log in or create account

Add a new page

[The council meeting was called to order at: 19:02:06]

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Good evening and welcome to the December 1st, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council. If you're able please rise and join us in a moment of silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 

>>GROUP I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God ["under God" elided by some] indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Will the clerk please call the role of council.

councilmember Kailasapathy, here
councilmember Briere, here
councilmember Westphal, here
councilmember Lumm, here
councilmember Grand, here
councilmember Kunselman, here
councilmember Krapohl, here
councilmember Eaton, here
councilmember Warpehoski, here
councilmember Anglin, here
Mayor Taylor, here

>>CLERK We have a quorum.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Excellent. Approval of the agenda. May we have a motion to approve the agenda please. Discussion of the agenda. All in favor. All opposed. It's approved. Are there communications from the city administrator. 

>>STEVE POWERS Yes, there are, thank you. A reminder next Monday from 4 to 9 PM you'll be having your annual planning session, that's December 8 from 4 to 9 PM in the jury assembly room. We will providing food. The purpose of the planning session is to help set the stage for your coming year. To develop direction for priorities for the fiscal 2016 and 2017 budget, and other issues that are of importance to council. Last week we announced the hiring of a fire chief Mr. Larry Collins. Larry will be joining us in January. He will be here though in December and will be learning more about the community, the city and the department and I'll try to have opportunities for you all to meet Larry. Last reminder that the city's curbside compost pickup will be ending this week. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Thank you. Having no introductions we move into public commentary reserved time. Public commentary reserved time is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to council and the community about matters of municipal interest. You need to have signed up in advance. Speakers have three minutes in which to speak so please plate close attention to the timeclock. Speakers are not allowed to delegate the time to others and we can have only one person speaking at a time. Our first speaker today is Tom Partridge.

>>TOM PARTRIDGE hello I am Tom Partridge, here to speak to the council and the public at large speaking on the subject of the agenda item that has to do with setting rules for the council and for committees of the council. It's a very important committee assignment and the rules are very important to this legislative body. I would like to see the rules liberalized to give adequate public participation time and indeed to encourage public participation in terms of all of the committees attendant with the city council and to this date to my knowledge that has not been done. We have committees that meet and expect members of the public to come and spend their good time listening to proceedings of the committee including the planning commission and then have the afforded public participation period at the very end of the meeting's agenda. That's not respectful of the attitudes that should prevail toward the public and that should respect the public's time and indeed encourage the public to participate more fully in all committees associated with the Ann Arbor city council as well as the Ann Arbor city council itself. It's indicative of too many attitudes that have to do with respect for councilmembers and respect for integrity which should be required of all councilmembers and all committee appointments. We are here at a very critical time for our democracy as people know, with local, countywide, statewide and national issues and to afford greater respect ...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ... thank you very much ...

>>TOM PARTRIDGE ... for the public to the rules of this committee. They are very important. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR thank you. Our next speaker is Alan Haber. Is Alan Haber here? Our next speaker is Kermit Schlansker.

>>KERMIT SCHLANSKER ... Large buildings would gather a lot of solar energy if there were greenhouses around the buildings. The greenhouses would have to be removable and summer and would furnish a job making business for members of the apartments. They would also furnish fresh vegetables for people and during the ...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ... excuse me, Mr. Schlansker, could you turn your mic on?

>>KERMIT SCHLANSKER ... materials should be used. the economics warrant a fairly permanent solution ... oh

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ... that is to have your mic on so that the members of ...

>>KERMIT SCHLANSKER ... solar mirrors may be the one unexploited hope of mankind for producing power. Staying warm in the winter and cool in summer. It is essential that they be used close to buildings because in this climate the heat is as useful as the electricity produced. They can focus on the green houses or on windows and add greatly to winter heat. It is important the importance of focusing solar beams on windows is a new and very cheap way of heating. Smaller and less sophisticated solar power plants similar to those built in the desert could easily built in Michigan. There will be less efficient than those in the desert, but have the advantage of no power lines cross, no terrorists, no power outages, more local employment, possible industrial use of the heat, better sewage processing, heat in winter, electric power, summer air-conditioning better use of solar voltaic panels, and hot water heating. Electricity production can be done by either photocells or by solar boilers and steam engines. Solar boilers make it easier to use waste heat. Solar mirrors can be used to distill alcohol, dry crops, dry wood, create fresh water, pasteurize sewage and perform various industrialize jobs that require heat or steam. Carpenters can make large turntables that have a two-axis dish that will always be pointed to the sun. Is possible to use the cheap labor of teenagers to move the array into correct position or to do it automatically. Presently, reflecting material on plastic is available to make experimental mirrors for various projects. Solar mirrors need to be recyclable, so that the materials in them can last for a long time. The energy farm would be an ideal place to experiment in the general use of solar mirrors and a lot of other things. Thank you. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Catherine Wilkerson.

>>CATHERINE WILKERSON Just call me "three-minute Wilkerson." There is a powerful movement growing in this country against police violence and in particular against lethal police violence so disproportionately perpetrated on African-Americans. This movement has come to Ann Arbor. Where an estimated 1,000 people took over the streets the night after prosecutor McCullough announced that Ferguson police officer Wilson would not be indicted. Councilmember Warpehoski sent me an email encouraging my participation in that action. Lethal police violence perpetrated on African-Americans also has come to Ann Arbor. On the night of November 9 an Ann Arbor cop shot to death Aura Rosser. Her killing was a central issue to those in the streets six nights ago, and also the people all over the country. Now 22 days after its awful occurrence the continuing secrecy surrounding this homicide is an affront to the people and to principles of democracy and justice. Ferguson identified t the cop who killed Michael Brown six days later. New York identified the cop that ??Akai Gurley within hours as did Cleveland in the killings of ??Tamir Rice and ??Tanisha Anderson. But 22 days after the Ann Arbor cop killed Aura Rosser the police are keeping his identity secret. The standard excuse for concealing the identities of cops that kill citizens is for the safety of the cops. Michigan's freedom of information law allows that, but only when "supported by substantial justification an explanation, not merely by conclusory assertions." What substantial justification and explanation exists to maintain the secrecy of the officers involved in the killing of Rosser? Is this what Chief Seto means when he touts the importance of community trust of the police? Are we to take from this secrecy that the killing of Rosser is an even more egregious police homicide than those of Brown, Rice and Anderson? So egregious that the Ann Arbor cop is in imminent danger once his identity is known? Are we to conclude that the AAPD, the city of Ann Arbor and the Michigan State Police consider that this alleged imminent danger outweighs the public interest in the conduct of those whom we citizens pay to serve and protect the people? Stop the secrecy. Justice for Aura Rosser. Hands up, don't shoot.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Our next speaker is Lefiest Galimore.

>>LEFIEST GALIMORE Good evening and greetings to the newly elected mayor and the newly elected city councilmembers and those who are returning. I was supposed to be here two weeks ago to talk about this very same issue that I'm going to address tonight. But citizen Wilkerson did a very good job of summarizing my concerns about what we would like to see as citizens of this community in the immediate future. And that is you know, first of all, I think that it's inconceivable to me that another police organization can effectively evaluate a situation like this, because of the brotherhood that exists and we have seen that several times like for example the most recent case in Ferguson, Missouri. And I think that going toward the establishment of a citizen review committee is something that this council should really seriously consider. You know we invest a lot of effort energy and activities improving the quality of life of citizens of Ann Arbor. But we also need to do the same thing about human life because this is very important. It doesn't matter to me and it doesn't matter to many of us as citizens of this community, that Ms. Rosser had some personal issues that she was dealing with, and it doesn't matter to me about the particular circumstances that she was living in. The thing that matters most to me is that she was a human being and she deserved an opportunity to live. And in this case she would not have that. Her kids would not have her in the home. Her family would not have her, simply because of an immediate reaction. I think that rather than wait what a police review committee is going to do – and that is not to question their capabilities or their qualifications or their professionalism – but I think history shown that police cannot police each other simply because of their brotherhood. So I'd like to support citizen Wilkerson's point of view that we need to move very rapidly towards establishing a citizens review committee. Thank you very much.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Our next speaker is Kathy Griswold.

>>KATHY GRISWOLD Good evening I just have a few things. The first one is I want to remind everyone that the annual Kiwanis holiday sale is this Friday and Saturday from 9 to 12. I was down there today helping out a little bit and I found a very unique item, it is a train station, which we all need. Number two, I believe council and the community has set pedestrian safety as a priority and as doing that, what we need to do next week when you're talking about your budget priorities is assign up to $2 million per year in the capital improvement plan. We have a real disconnect between what our ordinance states and are the quality of our infrastructure. One critical example is at crosswalks. We have inconsistent signage, you have heard that many times. And we also have inadequate or no lighting at some crosswalks. On my way here twice people were standing at the side of the crosswalk and I did not see them. The first time someone had a white dog and I saw the white dog. And the second time I did not see the person until they started to back up and I recognized that motion. So I really hope that you basically put your money where your mouth is and decide to fund pedestrian infrastructure, this is critical. Third thing is the pedestrian safety and access task force, they have been doing an excellent job. They are starting to identify many improvements that need to be made both operationally and both in terms of infrastructure. But their work will be for naught if we don't have money in the budget to start funding the recommendations. And so next week is the time to start on that. And of course I have to mention a2fixit the free mobile application. I think this is, I know it's funny, because I love it, but it is an excellent way for the public to communicate to our elected officials and to staff. Staff should be more thrilled than I am with the type of feedback that we are getting. When it was slippery the other night two people put in requests saying that the road was slippery, and within a short time somebody who was icing stated when they applied, not icing, but salting, when they applied salt. That was so, I can't think of what the word was, but it was wonderful to get that feedback to know that as a citizen you can say that the road is slippery and a few minutes later you know that has been salted.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Our next speaker is Steve Carnes.

