount. The agreed-upon sale price to Dahlmann is $5.25 million.

In another formal action taken on Dec. 4, the DDA board accepted the audit report from the most recently concluded fiscal year – FY 2013, which ended June 30, 2013. The auditor issued an “unmodified” or clean opinion.

The board also considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, from the developer of the 624 Church St. project. The developer is asking for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits could be purchased using the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The program allows a developer to satisfy certain zoning requirements that parking spaces be provided for a project – by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system at a premium rate, instead of building the spaces on site. The developer of the 624 Church St. project wants the ability to extend the 15-year minimum to cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee.

The board’s newest members introduced themselves at the meeting: city administrator Steve Powers and Main Street retailer Cyndi Clark.

Also at its Dec. 4 meeting, the board heard a range of updates on various projects and public commentary. Highlights included a report from the Main Street BIZ (business improvement zone), which has enough money in its fund balance to handle sidewalk snow removal for the coming winter, without collecting the winter tax assessment to which it is entitled. In a separate update, there’s a possibility that downtown ambassadors could be hired by the DDA as soon as the summer of 2014.

Other topics covered in updates included the effort to save the State Theater, the NHL’s Winter Classic on New Year’s Day, and The Puck Drops Here festivities on New Year’s Eve.

Main Street Light Poles

The need to replacement the Main Street light poles due to rusting bases has been known since last year – in early to mid-2012.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

This spring, at city council meetings, replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

The poles were part of the city’s CIP last year with the source of the funds identified in the CIP that year as the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund. The status of the funding – estimated at that time to be $600,000 – was identified as not yet authorized.

Over the course of the year, the replacement of the light poles became part of the fractious politics between the city council and the DDA.

In timeline overview form:

• April 1, 2013: Initial approval of DDA TIF capture ordinance revision (Chapter 7). Main Street light poles were cited as a project the DDA might not be able to pay for if the Chapter 7 revisions were approved.
• April 15, 2013: City council approves an amendment put forward by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to the Chapter 7 revision, which delayed applying the revised language until FY 2015.
• May 20, 2013: City council approves FY 2014 budget amendment that affects DDA budget.
  

  Whereas, The DDA is forecasted to receive $568,343 more in TIF revenues than anticipated in the proposed FY14 budget;
  Whereas, Council desires to support the public housing program in the DDA area;
  RESOLVED, The DDA TIF fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $568,343 for the purposes of creating a one-time transfer;
  RESOLVED, The DDA Housing fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $300,000 to reflect Council’s desire for the DDA to support affordable housing in the DDA area; and
  RESOLVED, Ann Arbor City Council requests that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

• June 5, 2013: DDA board meets and executive director Susan Pollay reports the council’s action. She tells the board that she’s meeting with city staff to figure out how the light poles will be paid for.
• July 3, 2013: DDA board allocates $300,000 for the light pole replacement project at the same meeting it allocates $250,000 for other capital projects, and $59,200 to support the creation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. One “whereas” clause characterized the council’s action in a way that is not based on the wording of the city council’s May 20 budget amendment.
  

  Whereas, Through the 2013/14 budget approval process it was determined that the City would undertake this street light replacement in calendar year 2013, with the DDA allocating $300,000 toward the cost of the project, and the City allocating $216,000; [.pdf of complete DDA light pole resolution]

• Oct. 21, 2013: City council resolution allocating $280,000 toward the project fails on a 7-4 vote. It needed eight votes for approval.
• Oct. 31–Nov. 1, 2013: City staff inspect the 81 light poles, determining that 36 need to be replaced within 6 months and the remaining 45 within 1-2 years.

Until the Oct. 21 council resolution failed, according to city of Ann Arbor public services area administrator Craig Hupy and DDA executive director Susan Pollay, their intent was that a cost-sharing arrangement between the city and the DDA would allow for the DDA to purchase the fixtures for all the poles, with the city paying for the poles. The DDA proceeded with the purchase of the fixtures. That left insufficient funds to deal with the 36 Main Street light poles most in need of replacement. The initially planned splitting of the costs, which did not come to fruition, appears to have contributed to the timing of the DDA’s resolution to allocate the additional $280,000 on Dec. 4.

Main Street Light Poles: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt began deliberations on Dec. 4 by indicating he believed it was back in May when it was determined that the light poles on Main Street were rusting out at the bases, and that they all needed to be replaced. [The need to replace the poles was identified a year earlier in 2012, with the source of the funds identified in the city's CIP that year as the DDA's TIF fund. The status of the funding – estimated at that time to be $600,000 – was identified as not yet authorized in the CIP.]

Hewitt indicated that in May, the DDA passed a resolution that it would allocate $300,000 of the $580,000 for the total cost of the project – which would be carried out by the city, he said. [The DDA's resolution was actually passed on July 3, 2013. What was passed in May – on May 20, 2013 – was a city council budget amendment that included a request for the DDA to allocate at least $300,000 toward the light pole project.]

Hewitt continued by saying that the city’s portion was going to be $280,000, but when asked to approve the additional funds, that resolution “was not successful at the city council.” There was therefore a shortage of $280,000, Hewitt said. An examination had been done, and many of the light poles are a safety hazard, he said. So the DDA was recommending that $120,524 be allocated in this fiscal year. That’s the amount remaining in a bond fund for State Street improvements that were done back in 2000 or so, Hewitt said. It’s money that had been sitting in a fund that had been unspent for about 10 years. This would require changing the budget, he said. And then in the next fiscal year [FY 2015], Hewitt continued, the remaining money would be allocated. Hewitt alluded to the fact that the FY 2015 budget has not yet been adopted by the DDA board.

DDA board chair Sandi Smith.

DDA board chair Sandi Smith offered what she described as a “super friendly amendment” to change the description of the fiscal years to match the city of Ann Arbor’s labels. [The current fiscal year, which started July 1, 2013 is FY 2014 under the city's labeling scheme. The DDA has historically named the calendar years spanned by the fiscal year – e.g., calling this year FY 2013-14.]

John Mouat asked if there was conversation about the State Street improvement project. He wanted to know what the status of the project was. Hewitt told Mouat that the project was completed over 10 years ago. Hewitt said that in the upcoming fiscal year, the DDA should take a look at improvements in that area. Some of the improvements made back then had taken a beating, Hewitt said, so he felt it would be appropriate to spend some money in the State Street area to do repairs in the existing streetscape.

Mouat wondered whether some aspects of the State Street project had not been completed in the context of the moratorium on new streetlights.

By way of background, the “moratorium” on additional streetlights has its origins in a budget amendment approved by the city council in 2006. The history and current policy (which includes the moratorium) was reviewed in a message to councilmembers from city administrator Steve Powers this past summer. [.pdf of July 9, 2013 email]

At the Dec. 4 meeting, Hewitt said he didn’t think there were any streetlights that were a part of the State Street project plan that were not completed. DDA executive director Susan Pollay explained that as the lights were installed, the DDA discovered that the streetlights that had been selected didn’t cast as much light as they’d hoped. There were some very tall lights that fit that description, she said – at that time, light pollution was a very big concern, she added. The light levels were low, she said. Some light was supposed to be provided by store windows.

Pollay described how “dollars were held back” so that additional light could be added to the area. Ultimately the design, which looked good on paper, was not successful in achieving the desired light levels, she said. There’s an unofficial understanding that the city’s electric bills are not supposed to be increased by adding more lights. As the DDA waits to understand what the city policy on replacing streetlights might be, Pollay said it was appropriate to use that money to replace the light poles on Main Street. At some point, the light levels on State Street would be revisited, she said.

Mouat thanked Pollay for that clarification. John Splitt wanted to reaffirm that he hoped something could be done in the coming year in the State Street area – in connection with the lighting, as well as with the planters. Russ Collins offered what he called a “niggling point” about the Washington Street area: The streetlights on Washington Street are off – they’re not functioning on the south side, Collins said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the additional $280,000 in funding.

Proceeds of Y Lot Sale

By way of background, at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved the sale of city-owned property downtown – a parcel north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. The DDA has been shouldering roughly half of the interest payments on the loan taken out by the city.

The former Y building offered 100 units of single-resident occupancy (SRO) low-income housing. Soon after the city’s purchase, the mechanical systems in the building failed, and all the residents needed to be relocated. The building was subsequently demolished, which the DDA paid for. Equipment was installed so that it could be used as a surface parking lot until its ultimate disposition was determined.

At its Nov. 18 meeting, the council did not delve into the question of how the net proceeds of the pending sale would be defined, but some councilmembers indicated they were pleased that the result would be a deposit into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, councilmembers 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 …

That council policy was approved after the DDA board passed its own resolution on Sept. 5, 2012, encouraging the city to return to a previous policy that dedicated the net proceeds of sales of all city-owned land (not just the Y lot) to support affordable housing.

On Dec. 4, Keith Orr offered a replacement to the resolution that was included in the board packet. Orr alluded to the fact that he was bringing forward the resolution – because he served in the “Dave DeVarti seat” on the DDA board – even though many people had worked on it.

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 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.

During public commentary at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, DeVarti addressed the board on 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 toward selling the lot. That approach would give the city a lot more flexibility, he had argued.

The substitute resolution offered by Orr at the board’s Dec. 4 meeting included a separate “whereas” clause establishing the DDA’s position that affordable housing is in the interest of the downtown. The revision also named specifically the net amount that the DDA believes it has invested in the property: $1,439,599. And finally, the revised resolution separately recommended the city council waive its own reimbursement of its costs in connection with the sale of the former Y lot parcel.

Orr pointed out that the address of the property is 350 S. Fifth. He noted that the city now has a purchase agreement. Orr said that part of the sales agreement is that entities that had investment money in the property would be reimbursed. [Later in the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers, who was attending his first meeting as a DDA board member, corrected Orr's statement, pointing out that this was not part of the sales agreement but rather a city council resolution, passed in 2012.] The largest portion of the DDA’s contribution was paying for the demolition of the former Y building and picking up a portion of the interest payments.

A document provided at the DDA board meeting showed the demolition costs at $1.469 million and interest payments totaling $600,426 since 2004. The net contribution, factoring in the income the DDA received from the surface parking operations it established on the parcel after demolishing the building, was $1,493,959. So the resolution asked the DDA board to waive reimbursement of that amount. [The copy of the resolution distributed to the audience named $1,439,959 as the amount of the DDA board was waiving. That's the amount Orr named in reviewing the resolution. A separate document distributed at the meeting with the actual breakdown of payments and costs showed $1,493,959. The correct math based on those figures is the greater amount: $1,493,959.]

The resolution also asked the city council to waive its claim to reimbursements, which Orr said was around $ 2.7 million. The goal, Orr said, was to ensure that a substantial investment in affordable housing can be made.

Joan Lowenstein followed Orr’s description by saying that the DDA’s goal has been to see that the maximum amount from net proceeds of the sale go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Orr confirmed Lowenstein’s understanding, but added that the resolution reflected everything that the DDA could do to maximize the investment in affordable housing as a result of that property sale. The DDA’s commitment to affordable housing, Orr said, was confined to investments within the district, or within 1/4 mile of the district. The city had more flexibility, Orr said.

Al McWilliams asked about the general motivation to use the proceeds from the Y lot to support affordable housing. Orr said that one reason is historical: The former Y building had included 100 single-resident occupancy units that provided low-income housing.

Orr continued by saying there’s always been this feeling that the proceeds of the sale should help low-income and affordable housing. Orr also pointed out that when board chair Sandi Smith served on the city council, the council was already talking about doing that. “It’s not a particularly new idea,” he concluded.

Bob Guenzel said that in his mind, it was more than a promise that those 100 units would be rebuilt in the downtown area, even if not on the same piece of property. That hasn’t happened for a number of reasons, Guenzel said, but the “substitute” is that the proceeds of the sale would be used for affordable housing. A lot of people remember that community commitment that was made, he concluded.

Russ Collins asked: Does the city have specific plans to build – or cause to be built – affordable housing? Collins wondered if there was any plan to contract with the Delonis Center [a homeless shelter located in Ann Arbor] to operate supportive housing? He wondered if there was any strategic plan to actually execute anything?

City administrator Steve Powers said that the city council’s first action would be to complete the sale of this property. He said he was not aware of any specific steps pending after that.

Collins ventured that there’s no strategic plan that the city is party to, other than “collect a bunch of money and use it for affordable housing?” “Council has no strategic plan …? If they do, that’s great,” Collins said. Powers responded to Collins by saying that the city is a party to work with the Washtenaw Housing Alliance (WHA) and the county’s office of community and economic development. There’s not a city-specific plan at this time, Powers said. WHA and the county’s office of community and economic development are talking about doing an assessment of affordable housing needs.

There’s a continuum, Guenzel said, from the very poorest to what is called workforce housing. He told Collins that there are a lot of discussions about it.

Historically, Smith said, there were funds in the affordable housing trust fund, and that has been spent down. There was no ability to plan for those funds, she said, because the balance is under $200,000 right now. It’s pretty nominal, she said, and you can’t build a unit for that amount. Guenzel noted that the question of whether some funds could be used for bricks-and-mortar versus supportive services was yet to be determined.

Collins had concerns about how prudent it is to allocate money toward a generally good idea without a clear strategy of what to do. “It’s great to do nice things. The DDA tries to do nice things, and we’re told that we’re a shadow government,” he said. If there’s no community strategy for addressing this, the DDA is doing something that might be nice in the future, he said, but he indicated he didn’t feel this was genuinely addressing the issue.

Smith replied that she didn’t necessarily think the DDA was the organization to tackle affordable housing. Smith noted the DDA has historically set aside money for affordable housing – and it’s now built into the DDA ordinance that the DDA is required to set aside $300,000 annually for affordable housing. She strongly supported the resolution because the DDA would then be able to leverage funds with the city and the county. She pointed to the last “resolved” clause that called on the city to follow the DDA’s example. Then those resources could be used to create a solid plan and move forward, she said.

John Mouat asked if it would be possible to take advantage of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). That would be a good entity to consult with in its advisory capacity. Powers indicated that he thought HHSAB had already had those kinds of discussions.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution waiving the DDA’s interest in proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot.

Proceeds of the Y Lot Sale: Parking Contract

Toward the end of the meeting during communications time, John Splitt indicated that he had some concerns about the sale of the former Y lot, based on the contract – under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city. Under the contract, he said, the DDA is supposed to be given notice about the removal of parking spaces from the system. Sandi Smith stated that “We have not received written notice.”

Roger Hewitt responded to Smith by saying that he’d reviewed the most recent contract and he was not sure that the city actually is required give notice. DDA executive director Susan Pollay said that the contract refers to a “lease” and not a “sale.” Splitt said he just wanted to make sure that there was enough time to move equipment.

City administrator Steve Powers responded by saying that the city would be providing information about that, quipping: “It’s in the mail.” In connection with the sale of the property, the city would work through the removal of the parking equipment with the DDA, Powers said.

From the parking contract [emphasis added]:

The City shall not lease any portion of individual Facilities to third parties where such lease (either alone or cumulatively with other leases in such Facility) would reduce the number of usable parking spaces in such Facility by more than one percent (1%) or five (5) parking spaces, whichever is less, without first (i) providing DDA with thirty (30) days prior written notice; (ii) consulting with DDA about the location and terms of use of such leased spaces to reduce the impact of such use on DDA’s use of the Facility; and (iii) upon DDA’s written request delivered no more than fifteen (15) days after notice of the proposed lease, executing a side letter between City and DDA, the sole purpose of which is to make DDA whole for the loss of Gross Parking Revenue associated with the reduced parking spaces.

FY 2013 Audit

Board member Roger Hewitt made the motion to accept the DDA’s 2013 financial audit. Every year the DDA has an audit performed to ensure the DDA’s financial position is accurately stated. [.pdf of DDA FY 2013 audit]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

The DDA uses the same firm as the city [Rehmann], Hewitt said. The audit came back this year with an “unmodified” opinion, meaning there were no changes. He explained that the outcome essentially means that it was “clean” and that the DDA’s financial statements are an accurate reflection of the DDA’s financial position.

There was a suggestion, he allowed, to have an independent review of general journal entries. That’s been put in place, he said. A CPA the DDA has on contract will review those journal entries, he reported.

“Everything is just fine, according to our auditor,” Hewitt said. The conversation with the auditor was a good conversation that will help shape the budget in the upcoming year, Hewitt said.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to accept the FY 2013 audit report.

624 Church Street Parking CIL

By way of background, on Nov. 6, 2013 the DDA board approved the purchase of 48 parking permits under the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program for a revision to a proposed residential development at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor. The spaces were approved to be provided in the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The original proposal for 624 Church, which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu program.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right of 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because the DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution-in-lieu-of-parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project is using.

624 Church Street Parking CIL: Public Commentary

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church St. project, appeared before the DDA board during public commentary time at the start of the meeting. He asked board members to consider modifying the terms under which the 624 Church St. project would be able to lease spaces monthly parking spaces under city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. Currently the project has been allocated 48 spaces for the minimum period under the CIL, which is 15 years. It’s come to the attention of the developer (Opus) that as it lines up financing, the financing companies would like to have two 10-year extensions added to the agreement, so that the length of the agreed-upon leasing of the parking spaces would cover at least a standard 30-year mortgage.

Moore said that Opus was asking that the agreement be amended – to add an option for two 10-year agreements that would exceed the minimum financing period. DDA executive director Susan Pollay told Moore that the item could be brought to the board in the next few minutes as an action item during the operations committee report.

624 Church Street Parking CIL: Board Deliberations

A draft resolution was distributed to the board at the meeting that would have addressed the issue that Brad Moore had raised. Roger Hewitt said the issue had only been brought to his attention that day.

He said that in his experience, funding for large commercial real estate projects tended to be for a 20-year financing period. He referred to Village Green’s City Apartments project as well as Ashley Mews as examples.

The resolution would add an additional five years to the existing agreement so that it could run, at the owner’s option, for 20 years instead of 15 years.

The indication from Moore was that the five-year extension would still endanger the financing for the 624 Church St. project. Hewitt indicated a reluctance to commit to a parking agreement for the length of time that Moore was requesting. He wanted to see some evidence that a 20-year financing plan – which in his experience is typical – is not possible before setting a new precedent.

