The March 18, 2013 city council meeting did not adjourn until nearly 2 a.m. From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and city administrator Steve Powers. (Photos by the writer.)

The council decided to conduct a review of D1 zoning, without imposing a moratorium. That cleared the way to consider the 413 E. Huron project, which the council eventually voted to postpone – at roughly 1:30 a.m. Because of the amount of time spent on just those items, they’ll be included in a separate Chronicle report.

Apart from those two items, the council’s agenda still included a planning and land use focus, as well as a downtown theme. An additional theme was the city council’s relationship to two other public bodies – the city planning commission and the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

In the case of the planning commission, the council for a second time balked at the commission’s recommendation of R3 (townhouse) zoning for a recently annexed parcel on Ellsworth near Stone School Road – planned as the site of Summit Townhomes, which would be a 24-unit development. The council postponed consideration of the Summit Townhomes site plan and the zoning, having previously postponed the zoning. The council also had previously referred the zoning recommendation back to the planning commission for re-review. The council’s second postponement on March 18 came after the commission’s re-affirmation of its original recommended R3 zoning. The council sent no explicit communication to the planning commission requesting action, beyond the implicit message of postponing the vote.

In the case of the DDA board, the council is weighing changes to the city ordinance governing the composition of that body, but postponed those changes for a second time at its March 18 meeting. The more significant of the ordinance changes involves clarifying how the Ann Arbor DDA’s tax increment finance capture is calculated, which has implications for millions of dollars for the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library.

Also related to the DDA, early in the council’s meeting an oral report was given on a session of the council’s audit committee – held the previous week to review the DDA’s FY 2012 audit. In the middle portion of the council meeting, councilmembers postponed the ordinance changes. And in the early morning hours of March 19, after the voting agenda was concluded, a member of the audit committee – Sally Petersen (Ward 2) – announced her intention to propose a task force on the DDA.

Related to other boards and commissions, the council confirmed the appointment of a chair for the zoning board of appeals (ZBA): Alex Milshteyn. He replaces Carol Kuhnke, who resigned in December 2012 after being elected judge of the 22nd Circuit Court.

In other business, the council gave approval for the zoning and site plan of The Shoppes at 3600, a proposed retail development on Plymouth Road.

The council also voted to object to the renewal of a liquor license for The Arena, a downtown bar located at Division and Washington streets. The basis for the objection – which will be forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission for final action – was non-payment of taxes.

The council also gave initial approval to a revision to the city’s sign ordinance. It would essentially maintain current conditions, but provide for certain limited digital signs with a restricted range of changeable elements.

Council communications included a briefing on upcoming changes the council will be asked to consider for the city’s public art ordinance. In other communications, the council will be giving a fire station reconfiguration plan some additional explicit discussion at a future working session – although it appears that the idea has insufficient traction to move forward.

Public commentary at the meeting covered a range of topics, including a call for the council to waive privilege on legal advice that councilmembers had received on the D1 moratorium issue – because they’ve now voted not to enact the moratorium.

DDA-Related Issues

Items related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority came up at three points during the meeting. During council communications at the start of the meeting, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) – a member of the council’s audit committee – gave a report from the committee meeting held on March 14. Later, the council voted on DDA ordinance revisions that were on the agenda. And sometime around 1:30 a.m. the topic came up again, during the council communications at the end of the meeting.

This report begins with the agenda item.

DDA: Ordinance Revisions

Before the council for its consideration were several revisions to Chapter 7, a city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The ordinance amendments had been postponed at the council’s March 4, 2013 meeting.

A chart by the city of Ann Arbor financial staff showing Ann Arbor DDA TIF (tax increment finance) revenue under various methods of calculation.

Among the revisions to Chapter 7 that are being considered by the council are: a new prohibition against elected officials serving on the DDA board; term limits on DDA board members; a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January; and a requirement that all taxes captured by the DDA be spent on projects that directly benefit property in the DDA tax increment finance (TIF) district.

But most significant of the revisions would be those that clarify how the DDA’s TIF tax capture is calculated. The “increment” in a tax increment finance district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes – just on that initial increment – of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013, the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes.

The proposed ordinance revision would clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA.

If the actual rate of growth outpaces the growth rate that’s anticipated in the TIF plan, then at least half the excess amount is supposed to be redistributed to the other taxing authorities in the DDA district.

DDA board members at their March 6, 2013 meeting indicated that they did not think any reason had been given to amend the ordinance. At a meeting of the city council’s audit committee held on March 14, city CFO Tom Crawford indicated that it was the view of many people, including his own, that the ordinance language on TIF calculation was not clear. During that meeting of the audit committee, Crawford indicated that the FY 2012 audit of the DDA did not include a review of Chapter 7 compliance.

What the proposed ordinance revisions clarify is which estimates in the TIF plan are the standard of comparison – the “realistic” projections, not the “optimistic” or “pessimistic” estimates. However, the ordinance revisions as currently formulated do not clarify whether a “cumulative” method of performing the calculations should be used or if a year-to-year method should be used.

Use of the cumulative method has an impact on whether the redistribution of excess TIF is made on a one-time or recurring basis. Under the cumulative method, other taxing authorities in the Ann Arbor DDA TIF district would see a total on the order of $1 million in additional tax revenue, compared to the way the DDA currently calculates the TIF capture. The city of Ann Arbor’s annual share would be more than half of that amount, around $600,000.

Method: Year-to-Year                   
Refunds                                                         
       City       County      WCC       AADL      Total Ref    DDA TIF
FY14   $429,409   $149,392    $94,257   $40,163   $713,221     $3,964,457
FY15    $11,958     $4,160     $2,625    $1,118    $19,862     $4,774,758

===============================

Method: Cumulative                     
Refunds                                                      
       City       County     WCC        AADL      Total Ref    DDA TIF
FY14   $613,919   $213,583   $134,757   $57,421   $1,019,680   $3,657,998
FY15   $635,108   $211,673   $139,195   $58,539   $1,044,515   $3,773,043

-

The clarification of the ordinance crucially strikes two paragraphs related to bond and debt payments. One of the two paragraphs was key to the DDA’s current legal position – which is that no redistribution of TIF is required under the ordinance, given the DDA’s financial position. The DDA interprets the stricken paragraphs to mean that no redistribution to other taxing authorities needs to be made, until the total amount of the DDA’s debt payments falls below the amount of its TIF capture. At the DDA board’s March 6 meeting, board member Bob Guenzel alluded to this in the context of remarks on the TIF calculations when he observed that the DDA is “on the hook” for some bond payments.

In the FY 2014 budget, adopted by the DDA board at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting, about $6.5 million is slated for bond payments and interest. That clearly exceeds the amount of anticipated TIF capture in the FY 2014 budget – about $3.9 million. The DDA is able to make those debt payments because about half of that $6.5 million is covered by revenues from the public parking system. The DDA administers the public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

This issue first arose back in the spring of 2011. The context was the year-long hard negotiations between the DDA and the city over terms of a new contract under which the DDA would manage the city’s parking system. The Chapter 7 issue emerged just as the DDA board was set to vote on the parking system contract at its May 2, 2011 meeting.

When the issue was identified by the city’s financial staff, the DDA board postponed voting on the new contract. The period of the postponement was used to analyze whether the DDA’s Chapter 7 obligations could be met – at the same time the DDA was ratifying a new parking system contract, which required the DDA to pay the city of Ann Arbor 17% of gross parking revenues. The DDA manages the city’s parking system under contract with the city.

Initially, the DDA agreed that money was owed to other taxing authorities – not just for that year, but for previous years as well. And the DDA paid a combined roughly $473,000 to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County in 2011. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess.

The Chronicle recently learned that during this timeframe in 2011, the TIF calculation topic was the subject of a meeting attended by representatives of all the taxing authorities in the DDA district, as well as by representatives of the DDA. The outcome of the meeting was an expectation by some in attendance that the DDA would work with the other taxing authorities to arrive at a consensus interpretation of the ordinance. But subsequently, the DDA completely reversed its legal position, and contended that no money should have been returned at all. That decision came at a July 27, 2011 DDA board meeting.

The following spring, during the May 21, 2012 city council budget deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) proposed an amendment to the city’s FY 2013 budget that stipulated specific interpretations of Chapter 7, with a recurring positive impact to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund of about $200,000 a year. Kunselman wanted to use that general fund money to pay for additional firefighters. That year the budget amendment got support from just two other councilmembers: Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

For a Chronicle op-ed on this topic, see: “Column: Let’s Get DDA TIF Capture Right.”

DDA: Ordinance Revisions – Council Deliberations

On March 18, Stephen Kunselman began deliberations on the ordinance amendments by indicating he’d be asking for an additional postponement. [The ordinance changes are sponsored by Kunselman and Sumi Kailasapathy.] One reason for postponing, he said, is that answers to certain questions are still being sought from the DDA. He also noted that there would be a council work session on the DDA budget. [This is now scheduled for March 25.] There’s a lot of concern about how the amendments he’s proposing would affect the DDA budget and its debt obligations. He wanted to reiterate that his goal was to bring some stability, trust and confidence in the DDA as an institution. His intent is that the DDA budget would remain whole.

Based on figures from the city treasurer’s office, Kunselman noted that using the year-to-year method to calculate the excess TIF capture, the city would receive $429,409 in FY 2014. The DDA’s total TIF capture would be $3.9 million for that year. But for the following year, FY 2015, the DDA’s total capture was anticipated to jump to $4.7 million. That’s due to recently completed projects within the geographic areas of the TIF district, which will increase the tax base.

But in the proposed two-year budget the DDA passed recently [at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting], the anticipated total TIF capture by the DDA was $3.7 million in FY 2015. What had caught his attention was the $1 million increase between the approved budget amount and the projection for actual TIF capture, Kunselman said. So he wanted to have a good discussion about the cumulative method of calculating the excess TIF. Sample language for a further revision to the TIF ordinance – which would stipulate the cumulative method of calculation – had been forwarded to councilmembers, Kunselman said. The following revision would have the effect of clarifying that a cumulative method of calculation should be used [deleted text indicated with strike-through, and added text in italics]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster is greater than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over is greater than twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units.

Kunselman pointed out that under the cumulative calculations, the approved DDA budget of $3.7 million for FY 2015 could be covered as adopted. So that wouldn’t “hamstring” the DDA in its ability to pay its bills, Kunselman concluded.

Regarding the other amendments to the DDA ordinance that he’s proposing – involving membership, term limits and a report filing requirement – he reminded people that for many years the DDA didn’t file its annual report as required by state law. He pointed out that the state-enabling statute for DDAs contemplated the possibility that the DDA could enter into an agreement with the taxing jurisdictions whose taxes are captured – to share a portion of TIF revenues with one of the jurisdictions. How can you do that if an elected official of one of the taxing authorities is on the DDA board? Kunselman asked. He saw this as an ethical conflict.

Kunselman noted that last year, on Jan. 27, 2012, the Ann Arbor District Library sent a letter to the city, expressing the library’s disappointment that a method of TIF calculation was chosen that would return the smallest amount of TIF possible to the taxing jurisdictions whose taxes are captured by the DDA. Kunselman felt that if the method could be clearly specified in the ordinance, the concern of others can be relieved. Kunselman said he didn’t want to wind up in court with the other taxing authorities on the issue.

Kunselman indicated that he hoped councilmembers could take the initial vote on the proposed amendments at the council’s April 1 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed concern that the city’s general fund could see a negative impact as a result of the ordinance amendments.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the question of revising the DDA ordinance until its April 1, 2013 meeting. Even if the council votes to approve any of the proposed amendments on April 1, a second and final vote would be required to enact the ordinance changes.

DDA: Council Communications – Audit Committee

Early in the meeting during council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) gave an update on the audit committee’s session held on March 14. She told the council that the meeting had to be called under Robert’s Rules by members of the committee – because the chair of the committee didn’t see a need for the meeting. By way of background, the chair of the committee is Margie Teall (Ward 4). Under Robert’s Rules – which govern all procedures of the council not otherwise addressed in the council’s own rules – a committee meeting can be called by the chair or by two of its members. In addition to Teall and Kailasapathy, other members of the committee include Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Kailasapathy said that she and Kunselman had concerns about the TIF calculations and compliance by the DDA with Chapter 7 of the city’s ordinance. She quoted from the DDA TIF plan, which states that: “The DDA submits an annual audit to the City of Ann Arbor that includes the status of the (tax increment finance) TIF account in compliance with the requirements of Section 15(3) of the State of Michigan Downtown Development Authority Act.” Kailasapathy indicated that the result of the audit committee’s conversation was that compliance with TIF regulations was not tested during the FY 2012 audit. The question arose about why that compliance was not part of the audit’s scope, she said.

She went on to say that she and Kunselman had found mistakes in statements from the FY 2012 audit report, giving as an example what she called a “significant error”: a statement that parking bonds are serviced out of the DDA’s parking fund – when TIF funds are also used to service parking bonds.

Kailasapathy indicated a desire to meet with the auditors to discuss that and other statements – to determine if the report needs to be re-issued. She was also interested in understanding why Chapter 7 compliance is not tested as part of the audit procedure. She indicated she was “alarmed” at the delays in getting financial information from the DDA during the audit committee’s inquiry, which had been attributed to the fact that the DDA’s deputy director, Joe Morehouse – who is directly responsible for the DDA financial records – is on medical leave. Kailasapathy questioned why there was no succession plan to provide for his absence. She stated that the nature of her interest in the DDA was compliance with financial standards and was not about “us versus them.” Her remark about “us versus them” could be understood as an allusion to some of the discussion at the March 14 audit committee meeting.

On that occasion, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had highlighted the portion of the FY 2012 that described the DDA’s relationship to the city: “The Authority is considered a component unit of the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan and is discretely presented in the City of Ann Arbor’s (the primary government) financial statements.” That had been a good reminder to Petersen that “them is us.”

Kailasapathy concluded her remarks during the early council communications by indicating that her interest is in compliance with legal requirements and fairness to the other taxing jurisdictions, whose taxes are captured through the DDA’s TIF.

DDA: Council Communications – TIF/Parking Fund

The FY 2012 audit report statement – which Kailasapathy referred to as inaccurate – was this:

The parking structure bonds are to be serviced with revenues from the parking fund. The City Hall bonds are to be serviced from future tax increment revenues of the general fund.

The use of not just parking revenue, but also TIF revenue, to pay for parking structure bonds also came up near the end of the meeting during council communications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), alluding to the late hour, said he would like to make clear for that “one member of the public who’s still listening” that the TIF fund has been used for parking-related infrastructure for decades and that use of the TIF fund has been perfectly proper. He thought it was useful to state that fact going forward. The DDA is proud of what it does and, for his part, Taylor felt the DDA should be proud.

Kunselman took the opportunity to make clear that the actual issue at stake was not the use of TIF funds to service parking structure bonds per se, but rather the combination of that practice with a transfer of parking revenue to the city. Under the contract between the city and the DDA, the city receives 17% of public parking system gross revenues. Kunselman said that as he understood the state-enabling statute, a sharing of TIF revenues with one of the taxing jurisdictions required an agreement with the other jurisdictions. The part of Act 197 of 1975 to which Kunselman was referring reads as follows:

The authority may enter into agreements with the taxing jurisdictions and the governing body of the municipality in which the development area is located to share a portion of the captured assessed value of the district.

There’s no agreement among the city and the DDA or the other taxing authorities to share the DDA TIF, Kunselman pointed out. Yet through its parking fund, the DDA is providing money to the city – under the parking contract – and also to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, through grants to the getDowntown program. At the March 14 meeting of the council audit committee, Kunselman called this “TIF laundering.” This was “very questionable” in Kunselman’s mind. He noted that the way that DDAs operate is starting to catch the attention of the state legislature. [By way of background, HB 4459, if passed, would exclude from capture taxes levied under the state's enabling legislation on zoological authorities or art institute authorities.]

DDA: Background – TIF/Parking Fund

While Taylor’s characterization of the DDA’s historical use of TIF funds to invest in the city’s parking structures was accurate, much of that history predates the transfers of parking system revenues to the city, which began in earnest in 2005.

That’s the year the DDA agreed to transfer $1 million a year to the city for the next 10 years, with the possibility of transferring up to $2 million in any one year, so long as the total through 2015 did not exceed $10 million. With all $10 million paid in the first five years, the city sought to renegotiate the contract – resulting in an agreement ratified finally in May 2011, which now annually transfers 17% of gross public parking system revenues to the city of Ann Arbor.

The payments to the city from the parking system were made in the context of a consistent narrative, beginning at least around 2003 when the DDA’s TIF plan was renewed, around the notion of self-sufficiency for Ann Arbor’s public parking system. From the 2003 TIF plan:

In 2002, the DDA took over operation of the on-street parking meter system in order to meet the community’s goal of a self-sustaining downtown parking system. The DDA is now working to establish rates and policies that will ensure the long-term viability of the full system while serving the special needs of downtown stakeholders.

From the Nelson\Nygaard study of the Ann Arbor parking system completed in 2007:

The public parking system operations can and should be financially self-sustaining, with no need for tax subsidy.

From the DDA’s “Public Parking & Transportation Demand Management Strategies Plan,” written in April 2010:

The public parking system operations are now and should continue to be financially self-sustaining, with no need for tax subsidy. The users of the system should pay for the system, including operation, maintenance, repair, and eventual additions to the system.

And mayor John Hieftje campaigned for re-election in 2010 in part on a contention that the bonds to be issued for the new Library Lane underground parking garage would be serviced with parking system revenue, not with tax money. [See Chronicle coverage of candidate forums on July 10, 2010 and July 1, 2010.]