>>STEVE CARNES Hi good evening. I would just like to address the additional funding for the winter emergency shelter, the relief center. However I find Mr. Kunselman's comments troubling if not shortsighted. The WHA 2013 point in time count study shows 510 homeless people live in Washington County. Of those 166 were completely unsheltered at the time they took the survey. Of those hundred and 49 were single adults and could not or would not accept shelter. Sorry I am out of breath I just came in. Ellen Schulmeister, of the Delonis Center, states that this year they will have hundred and 10 spots available this winter – when you count the regular available beds, two rotating shelters, and their first floor warming center. This year will be an increase of 30 beds beyond beyond the average of 180. This will provide a peak use of 213. So even if the number of unsheltered this year in Ann Arbor were to remain at 149 the total in Michigan has grown up markedly this year, but I digress. If those 149 unsheltered individuals and an additional 30 were housed with this increased funding it would still leave 119 single adults  who are not only unsheltered but unable to be sheltered. As Mr. Kunselman said the city council meeting on November 17, if we increase the funding, with increased funding we can go to people who are living in the woods and the people under the bridges and say you have to go. Go to the warming center cannot stay here. By the way, Even with the shelter operating at its maximum capacity there will still be at least 119 unsheltered individuals on any given winter night. There will still be mentally ill, who cannot tolerate sleeping inches from people on all sides. Councilmember Kunselman goes on to say that we should not making it easy especially if we are providing services, which we are. Well, sir, nine months out of the year that 210 spots decreases to 75 during the warmer months. And even if the policy managed to jam that shelter full, when spring arrives 135 people would be promptly brought back to the street. They won't just disappear. If they stop camping, they will be on your doorstep or church property or sidewalks, or park benches. It depends on where you want them. They are here.

>>CALEB POIRER I like these chambers, these are good chambers, here. It'd be nice to have more chambers here, I'm excited to see what the new ones look like when they're done with it. In the minutes there is a little bit of extra – I'm sorry "minutes" is the wrong word – in the agenda, it has a2gov.legistar.com/calendar.aspx. if you go to that website, and you pull up the city council meeting that occurred and move the slider bar which is at the bottom to the right to get to the moment two hours and 57 minutes, that's when Stephen Kunselman starts to talk about his desire to ask all of the services to put all of the city services towards the eviction of the homeless in the wintertime. Specifically at hour moment three hours 0 minutes and seven seconds Kunselman states – councilmember at the moment – states he wishes to make things difficult for the homeless. He wants to make things more difficult and his opinion isn't one that is offhand, he prefaces it with the word "adamant" and he states that it would be something he wishes to do in the months going forward. I would have a small phalanx of homeless people behind me, but they are busy relocating themselves and helping others relocate. But I can tell you that about 24 hours ago from this moment, I was with many of those folks who are getting relocated as well as friends of them, and they voted nearly unanimously – there was one abstention – to engage and spend our time this winter in the cold, canvassing for signatures to execute a recall of councilmember Kunselman. This year is uniquely suited towards that as it is a non-presidential year and less people voted in total, because of that. I hope that you are able to execute your policies while you can, because your time here is limited, and it will be the homeless that you wished to evict who will indeed evict you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR our next speaker is Marget Trager.

>>MARGET TRAGER Hello I realize my name isn't on the agenda I apologize for that I did call in earlier today. I just wanted to speak with you briefly today about the use of antibiotics on farms. They are put into animal feed to help them grow faster but in fact that is just leading to antibiotic resistant bacteria. In fact, 2 million Americans are infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria every year, and  23,000 of those individuals died. As a public health student here in Michigan and as a future public health professional I believe that saving antibiotics for therapeutic use is highly important. 80% of antibiotics in the states are used on farms. If we could save those antibiotics so that they could be used in hospitals for individuals really need them, and on farms for win animals are actually sick, we will improve the health of her animals, food, and our Americans. Thank you.   

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Are there communications from council?

>>ALAN HABER [inaudible; arriving after his slot was called, seeks to claim his speaking turn]

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I'm afraid it goes in order, I believe. Are there communications from council?

>>JACK EATON Point of order, could we indulge Mr. Haber, on this occasion? I think it's uncustomary for us to start on time, and if we'd started our usual 12 minutes late he would've been here in time to speak in the second spot. I would ask your indulgence to let him speak.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I'm going to ask if I have a sense of council on that point. Are there any objections from council? Mr. Haber.

>>ALAN HABER I appreciate your indulgence. I went over to the other place. Oh, I forgot. OK. I'm one of the three-minute people. I heard in the conversation on the Internet that after last meeting someone had referred to the succession of us who speak to as the three-minute people. I think it was kind of derisive. But in any case, I am one of the regulars. I'm not the dean. I think Thomas Partridge is clearly the Dean of the three-minute people, and does bring a consistent message of attending to the poor, the most needy and the people have the most difficulty expressing themselves. So I'm speaking about the council rules. And I was a little concerned when I saw that rather than the usual way of same sort of standards, but instead of knowing that you're on when you call, unless you get bumped because of something when you get called, because this way it all comes together in some council of whoever to decide who going to get on, I think you should just leave it the way it is. That part is not broken, the criteria are fine. There is another part of the rules that I would like to raise question about. As we three-minute people speak, and then comes communications from the council, I think there really should be another element there. There should be an element of council response to commentary and communications from the public. That there is an experience from this side and people like Kermit you know periodically gives these amazing discussions and ideas, you know what is the follow-up, what is the blowback in some way? Are we heard at all? And I think if there was a space in the agenda where people who want to respond a little bit just have that say this is part of the process of public involvement, this is big policy of public involvement. But you're here, and some of you are on the email or whatever or on the computer, you know eyes on the ceiling and some of you are smiling and very attentive, which I appreciate, but I think you should make a special attention to give response to what people say that it should be a part of the time. And of course we're the three-minute people because we used to be the four-minute people, but there were people who got tired of long talks about Palestine, which is what I understand how come it got cut down to three. And there used to be 12 of us out here from the public with basically the same criteria and now were cut down to 10. But I think you should engage the public and one other thing. When it says the element in the rule about petitions and communications and stuff referred, when I send a letter does it get referred? It's a question of what really becomes a part of the public record. So I would like to leave you with those thoughts I hope you look attentively to your rules.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Are there communications from council?

>>SABRA BRIERE Mr. Haber has asked whether there is time in our council response or council comments to respond to members of the public who addressed us, and the answer of course is yes. Frequently at meetings a member of the public will come up with an idea or an issue and sometimes someone on council will actually immediately respond with more information but also staff when someone has raised a problem, staff will go speak with that person so that that problem can be acted on. But it brings up the issue of the rules and the need for the public to engage in discussion and dialogue with members of council. Absolutely agree, not always certain that belongs at this meeting. Primarily because we are here to do the city's business and that means working our way through sometimes lengthy and complex agendas. But as we go forward into the next year if councilmembers want to consider changing the rules of public speaking to allow more opportunity or to figure out a way to engage in dialogue, I would be supportive of that discussion.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY There is going to be a public meeting regarding improvements to the Dhu Varren-Nixon-Green Road intersection on Thursday, December 11 from 6 to 8 PM at Clague Middle School in the multipurpose room auditorium. Ward 1 councilmembers as well as Ward 2 councilmembers have been receiving lots of emails and telephone calls regarding this issue so I hope this meeting would provide the opportunity for staff members to hear your concerns and comments I hope those of you who are watching this make sure you tell your neighbors and if you're interested in being part of this meeting, then attend this meeting. Thank you.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Thank you. Two items. First of all, regarding the public communication regarding police-community relations. First of all, I want to thank Chief Seto and his crew with the Ann Arbor Police Department for their response to the protest six days ago. I felt that, so for those of you who were present, there was an unpermitted march, the police I think dealt, responded appropriately to it, they were there they were a block away so they were ready to respond but they held back to help keep things calm during that incident. I think that was an appropriate response, I thank Chief Seto for that and I thank the organizers of the march were also maintaining a level of appropriate, yes it was an unpermitted march, but things were kept under control so that was a good direction there. We heard frustration tonight about the unanswered questions regarding Aura Rosser's death. Last week the chair of the human rights commission, Leslie Stambaugh, convened a community response group meeting to deal with that incident. And in that meeting it became very clear to me one of the dynamics at play here is that we have conflicting sets of needs. Our police department has a practice of any time there is an investigation, whether it's an investigation into the conduct of an officer or an investigation into graffiti, they keep a lid on the investigation until it's time to bring the case forward. So that is their practice to keep the integrity of the investigation. That's the needs of law enforcement. There also needs of the community to try to answer these questions: What happened? There is a conflict there and it's a difficult one to negotiate. I don't have an answer to how to best resolve it, but I recognize that it is a real tension. So I just wanted to name that response. And that'll be all for tonight.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further communications from council?

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to respond to some of the comments that were made under communications from the public. Particularly I want to make a response to Caleb Poirier's accusation that I'm not caring about the homeless, but that's another issue. What I want to illustrate here is that there was a homeless tent camp on private property that was being helped out, assisted by folks from the MISSION, allright, a nonprofit group, which Caleb Poirier is a board member of. They were illegally aiding and abetting a homeless tent camp on private property. These are also the same people who want to have a homeless tent camp at their property on Stone School Road which I've been very adamant against as well. I've had the courage to stand up and say it's not acceptable. The other thing I want to point out is that Mr. Poirier learned his advocacy for homeless tent camps in Seattle. What's the big difference between Ann Arbor and Seattle? They don't freeze to death in Seattle as homeless people sleeping out in the subzero temperatures as they do in Ann Arbor could possibly happen. I don't believe that it it is compassionate to help homeless people to live out in subzero temperatures where there can they can be subjected to hypothermia and die slow death of falling asleep. It is not acceptable to me. I will not tolerate it. I will not support it. And I will not assist it. If there's any councilmember who disagrees with me I wish that you would speak up and let the public know that letting the homeless sleep out in tents in subzero Michigan winters is not an acceptable solution. I will also point out that Caleb's advocacy in Seattle didn't work out as he might want to have thought about when he talks about here. Seattle doesn't allow tent cities, they banned them. They only allow tent cities on church parking lots for 90 days. They have also made it very difficult for tents to be set up under bridges, they have put cobble and rubble and things of that nature to prevent tents from being established on public property under bridges. That's why I am adamant that we need to take a firm stance here in Ann Arbor. I asked the staff at the homeless shelter and at the Washtenaw County Economic Development: Do we have enough capacity to bring the homeless in from the cold? And I was assured that we do. That is why I am moving forward with my advocacy, my adamant advocacy that we do not let the homeless sleep out in the cold in these harsh winter months. And I would hope that my colleagues would also show the courage to stand up and say it is not acceptable. It is a perverse sense of compassion for those that believe that we should let the homeless sleep outside in the cold. I do not believe it is compassionate and I want them to get in where it's warm and they can stay alive.