Russ Collins ventured that the matter could be tabled until more information is received. Moore said that the parking would not necessarily be tied up in a single structure. Hewitt reiterated his concern that a 30-year term in this case would set a precedent for other developers.

Al McWilliams proposed an approach that would provide for optional renewal.

After some back-and-forth, Sandi Smith indicated that her preference would be for Moore to come back to the operations committee and allow the committee members to “chew on it” a bit more. The next operations committee meeting will take place on Dec. 18 at 11 a.m. Hewitt said.

Outcome: The board tabled the question of the CIL agreement in connection with the 624 Church St. project.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. In addition to information reported earlier in this article, here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Main Street BIZ

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Ellie Serras introduced herself to the DDA board as the community relations director for the Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ).

By way of background, the Ann Arbor DDA board voted on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the Main Street BIZ. Those costs included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

On Dec. 4, Serras told the board she was there to bring them up to date on the organization’s activities and plans for the future, and to thank the board for their investment from the very beginning. A BIZ allows property owners to establish a vision and to select services compatible with that vision, she said. The DDA’s support of the Main Street BIZ allowed development of a successful campaign that has grown into a fully-functioning provider of important services that have improved the quality of the Main Street neighborhood, she told them.

The Main Street BIZ was established in 2010 according to the state enabling legislation, receiving overwhelming support from property owners in the three-block area of Main Street from Huron Street down to William Street, she said. The Main Street BIZ provides sidewalk snow removal, sweeping, handbill removal and landscape improvements in that area.

The services and contractors had been “skillfully managed” by the Main Street BIZ board of directors within the parameters of an annually approved budget, Serras said. Funding for the BIZ is generated by an assessment added on to the property owners’ summer and winter tax statements, she said. The BIZ board had been diligent in protecting the property owners’ investment and as a result, the existing fund balance is adequate so that even if this winter brings a severe snowstorm, the snow removal could be handled without imposing the winter tax assessment this year.

So the BIZ board has determined that no BIZ assessment would be on their 2013 winter tax statements. Even though the assessment will not be imposed, the area will still receive the same level of consistent services that it has over the last three and a half years, Serras said.

The Main Street BIZ is now currently contemplating the possibility of expanding its boundaries, she reported, based on positive comments from surrounding property owners. As it contemplates such an expansion, she continued, the Main Street BIZ would be using the blueprint that had been developed in connection with the grant that the DDA had awarded to the Main Street BIZ. The blueprint will be updated to include changes to the state statute and the procedures used for establishing a BIZ.

In appreciation to the DDA, Serras said, the BIZ board wanted to invite the DDA board to join the BIZ for coffee and pastries to talk about the BIZ – on Jan. 28 at 9 a.m. at the DDA offices. The BIZ would not be asking the DDA for anything, but wanted to express its appreciation for the DDA’s support. She alerted the board to the BIZ website: annarbormainstreetbiz.com

Comm/Comm: Downtown Citizens Area Advisory Council

Ray Detter addressed the board as chair of the downtown area citizens advisory council. He told the DDA board that the CAC has a holiday party every year when it discusses developments over the last year and things that it wants to work for in the coming year. He said the CAC supports more public art, more trees – and taking better care of those that are already in place. The group also supports improvements to the alley between East Liberty and East Washington near The Liberty Square parking structure, to make it a more public place, he said.

The CAC supports the DDA’s development of a streetscape framework plan, and its parking and transportation management plan. The downtown transportation plan is part of a transportation plan for the entire county, Detter said, that includes Zipcars, mopeds, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s AirRide service and the getDowntown go!pass program. Detter continued by mentioning the north-south commuter rail project (WALLY), and the possible connector. The CAC wanted to avoid any need for additional above-ground parking structures, Detter said.

But the two most important areas of focus, he said, were population and retail. Retail will not thrive, he said, without a commitment to residential. The CAC applauded the success of Urban Outfitters, Bivouac and Renaissance, but was appalled by the loss of Selo/Shevel Gallery and Seyfried Jewelers.

Comm/Comm: State Theater

Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, continued by saying that the CAC was committed to the survival of the State Theater as part of a historic theater district in downtown Ann Arbor. The theater helps define the essential identity of downtown Ann Arbor, he said. Detter noted that many people remembered the Campus Theater.

Detter acknowledged the demand for office space, but that can’t equal the value of the two theaters, he contended. The Michigan Theater, Detter said, had provided the venue for the first “talking pictures” in Ann Arbor in 1928 and the State Theater had been around since 1942. [DDA board member Russ Collins, who's executive director of the Michigan Theater, corrected Detter, pointing out that it was the Orpheum that was the first "talking picture" movie theater.]

The State Theater attracts 50,000 people a year, Detter said. Some people “might think it’s a dump at this point,” but there are ways of fixing it up, he said. Detter added that he was looking forward to the expansion of the Cinetopia series with the State Theater as one of the venues.

It’s a challenge to save the State Theater, Detter said. But the Michigan Theater board has taken the initiative to open a conversation with State Theater LLC to work on a way for the community to purchase and retain the State Theater as part of the “theater district.” The DDA should be a part of that process, Detter said. Other DDAs have done this kind of thing, “and we can do it, too.” Detter said he still remembered the $250,000 that had been given by the DDA for the lobby of the Michigan Theater.

Later in the meeting, Russ Collins followed up on Detter’s commentary by saying it was not a DDA matter per se. But regarding the State Theater, the Michigan Theater is in talks with the owners of the State Theater building. He was hopeful that would have a positive outcome with respect to preserving the cinema exhibition capability at the State Theater. He was happy with the owner’s willingness to talk.

Comm/Comm: New Board Members

Board chair Sandi Smith invited the new board members who’d been added since the last meeting to introduce themselves.

City administrator Steve Powers quipped that he would not need four minutes [the time limit afforded public speakers]. “It’s a pleasure to be with you,” he said. When mayor John Hieftje had asked him to serve, he’d agreed with enthusiasm, he reported. He appreciated and understands the importance of the DDA to the overall mission of the city. The city council had confirmed his appointment Monday night [Dec. 2]. He told the board he’d worked as city administrator for a little over 2 years. In that time, he’d gotten to know executive director Susan Pollay and had enjoyed the professional relationship between the city and the DDA. Powers saw his service on the board as strengthening that existing relationship between the city and the DDA.

Cyndi Clark introduced herself as a retail owner on Main Street for Lily Grace Cosmetics. A month ago, she’d just opened up a second business, she said – a spa. She was delighted to be on the DDA board. Her family lives in Ann Arbor and she was born and raised here, she said. She was delighted to be working with everyone. “It’s a full term for me!” she concluded.

Comm/Comm: Connector

By way of background on the connector study, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then farther south along State to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor.

Roger Hewitt participates on the technical committee for that study. The DDA has contributed funding toward the study.

At the Dec. 4 DDA board meeting, Hewitt reported that three public meetings had been held on the connector project recently. The board then watched a video created to explain the project. After presentation of the video, Hewitt described the public meetings as an effort to get input on the different route options. The turnout was pretty good, he said. The morning session wasn’t all that well attended, with perhaps 10 people, Hewitt said, but the noon and evening sessions each had over 25 people attend, he said. People had a lot of questions and a lot of information was exchanged, he said, but he allowed there wasn’t as much feedback on specific transit routes as they would have liked.

Unless you’re in the “nitty gritty of it,” Hewitt felt that it’s a bit overwhelming to consider all the possibilities. The next meeting of the technical committee would take place on Friday [Dec. 6], he said, with a follow-up meeting the next Monday [Dec. 9]. The study needs to be completed in the first quarter of 2014, he said. The outcome of the study would be the “preferred local option,” Hewitt said, and he’d keep the board up to date on that.

Joan Lowenstein asked Hewitt to confirm that in the context of the basic “boomerang” route, there would still be a significant impact depending on how the route was planned through the downtown. Hewitt confirmed that, and said there had been a lot of discussion about it. One possibility that had been suggested was to just head south on State Street. There are significant problems with the width of all streets. He’d been pushing for the idea that the route needed to come at least as far west as the Blake Transit Center [on Fifth Avenue].

Right now, the group is looking at two stations – one in the central campus (State Street area) and one in the center of downtown (Main Street area). Neither the route nor the station locations have been determined, he said. There was some desire not to cross Main Street, he noted. That’s because the amount of federal support would depend on a demonstration that there’d be a savings in travel time – because “that’s how the feds measure things,” he said.

If the route crosses Main Street, then it would have to cross back over Main Street to get to the South State Street area, Hewitt explained, and with the current traffic backups on Main Street, it would be easy to get backed up during rush hour in the Main Street area. So the group is looking to stay east of Main Street.

From left: John Mouat and Roger Hewitt.

John Mouat asked for an analysis of the economic impact of such a project. In that context, he asked about the planned timing of the project. Hewitt responded by saying, “We’re talking about a while!” He noted that this is the second phase of the study, after the initial feasibility study. That study had shown that the existing ridership justifies a more robust form of transit than is currently in place. The current phase is an alternatives analysis, which would determine the local “favorite” route and mode of transportation. After that an environmental study would be done.

After all of that, you “stand in line for federal dollars,” Hewitt said. For a project that meets the right criteria, the federal government might fund up to half the cost of the project, he said. The cost, depending on the route and the mode, could be as little as $100 million and as much as $500 million. After getting the federal dollars lined up, he continued, you’d have to line up the local match. The University of Michigan has stated publicly that they’d be involved, he said, without putting a particular dollar figure on their participation. After construction and ordering of vehicles, Hewitt said, we shouldn’t expect anything rolling for 10 years.

But this phase of the study, Hewitt said, would be completed in the next three months or so. He felt that a decision was pretty close for the downtown route. It would mean a pretty big change to downtown, Hewitt said. He allowed that it’s hard to get people excited about this now, when the project is 10 years off.

Comm/Comm: Bicycles, Alt Transportation

Keith Orr gave an update on the bike share program. A representative from B-Cycle, the selected vendor, had been brought in by the Ann Arbor-based Clean Energy Coalition (CEC). They looked at potential sites for locating stations. The few on-street spots were too narrow for a station, Orr reported. So as of now, there were no requests from the CEC of the DDA for an on-street parking spot. The CEC still anticipates an Earth Day opening in the spring of 2014. Right now, the plan is for 14 stations, Orr said. Stations will be located as far north as the University of Michigan north campus, and as far west as Ashley Street.

Orr also reported out on the first usage stats for the Bike House – an enclosed facility in the Maynard Street parking structure. Orr reported that people love having it there, saying that it’s largely a commuting option for people. The time records for when people use it show that people use it primarily at the beginning of the day and the end of the day, he said, but it’s not the same people all the time. He concluded that people who are using the Bike House are not relying on one mode of transportation. Discussion is taking place about other locations where similar facilities could be constructed, Orr reported.

And based on recent go!pass stats, it continues to be a very robust program, Orr said. [The DDA funds the go!pass program, which is administered by getDowntown, whose staff are employees of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] More rides were taken and more cards were sold and used. Orr concluded that it continues to be a very popular and important program.

Comm/Comm: Winter Classic, The Puck Drops Here

By way of background, two major events are scheduled for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day in Ann Arbor: The Puck Drops Here and the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic Game. In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4 meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay reviewed highlights of the strategy that will be deployed for the NHL Winter Classic and The Puck Drops Here events.

For New Year’s Eve, the Fourth and William parking structure, as well as the Forest structure, will have a flat rate fee. That way, people will not have to stop at the cashier booth on their way out.

On New Year’s Day, the city council had approved the street closures that will be in place. The NHL has asked that staffing be provided at public garages, Pollay said. That would allow for the reservation of a parking space in advance. If people reserve in advance, that would allow them to drive directly to a specific location.

Staff would also be handing out maps – mostly with an eye to help people after the game find the place where they’d parked. Pollay also told the board that the names of those businesses that are going to be open on Jan. 1 would be listed on the back of the map.

At all structures and lots, Pollay said, a flat fee of $5 would be charged on New Year’s Day. It’s meant to reimburse the DDA for its costs, not to make a lot of money.

John Mouat asked if anyone had developed a projection of how many people will be needing to park. Pollay said that to her knowledge, no. As much as possible, people are being encouraged to use the buses and shuttles that will be provided. They’re also working to communicate to people about the parking that’s available at locations away from the stadium.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that lawn parking will be allowed, as it is on home football game days.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Ambassadors

By way of background, for several years, the Ann Arbor DDA has had an interest in maintaining some kind of additional police patrol presence in the downtown. In the mid-2000s, the DDA entered into a contract with the city of Ann Arbor with the implicit hope that the city would maintain the dedicated downtown beat cops. That contract was structured at the time to pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, with the city able to request up to $2 million a year for a maximum of $10 million.

That hope was not realized, and the DDA has since discussed the idea of providing additional funding for police or for “ambassadors.” The idea of ambassadors was explored in the context of subsequent re-negotiations of the contract between the city and the DDA under which the DDA operates the parking system. The DDA wanted to be assigned responsibility for parking enforcement (a function performed by the city’s community standards officers) and imagined that activity to be performed in an ambassador-like fashion.

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district. DDA board members visited Grand Rapids this fall to observe a new downtown ambassador program in that city. The initial report from that visit was given at the Ann Arbor DDA board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.

At the board’s meeting on Dec. 4, Roger Hewitt reported that the operations committee had a lengthy discussion about the idea of hiring ambassadors, based on the visit by some board members to Grand Rapids to see the ambassador program there. A number of views were expressed, Hewitt said, but most people thought it was a good idea and that the Ann Arbor DDA should aggressively pursue it. At the next operations committee meeting, Hewitt said, it would be pursued. Personally, he said, he would like to see something in place for the summer of 2014, if it’s possible to move that quickly.

Comm/Comm: Prosperity

Joan Lowenstein reported out on the partnerships committee discussion about the A2 Ypsilanti Regional Chamber’s annual Impact conference.

Keith Orr and Joan Lowenstein.

The focus this year was based on a presentation made by Lou Glazer of Michigan Future Inc. Glazer’s work suggested that there’s a strong connection between prosperity and placemaking, and attracting young talent. The trends indicate that prosperous states show a higher proportion of wages from the “knowledge industries” – medical, technical and legal professions, Lowenstein said. Prosperous states also have a high proportion of college grads. Taxes don’t play as much of a role in prosperity, she said – it’s all about educational attainment and quality of place. Michigan and Ann Arbor are lagging behind other places in terms of the number of young professionals who are attracted here.

For example, she said, Madison, Wisc. has twice the number of young professionals as Ann Arbor does, Lowenstein reported. Glazer had said that Ann Arbor has an important role to play in prosperity, but the elements that are key to that need to be embraced: transit, private sector growth and density, she said. A lot of people want to attract families, but attracting young professionals will lead to that, she said, because people tend to establish families where they get their first job. Ann Arbor needs to do a better job of engaging young professionals in the community by giving them a better voice, Lowenstein said.

One of the panels at the Impact conference included young people who are reluctant to put themselves out in public positions, because of the nature of the media and social media – because you can get trashed by putting yourself out in public, Lowenstein said. She called it an unfortunate element of our modern life.

DDA board member Al McWilliams will be working on DDA communications.

Lowenstein also reported that the partnerships committee meeting will establish a subcommittee focused on communications. Al McWilliams and Rishi Narayan will head up that subcommittee, she said – noting that McWilliams is involved in that sort of thing all the time. [McWilliams is founder of the ad agency Quack!Media.]

January’s board meeting, which was originally scheduled for Jan. 1 – because it’s part of the first-Wednesday meeting pattern – was shifted to Jan. 8. There was no traction for the possibility of changing the day of the week or the noon meeting time for the regular board meetings.

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Crashes

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti addressed the board about pedestrian safety issues. He noted the outcome of the city council’s recent action on the city’s crosswalk law [and the announcement by mayor John Hieftje that he would be vetoing the change the council had voted 6-4 to approve]. The current ordinance mostly addresses outside-downtown issues, Vielmetti said, with its reference to non-signalized crosswalks. In preparing for the city council meeting, Vielmetti said, he’d looked at about eight years of car crash data. What he’d noticed consistently is that the majority of pedestrian crashes happen in the downtown and campus area – probably because lots of people are walking downtown.

The narratives in some of the accident reports often describe how the pedestrian was crossing with a walk light, while the car had a green light and was turning, but didn’t see the pedestrian, Vielmetti said. This is an issue that’s within the purview of the DDA to address, he added. There’s only so much education you can do, with a transient student population. And there’s only so much enforcement you can do without adding to the police force. But the engineering could be addressed, he said – through careful attention to the built infrastructure where people cross the street, or near parking structures where there are a lot of pedestrian-car interactions.

Present: Al McWilliams, Cyndi Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Rishi Narayan.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [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 Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Swearing in of the councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5, 2013. From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Administering the oath was city clerk Jackie Beaudry. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier in the evening, an hour-long chunk of the meeting was taken up by deliberations on the admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. After an hour of discussion and questioning, the council voted unanimously to approve the addition of the township as a member of the AAATA. The council’s action brought the number of AAATA member jurisdictions to three: the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township.

The council also deliberated for almost an hour before giving initial approval to a repeal of the city’s crosswalk law – so that vehicles would have the option of slowing (in addition to stopping) to yield to pedestrians. The repeal also eliminates the explicit need for motorists to yield to pedestrians who are standing at the curb – making motorists responsible for yielding only to those pedestrians who are “within a crosswalk.” The repeal passed on a 9-2 vote, but will need a second vote at a future meeting to be enacted. Back-channel discussion of some kind of compromise approach has unfolded since the meeting, but it’s not clear what, if any, impact that might have.

On an issue related to the crosswalk ordinance change, 40 minutes was spent on council discussion on a pedestrian safety task force – which had been postponed from its Nov. 7 meeting. Ultimately the council voted to establish a nine-person pedestrian safety task force with a charge of delivering a report with recommendations by February 2015. Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013, with the task force members to be appointed on Dec. 16. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The council also spent about a half hour deliberating on final approval to a change to the ordinance that regulates the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The change replaced the restriction in the ordinance originally enacted in 1982 with one that in the next few years will result in about $2 million in additional TIF revenue annually, compared to the amount the DDA would have received under strict enforcement of the 1982 language. Dissenting on that vote were Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Near the start of the meeting, Teall was selected as mayor pro tem, on a 6-5 vote. The council left its other organizational business – adoption of rules and assignment to committees – until Dec. 2.