However, when the city council voted on Feb. 17, 2009, to approve issuance of the bonds for the new Library Lane underground parking structure, the staff memo had indicated that a combination of parking revenue and TIF capture would be used to pay the bonds:

Debt service on the bonds is expected to be paid from revenues of the City’s public parking system and tax increment revenues collected by the Downtown Development Authority.

From an accounting point of view, the DDA’s financial system was set up to reflect a commitment that all parking system expenses would be covered by parking system revenues. But that entailed allowing the parking fund to show a deficit – with the balance in the other DDA funds (including the TIF fund) keeping the DDA solvent in aggregate. However, deficit fund balances are counter to Michigan’s Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act. And the result of the FY 2010 audit was that the DDA shifted away from that deficit-funding practice.

The required adjustment to the accounting, to show positive balances for all the funds, meant that the accounting showed clearly that TIF tax capture would be used to help pay for the Library Lane underground parking garage.

At the council’s audit committee meeting on March 14, 2013, the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, sketched out the general history of the DDA, when it used TIF funds at the beginning of its life to repair and construct parking structures. Then the DDA reached a point where the DDA had decided by policy, Crawford explained, that the TIF funds wouldn’t be used for parking, and that TIF revenue would only be used for economic development and other activities. But around 2008-09, Crawford said, when the underground structure was being planned, that approach “was just not going to work.” So the DDA had changed its policy – which is the DDA’s purview, Crawford said.

About the statement in the FY 2012 audit report, which indicated that only parking revenues are used to pay for parking structure debt, Crawford allowed that “the words could be improved.”

DDA: Council Communications – Task Force

During the council communications at the end of the meeting, audit committee member Sally Petersen (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues on the council that she’d be proposing a task force on the DDA, in order to get better alignment between the city and the DDA. She indicated that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was aware of her desire to form a task force. She felt the task force could run in parallel with consideration of the changes to the DDA ordinance. She described the ordinance changes as tactical, implying that the task force would focus on strategic approaches. The task force proposal would likely come to the council on April 1, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje volunteered that every time the city had asked the DDA to do something, the DDA had helped.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) responded to a remark made by Hieftje earlier in the meeting, during the brief deliberations on the ordinance amendments, about his concern that the city’s general fund might be put at risk by the kind of changes she and Kunselman were proposing. She said that for her, it was a matter of making sure that compliance with the state statute was ensured, and that the numbers were right. The first step, she indicated, was to make sure the calculations were correct and that there was compliance with the regulations. After that, the question could be opened about whether money comes back to the city. The city’s motivation should not be to turn the DDA into “a cash cow,” she concluded.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that he didn’t disagree with what she was saying, but he’d just wanted to make the point that the DDA had been very cooperative.

Summit Townhomes Zoning and Site Plan

At the March 18 meeting, the council was asked to consider the site plan and necessary zoning for the Summit Townhomes project. The property is located at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road.

The parcel for the Summit Townhomes development (shaded yellow). The city council voted to postpone a final decision on zoning the parcel to R3 (townhouse dwelling district). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

The developer plans to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needs to be zoned as R3 (townhouse district).

March 18 was the first time the site plan had been before the council. But the R3 zoning for the property, annexed from Pittsfield Township, had been previously considered by the council, and referred to the planning commission for re-review. The planning commission then confirmed its original recommendation for R3 zoning.

In more chronological detail, the zoning item had first appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, during a public hearing at the council’s Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, about a half dozen people spoke in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At their Feb. 21, 2013 meeting, planning commissioners voted again to recommend that the site be zoned R3 (townhouse district) – the same zoning they had previously recommended at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by planning commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council.

Summit Townhomes Zoning, Site Plan: Public Hearings

Thomas Partridge wanted civil rights amendments attached to the rezoning request, as well as for all similar requests, that would ensure access to affordable housing.

Ethel Potts told the council that they’d “wisely” sent the question back to the planning commission for a second look. She said she wouldn’t characterize the commission’s “discussion or lack of discussion.” There are three or four townhouse developments in that area of town, she said, and she didn’t think that part of town needed more townhouses.

Summit Townhomes Zoning, Site Plan: Council Discussion

When the council reached the rezoning item, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated she wanted to have the city attorney look into a question before voting, so she moved to lay the question on the table. The council voted unanimously to lay the question on the table.

Later in the meeting, when the council reached the agenda item about the site plan, the council took the zoning back up off the table.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by reciting the history of the council’s previous postponement, based on concerns about the already-existing density of the area. He mentioned the council’s decision to refer it back to the planning commission, and the commission’s re-affirmation of the recommended R3 (townhouse) zoning. Taylor stated that he was “unwilling to take that at this time.” So he wanted to postpone the question another 30 days to allow for additional time to reflect on the appropriate zoning for that area – in the context of the city’s master plan and the existing density.

Higgins indicated support for the postponement. She pointed out that it’s the first time the city is applying zoning to this parcel, because the city had just recently annexed the property from the township. There is no pre-existing city zoning. She wanted to see it “a little less dense.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, told the council she would carry the message to the planning commission at its next meeting.

Higgins noted that she didn’t know that there was a particular message to convey to the planning commission, but she encouraged Briere to inform the planning commission that the council had postponed the question and to relate the reason for the postponement.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that just because there’s already R3 zoning in the area with several dense townhome developments doesn’t mean it warrants more. At some point, the infrastructure can’t handle it. The traffic on Ellsworth already gets backed up, especially now that Costco has opened, he said. He was looking forward to different zoning. He allowed that R1C might not fit, but said that the topography of the property had to be respected. Townhomes on a hill would require a significant amount of earthmoving – and that has consequences for everybody downhill. As downhill properties he noted Arbor Oaks and Forest Hills. There’s a need to think outside the box, when it goes back to the planning commission, Kunselman concluded. [This remark by Kunselman may have contributed to confusion about expectations for possible planning commission action. According to planning manager Wendy Rampson, who was contacted by The Chronicle later in the week, there has been no direction given to planning staff or the commission to consider the matter further.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the zoning until its April 15, 2013 meeting. The site plan was also similarly postponed, in a separate vote.

Zoning Board of Appeals Chair

On the March 18 agenda was a resolution to appoint a chair for the zoning board of appeals (ZBA): Alex Milshteyn, who already serves on the ZBA. He’s a replacement for Carol Kuhnke, who resigned in December 2012 after being elected judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. The ZBA is somewhat different from most other city boards and commissions, which elect their own chair from within the body. The council appoints the chair of the ZBA.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who previously served on the zoning board of appeals, introduced the item. She said she’d enjoyed having the leadership of Carol Kuhnke as chair. Briere was confident that Milshteyn would also be an effective and capable chair of the ZBA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint Alex Milshteyn as chair of the ZBA.

The Shoppes at 3600

Before the council for its consideration was the site plan as well as the rezoning for a proposed retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23 – called The Shoppes at 3600.

Aerial map of the location for The Shoppes at 3600, located off of Plymouth Road west of US-23.

The developer hopes to build a 9,490-square foot, one-story retail building, to be constructed in what’s now the parking lot and front yard for a hotel, at an estimated cost of $1 million. The building would have space for several businesses, including a restaurant with a one-lane drive-through window and outdoor seating. An existing shared driveway off of Plymouth Road would be used to access the site. The site plan calls for 33 parking spots and four covered bike parking spots near the entrance.

The March 18 agenda items on the site plan and the rezoning – from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district) – followed an initial vote of approval for the zoning at the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. Voting against the rezoning on the initial consideration was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The planning commission had recommended approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The project had been postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

The site is located in the same complex as the Holiday Inn North Campus. Responding to some planning commissioner concerns voiced at the November 2012 meeting, the developer had provided an alternative site plan that was reviewed on Jan. 15. But the developer sought approval for the original layout, which was ultimately recommended for approval by the planning commission. The owner is listed as Ann Arbor Farms Hotel Corp., with property being developed by Diverse Development in Holland, Ohio.

The Shoppes at 3600: Public Hearings

Thomas Partridge questioned the idea that the item could appear on the council’s agenda without the sponsorship of a councilmember or the mayor. He called for an amendment to zoning that would ensure access to the property for affordable transportation.

Warren Attarian addressed the council and objected to the site plan. He noted that it’s the first thing you see coming into the city, and there were five shops squeezed into a little more than an acre. The back of the buildings is up against the sidewalk, with no setback, while the front of the buildings is interior to the development. He noted that the planning commission had asked the developer to present an alternate layout, which the developer did. Although the planning staff had determined the alternate plan was feasible, the developer didn’t pursue it. He asked the council not to approve the site plan, venturing that the real problem was trying to squeeze five stores into one acre.

The Shoppes at 3600: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the landscaping requirements. Rampson explained that the site has frontage on M-14, which requires right-of-way buffering. Some mitigation was also required for some landmark trees. There would be trees around the perimeter, Rampson said, as wells as some lilacs and shrubs on Plymouth. She thought that red oaks would be planted along the M-14 on-ramp.

Rampson explained that the back of the building is the north side.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning. Later in the meeting, the council voted to approve the site plan over the lone dissent of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Liquor Licenses

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution objecting to the renewal of the liquor license for The Arena – a bar located on the northeast corner of Washington and Fourth in downtown Ann Arbor.

Jane Lumm at the March 6, 2013 hearing on the non-renewal recommendation of The Arena’s liquor license. She served as hearing officer.

The basis of the objection to the renewal, which needs to be forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission for final action, was The Arena’s failure to pay a combined $8,755 of 2011 taxes and an additional default judgment. The default judgment was made in the 15th District Court by then-judge Julie Creal in favor of the city for $1,659. It involved non-payment for police services, in connection with outdoor tents for an Oktoberfest event.

A hearing on The Arena’s liquor license renewal was held on March 6, 2013 – presided over by hearing officer Jane Lumm, who represents Ward 2 on the city council. Based on evidence presented by assistant city attorney Bob West, who called city clerk Jackie Beaudry and city treasurer Matt Horning as witnesses, Lumm concluded that the recommendation of non-renewal should be placed on the March 18, 2013 city council agenda.

Also on March 6, a hearing was conducted on the non-renewal of the license for Banfield’s Bar & Grill. Lumm issued a similar verdict on that case, but in the meantime, Banfield’s paid the taxes owed. So Banfield’s was on the agenda with three other establishments that were recommended to have their licenses renewed. The three other establishments recommended for renewal by the council on March 18 – all of which had rectified any issues prior to the March 6 hearings – included Aut Bar, Bagger Dave’s Legendary Burgers & Fries, and Café Zola.

At the council’s March 18 meeting, Lumm introduced the item on objecting to renewal of The Arena’s license. She took the occasion to thank the staff in the city attorney’s office, the building department, fire department, police department, the city clerk’s office and the treasurer’s office. She also thanked her fellow liquor license review committee members, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Outcome: On separate votes, the council recommended renewal of four liquor licenses, and objected to the renewal of The Arena’s license. Based on a subsequent Chronicle visit to The Arena, the owner’s intent is to pay the outstanding bills before the state liquor control commission rules on the license renewal.

Sign Ordinance Amendments

The council was asked to give initial approval to changes in the city’s sign ordinance. If the changes are ratified at a second and final vote, certain kinds of digital signs with specific limitations would be allowed in the city. [.pdf of proposed outdoor advertising ordinance]

Billboards on West Liberty Street at First, near the edge of downtown Ann Arbor, looking east. (Photo illustration by The Chronicle.)

But under the ordinance revisions, new billboards – signs with an area greater than 200 square feet – could not be constructed. And existing signs of that size could not have electronic features added to allow for changeable text or images.

The existing sign ordinance does not allow for any changeable text, except for “noncommercial information which requires periodic change” – like time and temperature. So the proposed changes to the ordinance would allow for changeable portions of a sign, subject to the limitation that the changeable portion of the sign not be more than half the area of any sign and no more than 30 square feet per sign and 15 square feet per sign face. Additional limitations would prevent flashing and scrolling – by not allowing changes to content more often than 15 minutes.

The proposed ordinance changes would place a maximum brightness of any illuminated sign, including those that are digital/electronic: 5,000 nits during the day and 100 nits at night, and in no case greater than 0.1 foot-candles above the already existing amount of light at a residential property line. One nit is defined as one candela per square meter. And a candela is about the amount of light produced by a common tallow candle.

By way of comparison, an iPhone 5 display is reported to have a brightness of about 500 nits.

The ordinance revisions come in the context of a moratorium on digital billboards that’s currently in place throughout the city, but is scheduled to expire on April 11, 2013. The city extended the moratorium for an additional 180 days at its Oct. 1, 2012 meeting, after the moratorium was first enacted for 180 days at the council’s April 17, 2012 meeting.

Falling under the moratorium are “billboards commonly referred to as ‘electronic message centers,’ ‘electronic message boards,’ ‘changeable electronic variable message signs,’ or any billboard containing LEDs, LCDs, plasma displays, or any similar technology to project an illuminated image that can be caused to move or change, or to appear to move or change, by a method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, including by digital or electronic input.”

The moratorium resolution passed by the city council acknowledges that such signs are prohibited by the city’s current sign ordinance. From that ordinance, the list of prohibited signs include those that “… incorporate in any manner or are illuminated by any flashing or moving lights other than for conveyance of noncommercial information which requires periodic change.”

Sign Ordinance Amendments: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the moratorium. The proposed revisions essentially preserve the status quo, he said, by allowing no new billboards. The current ordinance allows for up to 30 billboards citywide, and there are currently 28. That meant that the change eliminates the possibility of an additional two billboards. He stressed that existing billboards could continue to exist as nonconforming signs and continue to be repaired and maintained.

Gas station price signs are covered by the ordinance revisions, he said. There are also a number of changes intended to improve clarity.

He noted that the moratorium expires April 11. If the ordinance revision were given initial approval that evening, and final approval on April 1, then the ordinance changes would be enacted before the expiration of the moratorium.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for some clarification of the ordinance revisions. Are digital signs permitted as long as they’re not scrolling? How big can they be?

City planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the ordinance revisions dealt with digital components, because it’s become a popular sign form in the industry. The ordinance would allow for a small amount of changeable copy both for on- and off-premise signs. But the amount of the changeable area could not be more than 50% and could not total more than 15 square feet per side. It would allow for different worship services to be displayed at a church, she explained, or gas station price changes. But she pointed out that the ordinance language specified the changeable part couldn’t change more frequently than once every 15 minutes and couldn’t “scroll, explode, dance” – because that’s perceived as a distraction to vehicular traffic.

The ordinance language states:

Changeable copy shall not and shall not appear to flash, undulate, pulse, blink, expand, contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, or otherwise move.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for some illustrations to make clear what the ordinance language meant, saying, “our imaginations aren’t that fertile” and “the words don’t help.” He felt it was entirely too complicated for someone not familiar with the industry.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know if the Pioneer High School sign at Stadium and Main would be affected, venturing that the city did not have jurisdiction over the school. Rampson confirmed that was the case, just as the city had no jurisdiction over the signs at the University of Michigan football stadium.

Petersen wanted to know if Anglin was interested in postponing the vote. Anglin didn’t feel a need to postpone – as long as the staff provided the council with the information he’d requested by the time of the second vote. Anglin ventured that the corner of Madison and Main was “beginning to look like Coney Island.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed tentative support for the changes – and were content to vote yes at first reading.

Petersen said she was “hard-pressed to support this at first reading.” She felt that the use of signs is an opportunity to impact economic development. She also pointed out the school district and the University of Michigan don’t have to comply and that would result in a lack of uniformity.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval of the revisions to the sign ordinance. Dissenting were
Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Argo Parking Lease

A resolution on the council’s March 18 consent agenda related to a $3,000 lease to accommodate overflow parking for the Argo canoe livery. The lease had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 26, 2013 meeting. The lease of a parking lot at 416 Longshore Drive – with about 40 spaces – will cover Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from May 25 to Sept. 2, 2013, with an option to renew administratively for two successive one-year periods.

City parks staff reported that the overflow parking at this lot had been used during the 2012 season, and they recommended continuing the lease. According to city records, the land is owned by the Stewardship Network.

Items on the consent agenda are voted on as a group by the council, but any of the items can be separated out for separate discussion. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked that the item be separated out.

Briere had heard concerns that the lot is not very well-graded and that there’s a lot of runoff. She wondered if there was a way for the city to enforce maintenance of the lot through the lease. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, told Briere that would have to be negotiated, and had not been a part of the conversation that went into the lease that the council was being asked to approve.

Briere asked for postponement.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the parking lot lease.

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. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Fire Department Resource Deployment

At the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) during communications time, city administrator Steve Powers summarized the feedback that had been heard on a proposal made about a year ago to reconfigure fire stations in the city. The proposal called for deploying a total of three out six existing fire stations – instead of five, which is the current deployment. Powers said what was heard at the seven public meetings and on the online A2 Open City Hall was a lot of divided opinion. He indicated that the significant policy question emerging from that discussion related to the responsibility of the fire department for emergency medical response.

Powers characterized the feedback that staff had received as consistent with the council’s discussion at its March 11, 2013 work session. At that session, there seemed to be a clear majority view that the 3-station plan would not go forward. Higgins indicated interest in exploring alternate ideas and wanted an opportunity to ask more questions. [At the work session, she'd mooted the idea of getting a cost analysis for restoring staffing to six stations.] The result of the back-and-forth between Higgins and Powers was an understanding that deployment of fire department resources might be part of the council’s work session on March 25.

Comm/Comm: Transparency

Between 1:30 a.m. and 2 a.m., two people weighed in on the topic of transparency. Mark Koroi recalled the issue that had arisen in 2009 in connection with emails sent between councilmembers during council meetings. Currently, he said the council has a problem with the way it conducts its closed sessions. He told the council more public commentary was needed – an allusion to the fact that the council does not allow public commentary at its work sessions.