>>JANE LUMM Thank you, mayor Taylor. Thank you [to Kunselman] for adding that clarity and clarifying what you view is acceptable and what is not. I think we all understand that and I know you have been courageous in articulating why you view the approach you are recommending as more humane and compassionate, so thank you. Just a meeting announcement thank you councilmember Kailasapathy for announcing the December 11 Dhu Varren Nixon Green intersection meeting. That's very important to focus on the north side of town. I also want to remind folks that there is a deer management public meeting at Huron High School on Wednesday, December 10 from 6 to 9 PM.

>>JULIE GRAND First a relatively mundane, although I think relevant to the earlier discussion, I will be starting my office hours this month. They will be Tuesdays from 9 to 10 AM and they will rotate around three city sites. The first Tuesday of the month, I'll be at the Senior Center. The second Tuesday of the the month I'll be at Cobblestone Farm. And on the third Tuesday I'll be at the Bryant Community Center. There is parking and you don't have to bring anything to come in and talk. So I think that's often preferred to an email conversation so I look forward to meeting with constituents and if you are not in my ward feel free to come by and chat anyway. I perhaps see things a little differently with Burton Road. I have spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks or at least some time trying to figure out what other communities do with encampments. And there aren't a lot of good answers out there. So I was encouraged by the fact that we had both police officers and staff at PORT that made outreach efforts, that the property owner was willing to allow time for transition and encouraged also that some members out in the encampment on Burton Road did agree to get some services. I don't thinks it's ideal for anyone to be out in the cold, but at the same time we need to recognize the complexity of the situation that there are people who don't function in a traditional shelter environment. And are not going to function successfully, and I don't have the answers I'm trying to learn about what some of the solutions and I welcome input if somebody wants to come talk to me at office hours please, if you have ideas please send me your emails. This isn't an easy solution is not one were going to solve immediately, but I am encouraged with the staff response that had so far and even if it's just chipping away at the issue a little bit that we are going to get some people out of the cold this winter.

>>JANE LUMM I have a correction to my deer management meeting announcement, thank you councilmember Westphal. I said 6 to 9PM I'm incorrect it was 7 to PM.

>>JACK EATON I want to remind residents that tomorrow night Tuesday, December 2 there will be Stadium Boulevard reconstruction project meeting at Lawton Elementary School on Seventh Street, beginning at 7 and running until 8:30PM. The Stadium reconstruction of course is a hot topic in the Fourth Ward. And unfortunately at the same time, there will be a public hearing in front of the planning commission on another hot topic in the Fourth Ward, which is the plan for 2250 Ann Arbor Saline Road. So if you live in the Fourth Ward in there is plenty to do tomorrow night. You just simply have to select which is your more important topic.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I do have some to communications. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Confirmations. I would like to request confirmation of the following appointments that were presented to you at the November 17, 2014 regular session meeting: to the Recreation Advisory Commission, Ruth L. Kraut, Ravi Srinivasan, Angela Johnson. To the Historic District Commission a reappointment, John Beeson.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Discussion. All in favor. All opposed. They are approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Moving to appointments and nominations, I would like to recommend the following nominations for your consideration, to the Commission on Disability Issues Larry Leon Davis and to the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, Anna Erickson a re-appointment.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR We now come to public hearings. Public hearings on opportunity for members of the public to speak to council about particular matters on the agenda. You have three minutes to speak so please pay close attention to the timeclock. Your speech must relate to that specific item on the agenda. If you are, you cannot need to sign up in advance, and if you require assistance we would be happy to provide it to you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR PH-1 An Ordinance to Amend Section 1:207, Taxicab Board, of Chapter 8, Organization of Boards and Commissions of Title I of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor (Ordinance No. ORD-14-27) Is there anyone who would like to speak at this public hearing?

>>TOM PARTRIDGE My name is Tom Partridge. I think it's incumbent on the city council to make certain that members of the public have greater access to input with the Ann Arbor taxicab commission. And that they have greater opportunity to express their influence and influence decisions of this body. This body has come to the Ann Arbor city council and asked for what appears to be almost unlimited ability to raise the taxicab rates and have that rate increase be manufactured without due time for reservation and attitude to be expressed by the public. So I think it's incumbent again that the city council reopen the subject of taxicab rates and give further opportunity to the public to speak on this vital and important issue. The rates shouldn't be set so high that they bar the public from use of public transportation taxicab and paratransit as senior citizens. Handicap ride opportunities in the city of Ann Arbor because of the set up of the Ann Arbor city council's cab commission the public has been barred from having the influence that it should have. Thank you very much.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this public hearing?

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR PH-2 Resolution/Public Hearing Resolution to Approve the Woodbury Club Apartments Annexation, 53.61 Acres, Southwest corner of Nixon Road and M-14. Is there anyone who would like to speak to city council at this pubic hearing?

>>TOM PARTRIDGE I am Tom Partridge and I would like to speak to the subject of this public hearing. I think it's incumbent on the city council to make certain that the public has an opportunity to speak to the issues of having access to all land, including land that is annexed in the city of Ann Arbor through access to public transportation including handicapped paratransit transportation and senior ride transportation as well as bus transportation and that the public have access on a socioeconomic basis to make sure that the purpose the property is planned for whether it is commercial or office development for affordable housing development. Thank you very much.

>>JEFF HAYNER Good evening, I want to start by saying that I want to point out to everybody on the council that when they vote tonight that there is no by-right associated with this property. You're talking about annexing a property in the city and then having to rezone it. Right now it is agricultural zoning. I know the planning commission approved this as being in the character of the Northeast Area plan, but that property is still part of the township. I attended many of the Northeast Area plan meetings. You may or may not remember me, I was much younger and beardless at the time. But I kind of threw the towel at the time we were not given at the option of leaving it as a farm. There's plenty of reasons to preserve this as open space, and agricultural zoning. Adjacent to the already preserved open space under the greenbelt millage, that's where this land is. There's a bit of selective vision that goes on, when they do comparative property studies in this town. ... is Barkley Park, which is sinking into the swamp that it was built on. To the north and the Northwest is open space, and it's kitty corner to a greenbelt property, and it is surrounded by conservation easements and other protective properties. A vote for annexation will destroy the hope for these adjacent properties, surely. The market value for agricultural products is rapidly increasing in Washtenaw County, it's become a new hip things, it's up almost 40% in the last half dozen years. The university, Mr. Kunselman knows about this, mandates sustainable food purchases, puts a heavy weight on local purchasing, 20% of purchases by the university and the university health services has to be sustainable and somewhat local. It's going to stretch the sewer and water services needed. How many homeowners will be asked to make a lifetime modification to their homes to allow for this development through a footing drain disconnect? ... has been described as a Ponzi scheme where we Build infrastructure and create this illusion of prosperity. Development and impact fees cover the capital costs but they don't cover the operating and maintenance costs. We have to build more and more to get more tax base to grow even more to pay that debt and this only begets more growth. Some people say grow or die but I disagree with that. We have seen through a traffic engineering study that this is really going to add to the traffic woes on Nixon and Plymouth. And people who think that extended bus service in a mitigate that are dreaming. It is not a walkable neighborhood by any stretch. It flies in the face of all the recent efforts the city has been making. I would say, let's just say no to non-walkable neighborhoods. This is not representing a development that is a neighborhood of value. A vote to annexation and rezone this property is a vote to replaces wetlands and arable land with a monoculture of cheaply-constructed expensive apartments. Does Ann Arbor really need more of that? If you vote yes for this annexation, and proceed to vote yes on rezoning, you are saying you like that kind of thing and you like those kind of buildings, unaffordable housing. Does Ann Arbor need more unaffordable housing?

>>JAMES D'AMOUR Good evening, mayor Taylor and council. My name is James D'Amour I live at 2771 Maplewood Ave., Ann Arbor 48104. Obviously I don't live in the Northeast Area, although I'm very familiar with it. I too, as Mr. Hayner indicated, I too was involved in the Northeast Area plan. I certainly dealt with it when I was a member of the planning commission. I'm familiar with many of the issues that Mr. Hayner has raised, and he did a pretty good job of raising them. About the issue of annexation itself. I think there are a lot of things that need to be worked out with this project. While being a planning commissioner I certainly knew to lean on staff and respect staff's work. I agree that there are some predicated premises that are play here certainly that were true in the late 1990s when the Northeast Area plan was formulated, but they may not be necessarily any longer completely accurate. The fact that we build it here within the city limits, really within the freeway ring – try to say that quickly in front of many people – we are not saving the world, we are not preventing sprawl, we are just simply making ourselves, using up the green space that we have. I think quite frankly there are a lot issues that we need to look at in terms of new proposals coming into the Northeast Area plan. We need to review some of the thinking that was made in the 1990s and early 2000s. I think in lieu of that we need to look at the annexation itself, and we don't have, you're not voting on the actual planned project before you tonight. I think we be more appropriate to vote on the question of annexation when the planned project comes before you. That would give you a chance to take the whole gestalt thing in terms of the whole project I think it is perfectly appropriate to wait to come up with a better result in terms of the project and the possible zoning that comes with it. I'm worried about some of the uses. Mr. Hayner talked about agriculture a moment ago. Councilmember Briere, you said that there was no agriculture in the city of Ann Arbor. Some to look at and something to discuss with the Northeast Area plan is the idea of small-scale agriculture. Something that isn't totally appropriate for a natural area or a park in terms of active recreation, but something to think about going into this is the possibility of small-scale agriculture. Some of that happens north of M-14 on Nixon Farm ... anyway something to think about in your toolkit. In the meantime, I ask you to seriously consider tabling the resolution tonight to annex. You are under no legal obligation to do so tonight. You may be advised otherwise, but you're certainly not under an obligation by the city. Thank you for considering my comments.