The members of the rules committee will have a fresh assignment based on other action of the council on Nov. 18. The council passed a resolution that in part directs the rules committee to develop a set of standards for the conduct of councilmembers, based on “applicable statutes, regulations, existing city policies, and best practices such as Section and 2a of Public Act 196 of 1973 and the Ethics Handbook for Michigan Municipalities.”

Other business handled by the council included the final approval of a revision to the city’s ordinance on park use fees – to allow for a waiver for groups using a public park for the charitable distribution of goods to address basic human needs. Council chambers were filled with supporters of that resolution.

The council also formally adopted an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, after having postponed the item on Nov. 7. And as a part of its consent agenda, the council approved various street closings associated with New Year’s festivities – The Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor and the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic at Michigan Stadium.

Former Y Lot Sale

Although it did not appear on the agenda until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18, the council had expected to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The city-owned property is located north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. The council had voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

It was not clear until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18 that Powers would be able to comply with that Nov. 7 council directive. In emails to councilmembers spaced just 14 minutes apart, Powers first indicated that negotiations with Dahlmann were continuing and that he didn’t expect to have a sales agreement ready for that night’s meeting (3:41 p.m.) and then that Dahlmann had agreed to all the city’s terms (3:55 p.m.). City attorneys were preparing the sales agreement, Powers wrote in the later email, and he expected it to be ready for consideration at that evening’s meeting, which it was.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. Dahlmann offered $5.25 million for the property. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The sales price is important because the net proceeds of the sale are supposed to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. 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 …

The original Nov. 7 resolution included direction to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR), with mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against selling to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann had not been successful, then the Nov. 7 resolution directed the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

Former Y Lot Sale: Council Deliberations

City administrator Steve Powers led off by saying that thanks to the work of Colliers and the city attorney’s office, there’s a sales agreement for consideration. The rider reflects the Nov. 7 council resolution, he explained.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he disliked the idea of Dahlmann’s downtown hotel monopoly. [Dahlmann's holdings include the Campus Inn and Bell Tower hotels.] However, Warpehoski felt like the council should let the “best bid win.” He also looked forward to the benefit to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [By council resolution, the net proceeds of the sale are to go to the city's affordable housing trust fund.]

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she thought that the parcel is too small for a hotel anyway, noting there are other city-owned parcels where a hotel could be built. Mayor John Hieftje reiterated the idea that there are several other sites where a hotel could be built, including private property that’s owned by developers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated: “I am so happy this is before us.” He recalled serving on the planning commission in 2004 when that body had approved a plan for a hotel on the site, which didn’t get built. “I’m not in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” Kunselman said. It’s 10 years of history, he said. He missed the Y building – as he remembered taking swim lessons there. He called Dahlmann a well-respected businessman in the community.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support the sale. He’d queried his constituents and on that basis he’d come to the conclusion that he’d support it. The Key Bank building was given as an example of the kind of quality of work that Dahlmann did. Taylor said he’s looking forward to getting this property back on the tax rolls.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) called Dahlmann’s proposal “head and shoulders” above the other proposals. Lumm thanked Kunselman for kicking off the effort. Lumm recalled serving in 1993 on something called the Ann Arbor Inn task force. She echoed Kunselman’s remarks about not picking winners and losers. It’s an exciting proposal, she said. It’s going to be a “shining development” for downtown, she said. Lumm contended that Dahlmann’s proposal was the only one that proposed to involve the community with the development.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to sell the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

Former Y Lot Sale: Coda

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the council had that evening approved a sales agreement with someone [Dahlmann] who’d contributed money to several council campaigns. He said there’s nothing wrong with that, but it was the same kind of situation that some councilmembers – who’d received money from Dahlmann – had criticized at previous meetings with respect to membership on a city board.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti expressed concern about the fact that the land sale was put on the agenda at the last possible minute. At 5:11 p.m. the relevant documents were not available, he said. So the public was not invited to be a part of the process. He didn’t have an opportunity to see the documents before the council voted, let alone prepare comments to share during public commentary. He then called the council’s attention to some very old minutes from various boards and commissions that were only just now for that night’s meeting attached to the city council’s agenda.

Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The city council considered for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting. The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of 13 public meetings to introduce that plan ended on Nov. 14. The series of meetings began on Oct. 17 before the council’s Oct. 21 decision to postpone. [For more background, see "Council Agenda: Transportation Governance"]

The current, more localized expansion of the AAATA contrasts with a now demised effort in 2012 to incorporate all of Washtenaw County into a single countywide transportation authority. When the Ann Arbor city council withdrew Ann Arbor’s participation in that effort, at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, it gave encouraged the AAATA “to continue to discuss regional transportation options among Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township, and Scio Township, leading to a better understanding and process for improving local transit options…”

Over the course of the last year, the AAATA held a series of meetings with officials from those municipalities, a group that came to be called the “urban core” communities.

One outcome of those conversations was an interest in membership in the AAATA on the part of the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor (pop. ~116,000), the city of Ypsilanti (pop. ~19,500) and Ypsilanti Township (~53,000) make up a bit more than half the population of Washtenaw County (pop. ~351,000).

Ypsi Twp. in AAATA: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen spoke in favor of expanded transit in the urban area. He called it the continuation of a process that began over 40 years ago.

Jim Mogensen.

He recounted the history of changes that allowed the expansion to happen. In the mid-1970s after the city of Ann Arbor passed its millage, the AATA was expanded in a way that allowed the municipalities on the eastern side of the county to be included – through POSAs (purchase of service agreements).

What those communities pay, he said, is the local match for federal funds. Ann Arbor Township is the only community that’s no longer a part of that expansion, he said. Now, the AAATA has come up with a good plan to enhance service on the east side of the county, Mogensen said.

Ypsi Twp. in AAATA: Council Deliberations

After the consent agenda was approved, around 9 p.m., the council adjusted its agenda to accommodate the schedule of Ypsilanti Township officials. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe had arrived at the meeting and had a constrained schedule.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he’d attended some of the AAATA meetings that were held over the last month and he did not hear anyone say they were opposed to Ypsilanti Township joining the authority. He urged the council to vote unanimously to support Ypsilanti Township as a member.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he strongly supported expanding transportation in the urban core. But he contended that the plan to ask for a millage would result in an inequitable funding arrangement. He ticked through the amount of millage each community would pay. He wanted a uniform total millage across all communities.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Eaton by saying that the amount of service in Ann Arbor is much higher, and that it’s natural that the amount contributed by Ann Arbor would be greater.

Teall asked Michael Ford, the AAATA’s CEO, to the podium. Ford said that 84% of the AAATA’s service is provided in Ann Arbor. He stressed that the question before the council that evening was membership in the AAATA.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what would happen if a millage didn’t pass: Would Ypsilanti Township convert their general fund allocation to a transit millage? Ford said he wouldn’t speak for the township. Karen Lovejoy Roe took the podium to respond to Lumm’s question. She thanked the council for moving up the item on the agenda. She said that Ypsilanti Township has had some sort of POSA for several years, and as a member of the AAATA, the township would be willing to make a longer-term commitment. [.pdf of draft MOU] She was excited about having transit that connects the west and east sides of the county.

Lumm asked if Ypsilanti Township would convert the general fund funding to a millage, if an AAATA millage didn’t pass. Lovejoy Roe said that right now, the township would lock in the current POSA agreement in perpetuity – but that wouldn’t necessarily result in the township itself asking for a millage of its residents.

Lumm said it’s not been clarified what the standards are for being admitted as a member of the AAATA. Lovejoy Roe asked what difference it would make, if the township board is entering into a legally binding agreement to pay the cash.

Lumm asked Ford what the standards are for admitting a municipality as a member. Ford referred to the council’s resolution for exploring conversations with the urban core communities, a community’s ability to pay, where population density is, and other factors.

Lumm reported that she attended one of the public outreach meetings, and there were questions asked about routes in Ward 2. She contended that it’s not clear whether the AAATA’s series of outreach meetings had been a “sales tour” or a “listening tour.” In the “marketing materials,” she said, there was an indication that the improvements will require a 0.7 mill tax. Ford stressed that the AAATA board has not made a decision to place a millage on the ballot. The point of the meetings was to hear input and make adjustments and refine the plan, he said. “We are listening to people. … That’s what we do!” he added. Lumm complained there is not enough service improvement in Ward 2.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanked Ford for providing the MOU between AAATA and Ypsilanti Township. She contended the goal of long-term planning is undercut by the monthly invoicing to which the MOU refers. Ford described that as just an operational issue – and stressed that it’s in draft form. The MOU simply operationalizes the exchange of money, he said. Kailasapathy asked if the planning would take place on an annual basis. Ford indicated that planning is a continuous process, quarterly and annual. Planning is in the AAATA’s DNA, Ford said – “that’s what we do.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that for him, it’s a simple question of whether it’s good for Ypsi Township to be a member. Leaving aside the “soul-sucking micromanagement” of the AAATA – an allusion to the line of questioning pursued by Lumm – Taylor said the answer to the question is yes. Taylor characterized Eaton’s worry about the amount of support there would be for a millage as a fair point. But Taylor said that this idea will be put into the marketplace (of voters). It’s natural that Ann Arbor will receive most of the service, he said, as it’s the economic engine of the region.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) recalled a remark from township supervisor Brenda Stumbo at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting – that you can’t get from the city of Ypsilanti to the city of Ann Arbor without going through Ypsilanti Township. If the buses will go through the township anyway, it makes sense that the township has a voice on the board, Petersen said. She was less concerned about the funding, saying she gave Ypsi Township the benefit of any doubt that they’ll continue to pay the POSA.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Ford to review the city of Ann Arbor’s increase in service over the five-year period. Ford explained that over the five-year period, service would increase 33%. Warpehoski concluded that’s about commensurate with the percentage that an additional 0.7 mill tax would mean. [Ann Arbor taxpayers currently pay a bit more than 2 mills in transit tax.] Warpehoski invited Lovejoy Roe to confirm that Ypsilanti Township would not have the demand for the same level of service as Ann Arbor – which is to have a bus stop within 1/4 mile of every household. She confirmed that such demand in Ypsilanti Township doesn’t exist at this point.

Warpehoski concluded that it wouldn’t make sense to define equity by having every jurisdiction levy equal total millages and let the variance follow from differences in property values. [The levy that AAATA would impose, upon voter approval, would be uniform. But taxpayers in the two cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would be paying their own millages in addition to the AAATA millage.] He confirmed with Ford that the costs per service hour charged for POSAs include all the overhead costs.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked why Pittsfield Township isn’t joining the AAATA as a member. Ford explained that Pittsfield is leaning toward a longer-term POSA, so that they wouldn’t participate in an AAATA millage. He didn’t want to speak for Pittsfield. Briere said Ypsilanti Township has been asked to take a leap of faith. And the township is making a significant financial commitment, she said. Briere related some vignettes from her own experience. She wrapped up by saying she hoped that the council would support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the council’s December 2012 direction to the AAATA after the demise of its countywide effort. The council had decided it wanted to focus not across the county but more locally, and that’s what the AAATA had done, he said. So he was going to support the resolution.

From left: Jack Eaton (Ward 4), mayor John Hieftje.

Eaton asked Ford if there is a standard for adding members to the AAATA. Ford responded by saying the council in part defined that for the AAATA with its urban core resolution from late 2012. There are other factors – geographical considerations, where people live, where trips are generated, as well as willingness to pay. Back and forth ensued between Eaton and Ford about standards for admission into the AAATA. Eaton wanted to know: If Ypsilanti Township were willing to pay for improvements without an AAATA millage, would the AAATA provide additional service. Eaton pointed out that a neighborhood in Ann Arbor can’t choose a reduced level of service. Ford finally said to Eaton: “What is your question?” Part of Eaton’s point was that the financial burden is not equal across neighborhoods within the city: In some parts of the city, there is less transportation service.

Lovejoy Roe said that this approach would lock in at least the current level of service for Ypsilanti Township. She pointed out that Ypsilanti Township will have only one vote on the AAATA board.

City administrator Steve Powers and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm returned to the idea of criteria for admission into the AAATA. She didn’t think there was a rigorous enough standard for admission. Lumm called Ford to the podium again. She noted that the riders-per-service-hour goal of the AAATA is 25 passengers, but complained that the commuter express service has less than that. Ford responded by saying that the commuter express service no longer uses any local Ann Arbor millage dollars.

Briere asked if there are any buses that are completely internal to Ypsilanti Township. No, answered Ford. She asked if there are any routes specific to some ward. No, said Ford.

Petersen stressed that there’s an economic value that’s generated by a worker from Ypsilanti riding the bus to Ann Arbor.

Lumm appeared to want to speak on the question but Hieftje advised that Lumm was considered to have spoken twice, having interspersed her questions of Ford with her own commentary.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued against “intellectualizing” the issue and said he wanted a unanimous vote. He stressed that Ypsilanti Township would have just one vote on the AAATA board. He’d been a vocal opponent of the countywide transit effort out of concern that that proposal would have yielded majority control. [Ann Arbor would have had 7 of 15 board seats under that countywide proposal.] As far as the standards for admission, the standard is clear, said Kunselman: Ypsilanti Township is the second largest community in the county and this is about “mass transit.”

Kunselman wanted a clear majority vote by the council to send a clear message of support. Hieftje followed up with standard arguments in favor of public transportation. Hieftje said if there’s a millage on the ballot put forward by the AAATA, then he’ll support it. For now, he hoped for a unanimous vote on welcoming a new member into the AAATA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation so that Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the AAATA. The vote drew applause.

Crosswalk Ordinance

The council considered the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council was asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Crosswalk Ordinance: Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold stated that she’s previously spoken in favor of a state crosswalk law. She asked four questions: (1) How were Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition members “hoodwinked” into supporting an ordinance change instead of supporting pedestrian infrastructure? (2) Why is lighting inadequate in many neighborhoods, especially at crosswalks? (3) Why are councilmembers supporting a pedestrian safety task force to report back in February 2015? She said it’s a duplication of the efforts of the transportation safety committee; and (4) Why do we continue to ignore overgrown vegetation at intersections?

Erica Briggs addressed the council as chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. She supported the city’s current version of the ordinance. She said she was delivering a petition signed by 587 people supporting the current ordinance. She was also delivering a letter signed by several organizations supporting the current ordinance. She called the current ordinance a recognized best practice. She cited Traverse City as an example of a community where the Uniform Traffic Code is enforced so that motorists are supposed to stop for pedestrians who are standing at the curb.

Chris Hewett spoke for the neighborhood group Safety on Seventh. Whatever side of the vote councilmembers are on for the crosswalk ordinance, he said, it’s important to focus on the safety of pedestrians. He challenged councilmembers to leave their cars at home and see what it’s like to experience the city as a pedestrian. He challenged the council to make people and neighborhoods their highest priority, not traffic flow and vehicle speeds.

Crosswalk Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by venturing that there was a time of the council’s history when there were no questions at first readings of ordinance changes. That time has passed, she said. She wanted to know if traffic engineers participate in approving ordinance language.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

City administrator Steve Powers said no, that’s the council’s job. Traffic engineers provide input into the language, but an ordinance doesn’t require traffic engineer approval, Powers explained. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirmed for Briere that a traffic engineer would evaluate how the policy choices would be applied. Hupy said that if the ordinance were repealed, signage would have to be changed from “stop” to “yield.” And the cost of that would be $14,000, Hupy estimated.

Briere asked for data on accidents before the council’s previous ordinance change and after that change. Hupy indicated that some of the data can be shown by hour of the day.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) shared that the crosswalk ordinance has been a very emotional topic for her. She and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) had met with representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition to learn about the impetus for the previous change back in 2010 and 2011. Petersen contended that the approach of “increasing pedestrian rights” just hasn’t worked. From 2009 to 2012, pedestrian crashes rose 42%, she said. For a five-year period prior to that, there was a decrease. She contended that while you can’t say the change to the ordinance caused the increase, you could say that safety did not increase.

It’s too dangerous to tell pedestrians that “they rule,” Petersen said.

Kailasapathy stated that in addition to repealing the ordinance, more action is needed. Infrastructure improvements are also important, including more HAWK lights, she said. The focus should be on safety, not on rights, she said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she, Petersen and Kailasapathy had begun working with city staff several weeks ago on the issue. She thanked the staff for their work. Lumm contended that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique and this change would make Ann Arbor’s local law conform with the UTC. She contended that the local ordinance is not consistent with local signage. She contended that “pedestrians rule” is a mindset that is dangerous.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Hupy about the RFB (rapid flashing beacon) and HAWK (high-intensity activated crosswalk beacon) implementations and why a regular stoplight isn’t simply installed. Hupy explained that a traffic signal has to meet a “warrant” – a standard that would allow it to be installed. He couldn’t say that the mid-block locations would or wouldn’t meet that standard.

Warpehoski asked Ann Arbor police chief John Seto if he thought that changing the ordinance will affect pedestrian safety in Ann Arbor. Seto replied that he couldn’t say. Warpehoski gave examples of enforcement techniques used in Florida, using plainclothes policemen, cone placement, etc. He asked Seto if that type of enforcement action would be possible, if the ordinance were changed. Seto said enforcement would be challenging, because the pedestrian would need to be in the roadway. Warpehoski explained the technique for enforcement was in fact to have the pedestrian step into the roadway. It could be done, Seto said, setting aside staffing constraints.

Warpehoski got clarification that under the UTC if there’s enough time for a motorist to stop, then it’s legal for a pedestrian to step into the roadway. Assistant city attorney Bob West confirmed Warpehoski’s understanding. Warpehoski wanted to know what the responsibility is for motorists in multi-lane situations. West explained that vehicles traveling in the same direction of travel have the same responsibility.

Assistant city attorney Bob West was at the podium to answer questions about the UTC. He had brought a copy of the UTC with him, but he did not read it aloud. In the background is Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

West said the intent of the law is not to make pedestrians say, “I can make these guys stop.” Pedestrians have more to lose, West noted.