[Under Michigan's Open Meetings Act, a gathering of more than a quorum of councilmembers does not necessarily constitute a "meeting" under the statute, which would require that members of the public are allowed to address the body. However, at work sessions, councilmembers engage in deliberations toward decisions, which makes their work sessions meetings under the statute.]

Koroi also mentioned an appeal that’s been filed on the Dream Night Club case. [The city objected to the renewal of the club's liquor license last year – alleging that the establishment was an ongoing nuisance – and the state liquor control commission followed that recommendation.]

John Floyd led off his comments on a lighthearted note, saying that in deciding his NCAA basketball tournament picks, he’d wanted to go with Michigan, but Wisconsin seems like they’re really starting to gel.

On the topic of transparency, he noted that people speak about how important transparency is. With respect to the legal advice that the council had received on the possible moratorium for D1 site plans, he allowed that it makes sense to receive the attorney’s advice in private. Councilmembers had indicated they’d based their vote on that advice. Now that the council had received the advice and voted, he suggested, the council could choose to release the written advice to the public. It’s not about what council is required to do, Floyd said, but rather about what the council may do. [The sentiment expressed by Floyd had been incorporated in The Chronicle's commentary and questions on the city's draft FOIA policy.]

Comm/Comm: Skating Rink

Alan Haber reminded the council of a continuing effort to have a public skating rink on top of the Library Lane underground parking garage, for people to have fun. [Recent Chronicle coverage of this topic includes the Feb. 26, 2013 park advisory commission meeting when public commentary was delivered advocating for a park atop Library Lane, and a more formal discussion at PAC's March 19, 2013 meeting.]

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

Next council meeting: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities 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.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) raises her hand asking to be recognized so she can speak at the Ann Arbor city council’s Nov. 8 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Smith had said her farewell from the council at the previous meeting, on Oct. 15. She had decided not to seek re-election to her seat. At the Nov. 8 meeting, two other councilmembers attended their final meeting – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) who, like Smith, did not seek re-election, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) who did not prevail in his August Democratic primary. New councilmembers – Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – will be ceremonially sworn in at the start of the council’s next meeting on Nov. 19.

A transitional theme emerged, as discussion of some agenda items straddled the Nov. 8 and Nov. 19 meetings – including the transit authority opt-out vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had been planning to bring a similar item forward on Nov. 19, when he felt he’d have a six-vote majority on the question. But that move was preempted by the Nov. 8 item, which included the sponsorship of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje – who had previously been key figures in supporting the city’s role in the planned authority.

Discussion of a living wage waiver for the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN) also included mention of the Nov. 19 meeting. That’s when a proposal will be brought forward that would change the living wage ordinance itself. The preference of Hieftje and Hohnke to wait and consider the ordinance revision for all nonprofits – instead of granting a waiver to CAN – was strong enough that they voted against the waiver. But the eight votes it received were enough to ensure that for the next three years, CAN does not need to abide by the living wage ordinance – which would otherwise require it to pay all its workers $13.57/hour.

A resolution that transferred $90,000 from the general fund reserve to the affordable housing trust fund was part of the transitional theme – because it had Sandi Smith’s name attached as a sponsor, even though she could not attend the meeting. The dollar amount was keyed to the price of a strip of land belonging to the former YMCA lot, which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently purchased from the city. The transfer of funds was made in the spirit, if not the letter, of a policy enacted by the council at Smith’s urging at her final council meeting. That policy called for net proceeds of the sale of the Y lot to be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund.

The council’s agenda for Nov. 19 was partially previewed when both Briere and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) announced they’d be bringing forward proposals to revise the city’s Percent for Art ordinance – in the wake of a failed public art millage proposal at the polls on Nov. 6. Briere’s proposal would alter the definition of projects that qualify, while Lumm’s would eliminate the program. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of the budgets for all capital projects be set aside for public art.

And although he’ll be leaving the council, Derezinski will serve out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term on the city planning commission. Pratt is leaving that role after being elected Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. At the Nov. 8 meeting, council confirmed Derezinski’s planning commission nomination, which had come at the council’s previous meeting. The council also decided to expand a task force on planning for the North Main corridor to make room for outgoing councilmember Sandi Smith, and appointed her to that group as a citizen member. She’s been serving as the council’s representative.

In other business, a resolution that would have moved toward converting the city’s retirement system to a defined contribution plan – instead of a defined benefit plan – was withdrawn. The council also approved increasing the staffing level of the fire department from 85 to 86 firefighters. And the city’s sign board of appeals (SBA) was dissolved by the council, with responsibilities transferred to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The council also voted to give city attorney Stephen Postema a 2.4% raise, his first in five years.

Countywide Transit Act 196 Opt Out

The council considered a resolution that withdrew the city of Ann Arbor from a new transit authority – called The Washtenaw Ride – that was incorporated on Oct. 3, 2012, a little over a month ago. Incorporation of the new transit authority under Act 196 of 1986 had been preceded by the development of a 30-year transit master plan and a five-year service plan by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, over a more than two-year period.

The cost of the planning effort came up in council deliberations. An outside consultant, Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), held two contracts with AATA to help develop a transit master plan and take steps toward implementing it. At its Feb. 16, 2012 meeting, the AATA board authorized an increase in the SDG contract by $95,500 – to $288,817. That contract with the London-based consultant was for “implementation assistance” of the plan. The original implementation assistance contract was approved by the board at its July 19, 2011 meeting.

The original contract with SDG for development of the transit master plan was for $399,805. It was previously extended and increased at the AATA board’s Nov. 18, 2010 meeting by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

Countywide Transit: Background

The language of the council’s Nov. 8 resolution offered some optimism that expanded transportation services might be pursued with some other mechanism than a countywide Act 196 incorporation: “… AATA is encouraged to continue to discuss regional transportation options among Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti township, Ann Arbor township, Scio township and Pittsfield township, leading to a better understanding and process for improving local transit options …”

The version placed on the Nov. 8 agenda by mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had the same effect as one that had been developed for the Nov. 19 agenda by Kunselman and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The preambles to the two approaches, however, contrasted in the level of forward-looking optimism that was conveyed. The contrast is also evident in the titles of the two resolutions:

• [Resolution to Withdraw from New Act 196 Public Transportation Authority in and for Washtenaw County and Terminate the Public Transportation Agreement between the City, AATA, Washtenaw County and the City of Ypsilanti]
• [ Resolution to Withdraw from the New Act 196 Public Transportation Authority, to Terminate the 4­Party Agreement between the City, AATA, Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County, and to Continue Discussion of Expanded Transit Among Urban Core Communities]

The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution was placed on the agenda in the context of opt-out decisions by most of the other 28 municipalities in the county. Even so, until the Nov. 8 council meeting, jurisdictions still participating in the new authority included more than half the county’s population, and counted the county’s largest population centers: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Saline.

Ann Arbor had been expected to help lead the initiative, and had been the first of the four parties to ratify the agreement, on March 5, 2012. Since incorporation on Oct. 3, more than one glitch was encountered in the technical implementation. Those included unclarity about the start of a 30-day opt-out period, and the eligibility of current AATA board members to serve on the board of the new authority.

Countywide Transit: Public Comment

Joel Batterman told the council that although he’d been working with Washtenaw Partners for Transit, he was speaking as a resident of the city. He reminded councilmembers that he’d addressed them about two years ago on the topic of the Fuller Road Station, which he said he didn’t feel served the interests of the city or the University of Michigan. Decisions that are made or not made about transportation, he said, are among the most important and lasting choices that come before the council. He was sad that the council is looking to end current initiative. The current initiative would have meant improvement to the bus service, including extended hours and frequencies and more direct routes serving areas on the west side of town. It would also expand the service area to match better where people are living today.

Batterman allowed that people had concerns about local control. But it was also important to consider that when the AATA was formed in the early 1970s, about 56% of the county’s population lived in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but today only 39% do. At the same time, the out-county is increasingly dependent on Ann Arbor employers, and the working families who need transit most often live outside the city limits.

Batterman acknowledged that rural townships might not be ready to participate in a transit authority. But those more urbanized areas that did not opt out would still have included a majority of the county’s population and would have brought a majority of the county’s transit-dependent residents within reach of the transportation they need. That’s something that really matters and still needs to happen, Batterman said – for Ann Arbor’s economy and for the well-being of everyone in the area. He encouraged the council to take the initiative in the coming year to work toward a new accord on expanding transit. He noted that Ann Arbor residents overwhelmingly support better transit – noting that even those who spoke against the formation of a new transit authority at a city council meeting last winter said they wanted many of the improvements, like expanded late night service, which the initiative was intended to help support. Whatever differences of opinion might exist over the structure and governance of an expanded transit system, he felt we could all support a future with more transit, cleaner air, expanded opportunities for people and perhaps even fewer parking garages.

Carolyn Lusch told the council that she also works with Washtenaw Partners for Transit. One of the great things about her job is she gets to hear people’s stories. Over last few months, she’s spoken with families, seniors, churches, students and businesses – people who are interested in and have great need for transit improvements. They’d told her about how they have to call a taxi to get groceries or miss a doctor’s appointment, or call up family members for favors.

The need for transit still exists, Lusch said. She was encouraged by the call for continued dialogue that’s expressed in the council’s resolution. As an Ann Arbor resident, she said, she was hopeful that expanded transit in the future would give her more options. The strong support for the concept of transit is an excellent first step, she said, but: “You can’t ride a concept home from your shift and I can’t hop on a concept when I’m going home from late night meetings downtown. I need a bus.” We need buses that run quickly, efficiently and to all the places we need them to run, she said. She thanked the council for keeping the discussion open.

Countywide Transit: Council Deliberations – Who Speaks?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said it’s become apparent that the interest in the current approach to expanded countywide service governance is not firm enough to go forward with it. So a group on both sides of the issue had decided to end this particular endeavor, she said. [By a group "on both sides," she meant some who had supported the four-party agreement governing the possible transition when the council voted on it (Briere, Hieftje, Taylor) and some who had opposed it (Kunselman, Higgins).]

Briere said it was important to end the initiative as firmly but as softly as possible.

Hieftje wanted to add Scio Township to a list of municipalities mentioned as those with which conversations would continue in the shorter term: Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township.

Some members of the AATA board and staff were in the audience available for comment. So Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) invited AATA strategic planner Michael Benham to the podium. Higgins objected and asked that the matter be put to a vote. Arguing against allowing Benham to take the podium, Higgins said that before asking AATA to speak, the council should vote the resolution up or down.

By way of background, Higgins appeared to be invoking a subsection of the council’s Rule 4 [emphasis added]:

Members of Audience Addressing Council
Upon the request of a member of the Council, a member of the audience shall be permitted to address the Council at a time other than during public commentary, unless three members of Council object.

Kunselman also objected, saying that the council was voting on an issue that had been put before the council by Washtenaw County – the inclusion of Ann Arbor in a countywide Act 196 authority that had been incorporated by the county – not by the AATA. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he wanted to err on the side of allowing councilmembers to ask questions of anyone they’d like to ask. Although she said she agreed with Higgins that the vote was about opting out, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) didn’t have a problem with Benham fielding questions. Responding to Kunselman’s remarks that the resolution was not about the AATA, Taylor observed that AATA is identified in a resolved clause as being asked to do something.

Outcome on allowing AATA staff to speak: The council voted 8-2, with dissent from Higgins and Kunselman, to allow Michael Benham to speak.

Countywide Transit: Council Deliberations – AATA Speaks

Benham said the AATA was heartened by the language in the resolution that says “keep going.” He was optimistic that the community could arrive at a vision of expanded transit for those who need it the most.

Hieftje then disavowed the idea that the resolution that night was an attempt to pre-empt the Lumm and Kunselman resolution, pointing out that Kunselman had been invited to co-sponsor it, which he’d done. However, Hieftje said it was “difficult” to have more than five councilmembers co-sponsor a resolution. [Six is a quorum of the council; so if six councilmembers sponsor a resolution together, it gives rise to questions about whether they convened a meeting of the council in violation of Michigan's Open Meetings Act.] He ventured that Lumm’s name could be added as co-sponsor then, and Lumm indicated that she’d like that.

Kunselman picked up on remarks by Hieftje to the effect that ridership on the AATA was going up. He read aloud a portion of a press release from the AATA:

AATA also will review existing services and costs to ensure its history of strong fiscal stewardship is not disrupted, he said. The review will determine the feasibility of continuing to provide the services implemented as part of AATA’s initial investment under its Five-Year Transit Program. These services produced successful results within months of introduction but may no longer be sustainable without additional funding …

The services that had been introduced to jumpstart the countywide initiative include: increased Route #4 frequency, the AirRide airport service, expanded NightRide service, and commuter express service between Chelsea and Canton.

Kunselman said that what he heard in that language was: The AATA needs more money. Benham told Kunselman that the services mentioned in the press release were implemented with the expectation that there would be a new funding source – provided through the Act 196 authority. The services are not currently sustainable into the future, with just the existing funding that’s available. Kunselman told Benham that he really appreciated the straightforward response from Benham.

Higgins told Benham that she’d approached AATA over the years because councilmembers had heard from residents that their transportation needs are not being met out in neighborhoods. She asked what guarantee she had that these sorts of concerns would not continue to be ignored. Benham indicated that he was not aware of any view on the part of the AATA that travel to and from neighborhoods is not a priority. Higgins related an anecdote about a visitor to the city of Ann Arbor who needed 1.5 hours to get from the north to the south side of the city – saying a three-hour commute inside the city of Ann Arbor isn’t acceptable. She didn’t think all the community’s transportation needs are being met, and noted that Ann Arbor had an aging population that needs transportation. Now is an opportunity to make her a believer, Higgins said.

As the deliberations continued, local resident Thomas Partridge – sitting in the audience – expressed his displeasure with the way the conversation was going by pounding his crutch on the floor and slamming a bound copy of the council’s agenda on the counter. Hieftje raised the possibility that Partridge would be removed, saying that tantrums weren’t usually tolerated.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3 – leaning back) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman weighed in heavily in favor of maintaining the current governance of the AATA under local Ann Arbor control using Act 55, with purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) made with those communities who want transportation service. The articles of incorporation could be modified to include additional seats on the board for those communities, he said. Later in the deliberations, Briere ventured that residency in Ann Arbor for AATA board members was a possible issue of concern for some councilmembers, so that needs to be addressed directly.

Lumm expressed the view that those on the council who’d predicted that the proposal would not be well received by the townships had been right. She characterized the effort to implement the countywide authority as a colossal waste of time and money.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Lumm, saying that she didn’t think effort had been wasted – because it’s raised awareness that Ann Arbor is part of a region.

Derezinski expressed his disappointment that the effort was not going forward, but indicated he’d support the resolution.

Hohnke said he was a little bit disappointed in the decisions of some of the townships to opt out. Lumm responded that she was not disappointed in the townships, saying she trusted them to protect the interests of their residents.

Hieftje felt it was a little too easy to say that the AATA wasted resources developing a plan and exploring this approach to countywide governance. He noted that in Grand Rapids, a similar proposal had to be put to voters twice before they approved it. He drew a comparison to the failure of the Ann Arbor District Library bond proposal at the polls on Nov. 6 – noting that one of the greatest criticisms of the library bond proposal was that the library didn’t have a specific plan for the new downtown building.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to opt out of The Washtenaw Ride.

Living Wage Exemption for Nonprofit CAN

The city council was asked to consider a waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), so that the nonprofit would be exempt from compliance with the city’s living wage ordinance for the next three years.

Living Wage: Background

CAN is a nonprofit dedicated to improving communities in underprivileged Washtenaw County neighborhoods, and receives allocations from the city through the city’s coordinated funding process to support human services. For fiscal year 2013, CAN was allocated $105,809 by the city for its Y.E.S. You CAN! program. Because those annual allocations exceed $10,000, CAN is subject to the city’s living wage ordinance, which currently requires that a minimum of $12.17/hour be paid to employees by employers who provide health insurance and $13.57/hour by those employers not providing health insurance.

However, Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance has a mechanism by which the minimum requirements can be waived – if conformance would cause economic harm to a nonprofit. It’s that waiver provision that the Ann Arbor city council was asked to approve at its Nov. 8 meeting.

One condition of the waiver is that a plan for eventual compliance within three years must be submitted to the city. CAN’s plan highlights the programs that it would need to cut, in order to conform with the ordinance. [.pdf of CAN's compliance plan]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also announced at the Nov. 8 meeting that in the near future she would be bringing forward an ordinance revision to exempt nonprofits from the living wage ordinance permanently. That echoes a previous attempt two months ago by the council to exempt some nonprofits from the living wage ordinance. On the council’s agenda for Sept. 17, 2012 had been a resolution that would have exempted from the living wage ordinance those nonprofits receiving city human services funding.

The Sept. 17 resolution appeared to be an attempt to invoke the ordinance’s waiver provision, but it did not name a specific nonprofit, and no plans for eventual conformance had been submitted by any nonprofits at that time. So the agenda item was withdrawn as it was deemed to be tantamount to changing an ordinance through a simple council resolution – which is not a legal way to procede. At that time it was indicated that an ordinance revision would be forthcoming.