>>KATHY GRISWOLD Hello my name is Kathy Griswold. I'm very concerned about the lack of pedestrian infrastructure and I know I say that word over and over again and I've been working at this since 1996. There were developments in this area that were put in many years ago and the children do not have sidewalks to walk to school, that is shameful in this community. We have many many resources and to expect our young people to have to walk in the street and in some cases they can't even walk on the side of the street because the vegetation grows right up to the pavement and it would grow beyond the pavement except that people keep driving in that area because the road is so narrow. So I don't think we should be annexing anymore property until we can provide the pedestrian infrastructure that is needed. A $100,000 grant was obtained a little over a year ago, we don't have a sidewalk in yet for Nixon Road, and dozens of hours were devoted by private citizens and teachers at Clague School in order to get a simple sidewalk in. Again we need to put that pedestrians infrastructure in for what we have, before we grow the pedestrian population as we would when we annex and develop this property. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this public hearing. Seeing no one, this public hearing is closed.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Approval of council minutes of regular session meeting of November 17, 2014. Is there motion to approve the minutes. Discussion of the minutes. All in favor. All opposed. It's approved. We have no items on the consent agenda today.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Second reading of ordinances. B-1 An Ordinance to Amend Section 1:207, Taxicab Board, of Chapter 8, Organization of Boards and Commissions of Title I of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor. Discussion of B1.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN As a member of the taxicab board, council appointee, this is something that was brought to us by staff trying to reconfigure I guess the way we operate to be more aligned with what other municipalities do. Basically to take it off the back of our CFO really who I never understood why was he was representing us on the taxicab board. But I would ask that Mr. Crawford explain a little bit to the public what's going on here if you don't mind.

>>TOM CRAWFORD Good evening. The ordinance change before you really is just, is it on? The blue light is on. The ordinance amendment before you is a request just to change the staff support which is designated in the ordinance as being the CFO to being the city administrator's designee. This provides flexibility to the administrator to manage the broader workload within the organization.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR. Further discussion.

>>MIKE ANGLIN One thing I noted and it just might be a typo in here, is on section 1207 taxi cab board membership. It says that the city administrator will appoint a designee, and then it says that the police police chief be a nonvoting board member. I think it should be "or his designee" should be added there, the very last sentence in the first paragraph. Right at the end. Previously it was the appointee of the police department was there a regular basis, who then becomes familiar with the organization of the board. So I move that it be changed to amend this that the chief of police, or his designee, is missing.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Do I hear that it's an administrative problem, that is to say the language referenced by councilmember Anglin is actually in the ordinance but that this text is incorrect? 

>>STEVE POWERS The text is correct the only change is highlighted in red. The text is correct but I think what councilmember Anglin is pointing out is that as we're recommending the city administrator's designee be on the taxicab board, councilmember Anglin is recommending that we provide the same flexibility to the chief of police.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Excellent. Discussion of the amendment?

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN It makes perfect sense. My only question would be to the attorney's office. Does this make it a substantive change that would kick it back to first reading. 

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA I think it just gives flexibility inherent in the power of the police chief in a manner that is already designated, so I don't see that it would.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thant's great news because I've not seen the chief of police show up to any of the meetings ever, but his designee has so ... of general practice, so I support it. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of the amendment. All in favor. All opposed. It's approved. Further discussion of B-1 as amended. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR C-1 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 55 (Zoning), Section 5:10.20.A Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts Building Massing Standards Postponed from our meeting of November 17.

>>SABRA BRIERE I'll lead off the discussion. In July the council had this in front of us for first reading. It was a slightly different version. That version would have allowed the character district overlay Main Street to have a D2 component and that D2 component would have had a maximum height of 100 feet. The council at the time was concerned that 100 feet was not consistent with all the other D2 zoning. All the other D2 zoning in the city had at that time been established as a maximum of the 60-foot limit. While the D2 zoning is not exactly one contiguous area because each character district has slightly different rules that can apply, the combination of the D2 zoning with 200 FAR floor area height ratio as the massing plus the potential for the additional 200 of FAR for more massing seemed to many people on council to say really we want to keep this to no more than 60 feet. So we sent it back to staff to look at and come up with a proposal at 60 feet and the proposal in front of us sort of is there and sort of isn't. Much of the site would be D2, 60-foot maximum height, but a portion of the site – that portion that is closest to William Street, and closest to Main, could be established at D2 with a 120-foot height limit. And so now the council has to determine how we feel about that change in D2 zoning. These are character district overlays. They are not the floor area ratio aspect. So if the floor area ratio remains exactly the same with a200 base with 200 possible premium, but how that 400 FAR can be piled up on the site by-right is what we're really here to decide. This is first reading and we can of course move it on to second reading and solicit input from the public, go to a public hearing and learn from people's responses. So I'm just going lay that out there as the possibilities in front of us. We can also say that this does not quite meet our expectation. Thank you.

>>JANE LUMM Thank you mayor Taylor. Thank you councilmember Briere for that background. I still have some questions regarding this, and is there someone from staff here that can  Ms. is Rampson here? DiLeo? Alexis, thank you. Thank you first for the renderings for the proposal and the shade impact models that you gave us. On the models and it's very helpful, the visual models again are much easier for me to you know, appreciate sort of what we are contemplating here versus just words on a page, so thanks for that. The models show green 60-foot D2 boxes all along the side of East William Street. And these green boxes are all on the William Street historic district as I understand it, including the Beer Depot and the house that it's attached to. So I am wondering if it is reflective of what likely would be built, because it's again because it's a historic district, I question whether you know it's necessarily likely that would be built up to the D2 standards in heights and I also didn't know if it would be subject to other overlay restrictions so if you could speak to that.

>>ALEXIS DELIO Sure, certainly. You are correct. The Beer Depot is in a historic district. So theoretically a new development could – additional development could be there to that 60-foot height limit. But it is quite unlikely. I - it would be quite a stretch for the Historic District Commission to approve something like that considering the scale of that existing site. But you also noticed that farther north or up in the photo of Main Street all the boxes are just plain squares or rectangles and they are all at 180 feet. It's very unlikely that the skyline would be developed looking that square or rectangle. But this gives you sense of the maximum buildout. The property owner and his architect are also here they could probably speak more to it, but they have also said to us that the box shown on their own site is the plain simple box at the maximum size possible. They have no real sense that they wold develop that much, but they did want to be honest and show what a largest scenario would look like. So I would apply that logic to the other massing boxes. Unlikely that the skyline would look like that but this does show the maximum extent that could be achieved at all.

>>JANE LUMM For whatever it's worth, if it's not too much trouble, if you could provide just one model showing a rendering showing what it would likely look like, just to get a sense again of any possible shading impacts. Because I know that the, it's my understanding anyway, that the owners of the adjacent houses are supportive of the existing historic district, and in fact also expanding it to the south. And also I think the buffers between the D1 and the R4C neighborhood and the historic district to the south are called for the downtown plan, so showing a model with you know the historic district kind of as is ...

>>ALEXIS DELIO ... in that case you would just remove that one box over the Beer Depot. The rest are ...

>>JANE LUMM ... ok. Thank you. Thanks again for all those renderings.

>>SABRA BRIERE I would like to follow up on that if I may. Sorry. I know that the property owner and his architect produced these renderings, but I'll direct the question to you. And if you need assistance, perhaps the council will indulge you and mee in bringing them forward to the podium to speak to use. On page 9 of these 35 different renderings, is the first time it shows a 60-foot building plus 120-foot building. And looking at that potential box in which something fits, I am made very uncomfortable because it, I know that it's showing the maximum possible box, but if I gave you that not too apocryphal tray of Legos stacked four deep, and told you you could stack up to 12 on one side you would have to take them off the other and pile them up, and this didn't do that. There is no reduction in FAR on the 60-foot side in order to achieve the massing on the 120-foot side. And I think that gives me very false vision of what could be done. I don't have any idea how much would or could be removed from the portion that is limited to 60 feet in height in order to achieve 120-feet height elsewhere, and this rendering is unintentionally terrifying to many people.

>>ALEXIS DELIO I think one thing to consider is that Lego of four rows high is accurate when the lot coverage is 100%. In the D2 zoning district the maximum lot coverage is 80%. And I believe that this diagram, check the front page, so the two schemes are if they were to keep the existing building and then add floor area to achieve 400% on the entire site. The other scenario is illustrating if they were to remove, demolish the existing building and redevelop a single building at 100%.

>>SABRA BRIERE So you're referring to page 3 of 35 here?

>>ALEXIS DELIO Yes. So you'll note that 80% lot coverage is allowed and they propose 80%. So some of that balancing between the four stories on the south, the shorter half, some of that floor area is not achieved by taking it down to three stories, some of it was achieved by the 80% coverage.

>>SABRA BRIERE So the answer then to the all all-important question is that a building of this massing and scale could be built on this site is this rezoning as proposed goes forward.

>>ALEXIS DELIO Ahm. I would ...

>>SABRA BRIERE ... I'm not saying it would be, I'm saying it's ...

>>ALEXIS DELIO ... something of this character.