Warpehoski asked Seto and West how confident they’d been in making citations and making them stick. They indicated they were comfortable with making citations stick.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on Lumm’s contention that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. He himself had asked for other examples. He noted that pedestrian advocates in Ann Arbor contended that Traverse City interprets the UTC to mean that “within a crosswalk” includes the curb. But Kunselman contended that the vehicle code defines the crosswalk as measured between the curbs. Kunselman said that by having different language from other cities, it’s causing confusion. How could Traverse City possibly be giving the UTC the claimed interpretation? asked Kunselman.

Seto didn’t know. Seto told Kunselman that the Traverse City police chief’s response to his question was to provide the ordinance language. Kunselman wanted to know if the UTC can be enforced as meaning “at the curb” – the same intent that’s explicit in the existing ordinance. West didn’t think so.

Mayor John Hieftje encouraged councilmembers to wrap up this item by pointing out that there were a lot of items left on the agenda and this was just the first reading.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) invited councilmembers to ask themselves how often they’ve come close to hitting a pedestrian.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted the asymmetry between the claim that the ordinance is so powerful that it causes pedestrians to step in front of cars, yet it’s not powerful enough to compel a motorist to do what they should do in any case: Yield to pedestrians at a curb at a crosswalk. Taylor also noted the increases in pedestrian accidents in other cities, which had nothing to do with Ann Arbor’s ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Hieftje echoed Taylor’s sentiments, and said he also wouldn’t support the repeal of the ordinance, even on first reading.

Lumm read aloud a message she’d received from a resident who complained that they have had to slam on their brakes for pedestrians who were crossing against the light. [The ordinance in question actually applies to non-signalized crosswalks.]

Kunselman said it’s more important to install HAWK and RFBs than to focus on ordinance language. He also wanted to add FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) to the police department so there can be more traffic enforcement. AAPD staffing levels are dramatically down and can’t enforce basic traffic law, he contended. He questioned why the law should be different in Ann Arbor.

Petersen shared a voicemail relating an anecdote that demonstrated support for her point of view.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) weighed in supporting the existing ordinance.

Warpehoski pointed out that if a car can stop or yield, then the UTC states that a pedestrian can step into the crosswalk. Warpehoski refuted Kunselman’s contention that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique, by citing Boulder’s ordinance, which includes “approaching” not just “within” a crosswalk. He also cited Seattle’s definition of crosswalk, which extends to the farthest sidewalk line, including the curb.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Warpehoski confronted Kunselman’s characterization of the existing ordinance as a “pedestrian convenience” ordinance by reflecting on the recommendations in the Federal Highway Administration guide “How to Develop A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan.”

Warpehoski announced that he’d vote for the ordinance revision on first reading, but will ask for postponement at the second reading until after the yet-to-be established pedestrian safety task force could make a recommendation. [The task force was established later in the meeting, after Warpehoski's bid to have the task force's recommendation be submitted sooner than February 2015 failed. His intent was to set up a situation where the same group of councilmembers could consider the ordinance at second reading, after a long postponement but with a task force recommendation.]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) indicated he’d support the crosswalk ordinance revision at first reading. He thought the correct forum for this type of revision is the state legislature.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to give initial approval to the repeal of the crosswalk law. Dissent came from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force

In front of the council for consideration on Nov. 18 for a second time was a resolution to appoint a pedestrian safety task force. It had been postponed on Nov. 7 amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy had described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force will consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.”

The resolution considered on Nov. 7 was swapped out with a substitute version on Nov. 18 that added some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That allows the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated.

The timeframe for membership application shifted in the substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. The task force’s report would also not be due until the council’s first meeting in February 2015. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian safety task force resolution]

Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The task force’s report, due by early February 2015 – would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force: Council Deliberations

Before the council reached the item on the agenda, during council communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the people who’ve worked on Safety on Seventh. The area needs a lot of attention because vehicles go really fast through that area, he said. When you live on a busy street, you don’t give up your rights as a citizen, he said. People who live on active streets are a part of the community, he continued. Anglin contended that speeders are in fact people who live here. There will be a meeting at Slauson Middle School on the topic, with the date and time to be determined, he said.

When the council reached the item on the agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution. The problem is engineering, enforcement and education, she said. It’s going to cost time, energy and budgetary wherewithal, she continued. Drivers will resent getting a ticket, she said. She then related her views about bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians. She talked about meetings she’s had with University of Michigan officials and Downtown Development Authority officials. Briere contended that this issue includes sidewalk gaps. So sidewalk gaps have been added to the mission of the task force, she explained. She wanted the council to move forward on this.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he wouldn’t support the task force resolution because he thought this task should be taken up by an existing body – the Ann Arbor Public Schools transportation safety committee.

Standing is city administrator Steve Powers leaning over to chat with Jack Eaton (Ward 4) before the start of the Nov. 18 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he supports pedestrian safety. He talked about the fact that there are no jaywalking laws. He also noted that it’s legal to ride a bike on a sidewalk, which he does because he feels safer there. “Cars are bigger than I am. Cars can kill me.” He said that maybe pedestrians have been “pampered” by the city making them think that cars will stop just by standing by the side of the road. He wanted people to understand that it’s dangerous out there, and to have a sense of risk. He wanted the task force to focus on that aspect of education – understanding the sense of risk. He’d support the task force.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) told Kunselman that it’s not true that he’s safer riding on the sidewalk.

Anglin echoed Eaton’s point about having the transportation safety committee handle the task. He wanted there to be a broader conversation with the schools and the University of Michigan.

Warpehoski responded to Anglin’s idea that the task force should cast a wide net by pointing out how the resolution names the various interested groups. He noted that the AAPS transportation safety committee does not have UM representation. He said he’s become something of an evangelist for the FHA manual on how to develop a pedestrian safety strategy. [.pdf of "How to Develop A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan"] He ticked through some examples from the manual. The task force would be an opportunity to step back from the controversy of the crosswalk ordinance, he said.

Warpehoski then proposed an amendment that the pedestrian task force make its recommendation for an ordinance change by the first meeting in October 2014. His plan was to put off the final vote on the crosswalk ordinance until after that. He said if councilmembers won’t support putting off the ordinance change when it comes before the council for a second reading, they shouldn’t vote for this amendment.

Outcome: The amendment accelerating the timeline for the task force’s report failed, getting support only from Warpehoski, Briere, Taylor, Teall, and Hieftje.

Kunselman said he wonders how the city will be working with UM, if the city’s crosswalk ordinance language is different from the university’s rule. Briere responded by saying that as long as Kunselman has announced how he’s going to vote on rescinding the ordinance and assuming everyone else on the council does the same, the city’s ordinance would be reverting to the UTC, which has the same language as the UM rule.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked if the sponsors would be willing to put this off until some additional questions could be answered – noting that she didn’t disagree with the underlying premise of establishing the task force. Briere asked Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, to the podium to respond to Lumm’s concern about what the staff’s plan would be.

Hupy explained that staff has not figured out completely how to move this resolution along with the sidewalk gap process. Briere wanted to know how long it would take to pull together that information. Probably by the middle of December, answered Hupy. Briere asked if that would represent a conflict with the appointment schedule of the task force. Hupy told Briere that’s up to the council.

Briere said she was struggling to find a rational reason to postpone this. She didn’t want to put this on the back burner for another construction season. Hupy said he’s not sure that a postponement would have a dramatic negative impact. Briere cited the numerous emails that she’s received from people who don’t realize the city has a program for addressing sidewalk issues. Briere apologized for making Hupy sit through a speech from her.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated: “For reasons articulated by councilmember Briere, I support the resolution.” Warpehoski quizzed Hupy about the impact on staff work.

Kunselman said he’d be looking at installing a flashing beacon at Easy Street and Packard Road. He wondered if at budget time next year he’d be told he has to wait for the task force recommendation. Hupy said that he was at that moment “brain dead enough” due to the late hour [after 1 a.m.] that he wasn’t sure – but he thought that intersection is already under consideration for a flashing beacon. Kunselman recalled that there’d been rubber hoses out in the street doing traffic counts.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wanted to make sure there’s no moratorium on pedestrian infrastructure. Hupy assured her that won’t be the case.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force.

DDA TIF, Governance

In front of the council for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting was a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change allows for several million dollars in additional TIF (tax increment finance) capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that does not apply at all until FY 2017 and will result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It will also mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount will be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

David Blanchard addressed a mid-October joint committee of DDA members and city councilmembers. As chair of the city’s housing and human services board, he advocated for a DDA commitment to affordable housing, which ultimately was included in the ordinance at $300,000 annually for residents at 50% AMI. At the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, Blanchard was nominated to be reappointed to that board. That nomination will be put to the council for a vote at its first meeting in December.

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarified the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 will be about $180,000. But that will be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the committee’s recommended version to include a limitation on board terms. The version that was up for final consideration on Nov. 18 imposed a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI).

DDA TIF/Governance: Public Hearing

Nine people spoke at the Nov. 18 public hearing on this item. Thomas Partridge talked about how he went to Washington D.C. to study law and to work for senators McNamara and Hart. He called the ordinance a furtherance of corruption and discrimination. The entire DDA ordinance should be repealed and substituted, he said. The DDA needs enough revenue to give equal opportunity to every commercial area of the city, he said.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Maura Thomson addressed the council as executive director of the Main Street Area Association, which represents 175 businesses. She supported the ordinance change. Councilmembers had wanted clarity, she said. The ordinance would not have negative impact on the work the DDA is doing now and could do in the future, she said. She challenged the idea of downtown interests “versus” the rest of the city, by saying the downtown belongs to everyone. The downtown has a social, economic, and cultural purpose, she said. Looking at the interests of the downtown and the rest of the city as separate is not a productive way to think about it, she said.

Tom Heywood of the State Street Area Association called the solution that had been crafted a win-win. It allowed the DDA to continue its work while returning millions of dollars to the brother and sister jurisdictions over several years, he said.

Jim Osborne asked for stricter council oversight of the DDA. Instead of begging the DDA money to give money back, the council should control the DDA, he said.

Sandi Smith, current chair of the DDA, read a prepared statement. She appealed to the idea that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The premise of the ordinance change was to achieve clarity, she said, but she complained about the cap that was being proposed. She described the proposed ordinance as cutting the DDA’s bonding capacity in half. [That claim relies on a comparison that ignores the existing language in the ordinance. Compared to the existing language in the ordinance, the DDA's revenues will be about $2 million greater annually than they would be if the strict language of the ordinance were enforced. ]

Lou Glorie took the podium to counter Smith. She characterized the ordinance change as re-establishing some equity between the DDA and the other taxing authorities.

Omari Rush, education manager at the University Musical Society, described the role of downtowns in cities and how much he enjoys Ann Arbor’s downtown. He appreciated what’s been done to make Ann Arbor’s downtown clean, safe and vibrant.

Dug Song recalled that the last time he attended a council meeting, he was lobbying for a skatepark – and now that’s being built. He expressed general support for the DDA. He recalled how the local tech firm Arbor Networks grew from five people to 300 people, but most of those jobs were in Boston, because there’s not adequate space in downtown Ann Arbor. He supported the “love economy,” an allusion to remarks from Alan Haber made earlier in the meeting, but he also supported small companies (two people and some laptops) that grow into something larger.

Peter Baker introduced himself as a resident of Water Hill and employee of DuoSecurity. He chose Ann Arbor because of the interplay between downtown and neighborhoods.

DDA TIF/Governance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led of deliberations by saying he was really pleased that there was support for this, based on the public hearing commentary. The discussion had lasted for many months, he said. [The initial proposal this year dates back to February, but a budget amendment that was similar in spirit had been proposed by Kunselman in May 2012.] He urged the adoption of the ordinance without any amendments.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then announced that she’d just emailed other councilmembers a proposed amendment to the ordinance change. The amendment was the result of a housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) resolution, she said. The amendment clarified that the first year of the $300,000 affordable housing allocations is tax year 2016. Thereafter the DDA is required to increase the allocation by the same amount that the cap escalates. Kunselman indicated he was fine with the amendment, if it was not considered a big enough change that it would reset the proposal to a first reading in front of the council.

Briere conferred with city attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorney Mary Fales on the question. Postema concluded: “It’s fine.” Kunselman noted that he’d touched base with David Blanchard, chair of HHSAB, and Kunselman thought it’s probably not an amendment that’s necessary, but he didn’t have a problem with it. He accepted it as a friendly amendment.

Executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority Susan Pollay.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was worried that the DDA would not be able to continue funding the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which does not have a 50% AMI requirement. [The ordinance revision specifies 50% AMI as the definition of affordable housing.] Executive director Susan Pollay indicated that she understood the ordinance language to mean that additional dollars, beyond the $300,000, could be allocated for Dawn Farm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she had attended the recent DDA partnerships committee meeting as well as the HHSAB meeting. She characterized the conversations at those different meetings as “schizophrenic.” The DDA had wanted more flexibility, she reported. DDA board chair Sandi Smith – who had taken the podium – responded to Lumm, saying there was not pushback on the $300,000 amount that the DDA had to allocate for affordable housing. Rather, it was the 50% AMI standard that was problematic, she said.

Lumm asked for an explanation of the DDA’s policy to invest in areas outside the DDA district when those investments were felt to have a positive impact on the district. The standard in the policy is within 1/4 mile of the district, Pollay said. Smith ventured that using the wording “downtown area” would be consistent with the DDA’s policy on investing in housing projects within 1/4 mile of the district. Briere came to the podium to show Smith her iPad with the text of her proposed amendment.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he had a concern about the city’s own budget. He believed there were going to be millions of dollars of investment required in the Ann Arbor housing commission properties. So he wanted the “downtown area” to stretch as far as Miller Manor, which is an AAHC property. Lumm wanted to add “near downtown area” to the ordinance language. Kunselman wanted to make sure that any change in the wording would not reset the ordinance to the first reading. Fales confirmed that such a change in wording would not reset the reading, because it’s consistent with the DDA renewal plan.

Briere got confirmation from Smith that the DDA’s definition of “near downtown area” means within 1/4 mile of the district boundary. Pollay and Briere weren’t sure if Miller Manor was within 1/4 miles of the district. [It is.] Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted confirmation that Miller Manor meets the 50% AMI criterion.

Lumm recited the reasons she was supportive of the ordinance revision – which included the fact that there would be 55% growth in TIF for the DDA over the next three years. She thought it would have been better to impose the cap in an earlier year so that sharing of additional revenue with the other jurisdictions would have begun sooner.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he was going to violate the council’s rules by emailing the amendments to the media. [.pdf of Briere amendment]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he would have preferred a lower cap and a shorter term limit for DDA board members. [The terms were limited to three 4-year terms in the ordinance revision.] However, Eaton applauded the effort of the committee that made the recommendation.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Taylor said he wouldn’t support the ordinance revision. The DDA had proven itself a reliable steward of taxpayer funding, he contended. He recited familiar arguments in support of the DDA. Taylor went on to claim that the resulting proposal before the council was not a compromise, but rather a “power play.” He contended that people had been told that if they organized and spoke against the revision, “there would be trouble.”

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated she wasn’t happy with the ordinance revision [because the TIF revenue to the DDA was greater than she had wanted], but would still support it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated she would not support the ordinance revision.

Hieftje recited some standard arguments and history of the DDA and its impact. Hieftje characterized the proposal as a compromise, disagreeing with Taylor. Hieftje wanted to “get this behind us” and let the DDA get back to work.

Teall contended that the proposal went way beyond clarifying the language and contended that Taylor was “calling it like it is.”

Outcome: The council voted to approve the ordinance change, with dissent from Taylor and Teall.

Council Organization

The council had a handful of items on its agenda at the start of the meeting associated with the new, post-election composition of the council. In Ward 4, Jack Eaton joined the council in the seat formerly held by Marcia Higgins.

Council Organization: Swearing In

Those taking the oath administered by city clerk Jackie Beaudry were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3); Jack Eaton (Ward 4); and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The oath is from Section 2 of Article XVI of the Michigan state constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [city councilmember] according to the best of my ability.”

Council Organization: Mayor Pro Tem

Under the city charter, the council is required to “elect” a mayor pro tem at the first meeting after the seating of new councilmembers:

At its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election, the Council shall elect one of its members Mayor Pro Tem for a term expiring at the first Council meeting following the next regular city election. The election of the Mayor Pro Tem shall be by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council.

In the event that the mayor is temporarily not able to fulfill his duties, the mayor pro tem has all the powers of the mayor, save the power of veto. In Ann Arbor’s council-manager form of government, where the city administrator has day-to-day responsibility for city operations, those mayoral duties are somewhat limited and include: presiding over meetings of the council; voting as a councilmember; making nominations to committees, commissions and boards; and exercising certain powers during emergencies.

The procedure used by the council to “elect” a mayor pro tem is to move a resolution proposing that some particular councilmember serve as mayor pro tem. One possible reason for this procedure – as opposed to asking councilmembers on a roll call vote administered by the city clerk to name the person they’d like to serve – is the charter requirement that:

Except as otherwise provided in this charter, each member of the Council present shall cast a “yes” or “no” vote on each question before the Council, unless excused therefrom by a vote of at least six members.

However, it’s not clear that a charter requirement would prevent taking an informal straw poll at the council table, with the outcome of that straw poll determining the content of the resolution on which the council would then formally vote.

In any case, the council’s procedure is to begin with a motion to select someone as mayor pro tem, which on Nov. 18 was made by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who’d been recognized by mayor John Hieftje – to name Margie Teall (Ward 4) to that position.

Taylor began by calling mayor pro tem an “honorary post.” He stated that it was his understanding that it was filled “on the basis of seniority.” [Marcia Higgins had most recently served as mayor pro tem, each year since 2008, and was for that period the most senior member on the council. However, prior to that, mayor pro tem was Chris Easthope, who was at that time not the most senior member of the council – as that distinction belonged to Higgins.] Taylor continued his remarks by quipping that while Teall is young at heart, she is old by measure of the length of her council service, so he supported her for mayor pro tem.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to Taylor’s remarks by saying he wouldn’t support Teall as mayor pro tem, saying that the council didn’t always need to do things the same way. He wanted to see fresh blood and fresh thinking at the position. He’d support Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Kunselman said.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that the position is honorary, and that it’s rare for someone to need to fill in. He gave the date of his last absence at a meeting as July 3, 2012.