Living Wage: CAN’s Previous Waiver Attempts

Based on correspondence provided to The Chronicle by the city of Ann Arbor in the context of a broader request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, the Sept. 17 agenda item stemmed from requests made by CAN, although that organization was not specifically mentioned in the council’s resolution or in discussion at the table. Together with the material obtained through the FOIA, CAN’s compliance plan indicates that Doughty submitted a letter on July 10, 2012 asking for a waiver. [.pdf of July 10, 2012 letter from CAN]. Just before the Sept. 17 meeting, CAN was asked to revise the request to mention a plan eventually to comply. [.pdf of Sept. 17, 2012 letter from CAN] The revision consisted of the following addition:

Community Action Network will use this exemption time to devise and implement a strategic fund raising plan to fill our budget gaps caused in part by the increased burden the living wage ordinance continues to place on our finances.

However, the ordinance specifies that the plan to bring an organization into compliance must be submitted as part of the waiver. And the lack of an actual compliance plan led to the withdrawal of the Sept. 17 resolution.

The concern raised by CAN dates back at least to February 2012. In email correspondence sent on Feb. 7, 2012 by CAN director Joan Doughty to the city/county office of community development Mary Jo Callan and councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), she made a plea for some kind of accommodation with respect to the living wage ordinance:

From: Joan Doughty
Sent: Tue 2/7/2012 5:05 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Callan, Mary Jo
Subject: Living Wage?

Hi Mary J and Chris:

Hope this finds you well. I would really like to reignite the living wage ordinance waiver for nonprofits. We’re going to be hurting, and paying summer camp counselors living wage is sort of ridiculous. The city doesn’t do it either. …. so …. Please? I’m begging you — do something!

Best,

jmd

Joan M. Doughty
PhD Executive Director Community Action Network
www.canannarbor.org

Doughty’s correspondence to the city indicates that many other nonprofits receiving funding from the city don’t meet the conditions of the living wage ordinance, but there is no enforcement.

Doughty’s correspondence in the summer of 2012 also mentions the fact that the city’s ordinance is likely on dubious legal grounds. As The Chronicle has previously reported, a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 left in place an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

Doughty appears to indicate in her correspondence that city attorney Stephen Postema had related in conversation with Doughty’s husband, Washtenaw County prosecutor Brian Mackie, that Postema felt if the city’s living wage ordinance were to be challenged in court, it would be struck down. Writing on July 12, 2012 to Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Doughty indicated that a “family member” of hers had discussed the legal issues with Ann Arbor city attorney Stephen Postema:

I understand that Steve Postuma [sic] circulated a confidential memo to city council members about the issue. Publicly he holds that because the Supreme Court’s decision was “unpublished” (it’s not – you can find it on the Internet) it isn’t applicable wider than in the Detroit case. That might be true, but a family member of mine with considerable legal knowledge contends that if a company or agency challenged the Ann Arbor living wage in court, it too would most likely fall. And Steve has conceded this to the same family member…

In a phone interview, Mackie told The Chronicle that he does recall discussing the living wage issue with Postema, characterizing the conversations as not being substantive. However, Mackie recalled telling Postema he thought it was wrong that the city was exempting itself from its own ordinance. He also recalled Postema saying there was an argument to be made in defense of the ordinance – but Mackie said he didn’t recollect anything more detailed than that.

In other correspondence on April 26, 2012 to city of Ann Arbor community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, Doughty refers to her husband:

I asked my husband (who is an attorney) to read the court of appeals decision, and he is of the opinion that it shouldn’t take filing a lawsuit against the city to “make” it take the right and legal action.

In her July 12 email, Doughty pitches the idea to Smith of altering or rescinding the city ordinance. And it’s Smith to whom Doughty proposes the idea, in part because Smith would be leaving the council, because she did not seek re-election:

… she [Mary Jo Callan] told me that the city council members she talked to would like to change the living wage, but, in our liberal climate, none of them want to be “the one” who proposes it. So … since you’re not running for re-election, I’m hoping you are willing to “do the deed”. There are many approaches and options: abolish it completely since there is nobody monitoring it and it’s probably illegal – revoke it pending a potential overhaul, exempt nonprofits, define more specifically who should receive living wage (so: not summer staff, not true part time staff and entry staff levels) etc. etc. etc.

Living Wage: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know how many exemptions from the city’s living wage ordinance had ever been granted. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that he was not personally aware of one.

Joan Doughty, executive director of the Community Action Network (CAN).

Mayor John Hieftje ventured that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival had been exempted. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that the ordinance had been revised to exempt nonprofits that are supported through the city’s community events fund, as is the case with the Summer Festival. [For some additional history of the living wage in Ann Arbor, see "Living Wage: Insourcing City Temps"]

Higgins indicated she was not against granting a waiver to CAN – and she was asking about previous waivers merely because she was curious.

Hieftje had a couple of concerns about granting a waiver to CAN. For human services nonprofits, he said, some of their employees are trying to avoid becoming clients themselves. CAN’s situation, he allowed, might be somewhat different in that the positions in question were held by part-time, student employees, rather than full-time. Hieftje said he would need some time to think about it, but would prefer to consider the issue more as a package of all nonprofits at one time. His second concern was that there’s been a lot of time since the ordinance was enacted – and at the beginning the provision for a waiver was put in to give nonprofits time to adjust. He characterized himself as “still puzzling this one out.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Joan Doughty to come to the podium to answer questions. Doughty confirmed that the waiver was being requested not in order to pay full-time staff less than the living wage, but rather for students. Doughty also stressed that she and CAN are not against the living wage, but rather against it as it’s written and applied currently. She added that a lot of nonprofits are not paying the living wage, but said that “We all know that it’s not being checked.” But “flying under the radar” was not how CAN does its business, she said, so CAN wanted to use the waiver option as provided in the ordinance to do it the right way.

Lumm indicated that additional background on the living wage would be provided at the Nov. 19 meeting when the ordinance revision would be proposed. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification about why CAN hadn’t been able to receive the funds it was due under the contract with the city. Doughty explained that the city attorney had indicated the funds couldn’t be disbursed to CAN until she signed, indicating that CAN was complying with the city’s living wage ordinance. Doughty indicated that instead of signing something that attested that CAN was complying with the living wage ordinance, CAN had applied for a waiver. Unless that waiver is approved, she said, CAN could not get paid.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told Doughty that he appreciated that CAN was following the city’s ordinance – and that was enough to make him support it. Teall concurred with Kunselman. Unlike Hieftje, Teall said she’d prefer to decide the waiver for CAN separately from the ordinance revisions. She felt that CAN has waited long enough.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) took issue with the view expressed by Teall and Kunselman, saying that the fact that there’s a mechanism for requesting a waiver shouldn’t be sufficient grounds for granting it. Part of the compliance plan is supposed to include an explanation for how the organization would come into compliance, he noted. Doughty told Hohnke: “That’s what we submitted.” Hohnke told her he was having trouble following the plan. Doughty ticked through the basic four options: (1) CAN would cut programs; (2) CAN would reduce eligibility for participation; (3) the city would increase human services funding; or (4) the city would change the ordinance exempting nonprofits.

From left: Ann Arbor councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Hohnke asked what other sources of funding CAN had. Doughty listed off several organizations: Ann Arbor Housing Commission, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, United Way, HUD, Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, various church congregations, Kiwanis, and Rotary. She allowed that it’s a complicated funding structure for a small nonprofit. Hohnke appreciated that Doughty had brought forward the issue, because it allowed a structural issue to be identified. It might be that some people don’t need to earn a living with the wage they’re being paid, Hohnke said. Like Hieftje, he wanted to consider it as a whole rather than as a one-off exception. He indicated support for possible postponement.

Responding to Hohnke’s suggestion to postpone, Doughty indicated that CAN can’t get paid until a waiver is granted. Hieftje admonished Doughty that she needed to restrict herself to responding to questions.

Lumm addressed the timing issue by saying that the ordinance revision would have been brought for initial consideration that night. But it was seen as undesirable to have one edition of the council approve it on first reading and another at the second reading. [The new council will be seated at the Nov. 19 meeting.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that for her, there were two important considerations: (1) CAN hasn’t signed a living wage statement; and (2) the application for a waiver requires a plan to come into compliance. She said she’d read the plan submitted by CAN several times, but she didn’t see how it brought CAN into compliance. Doughty pointed Briere to the part in the plan that explains how CAN would use the time of the waiver to renegotiate contracts with other funders so that CAN could pay those contracts. Briere indicated she didn’t see that statement in the plan, but even if she did, she wasn’t sure how that would bring CAN into compliance. Briere recognized that Lumm was going to propose an ordinance revision, but there’s no guarantee it would pass.

Lumm asked city attorney Stephen Postema if he’d reviewed CAN’s compliance plan. Postema indicated that he’d looked at the plan, but said it’s for the council to determine if the plan is sufficient. He allowed that the plan covers the words of the ordinance. Lumm got confirmation from Postema that the city does exempt itself from the living wage.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) told Doughty she was in an unenviable position, saying that CAN does a tremendous service to the community. He didn’t want to get lost in the semantics. He appreciated that Doughty had stepped forward and said CAN was having a hard time, calling it noble of Doughty to have come forward. Anglin feared that this is the tip of a terrible iceberg.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed Anglin’s sentiments. He got confirmation from Doughty that the needs increase during the winter months. That immediacy, he said, warrants consideration immediately. The larger issue of the ordinance revision can be addressed later, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he knew what good work CAN does, and he felt it makes perfect sense that an amendment to the ordinance should be sought. That’s logically separate, however, from seeking a waiver within the ordinance, he said. In contrast to Teall and Kunselman, however, he didn’t see CAN’s request for a waiver as trailblazing or as enhancing the moral stature of CAN. For the city to enforce the ordinance also does not diminish its moral standing, he said. Taylor allowed that it’s a good thing that CAN chose not to dissemble, but it’s not a black mark on the city that it enforced its ordinance and withheld the funds. Taylor said he’s delighted there’s a mechanism to break through that knot, so he’d support it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she didn’t have a problem supporting the waiver request. Hohnke reiterated that he felt the issue should be addressed holistically across nonprofits. Addressing the merits of the plan submitted by CAN, Hohnke felt the spirit of the plan specified in the ordinance was to think about increasing revenue streams and consolidating. He reiterated a preference to consider the ordinance change and to delay the waiver request.

Joan Doughty, executive director of the Community Action Network, and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Teall noted that if the request for the waiver had been presented last summer, the issue of considering the waiver and the ordinance change would not have come close to the same time. She wanted to know why it had taken so long. Postema observed that the city staff itself cannot provide a waiver, but rather it’s for the council to consider. There was no compliance request in place in July, he said – and CAN’s plan had only just been received.

Doughty reviewed how CAN had sent a letter, revised it and was then told that it was insufficient in September. Postema said he couldn’t comment on what happened between CAN and the office of community development. For whatever reason, he said, the waiver request is in front of the council now.

Teall indicated she agreed with Taylor’s remarks. Kunselman weighed in again, saying, “We’re way over-thinking this.” He disagreed with Taylor, saying that CAN was, in fact, blazing a trail, because they’re the first nonprofit to seek a waiver. He ventured that no nonprofit wants to seek a waiver, because they know they’d face a city council discussion that goes nowhere.

Hieftje reiterated that he wanted to take a more holistic look, which would begin at the next council meeting – in 11 days. He wanted to see the waiver postponed until the next meeting.

Briere floated the possibility that if CAN received a waiver, it might work against CAN because CAN would then be constrained by the ordinance, even if the council amended the ordinance. Taylor established that CAN would be done no harm with a waiver under the old ordinance, if the ordinance were eventually amended.

Outcome: The council voted to grant CAN a waiver from the city’s living wage ordinance, with dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Though she voted yes, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated as she voted that she didn’t like granting the waiver.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund

The city council was asked to increase Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund by $90,000, through a transfer from the general fund reserve.

The amount of the transfer was keyed to the cost of a piece of city-owned property that the city sold recently to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. And the justification for the transfer was based on the council’s recent enactment of a formal policy on the use of the proceeds of city-owned land sales.

The $90,000 piece of land is a six-foot-wide strip on the former YMCA lot at Fifth and William, immediately to the south of the location for the AATA’s planned new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. The $90,000 price was based on an independent appraisal. The AATA board approved its side of that deal this spring at its April 26, 2012 meeting. The city council approved the land sale over a year ago, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. The total parcel area was 792 square feet.

The land sale policy approved by the council on Oct. 15, 2012 had begun as a proposal from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to allocate 85% of the net proceeds of city-owned land to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The council originally considered the item at its Sept. 17, 2012 meeting but delayed action. The council eventually opted to adopt a policy that treated land sales on a case-by-case basis – except for the former Y lot at Fifth and William, of which the six-foot-wide strip was a part. The enacted policy called for net proceeds from that parcel to be placed in the affordable housing trust fund. [For additional background, see: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”]

Because the $90,000 piece of property had been a portion of the former Y lot, the resolution in effect would retroactively apply the policy on use of land sale proceeds – by transferring $90,000 to the affordable housing trust fund. The portion of the policy that requires the city to recover its costs associated with the property was not applied – as the city purchased the land for $3.5 million.

The resolution was sponsored by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje – although Smith was not able to attend the Nov. 8 meeting.

The six-foot-wide strip of land, and its $90,000 price, has been highlighted in recent council deliberations for a different reason – as a funding source for a transportation connector study. The city of Ann Arbor had been asked to contribute $60,000 to an alternatives analysis study of the Plymouth/State corridor, from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, extending south to I-94. The local match was needed for a $1.2 million federal grant that had been awarded to the AATA for the study.

During deliberations on the $60,000 connector study allocation at the Sept. 4, 2012 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had objected to one of the “whereas” clauses in the resolution. The clause mentioned the availability of $90,000 in the general fund from the land sale, which was more than enough to cover the requested $60,000 local match. So the allocation was essentially pitched as a “return” to the AATA of a portion of the land sale price. Kunselman objected that once the $90,000 was in the general fund reserve, it was no longer earmarked as funds to be used for any particular purpose.

When the council eventually reconsidered the decision on Oct. 15, 2012 and wound up approving $30,000 for the study – because the Ann Arbor DDA had in the meantime agreed to contribute $30,000 – it was Higgins who raised the objection about the “whereas” clause. And the clause was amended out before the council’s approval.

The groundbreaking for the AATA’s new Blake Transit Center – which had occasioned the sale of the six-foot strip of land on the southwestern edge of the AATA’s property – is scheduled for Nov. 19. The AATA board gave final approval of a roughly $8 million budget for the transit center at its Oct. 18, 2012 meeting.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was concerned about the appearance that the council was randomly spending money out of the fund balance. In a back-and-forth with the city’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford, Lumm established that the resolution was a transfer from the general fund balance reserve and not directly connected to the sale of land. Crawford characterized the resolution as tying into the concept of the land sale policy, and linking the land sale in concept to the depositing of money into the affordable housing trust fund – he noted that the resolution was transferring $90,000 from the general fund balance.

From left: City administrator Steve Powers and chief financial officer Tom Crawford.

Lumm seemed to indicate some dissatisfaction with the fact that a requirement of the land sale policy – that the related transactional costs be deducted before transfer to the affordable housing trust fund – didn’t seem to apply to the resolution.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) suggested a “friendly” amendment to change the “resolved” clause to read: “… after any costs associated with the sale have been deducted.” Crawford thought that the $90,000 was already the net amount, because the city had negotiated to have the AATA bear the closing costs. In any case, he said, the amount was not a large number. So Briere withdrew the proposed amendment.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed concern about the idea of applying a policy retroactively – to a piece of land that had previously been sold. Lumm echoed Kunselman’s sentiment.

Briere allowed that Kunselman and Lumm were right in that the land sale policy was enacted after the land in question had been sold. However, Briere said, “This resolution … has nothing to do with the policy – except as realization that we’d already sold a piece of the old Y lot.” It seemed appropriate to Briere to treat that previous sale as part of the Y lot, which the council wanted to go to the affordable housing trust fund.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he supported the resolution based on the fact that the city had not been able to make regular contributions to the affordable housing trust fund.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to transfer $90,000 to the affordable housing trust fund.

Defined Contribution Retirement Plan

On the council’s agenda was a resolution, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that directed the city administrator to develop a defined contribution retirement plan to offer non-union employees hired after July 1, 2013. The city currently has a defined benefit plan.

Although the resolution indicated specific action for non-union employees, it also included a goal to implement a similar change for union employees – which would have to be collectively bargained. The second resolved clause indicated that the city would “… strive to implement the same pension changes for all new employees.”

The directive to the city administrator in the resolution stated that the non-union retirement plan – along with the appropriate ordinance amendments, related plan documents, and implementation steps – were to be developed within three months, by Jan. 31, 2013, for review first by the city council’s labor committee then by the full council.

Lumm’s resolution had been added to the Nov. 8 agenda on Nov. 2. She had told her colleagues at the council’s Oct. 1, 2012 meeting that she’d be bringing the resolution forward. She’d drafted a similar resolution in May this year, in connection with possible amendments to the FY 2013 budget. She didn’t bring forward the resolution at that time, partly because it was not technically an amendment to the budget and partly because the deliberations on the budget had already lasted several hours.

Lumm campaigned for her seat on the council in 2011 based partly on a call for a transition to a defined contribution plan. Among the reasons Lumm cited in her resolution was state legislation that was enacted recently – which will facilitate the transition to defined contribution plans. [.pdf of analysis by Senate Fiscal Agency of Public Act 329 of 2012]

In defined benefit plans, retirees receive a set amount per month during their retirement. In defined contribution plans, employers pay a set amount into the retirement plan while a person is employed. The most common of these defined contribution plans is the 401(k).

Defined Contribution Plan: Council Deliberations

Apparently related to the resolution on converting to a defined contribution retirement was a closed session held at the beginning of the council’s Nov. 8 meeting, to discuss labor negotiation strategy. Discussion of labor strategy is one of the exceptions that can be used under Michigan’s Open Meeting Act to hold a closed session. Conversion to a defined contribution plan for union members would need to be collectively bargained. The closed session was added to the council’s agenda at the meeting and took place before the council handled the rest of the agenda.