>>SABRA BRIERE thank you.

>>MIKE ANGLIN Just some comments on why we as a council at the time approved the D2, because it was in transition zones, and part of it was the ability to take a look at the transition zones as they were close to neighborhoods and see how they impact on the citizens of that particular neighborhood. And we have a case, a couple of cases already achieved here, we have the East Huron where it is D1 and its impact on the immediate neighborhood. Some of the council sat through those negotiations. I recall the vote was a 6-5 on that building, so we did not get unanimity. I am concerned here too that we got a recommendation on a 6-3 from this committee. So we're not hearing a lot of unanimity about how to proceed. We do have other cases of D2 down at Madison and South First surrounded on all three sides by buildings that are no more than 30 feet high. It's 80 now and it's fairly massive, the relief comes from the South Ashley view, it's not gonna come from the S. Main Street view. So i's going to feel like you're entering a little canyon like there for a time. So I was not in favor of the 80 I wanted to keep it at 60, but we didn't win that battle. But this one I'm very firm about because on three sides you have 60 feet, no more than 60 feet on three sides. No across the street you have a larger building, but on all three sides , on the north side the northeast side is probably one of the prettiest blocks in our town, it's commercial with restaurants and all, it's very very attractive streetscape their. And putting a larger building on the north corner the northeast corner of this property, and even thinking of D1 is totally inappropriate for the surrounding area. Number one because it's historical and the community has been involved in historic preservation and it's a very beautiful neighborhood right now. The city does own or is partly tuned into Baker's Commons which of course was a development done years ago as a social need. We have to keep our downtown vibrant and this is part of our downtown, this particular block. Their contribution can be, it is a corner, give us the corner and make it a nice park area where people can sit down and enjoy having eaten in the downtown and make it an amenity. When a builder comes forward and starts to talk about of building up the reason he gets tenets is there is because it's a good-looking building and it's a building that people want to spend time, they want to spend it there so they can get out do things during the workday, and this site will be one of those sites if done correctly. If we just decide to go with D1 and allow a tall or cylinder shaped building to go up in order to satisfy floor area ratios of 400, I'm hearing, and a lot size potential of 80%, the same technique was used on S. Main Street when they first met with the community, they showed us a building that was this big monolith of concrete. This was the direction from the community was this is what we can do. That's like negotiating with somebody who pulls a gun out and puts on the table and says, can we talk. Well, that's not a discussion that is a threat. And I don't think we as a council in this particular case should go down that path of a threat, we should zone it the way we want now, stay with the D2. There are limitations the builder will have to face there. We will not potentially as some others have maximize their profit at the expense of our cityscape, which I am unwilling to do any further. I was unwilling to do on Huron and I'm sure that other councilmembers agree with me on this. We are planning the future of the city for the next 100 years. So you should look very carefully. We have a beautiful Main Street it is our major street in the city. One on which a lot of investment have gone on, a lot of good memories are on that street. We have, our amenity is the library, a block and a half away. So all of these things are things we have contributed to make our city wonderful. And I think developers have to start stepping up and seeing what their obligation to us remains, and continues to remain, that we remain a city of the state that we have now and not just let it slip away in bits and pieces. So I would like to see us all look at the D2 and stay kind of firm on that please.

>>JACK EATON So, I have a question for councilmember Briere, as our representative to planning [commission], would you suggest that we if we, seek a 60-foot limit on the corner lot should we send it back to the planning commission for them to reconsider, or as a procedural matter would it be better for us to try to amend it at the next meeting?

>>SABRA BRIERE Right now the council has already amended this ordinance establishing a 60-foot height limit. At first reading. At that meeting, however, several councilmembers were concerned about doing such an amendment on the fly. The proposal in front of us didn't just include a height limit. It included a set of stepbacks which were established in order to guarantee that sunlight reached the residential homes on Fourth Avenue. So at that time we the council sent it to the city staff to work with the property owner and come back with what would this 60-foot height limit do. And how could you make this work. In turn, the staff took that concept to the ordinance revisions committee and the ordinance revisions committee sent their response directly back to council. It has not been through the planning commission a second time. I hesitate to say what I think the council ought to do. Part of that is because from a purely academic standpoint I can understand the logic here. But I'm also aware that we could be engaged in a contest inadvertently with planning commission and the ordinance revisions committee as a subset of planning commission, where we say no, no, we said 60 and they say, well it's 120 and 60. And we say no, we said 60. And they say, well. And I think we would be wise to really talk this through tonight to make certain that there is a sense of the meeting, before I even begin to address what the next step on to be. And I am hesitant because I have spent much of the day talking with people about this and I can see all the sides and I'm not yet at the point where I know which way I'm going to vote.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Thank you. Having spent some time on the other side of the table at the ordinance revisions committee, we spent a lot of time on this and some of the other problem areas on Huron Street and they all need to be resolved clearly. This was a particularly challenging, I guess, site. We have had a lot of feedback from the community that some kind of tall element at the corner at Main and William is what they want. They have said this through the consultant focus groups, you know not to mention the history on this parcel has alway been pretty high and intense use. So when this got sent back with the other concerns about shading and kind of awkward adjacencies to other districts, we had a really close look at it. There were some thoughts about splitting the parcel and zoning the northern half D1 and the southern half D2 and putting it to rest that way, that seemed a little overly complicated. We were told to speak with the property owner. That was the directive when it came back to us from council. And we had some communications. We have not had a formal I guess reaction to what is in front of us tonight. I know early on the property owner was amenable to D2 coming down from D1 which is a large decrease in development value even though there is no development on the table. The potential value is greatly reduced. Then it was automatically assumed that it would be D2. Given that, the ordinance revisions committee started thinking about, ok, how do we shape this. And not to characterize weeks of tortured discussions, but it felt as though keeping the whole parcel zone the same way but pulling the mass away from the south and which is where it is adjacent to residential, would be the best compromise. So that's a real short story of how it came about. You know there's, it's always, I think, people you know community members, citizen volunteers, staff are always reluctant or very cautious about downzoning, which this is. You knew it seems a lot more personal if it happens in a single-family district, when the tell you you can't make that addition or whatever, but when it happens to commercial properties it's talked about more in the abstract, but it's important to remember that this is somebody's property. And they worked, and they've done a good job working with us and giving feedback. So you know, no solution is the perfect here. There were a lot of mixed feelings on the ORC about how tall, is it 80, 100, or 120. You know we're looking Ashley Mews across the street. We were looking at what can be developed on the gas station. And other places around that corner. We looked at what the community said in terms of what they see in terms of wanting a tall building on the corner. And this is the shape that we came up with. In addition, there is a generous setback, there is a pretty wide alley there that as a public alley. And what is proposed here also pulls the building back from that. So given that it's on the south corner, meaning north of the residential properties for the most part, we felt it helped limit the impacts from shading, it helped limit the impact from looming, so I'm happy to try to answer any more questions and I know staff is here probably better able to do that.

>>JULIE GRAND This strikes me as a very reasonable compromise. And often we all use this collective "we" – I don't consider myself included in the collective we as somebody who wants to see a 60-foot building, particularly if it's a blocky 60-foot building. This this is an entrance to our downtown and there are competing visions for what our entrance to the downtown should look like. To me something that is perhaps a little taller on this corner that perhaps matches the building across the street that is architecturally interesting a more compelling vision for our downtown than a square blocky building. And it's also a more compelling vision for our downtown than what exists – no offense to the property owner – but I don't know that surface parking lot is what we want to see. You know the grand entrance to our downtown is a surface parking lot and a gas station. That's doesn't meet what I'd like to see as our long-term vision 50 or 100 year forward.   I know one of the biggest concerns was the shading. I think this compromise helps address a lot of those issues about the shading, and I think it's sensitive to the neighbors around it, and is consistent with what is across the street. So, I'm very supportive of what, of this compromise.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you Mr. Mayor. One of the things that caught my attention was the discussion regarding the property owners. So maybe the staff can come back up. My recollection is that because this is the zoning of a one-owner parcel, if I recall my question was, or when the property owner came before us back in June or whenever it was, I asked him specifically what he would he like. And I'm not hearing that the property owner actually concurred on any of this. Can you elaborate?

>>CITY STAFF he is here if you'd like to ask him.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Oh, I would like to hear him, yes if he's here. So if you recall, I asked you that question, we have an opportunity as a council to get it right, to find that ultimate compromise because we're dealing with one property owner and apparently that's you. If I recall what you'd shown us was one huge massive 60-foot tall building.  

>>MEMBER OF PUBLIC Under the current suggestions that's all I could do on the site. And my suggestion was that's short-sighted and unimaginative. And it doesn't allow us to do something special with the site, and seeing as we have 120-feet across the street zoning, the gas station is 180, across the street is 180, we thought that may 120 would be an appropriate thing to look at. I mentioned before, there were some comments here "threatening" I've done the counter-opposite to that, the entire time the last 18 months I've engaged everybody to come up with a working solution. I never fought the D1 zoning to D2 although it significantly reduces the value of the property. I can put on half the square footage as I could before. I really thought let's engage the process and come up with something that respects the neighbors as well as something that can do kind of neat at the corner. I wanted some height so that then I don't have to develop a blocky building that's ugly and ruins the gateway to the city. So what we was engage, going back to the ORC committee, we spent a lot of money and a lot of time coming up with a lot of different things to look at and they endorsed what we came up with and they said yeah, it's a great idea at the beginning of the site on way would be 120 feet, matches what's across the street, and that it would step down to respect the neighbors, the homes that are there, and I think that's exactly what we tred to come up with. It's flexibility is all we were looking for. We may do nothing ultimately. Or we might do something kind of neat to attract the quality tenants, like was said before something that is attractive and a major corporation, they can employ people and they want to be in Ann Arbor and you've gotta have something that it is attractive, that's all we wanted to do here.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN So you do concur with the language of this proposal at first reading?