Outcome: The council voted 6-5 to appoint Margie Teall as mayor pro tem for the coming year. Dissenting were Kunselman, Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm. After Hieftje and Teall, the order of succession first by seniority, then alphabetically would be: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Jane Lumm, Sally (Hart) Petersen, Sumi Kailasapathy, Chuck Warpehoski and Jack Eaton.

Council Organization: 2014 Council Committee Appointments

Mayor John Hieftje began by noting that when there’s a new member of the council, it’s been customary to delay voting on committee appointments until the following meeting, so that the appointments can all be sorted out. He invited a motion to postpone, which he received.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important for councilmembers to be able serve on those committees that they want to serve on. He went on to contend that the mayor pro tem has an obligation to work with councilmembers on appointments. He wanted that brought up before councilmembers are appointed to those committee members. He pointed out that the liquor license review committee’s responsibility has evolved over time. Anglin called for a slower and more deliberative process for the committee appointments.

Hieftje said the process over the last few years was that he’d worked with Marcia Higgins, in her capacity as mayor pro tem, to gather up preferences for assignments from councilmembers. Hieftje said he would be happy to see councilmembers get the assignments they wanted.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that she would not be attending the next council meeting.

Outcome: The council voted to delay consideration of the council committee appointments until its first meeting in December – Dec. 2, 2013.

Council Organization: 2014 Council Rules

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested that in accordance with past practice, the item setting the council rules be delayed until the rules committee could have a chance to look at it. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the rules had just recently been amended. She also noted that it would be the existing rules committee that would do the review.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for a future amendment to Rule 8, swapping in “personal attack” for “personality” as the thing to be avoided during council deliberations. [In an archaic meaning, "personality" can mean a disparaging remark about someone.]

Outcome: The council voted to delay action on the council rules until its first meeting in December so that the council’s rules committee could review the existing rules. The existing council rules committee now consists of Mayor John Hieftje, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1)

Ethics Resolution

The council considered a resolution directing an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directed the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The point of PA 196 appears to be designed to prevent unauthorized leaks of information.

The resolution was first considered on Nov. 7, but its sponsor, Sally Petersen (Ward 2), moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night. It was taken up again on Nov. 18.

Ethics: Public Commentary

Jeanine Delay offered her strong support for the ethics resolution that Petersen was sponsoring. Delay works with a group called A2 Ethics. She acknowledged Stephen Kunselman’s support of the resolution. There are many persistent misconceptions about local ethics, Delay said. One misconception is that upon election, an official will somehow magically recognize the various conflicts that might arise. The second misconception is that good character will ensure good ethical practice. “We’re all in this together, so we need a collective process,” she said. In passing this resolution, Ann Arbor would join other cities that have recognized the importance of ethics in civic life, she said.

Nancy Schewe of the local League of Women Voters also indicated support for the ethics resolution. Setting our own standards will allow us to reflect our own local values, she said. This resolution would help avoid problems before they come along. The standards should be known, codified and enforced, she said. She added that this would shape a community of high ethical standards.

Erin Mattimoe introduced herself as a youth developer and a volunteer with A2 Ethics. Democracy depends on trust in elected officials, she said. That requires regular training and education, she said.

Joanna DeCamp introduced herself as a volunteer with A2 Ethics. She supported the resolution on ethics sponsored by Petersen (and also Kunselman). Trust in government is low at the national and state levels, she said. Comprehensive training and education would allow common expectations of behavior to be developed, she said, and that will allow for constructive dialogues with conflicts arise.

Ethics: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thanked A2 Ethics for their work, but cautioned that the resolution is not really about an ethics policy. This was a first step in the conversation, she said. Issues of conflict of interest are “top of mind” for the community, she said. She wanted everyone to be on an even playing field, and that’s why the resolution called for an educational effort.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen responded to the question of what the problem is – by saying there doesn’t need to be a problem that needs solving in order to start working along these lines.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was the one who’d asked what the problem was to be solved. Briere said there’s a “perception” that there might be conflict of interest and there could be a need to address that. She was not comfortable with trying to apply PA 196 because it doesn’t get at the issue of undue influence.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he’s an enthusiastic supporter of exploring this issue, saying he thought standards should be established so that councilmembers have a clear measure by which to guide their conduct. Like Briere, he was concerned about inclusion of Act 196 because it deals with premature disclosure of information.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) then proposed amending the resolution by naming Act 196 just as an example of a resource that can be drawn upon, among others. That was considered friendly by Petersen. [.pdf of Warpehoski's ethics amendments]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she thought the resolution was a good idea, but had concerns about the practical implementation. She wondered how much burden that would be on the city attorney’s staff. City attorney Stephen Postema characterized it as just another assignment.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated support for the resolution. It’s important that people have confidence in their elected officials, she said.

Kunselman thanked Petersen for her work. He asked if anyone wanted to trade positions with him on the rules committee – as he’s currently on that committee. It’s all about learning, he said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the ethics resolution.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council gave final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – such as food – could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park. Volunteers with the Vineyard Church were distributing pizza in Liberty Plaza through its weekly Pizza in the Park program.

The building adjacent to Liberty Plaza on the west is owned by First Martin. Church volunteers were using the private parking lot to the rear of the building as a drop off for the Pizza in the Park event, and the area under the building overhang as an area for gathering and for dispensing food. Earlier this year, that had prompted the city to contemplate assessing the fee for public park usage.

By way of additional background, at the Oct. 10, 2011 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting, John Teeter of First Martin had described for the DDA board the regular cleanup activities First Martin undertakes in public parks, including Wheeler Park, the corner of Main and Depot streets, and Liberty Plaza. In a more recent telephone interview with Teeter, he said that the park maintenance work had been done for a few years prior to 2011 and continues to the present. First Martin maintains Liberty Plaza through regular trash pickup, and certain improvements – most recently to the irrigation system and through contributions to a new “sensory garden.”

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to the Pizza in the Park situation. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, amended Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change provides a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting. That’s why it appeared on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge addressed the council about the use of parks for people to gather. He said issues of free speech are being ignored in the ordinance change, so he wanted the change delayed for further review.

Seth Best asked everyone to stand who supported the ordinance change. There were about 70 people standing in chambers in response. He read off a list of people that he wanted to thank. Dan Reim, minister for hispanic/latino ministry and social justice at St. Mary’s student parish, supported the ordinance change in part by recounting the parable of the good Samaritan.

When Seth Best invited people to stand in support of the ordinance change, roughly 70 people, by The Chronicle’s count, were standing in city council chambers.

Rev. Lindsay Conrad of First Presbyterian Church also addressed the council supporting the ordinance change. Jim Osborne urged passage of the resolution. Osborne told the council that he’d organized a group to distribute food at West Park and he’s found the city’s fees and process to be a burden.

Lily Au said that the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor has not increased its capacity. She asked the council to help poor people. Odile Hugot Haber spoke in support of the ordinance change. Alan Haber also rose to speak in favor of the ordinance change. It’s obvious that a church should be able to distribute free food in a park, Haber said. There’s an economy of love, he said: making available what we have with each other.

Michael Brinkman introduced himself as a resident next to Wheeler Park. Severe weather in the Philippines and in the Midwest had resulted in new homeless people, he said. He asked the council to support the microcosm of that larger context. Three others rounded out the public hearing, all in support of the ordinance change.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver: Council Deliberations

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) suggested a “friendly” amendment to add “and/or services” in addition to “goods.” Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) replied that the distinction between goods and services was material to PAC’s review of the proposal. Adding services would expand what was contemplated, Taylor said. Taylor recited the history of that issue. PAC had “interrogated” the proposal thoroughly, Taylor said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked the members of Camp Take Notice and everyone who’d met with her about the issue. She said it was enjoyable to be able to respond to a request like this.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) called the solution of the ordinance change very “elegant.” Mike Anglin (Ward 5) praised Camp Take Notice members for being very good at political action. It was hard to deny their humanitarian message, he said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) offered her thanks. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said Camp Take Notice members “know how to catch bees with honey.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the possible park fee waiver. The vote received applause.

Non-Motorized Plan

In front of the council for the second time was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. A postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

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

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.

The update is an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

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.” 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.

Non-Motorized Plan: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off by asking city planning manager Wendy Rampson, city transportation program manager Eli Cooper and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium to answer questions. She asked about bike boulevards. She wanted to an amendment to the plan to include a statement that any bike boulevard implementation plan would need to engage the neighborhood.

Rampson pointed out that an amendment by the council would require the planning commission to reconsider the plan, because the council and the commission need to adopt the same plan.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Hupy to explain how the community engagement typically happens. If a bike boulevard were proposed, Briere ventured that the staff would have public engagement without any particular direction from the council. Hupy confirmed Briere’s understanding.

Lumm said her concern is that when you adopt a plan, the plan then gets implemented. Lumm thanked staff for answering her questions and all the work that went into developing the plan. Hearing it would have to go back to planning commission gave her pause. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) quoted out the section in the plan on bike boulevards and how the staff is supposed to engage the public. He also pointed out that the recommendations are in every case tentative. He didn’t see the need to amend the plan.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) pointed to page 39 of the plan, which includes locations for additional rapid flashing beacons. Eaton asked what the implementation process would be. Cooper explained a process that starts with data collection. Council involvement would take place when the money was needed, Cooper said.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Cooper to sketch out the process for developing the non-motorized plan update. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted clarification of the reason why the planning commission would also need to approve any amendment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the update to the non-motorized transportation plan.

New Year’s Events

As part of its consent agenda, the council considered two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The council considered authorization of the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council considered on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games will also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures will be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which will be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council also was asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council was also asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

In addition, the council was asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking will be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

Outcome: The resolutions in connection with The Puck Drops Here and NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium passed unanimously as part of the council’s consent agenda.

3325 Packard Rezoning

The council was asked to give initial approval of a request that would rezone 0.27 acres from R1C (single-family zoning district) to R2A (two-family zoning district) at 3325 Packard Road. This would allow the construction of a duplex on the now-vacant property. The owner contends that constructing a duplex is economically viable but a single-family home is not. The planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning request at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reviewed the planning commission’s reasoning in recommending against the rezoning.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium to comment. The planning commission had struggled with the decision, because it’s a vacant lot, Rampson told Lumm. In addition, it’s a corner lot. It’s an established single-family neighborhood, she noted, and the planning commission is always hesitant to approve a “spot zoning.” The owner hasn’t been able to garner support from an entire blockface of owners who would join in a request, Rampson reported.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) praised the planning commission for following the master plan. He talked about the difficulty of redeveloping vacant lots in the eastern part of the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that he understood the planning commission’s decision.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reject initial approval of the Packard Road rezoning request.

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: Streetlights

During communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that some streetlights he’d complained about being out on Packard were now on – near Mary Beth Doyle park. Kunselman said that there’s no moratorium on streetlights and stated that there was only a budget resolution in the past, which he didn’t consider a moratorium.

Comm/Comm: Financial Disclosures

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Kai Petainen addressed the council about the issue of getting financial records from nonprofits. Petainen had a few days earlier posted a piece on his Forbes blog about an episode that involved Ann Arbor SPARK. Petainen’s remarks to council came at nearly 2 a.m., and he told Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that the meeting’s late hour was Eaton’s “initiation.” [It was the first meeting for Eaton after being elected to the council on Nov. 5.]

Comm/Comm: John F. Kennedy

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council, as well as a candidate for the state house and senate. He was there to call for honoring the legacy of John F. Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death. Partridge called on the public to urge the council, the county board, the state legislature and the Congress to put forward Kennedy’s 1961 agenda. Partridge called for affordable housing, transportation and health care, as well as education.

Comm/Comm: Transgender Day of Remembrance

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Seth Best called the council’s attention to the fact that the transgender day of remembrance was Nov. 20.

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

Next council meeting: Dec. 2, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing 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 Nov. 18, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council is the first one with the new post-election composition of the 11-member council. The one new member of the council is Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who prevailed in the August Democratic primary contested with Marcia Higgins. She concluded 14 years of council service at her final meeting on Nov. 7.

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

The Nov. 18 meeting will include ceremonial swearing in of all councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5 – including Eaton, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Three other items internal to the council organizational configuration appear on the agenda: approval of the 2014 city council rules; appointment of the 2014 city council committees; and election of mayor pro tem, as well as establishing the order of succession for acting mayor.

In recent years, the rules and the committee appointments have been put off until the first meeting in December, with only the election of mayor pro tem taking place at the second meeting in November. Higgins had served as mayor pro tem since 2008.

Speculation among some council sources indicate that Lumm could have sufficient support on the council to win election as mayor pro tem. Mayor pro tem fulfills the duties of mayor when the mayor is out of town or unable to perform those duties. The mayor pro tem’s salary is the same as other councilmembers, which is $15,913. Customarily, the order of mayoral succession has followed seniority on the council, with councilmembers who were elected in the same year sorted alphabetically.

A substantial portion of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda consists of items the council has seen at least once before – some through postponement and others by the nature of the standard approval process. In the standard-process category, the council will be asked to confirm a handful of appointments to boards and commissions that were nominated on Nov. 7.

The council will also consider giving final approval to two ordinance revisions that received initial approval at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting. One of those ordinance revisions involves changing the permitting requirements for use of public parks – so that fees would be waived for organizations that use parks to distribute goods to meet basic human needs.

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval on Nov. 18 is a change to the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and board governance.

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council would expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for consideration. The council had directed the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land, based on his $5.25 million offer, and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18. [See 4:17 p.m. update below]

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings. One of those was first seen on Nov. 7 – a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials and the public on conflict of interest and ethics issues.

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme. The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member.

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, so the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18.

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance. [See 3:45 p.m. update below]

The repeal of language in the crosswalk ordinance will get its first reading at the council’s Nov. 18  meeting. The ordinance could be altered so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic hockey game at Michigan Stadium.

The agenda features a few separate resolutions on standard easements and some rezoning requests. One of those rezoning requests is not standard – and was recommended by the planning commission for denial. That’s a request for rezoning a parcel on Packard Road from single-family to two-family.

The council will also be asked to authorize the city’s participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program.

This article includes a more detailed preview 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 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.

Familiar Business

Much of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda covers topics familiar from previous meetings – items that were moved forward as part of the standard approval process.

Familiar Business: Appointments

Nominations made on Nov. 7, which the council will be asked to confirm on Nov. 18, include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be reappointed to the cable communications commission.

On the housing and human services advisory board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively.

Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for reappointment to the city’s human rights commission.

Nominations to be put forward on Nov. 18 are not yet posted on the Legistar agenda.

However, those might eventually include some nominations to the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) – the group that sets the salaries for city councilmembers, including the mayor.

The city’s Legistar system shows only two members of seven-member group without expired terms – Eunice Burns and Roger Hewitt. Hewitt also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. So the legal basis for Hewitt’s membership appears dubious in light of the prohibition against service on the LOCC for anyone who’s an employee or member of any branch of any government.

The LOCC is supposed to meet in every odd-numbered year, but has not yet met in 2013.

Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council will be giving final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and now on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change would provide permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting is a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change would allow for several million dollars in additional TIF capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It would mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarifies the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 would be about $180,000. But that would be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

Although the committee did not put forth a recommendation on governance, the tabled version included various provisions on changes to governance. Those governance revisions included: (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator, according to the tabled version.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the new version to include a limitation on terms. The version that’s up for final consideration on Nov. 18 would impose a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI).

Familiar Business: Former Y Lot Sale

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council will expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The council voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. It directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The original resolution directed the inclusion of a provision to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR) including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Delayed Business

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings.

Delayed Business: Ethics

First considered by the council on Nov. 7 was a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials on conflict of interest and ethics issues. On Nov. 7 Petersen herself moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night.

The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Delayed Business: Transportation – AAATA

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme.

The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Ypsilanti Township hopes to become a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. (Solid green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – would set the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Non-Motorized Plan

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. So the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18. The postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

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.

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

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

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.” 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.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Pedestrian Safety Task Force

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. So that will again be before the council for consideration on Nov. 18. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

New Business: Crosswalk Ordinance

One piece of transportation business that’s new before the council on Nov. 18 is the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council will be asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb, depending on the interpretation of the UTC) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

New Year’s Events

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The Ann Arbor city council will be asked on Nov. 18 to authorize the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

3:45 p.m. Pedestrian Safety Task Force. The resolution is likely to be swapped out with a substitute version that adds some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That would conceivably allow the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated. The timeframe for membership application has shifted in the possible substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. The task force’s report would also not be due until the council’s first meeting in February 2015. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian safety task force resolution]

4:17 p.m. Former Y lot sale. In emails to councilmembers spaced just 14 minutes apart this afternoon, city administrator Steve Powers first indicated that negotiations with Dahlmann were continuing and that he didn’t expect to have a sales agreement ready for tonight’s meeting (3:41 p.m.) and then that Dahlmann had agreed to all the city’s terms (3:55 p.m.). City attorneys are preparing the sales agreement, and Powers expects it to be ready for consideration at tonight’s meeting.

6:24 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.

6:27 p.m. The lobby of city hall is staffed with volunteers from the Vineyard Church and members of Camp Take Notice who are handing out bottled water to council meeting arrivees. They’re here in support of the final consideration of an ordinance change that would waive fees for organizations that use public parks for the purpose of charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.

6:28 p.m. In chambers, several people are already here in the audience in support of the park fee waiver ordinance. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the only councilmember here so far. His computer has been set up by Paul from IT. He’s getting a quick update from city clerk Jackie Beaudry.

6:32 p.m. Ted Annis, Nancy Kaplan and Harvey Kaplan have arrived.

6:40 p.m. Comment overheard in the audience on 35 F temps and 20 mph wind outside: “It’s a tough night to be homeless.”

6:42 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) have now arrived. City attorney Stephen Postema is also here.

6:48 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje arrives with city administrator Steve Powers. Hieftje gives Eaton a friendly pat on the shoulder in passing. Some of the AAATA staff have arrived.

6:52 p.m. Still missing several councilmembers.