When the council reached the resolution on moving toward a defined contribution plan, Lumm said she believed the city must address issue of legacy costs. She felt that the issue should be addressed now, instead of kicking the can down the road. The city had taken one step toward addressing the problem by adopting an “access only” health care plan. The next step now, in her view, was to change to a defined contribution type plan similar to a 401(k) type of plan. She noted that other public and private organizations had adopted this approach in order to reduce employee costs.

In 2004, a city of Ann Arbor blue ribbon committee had made a recommendation to transition to such a plan, and it’s now seven years later, Lumm said. However, she noted that the city administrator and the city attorney had raised some questions about her resolution. Out of respect for their concerns she was withdrawing the item, but she looked forward to future discussion.

Outcome: The item on moving toward a defined contribution retirement plan was withdrawn.

Appointments

At its Nov. 8 meeting, the council handled a couple of items related to appointments to boards, commissions and task forces.

Appointments: North Main Task Force

The council considered expanding a task force that’s looking at future planning for the North Main Street and Huron River corridor – so that it could include outgoing councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1). She was appointed to represent the council on the group, but did not seek re-election to her council seat.

Mayor John Hieftje had indicated at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting that he would be moving to expand the task force in this way. The resolution was sponsored by Smith’s Ward 1 cohort, Sabra Briere.

Smith’s last meeting was Oct. 15, because she was unable to attend the final meeting of her term, which was Nov. 8. New councilmembers – including Sumi Kailasapathy, who’ll take the seat held by Smith – will be ceremonially sworn in at the council’s Nov. 19 meeting.

The task force is due to make a recommendation on a use for the city-owned 721 N. Main Street parcel by the end of the year. That comes in the context of a planned application by the city to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund next year for a grant in connection with 721 N. Main. The group’s broader recommendation for the entire corridor is not due until mid-year 2013.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to expand the North Main task force, to confirm Sandi Smith as an additional citizen member and to confirm Sabra Briere as the council representative to the task force.

Appointment: Planning Commission

On the agenda was the confirmation of Tony Derezinski to fill a partial term on the city planning commission – through June of 2013. Derezinski’s last meeting as a city councilmember was Nov. 8, and up to that point he had served by annual appointment as the council’s representative to the planning commission. But because he did not prevail in his August Democratic primary race in Ward 2, he could not continue to serve on the planning commission in that capacity. Instead, it’s expected that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will serve in that role.

The vacancy on the planning commission for which Derezinski was nominated is opening up due to the resignation of Evan Pratt, who won a new position for himself as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in the Nov. 6 election. Derezinski was nominated by the council to fill a citizen position on the commission.

Derezinski, along with Susan Baskett, also had been nominated at the council’s Oct. 15 meeting to serve as a board member for the recently incorporated Act 196 transit authority. But in light of the council’s action to opt out of the transit authority at its Nov. 8 meeting, the council won’t be acting on those nominations.

Ward 2 city councilmembers Tony Derezinski and Jane Lumm.

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the item on the agenda by thanking Pratt for his service on the planning commission. Hieftje indicated that his interest in appointing Derezinski was based on a desire to have some continuity on the commission.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) began her remarks objecting to Derezinski’s appointment by turning to Derezinski, seated immediately to her right, and saying, “You know I love you, Tony … This is really not fun for me.” She stressed that her objection had nothing to do with Derezinski. She was not comfortable making the appointment for reasons similar to those she gave in voting against the appointment of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to the board of the DDA. [That vote came at the council's Aug. 20, 2012 meeting.] She drew a distinction between the appointment of Smith to the North Main task force, and the appointments to the DDA board and planning commission.

Lumm told Derezinski that she felt he’d done a phenomenal job on the planning commission. She allowed that it had been a practice to appoint former councilmembers to such positions, but she did not agree with it. She concluded her remarks by telling Derezinski, “I hope you understand.” His response: “Noted.”

Lumm’s remarks prompted several councilmembers to express their support of Derezinski’s appointment. Hieftje drew a comparison between Derezinski’s appointment to the planning commission and that of former councilmember Jean Carlberg. He said it would be a shame to waste the expertise and depth of knowledge that Derezinski offered.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that Derezinski’s appointment would be finishing out a term.

Outcome: The council voted to appoint Tony Derezinski to the planning commission, over dissent from Jane Lumm.

Appointments: Upcoming

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated during council communications time that she’d be bringing forward to the Nov. 19 meeting the nomination of Patti Smith to serve on the city’s environmental commission. [The environmental commission is one of the few boards and commissions that have nominations come from the council as a body instead of the mayor.]

Appointments: Council Committees

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her council colleagues during communications time that with new councilmembers coming on board at the next meeting, it’s the time of year when the organization of the council is considered. She asked councilmembers to forward to her their preferences for committee appointments. She hoped to have the committee appointments ready for the council’s first meeting in December.

Upcoming Council Business

The Ann Arbor city council’s post-election Nov. 8 session was its last meeting before new councilmembers are ceremonially sworn in on Nov. 19. And current city councilmembers used the occasion to announce some issues that the new edition of the council will be asked to consider.

Upcoming Business: Towing

During council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had been working on a towing ordinance revision that would come before the council for a first reading at the Nov. 19 meeting.

Upcoming Business: Public Art

At the Nov. 19 meeting, two proposals will be brought forward on the city’s public art ordinance. The changes stem from the fact that a proposed public art millage failed at the polls on Nov. 6 by a 10-point margin (55.8% opposed and 44.14% in favor).

So at the Nov. 8 meeting, two different proposals were floated on the city’s existing public art ordinance – based on possibly differing interpretations of the expressed voter sentiment. It’s possible to construe the result as either (1) about the way public art is funded or (2) about whether public money should be used to support public art at all. One proposal was announced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and the other by Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Briere’s proposal is to narrow the definition of projects to which the existing ordinance would apply. Currently, the Percent for Art ordinance applies to essentially any capital improvement project undertaken by the city, and requires that 1% of the budget for such projects be set aside for public art. Briere’s proposal would narrow the definition by restricting eligible capital improvement projects to those that are “intended to be open or visible to the public.” Projects to construct roads, highways, paths, and sidewalks would be eliminated from eligibility. Bridges would still qualify.

Briere’s proposal includes a financial threshold for qualifying projects: $100,000. Briere’s proposed ordinance amendments would also require a public process associated with proposed art projects. Part of that process would require notification of the councilmembers in whose ward a project is proposed.

Lumm’s proposal is not to amend the existing public art ordinance, but rather to repeal it. Lumm described her intent at the Nov. 8 meeting to bring forward a proposal similar to one she’d made at the council’s Aug. 20, 2012 meeting – a resolution that directed the city attorney’s office to prepare an ordinance revision that would repeal the Percent for Art program. In an email sent to other councilmembers, Lumm stated that ”… the version I will bring forward on 11/19 will be the proposed ordinance changes themselves for consideration at first reading.”

The Aug. 20 meeting was the occasion on which the council voted to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot. It was meant to provide a more flexible funding mechanism for public art in Ann Arbor. The 0.1 mill tax was expected to generate around $450,000 annually.

The proposal won a majority of votes in just 13 out of 59 Ann Arbor precincts, with the most support coming from Ward 5, Precinct 4 where 60.5% of voters supported the public art millage. Ward 5 had six of the 13 precincts where the proposal achieved a majority. And the proposal finished in a dead heat in Ward 5, Precinct 5 with 471 voting for and against it. Opposition among in-person voters was strongest in Ward 1, Precinct 9, where only 34.5% of voters supported it.

The proposal did not win a majority of votes in any precinct of Ward 2, which is represented by Lumm and Tony Derezinski, who also serves on the Ann Arbor public art commission. Nov. 8 was Derezinski’s last council meeting – he was defeated by Sally Petersen in the August Democratic primary.

Upcoming Business: Living Wage

In connection to the discussion on the living wage ordinance exemption granted to Community Action Network, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) announced she’d also be bringing forward a proposed ordinance revision for the Nov. 19 meeting that would provide a uniform exception for nonprofit entities that receive human services funding allocations from the city.

Dissolution of Sign Board of Appeals

The council was asked to give final approval to the transfer of responsibilities previously performed by Ann Arbor’s sign board of appeals (SBA) to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The change to the city’s ordinance had been given initial approval on Oct. 15, 2012.

The ordinance change was accompanied on the agenda by a separate council action eliminating the seven-member sign board of appeals, which most recently has had only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA will now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010, and more recently at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, when it recommended the change.

During the brief deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described the move as an effort to streamline the process. He noted that the SBA handled just six appeals last year. The ZBA could easily handle that as a part of its regular process, he said. Eliminating the SBA would eliminate some of the paperwork that goes along with having a separate body, he said. Mayor John Hieftje said that the streamlining would be beneficial. He ventured that maybe some people who might have otherwise had interest in serving on the sign board would instead want to serve on the ZBA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give final approval to the ordinance change transferring responsibility from the SBA to the ZBA and to dissolve the SBA.

Pedestrian Improvements

The council considered to two separate projects featuring pedestrian and non-motorized improvements. One is a Safe Routes to School project on Green Road. And the other involves a Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) project to install a pedestrian island on Huron Street between Thayer and Ingalls.

Thurston Elementary Safe Routes to School project.

What the council was asked to authorize for the Safe Routes to School project – in connection with Thurston Elementary School – was an agreement between the city and MDOT for the installation of bike and pedestrian safety improvements on Green Road. The agreement is required as a condition of the federal funds used for the project – a total of $111,800. The city will be using $18,000 from its alternative transportation fund to cover construction inspection and contingency costs.

The project itself includes installation of two new pedestrian crossing islands and bike lanes on Green Road. It also includes converting a portion of Green Road to three lanes and installing two rectangular rapid flashing beacons.

The authorization to apply for the federal funding was given by the council over two years ago at its Sept. 7, 2010 meeting.

The second project is a pedestrian island being installed by MDOT on Huron between Thayer and Ingalls. The city will be performing construction engineering services in its role as construction manager. The city’s cost of $6,400 will be reimbursed from federal funds.

Construction on both projects is expected to begin in the spring of 2013.

The item on the Huron Street pedestrian island was on the consent agenda, a collection of items that are voted on as a group. Any councilmember can pull individual items out of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pulled out the item about the pedestrian island in order to make some remarks about it.

Not many years ago, Briere said, it would be difficult to imagine a crosswalk or light on this part of Huron Street. Now there’s even a pedestrian island. She said that these infrastructure improvements reflect a greater use of the area by pedestrians and also an acknowledgment of the importance of transportation in the community. She was pleased with the accommodations that MDOT had been able to make to implement the pedestrian island. She called it a really good move. Students and faculty walk across Huron Street at that point all the time, she said. Anything to make the crossing safer is better, she concluded.

On the Safe Routes to School items, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff for providing a map of the improvements and for their work in making the grant applications. And Briere pointed out that this grant is the second one received by the city for this purpose. It’s important for children to be able to walk to school instead of catching a bus, she said. This project for Thurston Elementary coordinates with one for Clague Middle School.

Briere noted that it had taken two years to bring the grant process to fruition. So the city can’t rely only on this kind of mechanism to address gaps in the pedestrian infrastructure.

Briere’s concluding remark served to foreshadow an item on the council’s Nov. 19 agenda, which would establish a $15,000 budget to analyze alternatives for filling a sidewalk gap on Scio Church Road.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve both pedestrian improvement-related agenda items.

Firefighter Staffing Levels

The council was asked to nudge upward by one the number of firefighters authorized in the current year’s budget for the city of Ann Arbor – to 86. The position will be funded for the rest of the current fiscal year by tapping the general fund balance reserve for $50,000. For the full year next year, the additional position would cost about $82,000.

According to a memo sent by city administrator Steve Powers to city councilmembers, as the budget planning cycle begins for FY 2014-015, he anticipates being able to maintain the 86 firefighter positions. Part of the rationale for adding the additional position is based on the fact that a recent hiring cycle to fill six positions had resulted in seven highly qualified candidates. The additional position would, according to Powers’ memo, help manage overtime and allow assignment of personnel to fire prevention work.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers peruses the printed copy of the council’s agenda.

The staffing level at 85 already reflects the addition of three firefighters since the FY 2013 budget was approved on May 21, 2012. That staffing level increase, from 82 to 85, was funded from a $642,294 federal grant through the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), which was announced on May 30, 2012. The vote to accept the SAFER grant and add three firefighter positions was taken at the council’s Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. At that time, fire chief Chuck Hubbard reported that the city had three vacancies, or 79 firefighters on staff.

The $321,000 from the SAFER grant for each of the next two years was allocated for three firefighter positions, which the city estimates will cost $255,000 (at $85,000 per position). The remaining $66,000 per year was determined to be spent on other unspecified fire services needs, according to the staff memo accompanying the council’s August resolution – including overtime and fleet expenses. Hiring a fourth firefighter was analyzed at the time as requiring $19,000 of fund balance.

Deliberations by the council featured a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3): How does this affect a possible decision to close two fire stations? [By way of background, the city is currently still weighing whether to re-open Station 2, and close Station 3, 4 and 6, leaving three stations open – a net reduction of two stations. For more detail, see previous Chronicle coverage: "A Closer Look at Ann Arbor's Fire Station Plan"]

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the addition of one firefighter would not have an impact either way on the station plan – because a staffing level of 86 still provides enough firefighters to operate an additional station. Adding the position would allow for better performance in the current operational configuration, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirmed with Powers that the addition would result in an actual addition of a firefighter, and would not just be an addition on paper.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her support for the increased firefighter staffing levels.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to increase the staffing level for firefighters from 85 to 86.

Plymouth Green Crossing Revision

The council was asked to give final approval to several changes to the PUD (planned unit development) supplemental regulations for Plymouth Green Crossings – a mixed-use complex off of Plymouth Road, west of Green Road. At the meeting, the council was also asked to give approval to corresponding changes to the site plan for the complex.

The city planning commission had given its recommendation to approve the change at its Aug. 21, 2012 meeting. Six major changes were proposed: (1) adding parking or flexible space for special events as permitted uses in the ground floor of a proposed three-story mixed-use building, on the site’s northeast corner; (2) increasing the use of potential restaurant space within the site from 7,000 square feet to 14,224 square feet; (3) eliminating requirements for a free-standing restaurant that had previously been planned; (4) increasing the maximum number of parking spaces from 275 to 290; (5) reducing the minimum number of bicycle storage spaces from 70 to 64; and (6) adding the following language to the facade section: “ground level facades of Building A if used as interior parking shall include architectural columns, a minimum 3-foot height masonry screen wall, and louvers or grills to screen views to parking while permitting natural ventilation.”

In addition, the city recently discovered that the bank building was built one foot from the west property line, although the approved site plan and supplemental regulations required a two-foot setback. To resolve this, the owner proposed an amendment of the PUD supplemental regulations, according to a staff memo. The memo also indicates that the owner has been making contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund, rather than providing affordable housing within the complex. The final payment is due at the end of this year. [For background on a current policy discussion on the affordable housing trust fund, see "City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy."]

This isn’t the first time that changes have been requested for the site. In 2009, developers also asked to amend the original PUD agreement. Rather than build a restaurant, they asked for permission to turn that part of the site into a temporary parking lot, adding 26 additional parking spaces and 11 spots for motorcycles. The planning commission didn’t act on that request until its Feb. 18, 2010 meeting. Although all five commissioners at that meeting voted to approve the request, the action required six votes to pass, so it failed for lack of votes. However, the request was forwarded to the city council, which ultimately granted approval at its April 19, 2010 meeting.

Plymouth Green: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge spoke at both public hearings on the Plymouth Green Crossing. He called for connecting these types of rezoning approvals to a commitment to provide access for affordable public transportation to the sites. As a Democrat, he stands for progress, he said. He alluded to the presidential election and the campaign, which resulted in an admonishment from mayor John Hieftje to confine his comments to the topic of the hearing. Partridge told him that he disagreed with Hieftje’s attempt to limit freedom of speech. Hieftje responded that he didn’t see how a presidential candidate related to the site plan. Partridge parted from the podium with a suggestion: “Maybe you should go to law school.”

Plymouth Green: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described the revisions as an attempt to use the space in a better way. A lot of other potentials could be realized if the site had more parking, he said. On the site plan, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) recited the key changes and indicated that she felt they had a beneficial effect for the city and were consistent with the master plan.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the PUD and the site plan changes for Plymouth Green Crossing.

City Attorney Performance Review

The council held a closed session toward the end of the meeting, to discuss the personnel review of city attorney Stephen Postema. Deliberations on a personnel review are not required to be held in a closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings, and may not be held in closed session unless “the named person requests a closed hearing.” Postema’s employment contract requires his personnel evaluation be conducted in a closed session.

When the council emerged from the closed session, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) read aloud the resolution adjusting Postema’s salary upward for the first time since 2007, by 2.4%. According to the city’s human resources office, Postema’s salary before the increase was $141,538. The 2.4% increase on that base brings his annual salary to $144,934, just under that of city administrator Steve Powers, who is paid $145,000. The city attorney and the city administrator are the two positions that report directly to the city council. [.pdf of form used by councilmembers to evaluate Postema's performance]

The salary increase for Postema was balanced against the elimination of his vehicle allowance of $330/month – for a net loss in total annual compensation of $563 [141538*.024 - 330*12].