>>MEMBER OF PUBLIC As far as what has come out of the ordinance review committee I concur with it. To be honest with you I don't love it, I think it reduces the value of the property significantly, but I tried to come up with a compromise that was win-win for everybody so that was easier road. So I do concur with was proposed. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you very much, you have my support.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further Discussion of C-1. Well, for my part too, I see this is a reasonable middle ground, it is a diminution of value. It is also I think a set of overlays that does respect the area to the east and gives an opportunity for something that is in the context of these existing Ashley Mews which is a substantial site as well as well as the potential sites surrounding it. So I am in favor of what we have before us today. Further discussion of C1?

>>JANE LUMM Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, this is one of the things where yeah, we have been provided the information, so prior to that I certainly would not have been prepared to vote on this even though it is just first reading. Without having the information that again was subsequently provided. We did set the 60-foot height limit, it wasn't some random arbitrary number. It is the standard for the city's other interface areas. And we all know that you know, because we have been down this road having an oversized building that overwhelms the adjacent residential neighborhoods, is this something that we want to do again. This does however seem to be a reasonable compromise. With a mix of the two height limits. It's critical to avoid any adverse mass and shading impacts on the residential neighbors. And you know we also want to facilitate a more viable attractive economically viable development. It would be helpful between now and the next reading to hear from some of the other neighbors impacted by this proposal if they are out there. I got feedback from a few folks but again that's why I alluded to the supporters of the existing historic district which councilmember Anglin also referenced. I do see some positives here with the recommendation that others have articulated. But there remain some open questions and potential concerns that the immediately adjacent residential neighbors, if there's an adverse impact I do think that we need to you know take that input whatever it is into consideration certainly, so but I will support this at first reading. Thanks.

>>JACK EATON I believe that the 120-foot height limit for the corner portion of this lot is inconsistent with our concept of a buffer area. And I'm actually kind of surprised that when we sent it back because 100 feet was too tall that it came back as 120 feet. And certainly that gives me pause about sending it back again. But I can't support the 120-foot height limit at that point. Certainly, we keep hearing that a taller building would be a better-looking building and I don't think there's any guarantee that simply having a taller building will produce something more interesting. You can have a blocky ugly tall building. There simply no guarantee. So I can't support the 120 feet. And I think it's inconsistent with what the downtown zoning review consultant suggested that we do and it's inconsistent with what else we are doing in the D2 areas. So I will vote against this.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI First of all, a bit of historical, I would like to think it's a historical correction but I know how faulty my memory is, so I might just be adding to the confusion. My recollection was not the same as councilmember Eaton's that we sent this back to ordinance revisions committee because 100 feet was too tall. My recollection was that we sent it back to staff because there were concerns about the amendment that council made that the 60-foot across the entire structure was too inflexible. So I don't think the 100 feet being too tall was why we sent it back to ordinance review committee. But we can sort that out later. I am comfortable supporting this at first reading. I'm looking forward to hearing the commentary that comes through with a public hearing. I think that I first of all I think that we are making progress. When we look at the yellow sections on the renderings that are north of William and also some that are south of William, those what we have on the site right now as a D1 site without any appropriate buffering restrictions. So the renderings that we have in front of us now are getting us to a more appropriate relationship with the surrounding settings. The question that I have that perhaps the developer or the property owner could share some information with us, the desire to have the 120-foot north corner was so that you can have more flexibility with the site and do things that aren't just a block. And now the renderings that we have in front of us are solid blocks. Which are very useful to see was the maximum that would happen. I would find it useful to have renderings submitted to us that help us understand some of the flexibility that this would give you. My intention is to get some things electronically but if you have something to share now that might help the conversation moved forward, yeah.

>>MEMBER OF PUBLIC If I could add some clarity my name is ??Scott Bonney from ??Newman Smith. And we've been directed by Mr. Klein to help the city visualize the impact of these changes. As you know we started with 180 feet on the whole site and I think that was a mistake when the D1 and D2 was created, and I think the city has recognized that and now they're looking for what I consider granularity in the zoning. I think a lot of cities create density by ramping up from very you know sensitive single-family residential to to transitional, to taller areas. When the ordinance was written the D1 and D2 are very different, they're 180 and then 60, so there's this big step, and so I think that has been our concern all along, that that's not the right granularity that the ordinance requires at this location. So what we've tried to do is working with the ordinance review committee was to look at some way that would essentially match the height of Ashley Mews at a distance of only 150 feet south of William. And instead of figuring out what we would actually build on the site, we tried to show potentially again, to Sabra's comment, what the worst case scenario, we have no idea what's going to be built on the site, we haven't been asked to design a project, we can't really show you a beautiful building on the site because we don't know what's going to happen. The question was what's the worst case scenario, and we wanted to point out the fact that in addition to the typical restrictions that are placed on the D2, we're suggesting that by adding 14 feet of setback from the alley that separation is essentially what we're proposing to trade for the opportunity to have something taller on the northern part of the site. Again, the ordinance does have streetwall setbacks at that 60-foot line, that will be typical in the Main Street overlay district, so that's going to reduce the mass and there will be a step into the massing whatever happens and maybe some other architect will come up with a clever way to do that, but we wanted to use the document here to help describe that. Three things actually happened. We wanted to make sure you could see that 80% of the site could be covered, and that's what we've shown. We wanted to show you know that 10% of that site would have to be landscaped or open space, so we described that in numbers, it's not actually described but it's in words so you can understand that I think. 5,222 feet would have to be non-parked area on the site. We also tried to show, again what that additional 14 feet does in terms of the solar shading and I think that's the big question that has come upon us, if you're going to allow extra height, how are you going to make sure that is not going to cast a shadow on houses. So if you look at the rear-yard setback in R4C, the house can't be built closer than 30 feet from the rear property line. So a 16-foot alley and an additional 14 feet, essentially there's a 60-foot distance between the rear of the houses on R4C and where this building could be built where it's opposite from the residential property. The 60-foot height next to the 60-foot setback gives that basically 1:1 relationship that a lot of planners believe is ideal. So that's where we started with. So by by trading that extra setback, the additional reduction from what would normally be allowed in a D2 zone, we've listened to the ordinance review committee and suggested that this might be a good compromise, to say halfway between 60 and 180 would be 120 feet. Now whether it's ever going to look anything like this, frankly I can't imagine a design that would really fill up this much of the site. But just wanted to show you what potentially could happen. Hopefully that helps a little bit. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of C-1? Recollect that this is first reading.   

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Thank you. Like councilmember WARPEHOSKI, I want to make sure that my memory is not failing me. If I could ask Ms. DiLeo to come up. Not having the ENP report in front of me, there was an assertion that 120 feet is inconsistent with the consultant's recommendations. Could you recall what some of those recommendations were? I just want to make sure.

>>CITY STAFF I don't have the ENP report in front of me, either. It does say a taller element should go in the corner. I just don't have a number.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL And ENP's recommendation for this parcel as a whole? What do you remember? 

>>CITY STAFF I need more coffee. I would have to look up the exact language. I do know that the ordinance amendments in front of you, endorsed by the ordinance review committee, are consistent with – I can't say they are exact – but they are consistent with the ENP report.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Thanks.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY You are referring to the Erin Purdu report, right? So what was the end result of the report for this property – was it D2?

>>CITY STAFF I would have to go back and look at the exact language. I think it was. But I did not bring the report with me. Because we're not at city hall, I can't run back and get it. But I can find out that information.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion, first reading. Councilmember Anglin.

>>MIKE ANGLIN In light of the confusion around the table as to what was council's direction when we sent this back, I think we ought to just delay this until we have clarity as to – unless this new council wants to give new direction right now as to what we want to send forward, and that would change this first reading dramatically. Because if this present council says we're agreeing with this report and send it, and we're agreeing with the ordinance review committee which is part of the planning commission, a subgroup of the planning commission, is actually what we're talking about here. We're talking about flexibility, we're talking about zoning, and we're talking about a form of equity. "Adverse impact" was used in this discussion. If you live near any of the churches on the west side in the last 10 years you have had adverse impact because they have applied for different zoning and different buildings going up, you might've thought there is just a church there, but in fact there are other things on the property now. So everyone is impacted by zoning. When your neighbor puts a big garage up that you may not like, but if it fits the zoning. We are all impacted. But this is a property that is located in where it has always been perceived as part of the original plat of the city. This is Ann Arbor's original plat, meaning people identify with their downtown in a very special way. You may identify with your neighborhood in a special way. The town views the downtown in a special way. I'm sorry that one of our nicest historic districts along Division is now impacted. The use of the word "shade" is starting to bother me a great deal. The sun came out this week for about four hours. And next week the same. So here in Michigan if we start talking shading effect we ought to move. We don't have, this is not Florida. So let's not keep bringing back shade and things of this sort, this is a kind of silly thing to even be talking about. We have a lot of cloudy weather. In the winter we have lots of cloudy weather. What were looking at here is how this impacts on the downtown. And I think that is something we have to keep in mind, we are all going to give up something here. But the developer held this property for many many years. The escalation of his price that he can get for this property is greater because of the improvements that others have made and that we have made a contribution to the city. I don't think this is always so cut and dried that the developer is being denied. Well, homeowners are being denied. I'd like to put like another building on my property but I can't. That's what zoning does. It protects the integrity of the community and allows the community to work together with what they perceive as how would you say affordable and as well as you're making compromises constantly in your community efforts to achieve what you want the community to become. Just throwing the zoning out and saying we have nothing to do zoning, we have everything with zoning. That's your job here on council is to set the guidelines of zoning in the city. When we adopted D1 and D2 we said we're going to have this as a longtime discussion, this is not a finality. And I'm encouraged that the developer representative, Mr. ??, said that he thought that the D2 was not high enough and that the D1 was too high. Sure we heard those discussions. We'll continue those discussions on zoning. I just add that as something for council to think about. But I would like clarification on the direction that the council gave before we proceed. Because there is confusion around the table. What was the directive sent to the planning commission? What did that state?