6:57 p.m. The sales agreement has now been attached to the online agenda. Price is still $5.25 million with all the requirements in the council’s Nov. 7 resolution in a rider. [link to Dahlmann purchase agreement item]

6:58 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) have now arrived.

6:59 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) arrives. Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman are still not here.

7:02 p.m. Taylor is now here. His first move is to head over to Jack Eaton and welcome him to the council.

7:06 p.m. Alan Haber is here. Eaton collects a hug from Haber. It’s a packed house. The partitions have been pulled back. Jeff Hayner is spotted across the room. Kunselman has now arrived.

7:11 p.m. We’re close to starting.

7:14 p.m. Call to order, pledge of allegiance, moment of silence. And we’re off.

7:15 p.m. Roll call of the council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:16 p.m. Approval of agenda. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wants to make sure the AAATA item might be adjusted later to make sure that Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo can be there. She hasn’t arrived yet.

7:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:16 p.m. Administration of oath of office. Those taking the oath administered by city clerk Jackie Beaudry are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3); Jack Eaton (Ward 4); and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The oath is from Section 2 of Article XVI of the Michigan state constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [city councilmember] according to the best of my ability.”

7:18 p.m. Appoint mayor pro tem, establish order of succession. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) moves to appoint Margie Teall (Ward 4) as mayor pro tem, reasoning that she has the most seniority on the council.

7:19 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support Teall as mayor pro tem. He says he wants to see fresh blood at the position. He’ll support Lumm. Hieftje says that it’s largely ceremonial and it’s rare for someone to need to fill in.

7:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-5 to appoint Margie Teall as mayor pro tem for the coming year. Dissenting were Kunselman, Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm.

7:22 p.m. After Hieftje and Teall, the order of succession first by seniority, then alphabetically would be: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Jane Lumm, Sally (Hart) Petersen, Sumi Kailasapathy, Chuck Warpehoski and Jack Eaton.

7:24 p.m. 2014 Council committee appointments. Anglin is asking for a more open process where councilmembers can serve on the committees they want. He points out that the liquor committee’s responsibility has shifted. Hieftje has no problem with further discussion of the committee assignments. The inclination appears to be to postpone the committee appointments.

7:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to delay consideration of the council committee appointments until its first meeting in December – Dec. 2, 2013.

7:26 p.m. 2014 Council rules adoption. Taylor suggests that the item be delayed until the rules committee can have a chance to look at it. Briere notes that the rules had just recently been amended. She also notes that it would be the existing rules committee that would do the review. Warpehoski asks for a future amendment to Rule 8, swapping “personal attack” for “personality.”

7:29 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to delay action on the council rules until its first meeting in December.

7:30 p.m. City administrator communications. Powers reports that the impact of the previous day’s storms were relatively minimal, but 8 traffic signals had needed to be placed on generator power. They were then switched to four-way stops, and may be switched back to generators if power is not restored to them by the morning rush hour. Forestry crews removed 9 limbs from roadways. Other tree and limb issues are being prioritized and crews are working through the list, he says. Powers alerts the council to the two New Year’s items on the consent agenda. Powers gives a reminder of the trash and compost collection scheduling during Thanksgiving week.

7:30 p.m. Proclamations. One proclamation is on the agenda – honoring the 25th anniversary of the founding of Food Gatherers, a local nonprofit that collects and distributes food to those in need. The proclamation describes Food Gatherers as having provided millions of meals to hungry people in Washtenaw County. This last Saturday, bicycle-mounted participants in the Cranksgiving fundraiser collected almost a half ton of food for Food Gatherers.

7:31 p.m. The proclamation is being tracked down. Hieftje takes the council into recess while it’s located.

7:31 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

7:32 p.m. And we’re back.

7:35 p.m. The Food Gatherers proclamation gets a long standing ovation from the audience.

7:35 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.]

Four people are signed up to talk about the resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) on standards of ethical and professional conduct: Jeanine Delay, Nancy Schewe, Erin Mattimoe and Joanna DeCamp. Three people are signed up to talk about the repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance: Kathy Griswold, Erica Briggs, Chris Hewett. One person and one alternate are signed up to talk about membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA – Jim Mogensen and Emmanuel Jones (alternate).

Alan Haber is signed up to talk about the city of Ann Arbor’s participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certificate Program. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about honoring the legacy of John F. Kennedy. A final alternate speaker is Henry Herskovitz, whose topic is “Blacklisting by Mastercard.”

7:39 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council, as well as a candidate for the state house and senate. He’s here to call for honoring the legacy of JFK on the 50th anniversary of his death. Partridge calls on the public to urge the council, the county board, the state legislature and the Congress to put forward Kennedy’s 1961 agenda. He calls for affordable housing, transportation and health care, as well as education.

7:43 p.m. Jeanine Delay offers her strong support for the ethics resolution that Petersen is sponsoring. Delay works with a group called A2 Ethics. She acknowledges Kunselman’s support of the resolution. There are many persistent misconceptions about local ethics, she says. One misconception is that upon election, an official will somehow magically recognize the various conflicts that might arise. The second misconception is that good character will ensure good ethical practice. “We’re all in this together, so we need a collective process,” she says. In passing this resolution, Ann Arbor would join other cities that have recognized the importance of ethics in civic life, she says.

7:46 p.m. Nancy Schewe of the local League of Women Voters also indicates support for the ethics resolution. Setting our own standards will allow us to reflect our own local values, she says. This resolution will help avoid problems before they come along. The standards should be known, codified and enforced, she says. She adds that this will shape a community of high ethical standards.

7:49 p.m. Kathy Griswold says she’s previously spoken in favor of a state crosswalk law. She asks four questions: How were Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition members hoodwinked into supporting an ordinance change instead of supporting pedestrian infrastructure? Why is lighting inadequate in many neighborhoods, especially at crosswalks? Why are councilmembers supporting a pedestrian safety task force to report back in February 2015? She says it’s a duplication of the efforts of the transportation safety committee. Why do we continue to ignore overgrown vegetation at intersections?

7:50 p.m. Erin Mattimoe introduces herself as a youth developer and a volunteer with A2 Ethics. Democracy depends on trust in elected officials, she says. That requires regular training and education, she says.

7:53 p.m. Erica Briggs is chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. She supports the city’s current version of the ordinance. She says she’s delivering a petition signed by 587 people supporting the current ordinance. She is also delivering a letter signed by several organizations supporting the current ordinance. She calls the current ordinance a recognized best practice. She cites Traverse City as an example of a community where the Uniform Traffic Code is enforced so that motorists are supposed to stop for pedestrians who are standing at the curb.

7:55 p.m. Joanna DeCamp introduces herself as a volunteer with A2 Ethics. She’s supporting the resolution on ethics sponsored by Petersen (and also Kunselman). Trust in government is low at the national and state levels, she says. Comprehensive training and education will allow common expectations of behavior to be developed, she says. That will allow for constructive dialogues with conflicts arise.

7:59 p.m. Jim Mogensen speaks in favor of expansion of transit in the urban area. He calls it the continuation of a process that began over 40 years ago. He recounts the history of the changes that allowed the expansion to happen. In the mid-1970s after the city of Ann Arbor passed its millage, the AATA was expanded in a way that allowed the municipalities on the eastern side of the county to be included – through POSAs (purchase of service agreements). What those communities pay, he says, is the local match for federal funds. Ann Arbor Township is the only community no longer a part of that expansion, he says. Now, the AAATA has come up with a good plan to enhance service on the east side of the county.

8:02 p.m. Chris Hewett speaks for the neighborhood group Safety on Seventh. Whatever side of the vote councilmembers are on for the crosswalk ordinance, he says, it’s important to focus on the safety of pedestrians. He challenges councilmembers to leave their cars at home and experience what it’s like to experience the city as a pedestrian. He challenges the council to make people and neighborhoods their highest priority, not traffic flow and vehicle speeds.

8:05 p.m. Alan Haber says that making Ann Arbor a development-ready community seems OK on the surface. But he says it’s out of balance. Increasing the tax base is important, but there needs to be some focus on human development, he says. He refers to the ordinance change that would allow public parks to be used for the distribution of goods for human needs – and that’s the kind of human development he’s talking about. Haber speaks against development of the Library Lot.

8:05 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

8:07 p.m. Briere announces a meeting on Argo parking at Nov. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the Traverwood branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

8:07 p.m. Kunselman notes that some streetlights he’d complained about being out on Packard were now on – near Mary Beth Doyle park. Kunselman says that there’s no moratorium on streetlights, saying that there was only a budget resolution in the past, which he didn’t consider a moratorium.

8:08 p.m. Petersen thanks AAPD for showing up on Devonshire last night, to help with storm damage. She thanks staff for installing etiquette signs in the parks. Petersen also plugs a survey that she’s running.

8:09 p.m. Eaton thanks staff for their efforts during his two-day orientation as a new councilmember.

8:11 p.m. Teall announces that the Michigan Theater board will be meeting to explore ways to keep the State Theater open. She reports that the last partnerships committee meeting of the DDA was very productive. They’d had a great conversation about how to attract young people into the civic process.

8:12 p.m. Anglin thanks the people who’ve worked on Safety on Seventh. The area needs a lot of attention because vehicles go really fast through that area, he says. When you live on a busy street, you don’t give up your rights as a citizen, he says. People who live on active streets are a part of the community. He contends that speeders are in fact people who live here. There will be a meeting at Slauson Middle School, with the date and time to be determined, he says.

8:14 p.m. Kailasapathy says that when the discussion of adding police officers comes up, people always say that Part 1 crimes are down. There are other quality-of-life type issues that would be helped with more enforcement, she says.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski reports on a WeROC (Washtenaw Regional Organizing Coalition) gathering he’d attended. That group is working on a “ban the box” in hiring processes. The phrase refers to removing the “felony box” from job applications, and eliminating background checks for all jobs except those deemed sensitive. He’s going to be talking to city staff and the city human rights commission about it. Hieftje says there was work done on this previously, in partnership with Washtenaw County.

8:16 p.m. Appointments. Nominations made on Nov. 7, which the council will be asked to confirm tonight, include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be reappointed to the cable communications commission. On the housing and human services advisory board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively. Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for reappointment to the city’s human rights commission.

8:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the nominations made at the Nov. 7 meeting.

8:18 p.m. Nominations. David Blanchard was nominated for reappointment to the city’s housing and human services advisory board. That confirmation vote will come at the next council meeting.

8:18 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. Two public hearings are scheduled for tonight both on ordinance changes. One is on an alteration to the park user fee, which could be waived for use of a park to distribute goods in support of basic human needs. [For background, see Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver above.] The other is on a revision to the ordinance that regulates how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance capture is implemented. [For background, see Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance above.]

8:24 p.m. PH-1 Park use fee waiver. Thomas Partridge is addressing the council about the use of parks for people to gather. He says issues of free speech are being ignored in the ordinance change, so he wants the change delayed for further review. Seth Best asks everyone to stand who supports the ordinance change. There are estimated 70 people standing in chambers in response. He reads off a list of people who he wants to thank. Dan Ream, pastor at St. Mary’s student parish, supports the ordinance change. He recounts the parable of the good Samaritan.

8:28 p.m. Rev. Lindsay Conrad of First Presbyterian Church supports the ordinance change. Jim Osborne urges passage of the resolution. He’s organized a group to distribute food at West Park and he’s found the city’s fees and process to be a burden.

8:34 p.m. Lily Au says that the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor has not increased its capacity. She asks the council to help poor people. Brian B. argues for the ordinance change. Odile Hugot Haber speaks in support of the ordinance change. Alan Haber also rises to speak in favor of the ordinance change. It’s obvious that a church should be able to distribute free food in a park, he says. There’s an economy of love, he says: making available what we have with each other.

8:39 p.m. Michael Brinkman introduces himself as a resident next to Wheeler Park. Severe weather in the Philippines and in the Midwest had resulted in new homeless people, he said. He asks the council to support the microcosm of that larger context. Three more people round out the public hearing, all in support of the ordinance change.

8:42 p.m. PH-2 DDA ordinance. Thomas Partridge is talking about how he went to Washington D.C. to study law and to work for senators McNamara and Hart. He calls the ordinance a furtherance of corruption and discrimination. The entire DDA ordinance should be repealed and substituted, he says. The DDA needs enough revenue to give equal opportunity to every commercial area of the city.

8:46 p.m. Maura Thomson, president of the Main Street Area Association, which represents 175 businesses. She supports the ordinance. Councilmembers had wanted clarity, she said. The ordinance would not have negative impact on the work the DDA is doing now and could do in the future. She calls out the idea of downtown interests “versus” the rest of the city. She says the downtown belongs to everyone. The downtown has a social, economic, and cultural purpose. Looking at the interests of the downtown and the rest of the city as separate is not a productive way to think about it, she says.

Tom Heywood calls the solution that has been crafted a win-win. It allows the DDA to continue its work while returning millions of dollars to the brother and sister jurisdictions over several years, he says.

8:47 p.m. Jim Osborne asks for stricter council oversight of the DDA. Instead of begging the DDA money to give money back, the council should control the DDA, he says.

8:54 p.m. Sandi Smith, current chair of the DDA, is reading forth a prepared statement. She appeals to the idea of “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The premise of the ordinance change was to achieve clarity, she says. Smith is complaining about the cap. She describes the proposed ordinance as cutting the DDA’s bonding capacity in half.

Lou Glorie is now at the podium countering Smith. She says the ordinance change re-establishes some equity between the DDA and the other taxing authorities. Omari Rush, education manager at the University Musical Society, describes the role of downtowns in cities and how much he enjoys Ann Arbor’s downtown. He appreciates what’s been done to make Ann Arbor’s downtown clean, safe and vibrant.

8:56 p.m. Dug Song recalls that the last time he attended a council meeting, he was lobbying for a skatepark – now that’s being built. He’s expressing general support for the DDA. He recalls how Arbor Networks grew from five people to 300 people, but most of those jobs were in Boston, because there’s not adequate space in downtown Ann Arbor. He supports the love economy, but also supports small companies that are two people and some laptops that grow into something larger.

8:58 p.m. Peter Baker introduces himself as a resident of Water Hill and employee of DuoSecurity. He chose Ann Arbor because of the interplay between downtown and neighborhoods. His comments wrap up this public hearing.

8:58 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:59 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 the following:

• CA-1 Approve street closings for The Puck Drops Here on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013. [For more background, see above New Year's Events: Puck Drop]
• CA-2 Authorize special event provisions and street closings for the NHL Winter Classic Hockey Game on Jan. 1 or 2, 2013. [For more background, see above New Year's Events: NHL Winter Classic]
• CA-3 Approve the sale of Avalon Housing Inc.’s property at 618 N. Main to Dawn Farm.
• CA-4 Authorize city of Ann Arbor participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program.
• CA-5 Authorize a sole source purchase order to Jack Doheny Companies Inc. for parts and service for field operation utilities unit equipment. ($50,000 annually)
• CA-6 Authorize contract with Watertap Inc. for watermain line stops and insertable valves and related services. ($75,000 annually)
• CA-7 Accept Board of Insurance Administration minutes of Oct. 24, 2013.
• CA-8 Approve amended bylaws of the public market advisory commission.

9:00 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Selected out by Briere are CA-3 (sale of Avalon property) and CA-4 (the redevelopment ready communities resolution).

9:05 p.m. CA-3 Approve the sale of Avalon Housing Inc.’s property at 618 N. Main to Dawn Farm. Briere gives the background and how it has been recommended by the housing and humans services advisory board.

9:05 p.m. CA-4 Authorize city of Ann Arbor participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program. Briere invites planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to explain what the program is about. Rampson describes how the program does allow help in marketing specific sites, but that’s not necessarily what the program is about. City administrator Steve Powers explains that the marketing of any sites is not limited to city-owned parcels. The program could also help identify privately-owned parcels that need some attention, he says, citing the research park in the southern part of town. Rampson also points out that participation in the program could make the city eligible for various grants. Eaton asks if there are any implications for not fulfilling the conditions in the MOU. Rampson indicates the city would be kicked out of the program.

9:07 p.m. Petersen says she wants to speak strongly in favor of the program.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the items on the consent agenda.

9:07 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:18 p.m. And we’re back.

9:19 p.m. Opening the agenda. Ypsilanti Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe is here and has a constrained schedule, so DC-1 (Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA) is moved up to now.

9:20 p.m. DC-1 Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA. The council is being asked to approve the addition of Ypsilanti Township in the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. This item was postponed from the council’s Oct. 21, 2013 meeting. [For some additional background, see Delayed Business: Transportation – AAATA above. For even more background, see "Council Agenda: Transportation Governance"]

9:24 p.m. Kunselman says he attended some of the AAATA meetings that were held over the last month and he did not hear anyone say they were opposed to Ypsilanti Township joining the authority. He urges the council to vote unanimously to support Ypsilanti Township as a member.

Eaton says that he strongly supports expanding transportation in the urban core. But he says that the plan to ask for a millage will result in an inequitable funding arrangement. He ticks through the amount of millage each community would pay. He wants a uniform total millage across all communities. Teall counters that the amount of service in Ann Arbor is much higher, and that it’s natural that the amount contributed by Ann Arbor would be greater.

9:25 p.m. Teall asks Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, to the podium. Ford says that 84% of the AAATA’s service is provided in Ann Arbor. He stresses that the question before the council tonight is membership in the AAATA.

9:28 p.m. Lumm wants to know what will happen if the millage doesn’t pass: Would Ypsilanti Township convert their general fund allocation to a transit millage? Ford isn’t going to speak for the township. Karen Lovejoy Roe takes the podium. She thanks the council for moving up the item on the agenda. She says that Ypsilanti Township has had some sort of POSA for several years, and as a member of the AAATA, the township would be willing to make a longer-term commitment. She’s excited about having transit that connects the west and east sides of the county.

9:32 p.m. Lumm asks if Ypsilanti Township would convert the general fund funding to a millage, if the AAATA millage didn’t pass. Lovejoy Roe says that right now, the township would lock in the current POSA agreement in perpetuity – but that wouldn’t necessarily result in the township itself asking for a millage of its residents. Lumm says it’s not been clarified what the standards are for being admitted as a member of the AAATA. She’s implicitly setting this as a standard: If the community itself has a millage. Lovejoy Roe asks what difference it would make, if the township board is entering into a legally binding agreement to pay the cash.