An overview of Postema’s salary history:

• Nov. 8, 2012: 2.4% raise on base salary ($141,538) bringing it to $144,934; can cash in 300 hours before June 30, 2013; car allowance of $330/month eliminated.
• Dec. 19, 2011: can cash in 250 hours before June 30, 2012.
• Oct. 24, 2011: can cash in 250 hours before Dec. 31, 2011.
• Nov. 5, 2009: can cash in 120 hours before June 30, 2010.
• Oct. 20, 2008: paid lump sum of 2.75% annual salary; could cash in 150 hours before June 30, 2009; allowed to engage in outside legal work.
• Nov. 5, 2007: base salary increased by 2.75% for “merit increase” and 1.25% “market increase”; vacation days increased to 25 days per year.
• March 20, 2006: could cash in 80 hours of unused vacation time before June 30, 2006.
• Oct. 5, 2005: base salary increased at Postema’s discretion up to 3%; awarded 80 hours of vacation time.
• Sept. 13, 2004: base salary increased by 3% to $130,810; annual vacation days increased to 22 days.
• April 3, 2003: started work at base salary of $127,000 (20 vacation days in addition to legal holidays).

After the council voted to approve Postema’s salary increase, Postema asked to deliver some remarks. He said that when he was hired, he’d been asked to come in and help the city. He described his work as a sometimes thankless task. He appreciated the faith that the council had shown in him, saying that the words of councilmembers meant a great deal to him. He said he’d continue to do what aids the city.

Outcome: The council’s vote on Postema’s salary adjustment was unanimous.

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: Elections

During his communications time, city administrator Steve Powers thanked the city clerk’s staff for their work in connection with the Nov. 6 elections.

The line to vote at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street on Election Day – Nov. 6, 2012. It wrapped around on itself inside the building and spilled out onto the sidewalk and out to the street. Some people reportedly stood in line up to two hours.

He acknowledged the long lines that some precincts experienced, and took a positive perspective on that, saying that it reflected heavy turnout. Following up on Powers’ remarks, mayor John Hieftje indicated an interest in reviewing the possibility of adding more than one electronic poll book per precinct – noting that the limit of one per precinct was a state requirement.

Hieftje ventured that it might be worth discussing the creation of more precincts – even if it were only for national elections. The length of the lines could deter some people from voting, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) inquired with city clerk Jackie Beaudry whether the turnout for state elections might warrant additional poll books or precincts. Beaudry indicated that turnout for state elections did not generate the kind of turnout that national elections did.

Comm/Comm: AAPD Volunteer

Samantha Brandfon was recognized with a mayoral proclamation for her volunteer work with the Ann Arbor police department.

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto and Samantha Brandfon, who was recognized by the city council for her volunteer work.

In her brief remarks to the council, she said that she’d come to Ann Arbor to attend graduate school, had stayed and was pleased to give back to the community in whatever way that she could.

Comm/Comm: Progressive Politics

During the initial public commentary session, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, a Democrat and longtime advocate for most disadvantaged members of society. He had been calling publicly and vociferously for measures to advance the cause of America’s most vulnerable for more than for 10 years. He was honored to do so once again on the occasion of the re-election of first African American U.S. president. He called on councilmembers and the mayor to remember the commitments they made when they ran for office, to work for accessible affordable services for middle class residents – and in so doing to build a better society with a greater and higher commitment to street level politics, not selfish, divisive issues. He was critical of the fact that the resolution to opt out of the countywide transit authority and the allocation of money to the affordable housing trust fund would take the city in opposite directions.

At the end of the meeting, Partridge also addressed the council and expressed his disappointment at the council’s decision to opt out of the countywide transit authority. He called on members of the public not to take that decision sitting down and encouraged them to take heart. He described mayor John Hieftje as having given up – not like Barack Obama.

Comm/Comm: Role of Local Government in Sustainability

Kermit Schlansker allowed that the presidential debates were important for the future of the country, but he lamented the fact that there’d been no mention of running out of energy. He described the national government as concerned mostly with politics. Local governments need to take up the slack, he said. He described how he’d not be able to address the council during general public commentary on some previous occasions because he’d been “kicked off the agenda” in favor of speakers who wanted to talk about medical marijuana and public art. [The council's rules for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting give preference to speakers who want to speak about items on the council's agenda.]

Schlansker described the Ann Arbor District Library’s bond proposal as a desire to build “a new Taj Mahal.” He wondered why there was not a bond proposal on the ballot “to feed the city.” Jobs are needed now, he said, and local government has just as much responsibility to address that need as state and federal governments. He called for the establishment of energy farms as one step that could be taken.

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

Absent: Sandi Smith.

Next council meeting: Monday, Nov. 19, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle events 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. 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 ordinance change was accompanied by a separate council action eliminating the seven-member sign board of appeals, which most recently has had only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA will now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010, and more recently at its Sept. 6, 2012 meeting, when it recommended the change.

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

The move would eliminate the seven-member sign board of appeals, which currently has only three members, according to the city’s online Legistar system. According to a staff memo accompanying the agenda item, during the fiscal year 2012 the SBA heard six appeals and none the previous year. Appeals previously heard by the SBA would now be heard by the ZBA.

One of the advantages cited is that staff support time for the sign board would be eliminated. The dissolution of the SBA has been under discussion since 2008. The city’s planning commission discussed the issue on March 30, 2010.

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]

Both businesses were  seeking such a permit in order to apply for a medical marijuana dispensary license. The licensing board is scheduled to meet on Jan. 31 to make recommendations on the award of dispensary licenses. The denial of the one appeal means that nine of 10 total applications will be considered by the licensing board.

The Ann Arbor city council enacted zoning and licensing requirements for medical marijuana businesses on June 20, 2011. Among the zoning regulations is a requirement that medical marijuana dispensaries can be located only in those districts zoned as D (downtown), C (commercial), or M (industrial), or in PUD districts where a retail use is permitted in the supplemental regulations.

Treecity (1712 S. State Street) is in a district zoned as O (office), while Green Planet (700 Tappan St.) is in the Casa Dominick PUD (planned unit development) district. Treecity argued that it had established a legal use of the property as a medical marijuana dispensary before the enactment of the city’s zoning ordinance, and should be allowed to continue that non-conforming use within the district zoned for office use.

However the nine-member ZBA ruled against Treecity. The ZBA did not find that Treecity had previously established a legal use of the property as a medical marijuana dispensary. Of the six members of the board who were present at the meeting, Treecity’s appeal garnered support only from Sabra Briere, who also serves on the medical marijuana license board and the Ann Arbor city council. [.pdf of Treecity staff report including appeal]

For the other appeal, Green Planet noted that the supplemental regulations in the existing PUD allow for “grocery, prepared food and beverage sales, including retail sales of non-food items typically associated with groceries and food preparation.” On that basis, Green Planet argued that the PUD meets the zoning condition that says dispensaries are allowed in “PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations.”

The city had denied the zoning compliance permit based on the idea that medical marijuana preparations were not “typically associated with groceries and food preparation.” But the ZBA’s vote to overturn the city staff decision was unanimous among the six board members present. [.pdf of Green Planet staff report including appeal] More coverage: [link]

The three-point appeal challenged two decisions made by the city council and one made by the city planning manager in connection with the City Place project. The council decisions that were challenged in the appeal were made at the Oct. 17, 2011 meeting and were subsequently reconsidered with the same outcome at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting.

One council decision involved the waiver of a landscaping buffer requirement. The other decision involved approval of revised site-plan elevation drawings. The decision by the planning manager that was appealed involved the consideration of certain changes to the City Place proposal as administrative instead of sending the changes back to the city planning commission for review.

The ZBA dismissed the appeal on the planning manager’s decision as premature – the developer’s amendment is still awaiting a decision by the staff. The other two points of appeal failed, but did achieve three votes in favor of granting relief.

The site of City Place on Fifth Avenue south of William Street has a long and contentious history. An alternative project called Heritage Row had been proposed – but twice rejected – by the city council in the summer of 2010. Heritage Row would have retained the seven houses in some form and constructed three apartment buildings behind them.

The city council also rejected a recommendation from a historic district study committee that a historic district be established for the area. A recent attempt to revive a version of the Heritage Row project failed, when the new owner of the City Place project concluded it was not financially viable. The seven houses on the site have now been demolished.

The nine-member body of the ZBA consists of Candice Briere, Wendy Carman, David Gregorka, Carol A. Kuhnke, Sabra Briere, Erica Briggs, Alex Milshteyn, Jason Boggs and Perry Zielak.

Sabra Briere could not deliberate or vote on the City Place appeal, because she participated in the decisions (as a city councilmember representing Ward 1) being appealed. From the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006: “A member of the zoning board of appeals who is also a member of the zoning commission, the planning commission, or the legislative body shall not participate in a public hearing on or vote on the same matter that the member voted on as a member of the zoning commission, the planning commission, or the legislative body.”

Briggs, though also member of the city planning commission, had not voted as a commissioner on any issue being appealed and was allowed to vote on the appeal. The city council was poised at its Dec. 5 meeting to appoint Ben Carlisle to replace Gregorka on the ZBA, but delayed the appointment because Carlisle could not attend the Dec. 7 meeting. Gregorka had agreed to continue serving on the ZBA until a replacement could be found. Gregorka’s last meeting, which dealt only with the City Place appeal, lasted three hours and 45 minutes.

The ZBA is chaired by Kuhnke, an attorney with the firm Davis & Kuhke, P.C. Candice Briere (no relation to Sabra Briere) works for Atwell, a real estate consulting firm. Wendy Carman serves on a city committee that has been reviewing zoning regulations for the R4C districts. David Gregorka is vice president of operations at HealthMedia Inc. Sabra Briere is one of a maximum of two city councilmembers who can serve on the board. Erica Briggs also serves on the city planning commission. Alex Milshteyn is a real estate broker, as is Jason Boggs. Perry Zielak works at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.

On Friday, Nov. 4, the developer of the City Place residential project filed demolition permit applications for seven addresses: 407, 411, 415, 419, 427, 433 and 437 S. Fifth Ave. The demolition permit applications will undergo flood plain review, grading review, historic review, plan review, and zoning review.

Submission of those seven demolition permit applications came after a filing with the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals earlier in the week (on Nov. 1) by owners of nearby properties. The three-point appeal challenges two decisions made by the city council and one made by the city planning manager in connection with the City Place project. The residential project would construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot, offering a total of 24 units and 144 bedrooms.

The council decisions challenged in the appeal were made at the Oct. 17, 2011 meeting and were subsequently reconsidered with the same outcome at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting. One council decision involved the waiver of a landscaping buffer requirement. The other decision involved approval of revised site-plan elevation drawings.

Also the subject of the appeal is a decision by the city planning manager to consider revisions of the City Place site plan as “minor revisions,” which can be handled administratively.

The site of City Place has a long and contentious history. An alternative project called Heritage Row had been proposed – but twice rejected – by the city council in the summer of 2010. Heritage Row would have retained the seven houses in some form and constructed three apartment buildings behind them. The city council also rejected a recommendation from a historic district study committee that a historic district be established for the area. A recent attempt to revive a version of the Heritage Row project failed, when the new owner of the City Place project concluded it was not financially viable.

The zoning board of appeals (ZBA) is provided with broad powers by state statute. From the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act 110 of 2006: “It [the ZBA] shall hear and decide appeals from and review any administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or body charged with enforcement of a zoning ordinance adopted under this act.”

Under the rules of the ZBA, the most likely date on which the appeal would be heard is Dec. 14. (The next regular meeting of the ZBA is scheduled for Nov. 16, 2011.) The nine-member body consists of Candice Briere, Wendy Carman, David Gregorka, Carol A. Kuhnke, Sabra Briere, Erica Briggs, Alex Milshteyn, Jason Boggs and Perry Zielak.

The ZBA is chaired by Kuhnke, an attorney with the firm Davis & Kuhke, P.C.

Candice Briere (no relation to Sabra Briere) works for Atwell-Hicks Atwell, a real estate consulting firm. Wendy Carman serves on a city committee that has been reviewing zoning regulations for the R4C districts. David Gregorka is vice president of operations at HealthMedia Inc. Sabra Briere is one of a maximum of two city councilmembers who can serve on the board. Erica Briggs also serves on the city planning commission. Alex Milshteyn is a real estate broker, as is Jason Boggs. Perry Zielak works at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) with Heritage Row and City Place developer Jeff Helminski. (Photos by the writer.)

At the time of their votes – on the matter-of-right City Place and the planned unit development Heritage Row – councilmembers knew that one set of actions would become moot. Only one of the projects, located on the same site, would be built. A few days after the meeting, news emerged that Heritage Row is now off the table and that City Place will move forward, with construction planned to start sometime this fall.

That meant that the council’s action last Monday, to give initial approval to the Heritage Row project, will ultimately have no effect. Developer Jeff Helminski requested that the item be pulled from the council’s Oct. 24 meeting – a meeting that had been added to the council’s calendar specifically to take a second and final vote on the Heritage Row project.

At their Oct. 17 meeting, the council took two actions on the already-approved City Place project – one to allow flexible application of the city’s new landscape ordinance, and a second to approve additional windows on the upper stories and to change the siding. That added to an Oct. 3 decision by the council to allow greater flexibility in the sequencing of City Place construction.

Also on Monday, the council confirmed two appointments to the city’s zoning board of appeals. The ZBA is a body that has purview to hear any challenges to city decisions about the correct application of city ordinances and the appropriateness of administrative decisions, including those associated with matter-of-right projects like City Place.

In other real estate development news out of Monday’s meeting, the council approved changes to the elevations for City Apartments, a residential project at First and Washington scheduled to start construction yet this season. The council is expected to authorize the sale of the city-owned parcel at its Nov. 10 meeting.

The council approved the annexation into the city of a township parcel where Biercamp Artisan Sausage & Jerky has set up shop. A tax abatement for Arbor Networks, a computer network security firm, was also approved by the council.

Another significant item on the council’s agenda was the appropriation of $25,000 from the city’s general fund reserve to keep the warming center open this year, which is operated by the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County in the Delonis Center on Huron Street.

The council also approved a resolution of intent on the use of sidewalk and street millage funds, which voters will be asked to approve at the polls on Nov. 8. The resolution was amended to clarify how funding will work for sidewalk repair adjacent to commercial properties inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

City Place, Heritage Row

On Monday’s agenda were three items related to two different proposed developments at the same site on South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street: City Place and Heritage Row.

The council was asked to give initial approval for the Heritage Row proposal, which was to receive a second and final vote at a council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. Later in the week, however, the developer withdrew the item from the agenda for Oct. 24.

The plan for the matter-of-right project called City Place would demolish seven houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. The two City Place buildings would comprise 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units.

As revised from an earlier proposal rejected by the council 14 months ago, the planned unit development (PUD) Heritage Row project would provide for some manner of reconstruction of the seven existing houses, and construct three additional buildings behind the houses. The project, as revised, would not be required to provide any on-site parking for a total of 85 dwelling units containing up to 180 bedrooms on the 1.23-acre property. The previous proposal would have constructed underground parking, for a total of 60 spaces on site.

For City Place, at their Oct. 17 meeting, the council was asked to approve a request from the developer to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. Also for City Place, the council was asked to approve a request for changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides, and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

The Heritage Row project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the project, which it had previously rejected around 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about  possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hoped to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intent to construct City Place. City Place is regarded by most observers as an inferior project to Heritage Row.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, the key points from the letter appeared to have been incorporated into the revised proposal.

[.pdf of marked up Heritage Row supplemental regulations as presented on Oct. 17][.pdf of comparison chart between original Heritage Row and revised proposal as presented on Oct. 17] [.pdf of Oct. 3 letter from developer]

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off deliberations by acknowledging the accelerated timeline and the unusual action. He reminded the council that the last version of the Heritage Row project (which the council rejected) was not felt by the current developer to be financially viable. [The project ownership changed hands.] So the council was continuing to look for alternatives to the matter-of-right City Place project. Appealing to a baseball analogy, Hohnke said they hadn’t seen the last out – that’s a positive and they were still on the field.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) during a recess in the Oct. 17 meeting.

Hohnke said the proposal before the council was not a perfect solution to the problem. He’d like to see less density, stronger commitment to rehabilitation of the existing seven houses, and a unit mix that doesn’t have as many 4-5 bedroom units. It’s worth noting, he said, that the physical characteristics of the project have changed changed very little – the setback, height and streetscape is proposed to be maintained.

Hohnke described the affordable housing component as a significant public benefit. He said that was a serious point of negotiation and a tough negotiating point. [Compared to the June 2010 version of Heritage Row, the Oct. 17, 2011 version offered percentage-wise less affordable housing benefit. The June 2010 version required 18% of 82 units (14.76) while the Oct. 17 version required 17% of 85 units (14.45). An earlier, Oct. 3 version would have required just 15% of 85 units (12.75).]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked the city attorney if the initial vote needed eight votes or if only the second and final vote needed eight. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald indicated it was the second vote that required the eight-vote majority.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered how it was possible for the council to be considering issues involving two different projects on the same parcel – is that legal? McDonald allowed that the city does not usually entertain multiple petitions for approval on the same parcel. But he said that City Place is an already-approved project. So the items on the council’s agenda for City Place are for an already-approved project. What was right then in front of the council was the Heritage Row PUD. If the City Place items were approved and Heritage Row is approved later, the City Place items would be moot, McDonald said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if there was a reason why the City Place amendment was not put on the agenda for the following week, given that the council had added an extra meeting for Oct. 24. McDonald deferred to planning manager Wendy Rampson, who said that the timing was requested by the developer. He’s working on parallel tracks to prepare for construction planning, and putting it off to Oct. 24 would mean a delay of one week.