>>SABRA BRIERE There was no directive sent to planning commission.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you, I believe this is my last time so. So it's my understanding right now it is zoned D1 180 feet. Then there was a proposal to make it 60 feet D2. I balked at that. I think I may have voted for the 60 feet, but when the property owner came and showed us what 60 feet would look like, then I balked. And I remember specifically asking how we make it right with one property owner. And we heard him speak today. So now that I'm faced with 120 feet at the corner and it looks like 60 feet at the other corner, across, the corner of Packard across from, a much larger building I would remind everyone, the Ann Arbor housing commission property is taller than 60 feet. But what I have not heard in the discussion from those who aren't happy is: What will make you happy? 80 feet? 60 feet? 60 feet is not gonna work. Period. It doesn't work for me. I do not want a full block 6-story building there. From an urban design standpoint it will not work. We need flexibility. Any downzoning, as this is, it is also a risky proposition. Because there has to be reasonableness to the downzoning. And I would rather that we keep it within our realm and not the court, which it could go to. And that would just waste a lot more time and energy. I think this is a good compromise. I think the property owner has you know obviously put some time and energy to try to get it right, to make everybody understand just what we are talking about. It is not often that we get these renderings of what we could imagine what it could look like, which I think is a great tool. To help visualize in 3-D. As I said, we don't get that very often and that costs time and money and the property owner I believe helped generate those renderings. Getting down to the detail of what a building might actually look like in terms of materials, the number of windows and details, that's not what were dealing with, and that's not appropriate for what this discussion is. So again I ask those who are having a hard time grasping this: What is it that you really want? If you only want 60 feet, I'm not willing to postpone and send it back to somebody to go that route because we've already been there and done that. If you want to tinker with the corner at 120 and make it 80, make 100, you know now we're just, I don't understand the reasonableness of that. So again what is it that you want? What is it that the property owner is going to accept and move forward. I am happy with what we have. I'm happy because the property owner is happy. It is one property owner. And yes it is downzoning, it is making the property less valuable. And that is, should make us all take pause. What the government giveth the government can taketh away. But there are consequences. I will support this at first reading. I too would like to hear what the public has to say. Whether it is the Main Street Association, whether it's Ann Arbor housing commission which has a building across the street. Whether it's a couple of businesses there on Williams. You know let's hear from them. By passing it at first reading we will get to that point.

>>SABRA BRIERE Oh, thank you, I was going to sit back and let councilmember Grand ... I appreciate what councilmember Kunselman has said. I have a slightly different take. It's not necessarily anything but tangentially different. I would caution us as we talk about one property owner being satisfied that the reason the corner of Division and Huron was zoned D1 at 150 feet was because the property owner came to council as we were talking about zoning and convinced members of council not to zone it as D2, not to zone it as D1 at 120 feet, but zone it at D1 at 150 feet. It was only one property owner, and it really didn't hurt anything to make that one property owner happy. I mention that as a cautionary statement and not at all as a suggestion that ??Mr. Klein is the same person or likely to do the same thing. It's just a caution. Because as we move forward with this process we are not talking about a single site. We're talking about how we deal with transition area zoning in all the spaces that the city council tasked the city planning commission to take another look at. And consider for zoning at D2. I no longer have faith. if I ever did, that developers given an opportunity will invest in great design in their new developments. I am delighted if it happens, but it's not what I think I should expect and so rather than be disappointed, I look at how big a building can be built and how sensitive the area is. So I am willing to support this at first reading. But here are the things I want us all to think about. As we talk about increasing the potential for more residential in the city, one of the things that we have talked about is making it desirable to again live in a small Victorian and early Edwardian house that were built in the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. In order for those to be attractive to single-family owner-occupied residential uses, we can't make them hostile to single family owner-occupied residential uses. We have to really think about the impact. The good news here is that the impact of this specific potential development is significantly less than the impact that occurred on the corner of Division and Huron. But it's not without an impact. And we must think about that, if we have a broader scheme for the future of Ann Arbor that includes encouraging more residential use downtown and near downtown including in these older neighborhoods. This is, while the William Street façade, the William Street side of this project is butting up against historic district, the fourth Avenue side is not butting up against historic district because the council decided that it shouldn't be protected by a historic district. So what we do here is important. I agree with councilmember Kunselman and with others that I want to hear what the public says. Certainly I have heard from the public in the last 48 hours. I heard from the public before our last meeting. But I want to hear from a much broader group of public than just that just small group of people who write to me. Not because I'm going to vote for or against this project, but because I need to understand the impact that it could have. And this is only a rezoning it is not a development. Thank you.

>>JULIE GRAND To be very brief and in the interest of moving things along hopefully this will move things along. I'm still comfortable especially at a first reading going forward.    On the Nov. 17 meeting [sic], I watched and listened as many of you around the table said let's postpone this because we have new councilmembers coming on and we want to make sure that they're with us every step of the way and that was very gracious of all of you. In deference to that graciousness, I suggest that we get moving, that we hear from the public I think those of us who are new have had a chance to weigh in, and we have done so and I look forward to hearing from the public at the next reading.

>>JACK EATON I want to concede a point. The ENP recommendations were taller than 60 foot so I was mistaken in that. They had some kind of complex diagonal complication they wanted us to do, but just for the sake of clarity, they did recommend a hight taller than 60 foot. In response to councilmember Kunselman I would seek a more moderate height not necessarily 60 foot, 100 foot like we were talking about the last time. But more generally when we sent it back to planning, I don't believe we did have a consensus here. Mr. Kunselman wanted to hear from the developer. Some of us wanted a strict 60-foot limit. I think there were a variety of voices at that time, as there are currently. And so I will continue to not support heights of 100 or more feet.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion. Roll call vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, no
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, no
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, no
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes
>>CLERK motion carries.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR It's approved. It's nine o'clock. Two hours after our beginning, let's take a five-minute break. 

[Back in session 21:09:42]

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-1 Resolution Adoption of council rules. 

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Mayor Taylor, do we want to deal with these one at a time or deal with them as a body?

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR That is an excellent question. Perhaps let us take the rules of our meeting in the first tranche and the ethics rules in the next. If there is no objection. We'll do it by fiat.

>>JACK EATON So then I would offer an amendment to Rule 8 Voting. The current rules allow that any member may call for a division of the assembly, and we persist in allowing that. And a division of the assembly is to show a vote physically by having the yeas in one group in the nays another group. I just don't see any purpose to that when any member can call for a roll call vote. So I would move to strike "any member may call for division of the assembly". 

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI That's friendly. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Ha Ha Ha. It is friendly to both the mover and the seconder. 

>>JACK EATON I would point out that it was noted at the end of our last meeting by a county board of commission member that even a friendly amendment is subject to ...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ... belongs to the body ...

>>JACK EATON ... is subject to a roll call vote if any member wants that vote.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Fair enough. Although it's the subject of the rules themselves, this is getting a little meta. But in the interest of comity, since we are in the county building, is there any objection from the body to that being a friendly amendment? It's done. Councilmember Eaton, you still have the floor.

>>JACK EATON I would propose an amendment to Rule 10 the third bullet point which requires – prohibits any member of council from voting, or for speaking more than 25 minutes in a meeting. And I would just ask that we strike from the words "in the event that a member" all the way to the end of the section.

>>SABRA BRIERE I've had several conversations with people including some members of council who admire the concept that there might be a dedicated staff member to do nothing but time council, but doubt the practicality of this change in the rules, because of the difficulty of monitoring all of the councilmembers effectively. So given that I don't know how that would happen and can guarantee that it would happen smoothly I will support this proposed striking of the rule – the last what one, two sentences. Two sentences.

>>JANE LUMM Thank you, mayor Taylor. While I understand the driver behind this trying to manage the length of meetings, and I suppose that's okay I don't think this is the way to do it. I do not believe that we should adopt any rule that limits public debate on an issue. And this one does. I didn't support the changes initially proposed last time that limited speaking times for the public and for councilmembers and that's why I don't support this either for the same reason. And I also think as councilmember Briere alluded to it would create all kinds of problems keeping score, if you will, about how long someone has held the floor. And I think we're actually likely to spend more time arguing about how long a councilmember held the floor than we'd save time in eliminating subsequent councilmember speaking times. So in my view this rule is impractical but most importantly risks limiting public debate on important issues and that's not something that serves the community, and I hope others agree that this clause should be eliminated. Thanks.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Thank you Mr. Mayor. I guess I don't know if it makes sense to separate out the discussion about this in terms of its intent versus its enforcement. I've watched council debate the rules about public speaking time and there was discussions about what seems more democratic or inclusive. And I've heard from folks saying that it's not terribly democratic or more inclusive to make people wait until to the end of a very long council meeting to speak so it cuts both ways. So I don't know if there's been any previous discussions about how this could be enforced, because obviously enforcement needs to be consistent or not done it all. And I guess I concur with the intent for brevity and the ability to conduct business efficiently. I also presume we still have the ability to suspend council rules if it tends not to be working out. So I guess I would like to err on the side of giving it a try or trying to figure out the mechanism rather than throwing it out quite yet, but I'd be interested in hearing what other people say.