9:34 p.m. Lumm asks Ford what the standards are for admitting a municipality as a member. Ford refers to the council’s resolution for exploring conversations with the urban core communities, a community’s ability to pay, where population density is, and other factors.

9:37 p.m. Lumm reports that she attended one of the meetings, and there were questions asked about routes in Ward 2. She says it’s not clear whether it’s a “sales tour” or a “listening tour” that took place. In the “marketing materials,” she says, there’s an indication that the improvements will require a 0.7 mill tax. Ford stresses that the board has not made a decision to place a millage on the ballot. The point of the meetings was to hear input and make adjustments and refine the plan. “We are listening to people. … That’s what we do!” he says. Lumm complains there is not enough service improvement in Ward 2.

9:39 p.m. Kailasapathy thanks Ford for providing the MOU between AAATA and Ypsilanti Township. She contends the goal of long-term planning is undercut by the monthly invoicing in the MOU. Ford says that’s just an operational issue – and stresses that it’s in draft form. That simply operationalizes the exchange of money. Kailasapathy asks if the planning would take place on an annual basis. Ford indicated that planning is a continuous process, quarterly and annual. Planning is in the AAATA’s DNA, Ford says – “that’s what we do.”

9:42 p.m. Taylor says to him, it’s a simple question of whether it’s good for Ypsi Township to be a member. Leaving aside the “soul-sucking micromanagement” of the AAATA, Taylor says the answer to the question is yes. He says Eaton’s worry about the amount of support there would be for a millage is a fair point. And Taylor says that this idea will be put into the marketplace (of voters). It’s natural that Ann Arbor will receive most of the service, he says, as it’s the economic engine of the region.

9:44 p.m. Petersen recalls a remark from township supervisor Brenda Stumbo – that you can’t get from the city of Ypsilanti to the city of Ann Arbor without going through Ypsilanti Township. If the buses will go through the township anyway, it makes sense that the township has a voice on the board, she says. She’s less concerned about the funding, saying she gives Ypsi Township the benefit of any doubt that they’ll continue to pay the POSA.

9:47 p.m. Warpehoski asks Ford to review the city of Ann Arbor’s increase in service over the five-year period. Ford says over the five-year period it would increase 33%. Warpehoski concludes that’s about commensurate with the percentage that an additional 0.7 mill tax would mean. Warpehoski invites Lovejoy Roe to confirm that Ypsilanti Township would not have the demand for the same level of service of Ann Arbor – which is to have a bus stop within 1/4 mile of every household. She confirms that such demand doesn’t exist at this point.

9:49 p.m. Warpehoski concludes that he doesn’t think it would make sense to define equity by equal total millages and let the variance follow from differences in property values. He confirms with Ford that the costs per service hour charged for POSAs include all the overhead costs.

9:53 p.m. Briere asks why Pittsfield Township isn’t joining. Ford says Pittsfield is leaning toward a longer-term POSA, so that they wouldn’t participate in an AAATA millage. He doesn’t want to speak for Pittsfield. Briere says Ypsilanti Township has been asked to take a leap of faith. And the township is making a significant financial commitment, she says. Briere is relating vignettes from her own experience. She hopes that the council will support this resolution.

9:54 p.m. Anglin says that the council had decided it wanted to focus not across the county but more locally, and that’s what the AAATA had done. He’s going to support the resolution.

10:00 p.m. Eaton asks Ford if there is a standard for adding members to the AAATA. Ford says the council in part defined that for the AAATA with its urban core resolution from late 2012. There are other factors – geographical considerations, where people live, where trips are generated, as well as willingness to pay. Back and forth ensues between Eaton and Ford about standards for admission into AAATA. Eaton wants to know if Ypsilanti Township is willing to pay for improvements without an AAATA millage, if the AAATA would provide additional service. Eaton points out that a neighborhood in Ann Arbor can’t choose a reduced level of service. Ford finally says: “What is your question?” Eaton’s point is that the financial burden is not equal across neighborhoods within the city: In some parts of the city, there is less transportation service.

10:02 p.m. Lovejoy Roe says that this approach will lock in at least this current level of service for Ypsilanti Township. She points out that Ypsilanti Township will have only one vote on the board.

10:05 p.m. Lumm has come back to the idea of criteria for admission into the AAATA. She doesn’t think there’s a rigorous enough standard for admission. Lumm says she wants Ford to come to the podium again. She says that the riders-per-service-hour goal of the AAATA is 25 passengers, but complains that the commuter express service has less than that. Ford notes that the commuter express service no longer uses any local Ann Arbor millage dollars.

10:12 p.m. Briere asks if there are any buses that are completely internal to Ypsilanti Township. No, says Ford. She asks if there are any routes specific to some ward. No, says Ford.

Petersen wants to put an economic value on the benefit of a worker from Ypsilanti riding the bus to Ann Arbor. Hieftje advises that Lumm is considered to have spoken twice. Kunselman argues against “intellectualizing” the issue and wants a unanimous vote. He stresses that Ypsilanti Township will have just one vote on the AAATA board. He’d been a vocal opponent of the countywide transit effort out of concern that that proposal would have yielded majority control. [Ann Arbor would have had 7 of 15 board seats under that countywide proposal.] As far as the standards for admission, the standard is clear, says Kunselman: Ypsilanti Township is the second largest community in the county and this is about “mass transit.”

10:14 p.m. Kunselman wants a majority vote by the council to send a clear message of support. Hieftje is now expressing support for the various standard reasons, citing the benefits of public transportation.

10:16 p.m. Hieftje is still talking about the virtues of public transportation. Hieftje says if there’s a millage on the ballot put forward by AAATA, then he’ll support it. He hopes for a unanimous vote on welcoming a new member into the AAATA.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation so that Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the AAATA. The vote drew applause.

10:17 p.m. B-1 Amend parks ordinance to provide for exemptions to the fee requirement for group activities in parks. This ordinance change is in front of the council for final approval tonight, having been given initial approval on Nov. 7. It would allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses a park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance would be revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.” [For more background see Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver above.]

10:20 p.m. Eaton offers a “friendly” amendment to add “and/or services” in addition to “goods.” Taylor says that this distinction between goods and services was material to PAC’s review of the proposal. Adding services would expand what was contemplated, Taylor says. Taylor recites the history of the issue.

10:21 p.m. PAC “interrogated” the proposal thoroughly, Taylor says. Teall thanks the members of Camp Take Notice and everyone who’d met with her. She said it was enjoyable to be able to respond to a request like this.

10:25 p.m. Warpehoski says that the solution was very “elegant.” It’s simple, he says. Anglin praises Camp Take Notice members for being very good at political action. It was hard to deny their humanitarian message, he said. Petersen offers her thanks. Lumm says Camp Take Notice members “know how to catch bees with honey.”

10:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the possible park fee waiver. The vote gets applause.

10:25 p.m. B-2 DDA ordinance. In front of the council tonight is final approval of a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance. Initial approval of this version of the change was given at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting. A previous version was tabled.

Key features of this version before the council tonight are a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It would mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions that year. This version would impose a limit of three four-year terms for board membership, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse. The DDA would be required to budget $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI). [For additional background, see Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance above.]

10:26 p.m. Kunselman says he was really pleased that there was support for this, based on the public hearing commentary. The discussion had lasted for many months, he says. He wants to adopt this without any amendments.

10:29 p.m. Briere says she’s just sent a proposed amendment to the ordinance change. It’s the result of a housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) resolution, she says. She’s reading aloud the amendment. It clarifies that the first year of the $300,000 allocations to affordable housing is tax year 2016. Thereafter the DDA has to increase the allocation by the same amount that the cap escalates. Kunselman is fine with this, if this is not a big enough change that it would reset the proposal to a first reading in front of the council.

10:30 p.m. Briere is conferring with city attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorney Mary Fales. Postema: “It’s fine.” Kunselman says he’s touched base with David Blanchard, chair of HHSAB, and Kunselman thinks it’s probably not an amendment that’s necessary, but he doesn’t have a problem with it. He accepts it as a friendly amendment.

10:34 p.m. Teall is worried that the DDA would not be able to continue funding the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which does not have a 50% AMI requirement. Executive director Susan Pollay says that she understands the ordinance language to mean that additional dollars, beyond the $300,000, could be allocated for Dawn Farm.

10:39 p.m. Lumm says she attended both the partnerships committee meeting as well as the HHSAB meeting. The two conversations were schizophrenic, she says. The DDA had wanted more flexibility, she says. DDA board chair Sandi Smith responds, saying there was not a pushback on the $300,000 from the DDA. It was the 50% AMI standard that was problematic, she says.

Lumm asks for explanation about the DDA’s policy to invest in areas outside the DDA district that had a positive impact on the district. The standard is within 1/4 mile of the district, Pollay says. Smith ventures that “downtown area” would be consistent with the DDA’s policy on investing in housing projects within 1/4 mile of the district. Briere is at the podium showing Smith her iPad with the text of the amendment.

10:42 p.m. Hieftje says he has a concern about the city’s budget. He thinks there are going to be millions of dollars of investment in the Ann Arbor housing commission required. So he wants the “downtown area” to stretch as far as Miller Manor, which is an AAHC property. Lumm wants to add “near downtown area.” Kunselman wants to make sure that this will not reset the ordinance to the first reading. Fales confirms it would not, because it’s consistent with the DDA renewal plan.

10:45 p.m. Briere gets confirmation from Smith that the DDA’s definition of “near downtown area” means within 1/4 mile of the district boundary. Pollay and Briere aren’t sure if Miller Manor is within 1/4 miles of the district. [It is.] Taylor wants confirmation that Miller Manor meets the 50% AMI criterion.

10:47 p.m. Lumm is reciting the reason she’s supportive of the ordinance. It’ll mean a 55% growth in TIF for the DDA over the next three years. She thinks it would have been better to impose the cap sooner so that sharing with the other jurisdictions would have began sooner. [Lumm's voice is failing her – she sounds under the weather.]

10:48 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s violating council rules to share the amendments with the media.

10:49 p.m. Eaton says he would have preferred a lower cap and a shorter term limit, but applauds the effort of the committee. Taylor says he won’t support it. The DDA has proven itself as a reliable steward of taxpayer funding. He recites familiar arguments in support of the DDA.

10:53 p.m. Taylor says that it’s not a compromise, but rather a power play. He contends that people had been told that if they organized and spoke against it, “there would be trouble.” Taylor is visibly angry.

10:56 p.m. Kailasapathy isn’t happy with this, but will support it.

10:56 p.m. [.pdf of Briere amendment]

10:58 p.m. Teall won’t support this. Hieftje is reciting standard arguments and history of the DDA and its impact. Hieftje says it’s a compromise, disagreeing with Taylor. Hieftje wants to “get this behind us” and let the DDA get back to work.

10:59 p.m. Teall says it went way beyond clarifying language. She says Taylor was calling it like it is.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the ordinance change, with dissent from Taylor and Teall.

10:59 p.m. C-1 Rezoning of Higgins property. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a standard rezoning request associated with annexation into the city. It would rezone 0.51 acres from TWP (township district) to R1A (single-family dwelling district) at 2121 Victoria Circle.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the Higgins property.

11:00 p.m. C-2 Rezoning of Weller property. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a rezoning associated with annexation into the city. It would rezone 0.51 acres from TWP (township district) to R1A (single-family dwelling district) at 2119 Victoria Circle.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the rezoning of the Weller property.

11:00 p.m. C-3 Rezoning of 3325 Packard. This is not a standard rezoning request. The council is being asked to give initial approval of a request that would rezone 0.27 acres from R1C (single-family zoning district) to R2A (two-family zoning district) at 3325 Packard Road. This would allow the construction of a duplex on the now-vacant property. The owner contends that constructing a duplex is economically viable but a single-family home is not. The planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning request at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting.

11:02 p.m. Briere is reviewing the planning commission’s reasoning in recommending against the rezoning.

11:05 p.m. Lumm asks for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium to comment. The planning commission had struggled because it’s a vacant lot, Rampson says. In addition, it’s a corner lot. It’s an established single-family neighborhood, she notes, and the planning commission is always hesitant to approve a spot zoning. The owner hasn’t been able to garner support from an entire blockface of owners who would join in a request.

11:06 p.m. Kunselman praises the planning commission for following the master plan. He talks about the difficulty of redeveloping vacant lots in the eastern part of the city. Hieftje says that he understands the planning commission’s decision.

11:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to reject initial approval of the Packard Road rezoning request.

11:07 p.m. C-4 Repeal of crosswalk law. This is the initial consideration of a change to the ordinance on non-signalized crosswalks. The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council is considering would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not necessarily those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

11:08 p.m. Briere ventures that there was a time when there were no questions at first readings of ordinance changes. That time has passed, she says. She wants to know if traffic engineers participate in approving ordinance language.

11:12 p.m. Powers says no, that’s the council’s job. Traffic engineers provide input into the language, but an ordinance doesn’t require traffic engineer approval, Powers says. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirms for Briere that a traffic engineer would evaluate how the policy choices would be applied. Hupy says that if the ordinance is repealed, signage would have to be changed from “stop” to “yield.” Cost of that would be $14,000, Hupy estimates.

11:16 p.m. Briere is asking for data on accidents before the council’s previous ordinance change and after that change. Hupy says that some of the data can be shown by hour of the day.

11:19 p.m. Petersen says it’s been a very emotional topic for her. She and Kailasapathy had met with WBWC representatives to learn about the impetus for the previous change back in 2010 and 2011. Petersen says that the approach of “increasing pedestrian rights” just hasn’t worked. From 2009 to 2012 pedestrian crashes rose 42%. For a five-year period prior to that, there was a decrease. She contends that while you can’t say the change to the ordinance caused the increase, you could say that safety did not increase.

11:20 p.m. It’s too dangerous to tell pedestrians that “they rule,” Petersen says.

11:22 p.m. Kailasapathy says in addition to repealing the ordinance, more is needed. Infrastructure improvements are also important, including more HAWK lights, she says. The focus should be on safety, not on rights, she says.

11:24 p.m. Lumm says that she, Petersen and Kailasapathy had begun working with staff several weeks ago. She thanks staff. She says that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique and this would return our local law to conform with the UTC. She contends that the local ordinance is not consistent with our local signage. She says “pedestrians rule” is a mindset that is dangerous.

11:26 p.m. Warpehoski has questions for staff. He asks Hupy about the RFB and HAWK implementations and why a regular stoplight isn’t simply installed. Hupy says that a traffic signal has to meet a “warrant” – a standard that would allow it to be installed. He can’t say that the mid-block locations would or wouldn’t meet that standard.

11:30 p.m. Warpehoski asks AAPD chief John Seto if he thinks that changing the ordinance will affect pedestrian safety in Ann Arbor. Seto says that he can’t say. Warpehoski gives examples of enforcement techniques used in Florida, using plainclothes policeman, cone placement, etc. He asks Seto if that type of enforcement action would be possible, if the ordinance were changed. Seto says that would be challenging, because the pedestrian would need to be in the roadway. Warpehoski says the technique for enforcement was in fact to have the pedestrian step into the roadway. It could be done, Seto says, setting aside staffing constraints.

11:32 p.m. Warpehoski gets clarification that under the UTC if there’s enough time for a motorist to stop, then it’s legal for a pedestrian to step into the roadway.

11:33 p.m. Assistant city attorney Bob West confirms Warpehoski’s understanding. Warpehoski wants to know what the responsibility is for motorists in multi-lane situations. West says vehicles traveling in the same direction of travel have the same responsibility.

11:34 p.m. West says the intent is not to make pedestrians say, “I can make these guys stop.” Pedestrians have more to lose, West says.

11:36 p.m. Warpehoski asks Seto and West how confident they’d been in making citations and making them stick. They’re comfortable.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman picks up on Lumm’s idea that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. He’s asked for other examples. He says pedestrian advocates in Ann Arbor contend that Traverse City interprets the UTC to mean that “within a crosswalk” includes the curb. But Kunselman says the vehicle code defines the crosswalk is measured between the curbs. He says that by doing something different, it’s causing confusion. How could Traverse City possibly be giving the UTC the claimed interpretation? asks Kunselman. Seto doesn’t know. Seto said the Traverse City police chief’s response to his question was to provide the ordinance language. Kunselman wants to know if the UTC can be enforced as meaning “at the curb” – the same intent that’s explicit in the ordinance. West doesn’t think so.

11:43 p.m. Hieftje encourages councilmembers to wrap up this item by pointing out that there’s a lot of items left and this is just the first reading. Anglin invites councilmembers to ask themselves how often they’ve come close to hitting a pedestrian.

11:44 p.m. Taylor notes the asymmetry between the claim that the ordinance is so powerful that it causes pedestrians to step in front of cars, yet is not powerful enough to compel a motorist to do what they should do in any case: Yield to pedestrians at a curb at a crosswalk.

11:45 p.m. Taylor also notes the increases in pedestrian accidents in other cities, which had nothing to do with Ann Arbor’s ordinance.

11:46 p.m. Hieftje echoes Taylor’s sentiments and says he also won’t support this, even on first reading.

11:47 p.m. Lumm reads aloud a message she’s received from a resident who complains that they have had to slam on their brakes for pedestrians who are crossing against the light. [The ordinance in question actually applies to non-signalized crosswalks.]

11:50 p.m. Kunselman says that it’s more important to install HAWK and RFBs. He also wants to add FTEs to the police department so there can be more traffic enforcement. AAPD is dramatically down and can’t enforce basic traffic law, he says. He questions why the law should be different in Ann Arbor.

11:52 p.m. Petersen says she wants to share a voicemail relating an anecdote that demonstrates support for her point of view.

11:55 p.m. Teall weighs in in favor of the existing ordinance.

11:58 p.m. Warpehoski points out that if the car can stop or yield, then the UTC says that a pedestrian can step into the crosswalk. Warpehoski refutes Kunselman’s contention that Ann Arbor is unique, by citing Boulder’s ordinance, with includes “approaching” not just “within” a crosswalk. He also cites Seattle’s definition of crosswalk, which extends to the farthest sidewalk line, which would include the curb.