Higgins wanted to know how much movement there’d been on the part of the developer since the Oct. 3 letter. Was the version before the council the final offer, or was there room for negotiation? Rampson said the developer was still evaluating the costs and this was the closest he could come. By Friday, Rampson said, the developer was hoping to have it costed out to make sure it’s feasible.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, left, and chief financial officer Tom Crawford.

Higgins asked Helminski if there were changes from the Oct. 3 proposal. Helminski said there were changes – some had to do with affordable housing. He asked for Rampson’s help in enumerating other changes. [Substantive changes included the ability to place solar panels on the new construction and the incremental increase in affordable housing units.] Higgins said she wanted to see a third column in the chart of comparisons, so that she could see the June 2010 proposal compared against the Oct. 3 and the Oct. 17, 2011 proposals.

Higgins asked when the council would know the final offer the developer was making that he felt was feasible. Helminski said he had a call scheduled on Friday with the whole team. Helminski said the mutual commitment he’s made to the council and the staff was that if at any point there’s a deal killer, both sides would communicate that immediately.

[At the Oct. 3 council meeting, it was indicated that the final best offer would be on the table at the Oct. 17 meeting. The fact that it apparently was not ready by then and the fact that an attorney for the development team, Scott Munzel, did not appear for the slot he'd reserved during public commentary on Oct. 17, may have foreshadowed the announcement later in the week that the project would be withdrawn. Scott Munzel, an attorney for the former owner of the Fifth Avenue property where one of the two projects will be built, did not arrive at the meeting in time for the slot he'd reserved for his public commentary on his own behalf on Oct. 17.]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the Society of Environmentally Responsible Facilities. That organization is specified as providing the environmental standards that the new construction would meet – the previous proposal would have met the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. Helminski described SERF as a relatively new organization. With LEED, he contended that the certification process has become more important than the building components. Administratively, he said, SERF is a better experience. Smith asked if there was a SERF rating system of levels similar to LEED. Helminski said no, it’s either SERF-certified or not.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Helminski for negotiating again with the city on the project. He described the project as unique because of its location. He wanted to know how Helminski wanted to receive additional suggestions. Helminski suggested the usual communication channels: over coffee, texting, email or phone calls.

Kunselman noted that the revised proposal has no off-street on-site parking requirement – would the developer be seeking to create an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to obtain parking permits at city parking structures? Helminski described the conversations with DDA executive director Susan Pollay as going well, but no agreement had yet been reached.

Kunselman asked if the spaces would be provided for free. Helminski quipped that he did not think that’s the way it’ll shake out in the end – tenants would pay market rate. Kunselman told Helminski that he was getting a significant break and would realize a significant savings by not having to construct underground parking.

Kunselman then addressed the issue of affordable housing. Affordable housing had not actually been built in the city as part of a PUD since Ashley Mews, a development located at Main & Packard. Since that time developers had made payments in lieu, he said. Kunselman contended that it would be primarily students who lived in Heritage Row and that a payment in lieu was the most likely scenario – that puts the burden on the city to construct the affordable housing. Helminski replied that he wouldn’t expect Heritage Row tenants to be primarily students. He said he was meeting with the county/city office of community development housing manager Jennifer L. Hall to discuss whether it’s better to build affordable housing on site or do payments in lieu. Sometimes the city prefers payments in lieu, he said.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he appreciated the fact that the issue of parking had been brought up – that had been a concern of his. He was worried about the overall capacity of the parking system. He’d assumed that Helminski would primarily be pursuing parking in the new underground garage for his residents, but it sounded like that might not be absolute. Rapundalo said he’d be interested to see the impact of Heritage Row tenant parking on availability of public parking.

Hohnke responded to some of his colleagues’ comments by saying that parking spaces will be a part of the development agreement. He also pointed out that the revised version of the proposal sets a date certain for reconstruction of the houses on Fifth Avenue. [The revised proposal allowed the project to be constructed in two phases, which essentially meant that the new construction of the three buildings could receive certificates of occupancy, before the seven existing houses were reconstructed.]

Hohnke then asked Jennifer L. Hall to the podium to discuss Kunselman’s question about the benefit to the city of payments in lieu versus construction of affordable units as a part of a development. Hall traced the history from the early 2000s when the city’s policy view was that including affordable units on site was the best option. Over time, she said, she and others have come to believe that inclusion of affordable units as part of a development that includes market rate units doesn’t necessarily result in the kind of units the city is looking for. [Hall was recently selected to head the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.]

As an example, Hall gave Corner House Lofts – three affordable units were constructed there. The building is occupied completely with students. The city can’t guarantee that the student occupants of the affordable units are from historically low-income households. But Hall said that 90% of students are eligible to rent the affordable units and they can’t be excluded. Hall described how money that’s paid in lieu of construction of affordable housing can then be leveraged as matching funds for federal and state grants. Hohnke was satisfied that a payment in lieu for affordable housing would provide a public benefit.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the revised Heritage Row proposal, with dissent from Briere, Kunselman and Higgins. The expected second and final vote would have taken place on Oct. 24. However, on Oct. 21 the developer pulled the project from that meeting’s agenda.

City Place: Landscape Buffer – Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the issue before the council. After the new area, height and placement (AHP) revisions were put in place, Rampson explained, the planning commission had been asked to look at additional buffering requirements between multiple-family buildings. That resulted in a change to the landscape ordinance. And that had an unintended consequence in areas zoned R4C (multi-family residential). It’s problematic to apply the ordinance, she said, because often the setback is smaller than the buffer requirement – R4C areas are also largely already developed, she said. Rampson supported the modification to City Place and is working on it with the planning commission’s ordinance revision committee to revise the ordinance to accommodate existing conditions in R4C areas.

In the meantime, the landscape ordinance provides for flexible application. [The planning commission handled three such cases of flexible application of that ordinance at its Oct. 18 meeting.]

Chapter 62
5:608 Modifications
(2) Flexibility in the application of the landscaping or screening requirements of Sections 5:602, 5:603, 5:604 or 5:606 may be allowed if each of the following conditions are met:
(a) The modifications are consistent with the intent of this chapter (Section 5:600(1)); and
(b) The modifications are included on a site plan and in a motion approved by City Planning Commission or City Council; and
(c) The modifications are associated with 1 or more of the following site conditions:
…
(vii)
Landscape elements which are a part of a previously approved site plan may be maintained and continued as nonconforming provided no alterations of the existing landscape elements are proposed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that City Place was approved before the area, height and placement work was done – before the landscape ordinance was revised. She wanted to know if the council normally went back and applied a revised ordinance to a project that had already been approved. Rampson confirmed that because the developer is making minor administrative changes, that triggers the application of the new code. Higgins wondered if the request could go before the zoning board of appeals. Rampson confirmed it could.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned why the change was not postponed until the council’s Oct. 24 meeting. She said she recognized the parallel tracks on which the developer was proceeding – the developer would like to break ground at a specific time. But neither of the City Place requests before the council that night required a change to be made before groundbreaking, she contended. Either the landscaping requirements or the revised elevations could be dealt with after Heritage Row is defeated, she said, if it’s in fact defeated. Briere then moved to postpone the measure.

Developer Jeff Helminski.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked developer Jeff Helminski to speak to the issue. Helminski said there was a tremendous amount of effort going into both City Place and Heritage Row simultaneously. If Heritage Row doesn’t work out, he said, his team needs all elements of City Place in place. It’s not an easy task to move Heritage Row forward, he said. His continued desire to do that is based on seeing good faith efforts by the city. If the City Place requests were postponed, he said, it would send a clear message to his team and it would impact the future of Heritage Row. Based on Helminski’s remarks, Teall said she wouldn’t support postponement.

Higgins said that before the council had started its conversation about Heritage Row, she was very concerned. However, she could understand the developer’s viewpoint. Next week, she continued, the council will make a decision one way or another. Even though she’d heard the city attorney’s office say that actions related to City Place would be moot, if Heritage Row were approved, Higgins still wanted to see City Place resolutions rescinded. She said she wouldn’t support postponement.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Higgins’ unwillingness to postpone. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he supported postponement. Approving the resolution would send the wrong message about the city council. The City Place project has been approved for two years, he said. He did not know why the developer couldn’t wait a week.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was opposed to postponement, because the council needed to match the good faith effort of the developer. However he shared his colleagues’ view that it makes more logical sense to look at City Place after voting up or down on Heritage Row.

Teall said she was having a tough time with Kunselman’s description of “bending over backwards” for the developer. It was the council that had gone back to the development team and asked them to look at Heritage Row again.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone the landscaping issue for City Place failed, with only Briere and Kunselman voting for it.

Outcome on City Place landscaping: The council approved the resolution over dissent from Briere.

City Place: Revised Elevations – Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) introduced the resolution by saying that it was the second of the pair of resolutions that had been requested by the developer. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described how the changes included additional windows on gable ends and new materials on upper parts of the building. She said that planning staff recommended approval, because the changes are relatively minor and provide additional architectural interest.

Noting the additional windows are on the fourth floor, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if that floor was for tenant occupancy. Rampson explained that it would be a common area or loft area for third-floor units. Kunselman wanted to know how fire escape is being addressed. Developer Jeff Helminski said that the architect Brad Moore had addressed those issues appropriately.

Back-and-forth between Kunselman and Helminski revealed that the intent is to treat the third-level units in parallel fashion with the other units of the building, which are two-level units. Namely, they’d all have two different, separated common areas. With six people sharing a unit, Helminski said, two common areas would allow residents to engage in different activities – say, watching TV and playing games.

Responding to a request from Briere for additional clarity about the internal configuration of the units, Helminski described a spiral staircase and a vaulted ceiling configured in a townhome style.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the City Place elevations.

Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments

The council was asked to consider confirmation of the reappointments of Wendy Carman and David Gregorka for three-year terms to the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The nine-member ZBA enjoys fairly broad authority, including the power [from the city code]: “To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Building Official or any other administrative official in enforcing any provision of this Chapter.”

Outcome: The council voted to confirm the reappointments to the ZBA.

Stopgap Funding to Warming Center

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize $25,000 to support the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County‘s warming center. The money will come from the city’s general fund reserve balance. It will make up the gap between the roughly $56,000 in private donations that SAWC has been able to raise for the warming center and its $81,000 annual operating budget.

Of that operating budget, $600 is spent on utilities for laundry, and the rest compensates shift workers paid $12.57 per hour, and a half-time case worker, who is paid $15.96 per hour.

The warming center, located in the Delonis Center on Huron Street on the western edge of downtown Ann Arbor, can accommodate up to 50 individuals. It is open December through April, or any time the temperature (or wind chill) falls below 35 F degrees.

Closure of the warming center was part of the Shelter Association’s strategy to remain financially solvent in the face of funding cuts from Washtenaw County, the state and federal government.

A number of specific negative impacts have been cited by Shelter Association staff that would result from a closure of the warming center: more police calls; increasing frustration among business owners; increased vandalism; backlash against homeless people; increased crime by desperate people; untreated mental health problems; increased use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care; and overcrowding of jails and the court system.

The $25,000 allocated this year could be analyzed as follow-through on recent previous investments made by the Ann Arbor city council in the specific mission of the warming center.

For example, at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting, the council passed a resolution that awarded a $30,500 contract with the Shelter Association and a $129,000 contract with Interfaith Hospitality Network, which operates a family shelter. The money was to provide case management and staff support for 25 additional beds at the Delonis Center and 25 additional beds in the rotating shelter program, as well as housing vouchers for eight families.

The council had received a presentation on the homelessness crisis at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting from Mary Jo Callan, head of the county/city office of community development. She had alerted them to the likelihood that a funding request would be coming to them at a subsequent meeting.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, at its Nov. 4, 2009 meeting, had authorized $20,000 to cover the “hard costs” – i.e., the actual beds – in connection with the initiative, which was seen as a short-term solution in the face of approaching winter weather.

Although it was not earmarked specifically for the warming center, on Oct. 6, 2010 the DDA authorized a $218,050 grant from its housing fund to the Shelter Association for improvements at the Delonis Center. The money paid for new washers and dryers, lockers and chairs, an emergency generator, energy conservation measures, medical equipment and software.

Warming Center: Update

At the beginning of the Oct. 17 meeting, Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Housing Alliance executive director Julie Steiner gave the council an update on the funding situation.

Schulmeister thanked the council for current and past support. The shelter and the city had been partners for a long time, she said. Now is a very hard time – both for people who need help and those organizations who support them.

The shelter had lost $400,000 in funding while costs continue go up, she said.

The shelter has had to cut staffing to two vital programs: the warming center and the rotating shelter. The shelter had tried to use volunteers for the warming center, but was unable to get volunteers who could be awake all night. The Washtenaw Housing Alliance asked the Shelter Association to operate the warming center one more year, so later in the evening, the council would be asked to provide some support so that the warming center can continue through the winter of 2011-12. She said that over the next year the Shelter Association would work diligently to identify longer-term solutions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance Julie Steiner get on the same page before the meeting.

Steiner told the council that the shelter’s warming center and rotating shelter are doing the community a huge favor. In Washtenaw County, she said, they work hard to make sure that shelters are not just mission shelters – “three hots and a cot.” The goal has been to provide case managers and services too.

As the Shelter Association looks at how to address the funding problems over the next couple of months, Steiner hoped councilmembers would help. She told them they’d been leaders around this issue. She noted that a copy of the Blueprint to End Homelessness Progress Report had been distributed to councilmembers. [.pdf of progress report] It traces progress from the creation of the blueprint in 2004. Steiner noted that the world is different from the way it was in 2004. She said the Washtenaw Housing Alliance will sponsor a series of community conversations to address the situation – as a whole, not just the warming center – in a world of shrinking resources.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to know if Washtenaw County was matching any of the $25,000 that the city was being asked to contribute. Schulmeister told Smith that no funding for the warming center’s current need was coming from the county general fund. The other private funding – from an unnamed organization that Schulmeister expected would provide it – has not yet been approved by that organization’s board, she said. It’s an organization that involves the county but is not the county.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Washtenaw County is proposing deep cuts in human services funding as part of its proposed 2012-2013 budget. Hieftje said the city looks at the Delonis Center as a partnership with the county. The city has been holding up its end of the partnership and the city is asking the county to hold up their end, he said. [Chronicle coverage: "Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts." The proposed county budget, if unchanged, would cut funding to the Shelter Association from $160,000 in 2011 to $25,000 in 2012 and 2013. On Oct. 19, the county board voted to reallocate another $26,230 to the Shelter Association in both 2012 and 2013, though it was not earmarked for the warming center.]

Hieftje invited councilmembers to ask any questions immediately following the remarks by Schulmeister and Steiner at the beginning of the meeting, so that they did not have to stay until the council reached the item on the agenda. Schulmeister told the mayor she was planning to stay anyway.

Warming Center: Public Comment

Lily Au expressed concern about the amount of administrative costs for the office of community development and the United Way. She noted the county’s proposed reduction in support for the Delonis Center from $160,000 to $25,000. She told the council that if they approve the money that’s asked of them, next month people will come again, saying the homeless are cold and hungry. The whole community needs to wake up and donate directly to organizations they want to help, she said.

Warming Center: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off council deliberations by giving some context for the request being made to the council for the $25,000. She’d heard news earlier in the year about the impact that reduced funds from the federal, state and county level would have on the Delonis Center’s ability to perform services.

Of the reduced services, Briere said she was particularly concerned that the warming center would be closed, because of the potential impact on the city of its closing. She cited the various expenses that would accrue across various parts of the community – from law enforcement to medical care providers – if people had no place to stay warm. The city would be wiser to spend money on prevention than reaction, Briere said. She said she’d spoken with the mayor and then the mayor had spoken with Schulmeister. In their conversations, the city had said they would not provide 100% of support and that the Shelter Association would need to find other support to match the city’s contribution. She encouraged her council colleagues to support the contribution.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the program the city was providing money for is something that the city had asked the Shelter Association to provide, citing a contract from 2009. It’s important that the warming center continue, she said, and the need is even greater now. Hiefjte then described how back in the 1970s there were people living on the street. This is this generation’s depression, he said.

Hieftje reiterated remarks he’d made immediately following Schulmeister’s comments at the start of the meeting, saying that Washtenaw County is a partner in the Delonis Center. However, the county has proposed a budget that dramatically decreases funding to the center. The city needs to watch that closely, Hiefjte said. The county has some tough budget hurdles and the county board will have to make some tough decisions, he said. Those decisions will impact Ann Arbor, Hieftje concluded.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize funding for the warming center.

City Apartments Elevation Revisions

The council was asked to approved modifications to Village Green’s already-approved City Apartments planned unit development (PUD) at First and Washington. [This should not be confused with the similarly named City Place matter-of-right proposal by a different developer on South Fifth Avenue].

The changes include increasing the height of the structure from 94 to 104 feet (to lift the base of the building out of the water table), adding an entrance on First Street, modifying the window type and size on the residential portion of the building, and adding ventilation screens on the east side (alley) of the building.

The City Apartments project was given PUD zoning and site plan approval by the council on Nov. 6, 2008. The nine-story building will include 156 dwelling units and 244 parking spaces on the first two floors. The site is currently a city-owned property functioning as a surface parking lot with 64 spaces, after the parking structure there had to be demolished due to its poor structural condition. The new parking deck, which will offer spaces to the general public as well as to residents, is being financed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The sale of the property, for a little over $3 million, is part of the city of Ann Arbor’s financing plan for construction of the new municipal center, which houses the police department and the 15th District Court. The council has extended the purchase option on the First and Washington property several times, most recently on Aug. 4, 2011.