12:00 a.m. Warpehoski confronts Kunselman’s characterization of the existing ordinance as a “pedestrian convenience” ordinance by reflecting on the recommendations in the FHA guide.

12:02 a.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it on first reading, and will ask for postponement at second reading until after the pedestrian task force [yet to be established] can make a recommendation.

12:02 a.m. Eaton says he’ll vote for it at first reading. He thinks the correct forum for this kind of revision is the state legislature.

12:03 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to give initial approval to the repeal of the crosswalk law. Dissent came from Taylor, Teall and Hieftje.

12:04 a.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

12:18 a.m. We’re back.

12:18 a.m. DC-2 Ethics: Professional standards of conduct. This resolution, sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), would direct an educational effort for local officials on conflict-of-interest and ethics issues. It was postponed from Nov. 7 when Petersen herself moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night.

The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute. It also directs the council’s rules committee to adapt Public Act 196 of 1973 to define standards for councilmember conduct.

12:20 a.m. Hieftje jokes that everyone should agree to this and just vote. Petersen thanks A2 Ethics for their work. She says the resolution is not really about an ethics policy. This is a first step in the conversation. Issues of conflict of interest are “top of mind” for the community, she says. She wants everyone to be on an even playing field, and that’s why there’s an educational effort.

12:21 a.m. Petersen responds to the question of what the problem is – she says there doesn’t need to be a problem that needs solving in order to start towards working along these lines.

12:23 a.m. Briere says she was the one who’d asked what the problem was to be solved. Briere says there’s a “perception” that there might be conflict of interest and there could be a need to address that. She is not comfortable with trying to apply Act 196 because it doesn’t get at the issue of undue influence.

12:25 a.m. Eaton says he’s an enthusiastic supporter of exploring this issue. He thinks that standards should be established so that councilmembers have a clear measure by which to guide their conduct. He’s also, like Briere, concerned about inclusion of Act 196 because it deals with premature disclosure of information.

12:26 a.m. Warpehoski says he wants to amend the resolution by naming the sections of Act 196 as an example of a resource that can be drawn upon, among others. That’s considered friendly by Petersen. [.pdf of Warpehoski's ethics amendments]

12:30 a.m. Teall says she thinks it’s a good idea, but has concerns about the practical implementation. She wonders how much burden that will be on the city attorney’s staff. City attorney Stephen Postema says it’s just another assignment. Lumm is indicating support for the resolution. It’s important that people have confidence in their elected officials.

12:31 a.m. Kunselman thanks Petersen for her work. He asks if anyone wants to trade positions with him on the rules committee – as he’s currently on that committee. It’s all about learning, he says.

12:31 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the ethics resolution.

12:31 a.m. DC-3 Pedestrian safety task force. The substitute version of the resolution that was brought forward would establish a 9-member task force that would deliver a report by February 2015. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

This item was postponed from the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting amid concerns about the required budget to provide staff support. So the substitute resolution in part addresses the concern about budget by adding some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That would conceivably allow the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated. The timeframe for membership application has shifted in the possible substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian task force resolution]

12:36 a.m. Briere is introducing the resolution. The problem is engineering, enforcement and education, she says. It’s going to cost time, energy and budgetary wherewithal, she says. Drivers will resent getting a ticket, she says. She’s relating her views about bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians. She talks about meetings she’s had with UM officials and DDA officials. Briere says that this issue is also about sidewalk gaps. So sidewalk gaps have been added to the mission of the task force, she says. She wants the council to move forward on this.

12:41 a.m. Eaton says he won’t support it because this task should be taken up by an existing body – the Ann Arbor Public Schools transportation committee.

Kunselman says he supports pedestrian safety. He’s talking about the fact that there are no jaywalking laws. He says that it’s also legal to ride a bike on a sidewalk, which he does because he feels safer there. “Cars are bigger than I am. Cars can kill me.” He says that maybe pedestrians have been pampered by the city making them think that cars will stop just by standing by the side of the road. He wants people to understand that it’s dangerous out there, and to have a sense of risk. He wants the task force to focus on that aspect of education – understanding the sense of risk. He’s supporting the task force. Teall tells Kunselman that it’s not true that he’s safer riding on the sidewalk.

12:42 a.m. Anglin seems to be echoing Eaton’s point about having the transportation safety committee handle the task. He wants there to be a broader conversation with the schools and the University of Michigan.

12:45 a.m. Warpehoski responds to Anglin’s idea that the task force should cast a wide net by pointing out how the resolution names the various interested groups. He notes that the AAPS transportation safety committee does not have UM representation. He says that he’s become something of an evangelist for the FHA manual on how to develop a pedestrian safety strategy. He ticks through some examples from the manual. It’s an opportunity to step back from the controversy of the crosswalk ordinance, he says.

12:51 a.m. Warpehoski proposes an amendment that the pedestrian task force make its recommendation for an ordinance change by the first meeting in October 2014. His plan is to put off the final vote on the crosswalk ordinance until after that. He says if councilmembers won’t support putting off the ordinance change, they shouldn’t vote for this amendment. Outcome: The amendment fails, getting support only from Warpehoski, Briere, Taylor, Teall, and Hieftje.

12:53 a.m. Kunselman says he wonders how the city will be working with UM, if the city’s crosswalk ordinance language is different from the university’s rule. Briere says that as long as Kunselman has announced how he’s going to vote on rescinding the ordinance and assuming everyone else on the council does the same, the city’s ordinance would be reverting to the UTC, which has the same language as the UM rule.

12:58 a.m. Lumm ask if the sponsors would be willing to put this off until some additional questions can be answered. She doesn’t disagree with the underlying premise. Briere asks Hupy to the podium to respond to Lumm’s concern about what the staff’s plan would be. Hupy says that staff has not figured out completely how to move this resolution along with the sidewalk gap process. Briere wants to know how long it would take to pull together that information. Middle of December, says Hupy. Briere asks if that’s a conflict with the appointment schedule of the task force. Hupy says that’s up to the council.

1:06 a.m. Briere says she is struggling to find a rational reason to postpone this. She doesn’t want to put this on the back burner for another construction season. Hupy says he’s not sure that a postponement would have a dramatic negative impact. Briere cites the numerous emails that she’s received from people who don’t realize the city has a program for addressing sidewalk issues. Briere apologizes for making Hupy sit through a speech from her.

Christopher Taylor states: “For reasons articulated by councilmember Briere, I support the resolution.” Warpehoski quizzes Hupy about staff impact.

1:09 a.m. Kunselman says he’ll be looking at installing a flashing beacon at Easy Street and Packard Road. He wonders if at budget time next year he’ll be told he has to wait for the task force recommendation. Hupy says that at this hour he’s “brain dead enough” that he’s not sure, but he thinks that intersection is already under that consideration. Kunselman says he remembers the rubber hoses being out in the street doing traffic counts.

Petersen wants to make sure there’s no moratorium on pedestrian infrastructure. Hupy assures her that won’t be the case.

1:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force.

1:10 a.m. DC-4 Sale of former Y lot. The council is being presented with an agreement to sell the former Y lot – a city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor – to Dennis Dahlmann. Owner of the Campus Inn and the Bell Tower Hotel downtown, Dahlmann offered $5.25 million for the property. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13] [For additional background, see Familiar Business: Former Y Lot Sale above.]

1:11 a.m. Powers says that thanks to the work of Colliers and the city attorney’s office, there’s a sales agreement for consideration. The rider reflects the Nov. 7 council resolution.

1:15 a.m. Warpehoski says he dislikes the idea of Dahlmann’s downtown hotel monopoly, but feels like the council should let the “best bid win.” He also looks forward to the benefit to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [By council resolution, the net proceeds of the sale are to go to the city's affordable housing trust fund.]

Petersen says she thinks that the parcel is too small for a hotel anyway. There are other city-owned parcels where a hotel could be built. Hieftje says there are several other sites where a hotel could be built, including private property that’s owned by developers.

Kunselman says: “I am so happy this is before us.” He recalls being on the planning commission in 2004 when it had approved a plan for a hotel on the site, which didn’t get built. “I’m not in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” Kunselman says. It’s 10 years of history. He misses the Y building. He remembers taking swim lessons there. He calls Dahlmann a well-respected businessman in the community.

1:17 a.m. Taylor says he’ll support the sale. He’d queried his constituents and on that basis he’d come to the conclusion that he’d support it. The Key Bank building is given as an example of the kind of quality of work by Dahlmann. Taylor says he’s looking forward to getting this property back on the tax rolls. Lumm says this proposal was “head and shoulders” above the other proposals.

1:20 a.m. Lumm thanks Kunselman for kicking off this effort. Lumm recalls serving in 1993 on something called the Ann Arbor Inn task force. She echoes Kunselman’s remarks about not picking winners and losers. It’s an exciting proposal, she says. It’s going to be a “shining development” for downtown. Lumm says Dahlmann’s proposal was the only one that proposed to involve the community with the development.

1:21 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to sell the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

1:21 a.m. DB-1 Non-motorized plan update. The council is being asked to adopt an update to the non-motorized transportation plan. This item was postponed on Nov. 7 in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

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. It’s one of the few instances where the planning commission is not merely a recommending body. The council and the commission must adopt the same plan. [For additional background, see Delayed Business: Transportation – Non-Motorized Plan above.]

1:24 a.m. Lumm is asking Wendy Rampson, Eli Cooper and Craig Hupy at the podium to answer questions. She asks about bike boulevards. She wants an amendment to include a statement that any bike boulevard implementation plan would need to engage the neighborhood. Rampson points out that an amendment by the council would require the planning commission to reconsider the plan, because the council and the commission need to adopt the same plan. Briere asks Hupy to explain how the community engagement typically happens. If a bike boulevard were proposed, Briere ventures that the staff would have public engagement without any particular direction from the council. Hupy confirms Briere’s understanding.

1:29 a.m. Lumm says that her concern is that when you adopt a plan, the plan then gets implemented. Lumm thanks staff for answering her questions and all the work that went into developing the plan. Hearing it would have to go back to planning commission gave her pause. Warpehoski quotes out the section on bike boulevards and how the staff is supposed to engage the public. He also points out that the recommendations are in every case tentative. He doesn’t see the need to amend the plan.

Eaton points to page 39, which includes locations for rapid flashing beacons. Eaton asks what the implementation process would be. Cooper explains a process that starts with data collection. Council involvement would take place when the money was needed, Cooper says.

1:32 a.m. Hieftje asks Cooper to sketch out the process for developing the non-motorized plan update. Anglin wants clarification of the reason why planning commission would also need to approve any amendment. Rampson explains it.

1:32 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the update to the non-motorized transportation plan.

1:32 a.m. DS-1 Accept grant funds for emergency management program ($40,736). This resolution would accept a grant from the state of Michigan’s Emergency Management Division to support emergency management functions within the city. Historically, the city has used the grant to fund a portion of the emergency manager’s salary. The amount of the grant is $40,736.

1:32 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the emergency management grant funding.

1:32 a.m. DS-2 Easement: Orchard Hills water main. The next three items are related. They involve the city-university interface in the Arboretum. The first two are easements. The third item re-sets the boundary between the two entities. For this item, the council is being asked to accept an easement for a water main from the University of Michigan to cross UM-owned land in the Arboretum.

1:32 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement from UM in the Arb for a water main.

1:33 a.m. DS-3 Easement: Burnham House conduit. The council is being asked to grant an easement to the University of Michigan for conduit across city-owned Arboretum land.

1:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to grant the easement in the Arb to the UM for conduit.

1:33 a.m. DS-4 Set UM boundary line with the city. The resolution would set the boundary line in the Arboretum between the city and the university – which runs north-south along the western edge of the city-owned Arboretum property and the eastern edge of the university’s property. The boundary is now uncertain because it refers to obsolete natural features. The resolution would define the boundary as that which was determined by a survey performed by Arbor Land Consultants.

1:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the land survey result as defining the boundary between the city and the university in the Arb.

1:33 a.m. DS-5 Easement: water main at 2453 S. Industrial Hwy. The council is being asked to accept an easement from John E. Green Inc.

1:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the water main easement from John E. Green Inc.

1:36 a.m. Council communications. Briere reports about meetings she’d had about 1,4 dioxane. She’d attended a hearing in Lansing. Rep. Jeff Irwin had spoken at the hearing. It was interesting to sit in on, but she says she did not speak. She’d talked with the hearing panel, however, and told them the council and the Washtenaw County board wanted this resolved. There’d be another push in February, she ventures.

1:39 a.m. Taylor says today the council had approved a sales agreement with someone who’d contributed money to several council campaigns. He says there’s nothing wrong with that, but it was the kind of situation that some councilmembers had criticized at previous meetings.

1:39 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

1:44 a.m. Kai Petainen is talking about his experience with getting financial records from Ann Arbor SPARK – he’d obtained them from the attorney general’s office, as SPARK had declined to give him the financial records. He tells Eaton that the meeting lasting until nearly 2 a.m. is “initiation.”

Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He says the land sale [to Dennis Dahlmann] came onto the agenda at the last possible minute. At 5:11 p.m. the relevant documents were not available, he says. The public was not invited to be a part of the process. He didn’t have an opportunity to see the documents before the council voted, let alone prepare comments to share during public commentary. He then calls the council’s attention to some very old minutes from various boards and commissions that were only now attached to the city council’s agenda.

Seth Best calls the council’s attention to the fact that the transgender day of remembrance is Nov. 20.

1:45 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 online agenda management system. Image links to the Nov. 18 meeting agenda.

The Nov. 18 meeting will include ceremonial swearing in of all councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5 – including Eaton, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Three other items internal to the council organizational configuration appear on the agenda: approval of the 2014 city council rules; appointment of the 2014 city council committees; and election of mayor pro tem, as well as establishing the order of succession for acting mayor.

In recent years, the rules and the committee appointments have been put off until the first meeting in December, with only the election of mayor pro tem taking place at the second meeting in November. Higgins had served as mayor pro tem since 2008.

Speculation among some council sources indicate that Lumm could have sufficient support on the council to win election as mayor pro tem. Mayor pro tem fulfills the duties of mayor when the mayor is out of town or unable to perform those duties. The mayor pro tem’s salary is the same as other councilmembers, which is $15,913. Customarily, the order of mayoral succession has followed seniority on the council, with councilmembers who were elected in the same year sorted alphabetically.

A substantial portion of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda consists of items the council has seen at least once before – some through postponement and others by the nature of the standard approval process. In the standard-process category, the council will be asked to confirm a handful of appointments to boards and commissions that were nominated on Nov. 7.

The council will also consider giving final approval to two ordinance revisions that received initial approval at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting. One of those ordinance revisions involves changing the permitting requirements for use of public parks – so that fees would be waived for organizations that use parks to distribute goods to meet basic human needs.

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval on Nov. 18 is a change to the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and board governance.

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council would expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for consideration. The council had directed the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land, based on his $5.25 million offer, and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings. One of those was first seen on Nov. 7 – a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials and the public on conflict of interest and ethics issues.

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme. The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member.

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, so the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18.

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

The repeal of language in the crosswalk ordinance will get its first reading at the council’s Nov. 18  meeting. The ordinance could be altered so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic hockey game at Michigan Stadium.

The agenda features a few separate resolutions on standard easements and some rezoning requests. One of those rezoning requests is not standard – and was recommended by the planning commission for denial. That’s a request for rezoning a parcel on Packard Road from single-family to two-family.

The council will also be asked to authorize the city’s participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program.

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.

Familiar Business

Much of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda covers topics familiar from previous meetings – items that were moved forward as part of the standard approval process.

Familiar Business: Appointments

Nominations made on Nov. 7, which the council will be asked to confirm on Nov. 18, include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be reappointed to the cable communications commission.

On the housing and human services advisory board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively.

Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for reappointment to the city’s human rights commission.

Nominations to be put forward on Nov. 18 are not yet posted on the Legistar agenda.

However, those might eventually include some nominations to the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) – the group that sets the salaries for city councilmembers, including the mayor.

The city’s Legistar system shows only two members of seven-member group without expired terms – Eunice Burns and Roger Hewitt. Hewitt also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. So the legal basis for Hewitt’s membership appears dubious in light of the prohibition against service on the LOCC for anyone who’s an employee or member of any branch of any government.

The LOCC is supposed to meet in every odd-numbered year, but has not yet met in 2013.

Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council will be giving final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and now on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change would provide permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting is a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change would allow for several million dollars in additional TIF capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It would mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarifies the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 would be about $180,000. But that would be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

Although the committee did not put forth a recommendation on governance, the tabled version included various provisions on changes to governance. Those governance revisions included: (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator, according to the tabled version.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the new version to include a limitation on terms. The version that’s up for final consideration on Nov. 18 would impose a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% average median income (AMI).

Familiar Business: Former Y Lot Sale

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council will expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The council voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. It directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The original resolution directed the inclusion of a provision to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR) including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Delayed Business

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings.

Delayed Business: Ethics

First considered by the council on Nov. 7 was a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials on conflict of interest and ethics issues. On Nov. 7 Petersen herself moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night.

The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Delayed Business: Transportation – AAATA

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme.

The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Ypsilanti Township hopes to become a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. (Solid green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – would set the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Non-Motorized Plan

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. So the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18. The postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

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.

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

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

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.” 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.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Pedestrian Safety Task Force

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. So that will again be before the council for consideration on Nov. 18. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

New Business: Crosswalk Ordinance

One piece of transportation business that’s new before the council on Nov. 18 is the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council will be asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

New Year’s Events

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The Ann Arbor city council will be asked on Nov. 18 to authorize the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

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 change in local law allows the city council to establish “special event dates” for temporary front open space parking. The ordinance had already allowed people to use their front yards for parking for University of Michigan football games. The ordinance change includes a provision explicitly to include “scrimmages,” which will accommodate the UM’s annual intra-squad spring football game.

The ordinance change was motivated part by the possibility that University of Michigan football stadium events might in the future not necessarily be restricted to football games. For example, a National Hockey League game, between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs, had been scheduled for Jan. 1, 2013 at Michigan Stadium. But it was canceled earlier this year due to labor disputes between the NHL and its players’ association.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the change at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting. The council had given initial approval to the change at its Dec. 17, 2012 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]