At one of the DDA board’s late August committee meetings, news of a pending deal and imminent construction was relayed to committee members. The council is expected to authorize the closing on the deal at its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting. Signs at the First and Washington parking lot warn patrons of the lot’s imminent closure.

During his communications to the council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reminded his colleagues that he’d brought up the issue up a few months ago of environmental studies in connection with the First and Washington site. The foundation had been elevated another 10 feet, he said, which is an accomplishment. But there were other environmental engineering studies that could be of value.

So Anglin has requested in an open letter to staff that any studies related to this property be made available. When a different parcel (at First and William) was being considered as the site of a parking structure, there were studies done and soil samples taken, he said. So he requested that if there is information out there, that it be made available to the council.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the change in elevations for City Apartments.

Biercamp Parcel Annexation

On the council’s agenda was an item regarding the annexation 1643 and 1645 S. State St. into the city of Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor Township. A new business, Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, is located on one of the parcels.

During the public hearing on annexation, Thomas Partridge complained that the resolution has no language about a requirement for affordable housing. The council should table the resolution and consider it in detail, he said. The council should consider the impact on the township and the loss of taxes to the township.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the annexation of the 1643-45 S. State St. parcels.

Now that the annexation has been approved, action by the city council on a rezoning request will be scheduled. The owners of Biercamp would like for the city to approve the parcel for C3 (fringe commercial district) zoning. It would allow the business to sell a greater variety of products beyond those that it produces on the premises.

The planning commission voted unanimously to deny C3 zoning for the parcels at its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting. The rezoning request will be the second one considered recently in the general area of State Street and Stimson. On Oct. 3, 2011 the council rejected a request to rezone the parcel where Treecity Health Collective is located – from O (office) to C1 (local business).

The two rezoning requests have prompted discussion by the planning commission and the city council about the need for a study of the South State Street corridor, so that the parcels in question can be considered in a larger context. At an Oct. 11 working session, the planning commission was updated on city planning staff’s in-house effort to conduct a study of the State Street corridor. Previously, the intent was to hire a consultant to do that work.

Arbor Networks Tax Abatement

Before the council for its consideration was a tax abatement for Arbor Networks, a computer network security company. The abatement is on $883,527 of real property improvements and $7,790,454 of new personal property and equipment.

Lon Lowen of Arbor Networks.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, Arbor Networks was granted a tax abatement in 2008. The abatement agreement in 2008 required Arbor Networks to move 74 jobs to their Ann Arbor facility and add at least eight jobs. However, as of December of 2010 there were only 74 jobs at this location.

The staff memo on the current request for a tax abatement states that the digital information business is continually changing with new and faster technology. Arbor Networks needs new test equipment and digital equipment, and according to the memo, anticipates adding 20 new employees to the Ann Arbor facility.

During the public hearing, Lon Lowen, quality assurance director with Arbor Networks, introduced the council to the company, which was founded in 2000 and has maintained a research and development facility in this area since its founding. The company makes software to fend off threats to computer network security, he said. The equipment on which the tax abatement is requested, he explained, is needed to expand the research and development facility. It reflects an investment of over $8 million by December 2012. As a result of that investment, the company expects to add 20 new jobs by December 2013, he said.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at the public hearing, and called on the council to fully inform the public on the resolution as to the details and rationale for placing the item on the agenda. He complained that these questions are decided in advance and usually passed unanimously by voice vote without discussion of the reasoning. He questioned the need for this resolution without requirements of equal opportunity employment. He questioned whether the company had exhausted other financing options.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to approve the tax abatement.

Local Development Finance Authority

The council was asked to appoint Ned Staebler to fill an open four-year term on the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. The term will end June 30, 2015. The position previously was held by Michael Korybalski. That term expired on June 30, 2011 but had not yet been filled.

The LDFA is funded through TIF (tax increment financing) capture in a geographic district comprising the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts. However, TIF revenue for the LDFA is generated only in the Ann Arbor DDA district. The principal activity of the LDFA is a business accelerator. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to manage the accelerator.

Staebler took a position starting in the summer of 2011 as vice president of economic development for Wayne State University, after previously serving with the Michigan Economic Development Corp.

Staebler currently serves on the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, which was established in 2007 to replace two other bodies: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) executive committee and the city’s housing policy board. The function of the HHSAB is to make recommendations on policies and programs to address the needs of low-income residents, to monitor the implementation of Ann Arbor’s housing policy and the creation of a city housing coordinator.

Staebler lost a close Democratic primary race for District 53 state representative against Jeff Irwin, who was elected to that position in November 2010.

During the brief city council deliberations, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the LDFA board, noted that Staebler is known to the council and has familiarity with economic development. He had also held an ex officio position on the board when he worked for the Michigan Economic Development Corp. Staebler is a perfect fit for the LDFA board, Rapundalo concluded.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Staebler’s appointment to the LDFA board.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use

At the Oct. 17 meeting, the council considered a resolution of intent for the use of proceeds from a street/sidewalk repair millage that will be on the Nov. 8 ballot. The council had considered the resolution of intent at its Oct. 3 meeting and before that at its Sept. 19 meeting.

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

The resolution of intent specifies that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of unamended Oct 3, 2011 version of resolution of intent]

At its Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers had questions about the need to have any resolution of intent, as well as the status of millage revenue use inside the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

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

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have stated in the course of their re-election campaigns that they only reluctantly support the sidewalk repair millage. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) has characterized the sidewalk millage as simply offering voters a choice. Though not up for re-election this year, mayor John Hieftje stated at the DDA’s Oct. 5 board meeting that he did not think councilmembers are out in the community saying that the city absolutely needs the sidewalk millage or that it’s essential. Like Rapundalo, the mayor characterizes the sidewalk millage as offering residents a choice of having the city take over the responsibility for sidewalk repair.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use: Public Commentary

Karen Sidney stated that the resolution has many unanswered questions. There’s $30 million currently in the street millage fund, she said. [This appears to be based on the FY 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the city, which gives a snapshot of the fund balance on June 30, 2010.] Of that, $7 million is needed for the East Stadium bridge project, Sidney said. [Although the city has received federal and state funding for a large part of the project, the city still has a local share.] What streets will be fixed with the remaining $23 million? she asked.

What streets will be fixed with the $45-50 million the millage will generate over its 5-year lifetime? So far, Sidney said, she’s seen only five streets named – surely there would be more? [The fact sheet prepared by the city specifies these five projects for 2012 constructions: Packard (Platt to US-23), Hill St. (Forest to Washtenaw), E. Stadium (Packard to Washtenaw), Pontiac Trail (Skydale to M-14), and Dexter Road (Maple to Huron)] Sidney also wanted to know if priority would be given to roads that serve new building projects, like the proposed Fuller Road Station.

With respect to the $500,000 that the sidewalk repair millage is expected to generate, Sidney wanted to know how much will be consumed through administration costs. The city has estimated that those administration costs will be $160,000. That’s 27% of the additional tax, she noted. She also wanted to know why the city is saying it can repair sidewalks cheaper than residents can, when five years ago the city said that residents could have the work performed for 40% less than it would cost the city.

Residents along her street, Sidney said, had paid to fix their sidewalks, but now those same slabs are being replaced as a part of a street resurfacing project. She wanted to know what steps will be taken to improve coordination. She noted that the city is taking over the cost of sidewalk repair now, “when there’s nothing left to do,” after administering a sidewalk replacement program for five years. What happens after five more years, she wondered. Will residents be asked to pay again?

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use: Council Deliberations

Council deliberations were led off by an amendment offered by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) concerning how the millage would be used in the DDA district. He said the amendment would address an inequity identified by commercial property owners under the original language – they’d be included in the repair millage but excluded from the benefits. Rapundalo’s amendment added the following language

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph II.2, if the City and the Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) execute an agreement whereby (i) the DDA agrees to perform sidewalk repair within the Downtown Development District (“DDD”) adjacent to all properties against which the City levies property taxes; and (ii) the City agrees to transmit to the DDA annually 1/8th mill for parcels located within the DDD and not otherwise captured by the DDA; then the 2012 Street and Bridge Resurfacing and Reconstruction and Sidewalk Repair millage may be used for sidewalk repair within the Downtown Development District adjacent to all properties against which the City levies property taxes. The 1/8th mill shall be subject to the Headlee rollback. [.pdf of complete resolution of intent as amended on Oct. 17, 2011]

The original version of the resolution of intent had assumed that the DDA would repair the sidewalks within the district that are adjacent to commercial properties, based on the incremental tax capture in the DDA district for the millage. The impact of the amendment is to provide the entire millage amount to the DDA (not just the captured increment), but only if the DDA agrees to take responsibility for sidewalk repair inside the DDA district.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) questioned the inclusion of the phrase “shall be subject to the Headlee rollback.” He wondered if that is a restatement of the law. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that assistant city attorney Abigail Elias had prepared the language, and that he assumed it’s a restatement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirmed with Postema that the entire millage is subject to the Headlee rollback. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she absolutely supported the amendment. She was glad the council took the time to pause and come up with a healthy solution.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said it’s a fair and fine balancing of two competing interests.

Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, was asked to respond to comments made by Karen Sidney during public commentary about the amount of money in the fund balance for street repair. The fund balance does not distinguish committed funds for contracts on projects that were previously done, he said. As an example, he gave a West Liberty Street construction project from 10 years ago. As another example, for the West Stadium Boulevard project, he said, the city also still owes money to the state, that will need to be paid when the city is invoiced.

The fund balance also does not distinguish money that is earmarked for all the projects the city is planning to do, like Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Packard Road next year – those projects will need a large sum of local dollars that are not labeled in the fund balance. Once you subtract the committed dollars and planned-for dollars, he said, the amount in the fund balance is much smaller. Without the new millage, he said, the funds will be used up by the end of 2012.

Discussion related to the sidewalk repair millage also arose earlier in the meeting as a part of the consent agenda, when the council approved moving delinquent water utility, board up, clean up, vacant property and housing inspection fees to the December 2011 city tax roll.

The current sidewalk repair program was supposed to result in residents being charged a fee for replacing sidewalk slabs, if they are cited by the city and decline to have the work performed themselves. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that in two years nothing has come through as delinquent charges. City treasurer Matt Horning confirmed for Kunselman that in this current tax roll there aren’t any delinquent sidewalk repair charges.

Kunselman wanted an explanation – in the past he’d seen those charges come through. Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, indicated that this year the city has been working with a contractor completing outstanding sidewalk repairs. Those bills will go out and the council would see them in the next round, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution of intent on use of the sidewalk/street millage.

Stadium Bridges Project

The council was asked to authorize the execution of a standard contract between the city and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the East Stadium Boulevard bridges reconstruction project. The project will result in the closure of East Stadium Boulevard in both directions for about a year, starting around Nov. 28, just after the University of Michigan’s last home football game of the year.

Dan’s Excavating Inc. was awarded the bid – at $13,910,334.77, it was the lowest qualified construction bid. The staff memo accompanying the council resolution put the current estimate for the total project cost – including all prior expenses, but excluding contingencies for the future construction – at $22,776,700. The city received a total of $13.9 million in TIGER II federal grant funding to pay for the project, as well as $2.87 million in state funds.

The project website, which includes detour maps and timelines, is annarborbridges.org.

During council deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited from city staff some of the planned architectural details related to the stairways from Stadium Boulevard down to South State Street. They’ll have bicycle grooves to allow cyclists to walk their bicycles up and down the stairs more easily. And snow clearance will be achieved through radiant heating built into the steps, powered by the same circuit as streetlights, which in this case are owned by the city, not DTE.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize execution of the MDOT contract.

Labor Union Benefits

The council was asked to give initial approval to revisions to the ordinances that govern the retirement and health care plans for two of its unions: the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The revisions to the ordinances resulted from a collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME and a binding arbitration under Act 312 with AAPOA. The changes are similar to ordinance changes already enacted for non-union city workers.

The pension contribution for AAPOA and AFSCME workers will rise from 5% on a post-tax basis to 6% on a pre-tax basis. The vesting period for new hires will increase from 5 years to 10 years. Also for new hires, the final average compensation (FAC) calculation will be increased to a five-year period. The previous FAC was based on a three-year period.

On the health care side, the AFSCME and AAPOA employees would have the same access-only retiree health plan as non-union employees have. Like all ordinance changes, the city council will need to give these revisions a second and final approval no sooner than its next regular meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the union labor pension and retirement health benefits.

Taxicab Law

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval of changes in the taxicab ordinance. The changes make explicit how long a taxicab company license is valid (10 years) and spell out some additional conditions on revocation or suspension of the company license.

The revisions also add reasons that can be used for suspending an individual taxicab driver’s license, which include a city administrator’s view that a driver “has acted in an unprofessional, harassing or threatening manner to passengers, or others.”

Like all ordinance revisions, the taxicab licensing revision will need a second and final approval from the council in order to take effect.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told the council that as the council’s representative to the taxicab board, ordinance amendments are needed. He asked chief financial officer Tom Crawford, who also sits on the taxicab board, to explain the changes and the concerns that are addressed by the changes.

Crawford characterized the changes as falling in three areas. In the first area, related to licensing, Crawford said that in the past the city had seasonal operators who would want to come in and work the football season and then disappear. The ordinance is being changed so that if a company ceases operation for 45 days, the city can revoke the license. Crawford explained that a healthy taxicab industry needs stability and this is a mechanism to help guard against companies frequently coming in and out of the market.

Another area of change has to do with solicitations and how the companies represent themselves. Several companies advertise themselves as taxis, but they’re in fact limousines. Crawford characterized it as a safety issue for someone who believes a vehicle is a taxi, but it’s in fact a limo. [A taxi is per code "... accepting passengers for hire within the boundaries of the city as directed by the passenger." A limousine is pre-booked.] If a company they hold itself out as a taxi, they have to be licensed as a taxicab, Crawford said. [The city's taxicab code already prohibits advertising in the reverse direction – it prohibits taxicabs from holding themselves out as limousines.]

Outcome: The council voted to give the taxicab ordinance initial approval.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crime

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he’d attended a neighborhood meeting recently where many people had expressed a perception that there’s a crime problem in Ann Arbor. He said it was perhaps fueled by increased access to information about crime data that a perception had resulted that crime was on the uptick. He asked deputy chief Greg Bazick how the police see things.

City clerk Jackie Beaudry and deputy chief of police Greg Bazick before the start of the Oct. 17, 2011 city council meeting.

Bazick said they’re not seeing an upswing in reported crime. He noted that crimmapping.com allows for real-time access to what’s reported on a daily basis. There have certainly been incidents that have raised concern in the community [including a series of sexual assaults]. But there’s nothing to indicate an upswing or a crime wave, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said he gets the stats on crime every week before he meets with the police chief and that this year crime has shown a double-digit decrease.

Among the points Bazick made was the size of a law enforcement agency is never the sole indicator of crime. He also cautioned that the crimes categorized as “Part 1″ by the FBI are the kind of crimes that are almost always reported by victims and are not typically identified as a result of police-initiated enforcement activity. On the other hand, “Part 2″ crimes might show an increase based just on a police-initiated enforcement effort.

Comm/Comm: Police Hiring

Hieftje reminded the council that on the last day of May, when the council had approved the budget, he’d said the goal should be that there would be no further cuts in the police department. He said he’d been working with staff and with councilmember Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) on that issue. Hieftje said the department will see some retirements, and the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association also has new contract. Cuts are projected to be necessary at part of the FY 2013 forecast, but he felt that some replacements could be hired starting on Jan. 1, 2013.

Rapundalo commented that all along the council has repeatedly talked about its commitment to public safety. The council had to make a difficult decision last year [to lay off some police officers], but now that the city has an agreement with AAPOA, he said, there are opportunities to sustain and increase the police officer ranks.

[Rapundalo is facing a strong re-election challenge in Ward 2 from independent Jane Lumm, whose campaign includes criticism of the reduced numbers of police officers employed by the city of Ann Arbor.]

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker described the potential benefits of energy farms, which can include gasifiers that turn hard biomass into fuel. He also described solar arrays that could be used to concentrate the sun’s energy to create solar steam.

Alan Haber (left) and councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

Alan Haber said he was glad to hear about Schlansker’s energy farm. He told the council he was there again to talk about the space above the underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. He noted there’s a process going on to invite as much of the public as possible to figure out what to do there. He contended the land can be used maximally as a public gathering space. Citizens would adopt the library green without the use of city funds, he said, and they could program the space. Citizens need the opportunity to do that.

Is the city going to pave the surface, or will the council give citizens the opportunity to develop the surface? Haber wondered. It’s counterintuitive to have a surface lot above the underground lot, Haber said, if you want to encourage people to use the underground parking lot. Ann Arbor needs a heart in the center of town, and the space above the underground parking garage could serve that function, he said. It could be combined with a building as a practical solution, he said.

Stefan Trendov told the council he’d done some drawings to illustrate what Haber was describing – the building would be light and see-through and inviting. He said he’d recently designed a project for the Sultan of Oman. He wanted cranes to come in and start building in Ann Arbor – we need to see more cranes, he said.

Comm/Comm: End Discrimination

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there to address them about the importance of ending discrimination of all forms and working to stop government corruption of all forms, including corrupt acts by Ann Arbor government employees, police officers and businesses in the entire region. They need to bring about a true democratic party, attitudes, mindset and practices, he said, and he called on voters to recall regressive Republicans.

At the public comment period at the end of the meeting, Partridge also spoke. He described himself as an advocate for those who can’t attend public meetings, and those who are the most worthy of services. He called for public access to polling places through public transportation and transportation for the disabled, polling stations that actually work for handicapped people, and better-trained poll workers.

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

Next council meeting: Oct. 24, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

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]