>>JACK EATON I'm offering the amendment because I've been through a couple of meetings that have gone till 3 AM. And I have to point out that while it might not be unreasonable to limit a particular councilmember to 25 minutes in a meeting that only goes to 11 PM, but when we are discussing many topics in the budget or at any other long meeting it is pointless to try to stifle debate through arbitrary time limits. And so I think that perhaps we all should try to be more respectful of each other's time, not ponder aloud so much or not you know not weigh the pros and cons as to make a good point and move on. But to just set an arbitrary time limit for entire meeting seems difficult at best.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI I will be voting against the amendment not because I'm convinced that the proposed mechanism to limit debate would work but because I think it is worth a try. I'm comfortable with the escape clause that allows us to extend discussion if we realize that hey we on something where we really need to talk about it more, there's a lot of weighty items on the agenda, we have ways for doing that in the proposed rules, and I'd like to give it a try.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you Mr. Mayor. I will be supporting the deletion of the section. I think that arbitrary time limits are just that – arbitrary. Have been to or a part of many many meetings, I always look to the chair of the meeting, that's you, Mr. Mayor. To run an efficient timely meeting and to move our discussions along. I think we are all cognizant of our time and the time of others but we were elected. I know I was elected to voice issues on behalf of constituents, and to stifle that as a representative of constituents I think is not democratic. And so we can certainly, you know we already have the time limits for how long we can talk per the two times that we have, so I don't know where the 25 minutes comes in when you add it all up. We want to be focused on what we're saying. I know that in the past there been some councilmembers who actually timed others who were speaking - and interrupted to say it's time to shut it off. Is that what we want staff to be doing to us? I don't think so. But that's what I look to the chair to do to run an efficient meeting. If we're exceeding our time the chair will hold us accountable and can cut us off. So I would appreciate, you are learning, I know it is only your second meeting but you've been to many many meetings and I think Mr. Mayor will know just what he needs to do to run a very efficient meeting and I have all the trust and confidence that he will do so. And we don't need words on a paper to run an efficient meeting as mayor Taylor wil be doing.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I'm going to be voting against the amendment. I think the proposed rule is a good one. I think if everyone availed themselves of their full 25 minutes, we'd be here til midnight. Til midnight is long enough for a respectful, a meeting that respects our time and that respects the public time and has enough opportunity for conversation to get the people's work done. I also think this does not cut anyone out of debate. There is always the failsafe of the one minute per question before us that each councilmember would have the right to avail themselves of. I think that this, you know meetings of length, as has been stated, make public participation difficult. I also think they you know do us collectively a discredit when we are not, when we go much further than we really need on an issue before us. I think this would be an mechanism that staff could easily take care of. They could do so in a non-judgmental manner, they would communicate that to me and they could communicate that to councilmember,say hey you're getting close. That could easily be done. I don't think there are practical considerations to this that are insurmountable.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY For me the numbers just don't add up to 25 minutes. Because don't we have five minutes for speaking turn and three minutes for a second speaking turn per issue. So if we have this 25-minute rule, 5+3 8. 8×4 24 so if you do take up the full five minutes and three minutes, then what about issue 5 6 and 7 are we not allowed to speak?

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR The proposed rule would give you the opportunity speak, you would have one minute per question.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY One minute per question. I thought this was a deliberative body, and we are supposed to – and you said if all of us took our 25 minutes we would go on forever? I don't think that most of us take 25 minutes. I don't think most of us take most of our speaking time anyway. So I really think that this is a kind of an arbitrary number that we have put on ourselves, and I don't think it's a good idea for a deliberative body.

>>JULIE GRAND I appreciate the spirit of this rule and I would like to give it a try. I think like in life not a lot of good happens after two in the morning. In the interest of the democratic process and in the interest of public participation, but also in the interest of us as a body serving the people that we are represent by making thoughtful decisions, I am not sure that if our meetings start as seven and we have been in a meeting for seven hours that were always making decisions with the clarity that we should. I'm a little bit of a night owl, but I know that not everyone is. I don't think in my life I've always made the best decisions at two or three in the morning. And if we look at our agenda even for this evening we have some important decisions to make at the end of our meeting, we often do, and I think we should make them with clear minds.

>>GRAYDON KRAPOHL I think the intent of the rule is good, and I agree also that I think that it would be important at least give it a try, because we can make changes throughout the year. I think an important point is, what it will make people do at meetings it'll make people be concise to understand, to think about what you're going to say, be concise and I think that's important for the process. Because, I agree, I think once meetings start going to 12 or 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, you lose the democratic process, because people aren't here and are not listening. And I think it's important as a body that we think about what we're gonna say and what we're gonna do and that we're concise in how we do it and how we ask questions. If you're talking for more than a minute asking a question, you're not asking a question, you're making a statement and there's a difference.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of the amendment, I think we're ...

>>KIRK WESTPHAL I know this is a little off topic of the amendment, but it might help if there could be some kind of reflective process or evaluation that's built-in at a later time, would make more comfortable that the rules committee could take up.    

>>JACK EATON If our real concern is how long the meeting goes at night, we could place a limit on the meeting. If we get to 11PM, we adjourn until the next Monday and resume our meeting the next Monday. But if we are simply trying to cut off speaking opportunities I think it doesn't serve our constituents well.

>>JANE LUMM That's an excellent point councilmember Eaton, that's certainly something we should consider, if the concern is that the meetings go too late, we could establish a time when we end the meeting before midnight and then resume the following day, the next week, that's certainly something I think we should consider. I don't think this is, this is, I'm looking past that, because I think to address the concerns have been raised about councilmembers abusing their speaking times, I've not seen that. I think people hold themselves to the five or three minutes and that's it. Important opportunities to ask questions of staff at these meetings, not everyone submits their questions in advance, so it's important to allow people the time during the meeting to do that. This 25 minutes is cumulative for the meeting. And after that you get one minute. And any given agenda can have a multitude of really important issues on that agenda that you know if you have used your five and three on three issues, you're basically silenced on any other important issues and that's just not good. That's not I don't think good democracy and good democratic process. It does in the end limit public debate. It prevents councilmembers from hearing from other councilmembers, who all benefit from hearing other people's opinions. And this would basically stifle that potentially and so that's something I think we should all need to consider, the impact and the fallout that would have on our deliberations and on our viewing you know issues from a myriad of perspectives. If you've now essentially silenced a colleague, and that's what this can do. So I would like us all to consider that.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to a follow-up on what councilmember Lumm was saying. For every action there is a reaction. So if this time constraint stays within, what will happen towards the end of the meeting if I've already used all of my 25 minutes, every resolution or whatever that comes up where I want to speak I'll have to ask for a motion to suspend the rules. And you'll have to vote to say no that you don't want me to speak and then that's what's going to start generating out here. Cause I will put it out every item, even if I don't have something to say because it will be you voting to say no, Kunselman, you can't speak. And you know how I like to speak. And if you want to vote to stifle me then that's what you're going to be voting here, ok, so this time constraint...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ...the rule as proposed would provide you a minute, so you would not be shut out of any debate ...

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN ... I will still be moving to suspend the rules. We'll have a lot of those votes. If we don't have a time constraint the burden is on the chair to run an efficient meeting.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Well, then, let's vote.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, no
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, no
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal,no
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, no
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, no

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>JACK EATON I'm offering another amendment to rule 10. I sent it to the clerk. This is, I think it's the sixth bullet point. It includes the word "twitter." And I would offer the amendment that directly prohibits the use of social media during council meetings for the same reasons that we prohibit email exchanges between councilmembers and the public during meetings. Jackie did you get that?

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI I was one who proposed the change in the amendment to the rules to allow for public communication. I was not present for the existing rule barring any contact with constituents during the meeting, so I can't speak to its reasons. We do have reasons that I can see for restrictions on electronic communications during a meeting is to prohibit closed-door dealing or negotiation or things of that nature. I see that as different than an open publicly accessible sharing of information. The reason I brought this forward is because I've seen regularly people say wait a second what was that amendment. We say say things, you know, your amendment, Mr. Eaton. We can all see. The members of the audience cannot, the people who are watching on CTN cannot see what you just sent us. You're creating an outsider group that is not able to follow our deliberations. My intent for allowing opening that door was to improve transparency and improve access to our deliberations to the public at large. Sometimes by sharing the text of an amendment, sometimes by sharing a report that was received only by paper and has not been put up on Legistar, or sometimes I seen people ask simple fact-based questions about our deliberations. We throw around acronyms round the table often. LAC. What is LAC? If somebody asks that question, I don't see harm in answering that question. Now, if a councilmember uses that improperly uses that those channels of publicly accessible communication, I think the response to that is available in the ballot box. It's public communication, it's public record and it's publicly available, so the public will know about it, and the public can hold the councilmember accountable for those actions.   

>>SABRA BRIERE What I'm about to say won't come as a surprise to councilmember Warpehoski because we through the discussions in the rules committee, but I'll be a little stronger than I was there, because when we were working on the rules committee the goal was to put those rules out as proposed changes for the council to deliberate not for us to shoot each other's ideas. One of the abiding concerns about councilmembers sending email is reflected in this particular change, and that abiding concern is that an effort to be transparent and communicate with a constituent or constituent groups that a councilmember is no longer paying attention to the meeting, is no longer listening to members of council, is no longer is no longer listening to members of the public were in the room addressing them. Now I would never suggest that any councilmember here is not capable of multitasking but there could be a future councilmember who would prove to be less capable of multitasking or less capable of listing to the public or hear what other councilmembers were saying. Because none of us know how well someone else is able to handle these things, it becomes difficult if someone becomes enmeshed in communication outside this room to determine how well they are paying attention to the communication going on inside this room as we make decisions. I will say candidly I once sent a Twitter post during a council meeting. I don't apologize for it. I was asking a simple question and I knew that people were following Twitter at the time. It was a one and only time I did it, and I didn't get a response, so it didn't help me at all to ask the question. But I will also say that my ability to pay attention to what might be coming up on Twitter and the tweets that come my way could completely distract me from my ability to pay attention to all of you. Now that's a reflection on my skill set not on yours. But I would prefer that we understood that the purpose behind this rule is so that we remain focused on the business at hand.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY Another issue is if we can make an exemption for Twitter and tweeting, how about emails, I mean how about a neighborhood alliance network has a question. Should I be responding to them? I mean that is a bunch of people. Or how about somebody who doesn't twee or email, he wants to call me. I don't know how we can just make an exemption on this. Councilmember Warpehoski made a valid point that we might be having an amendments and we know what were talking about but people at home watching or people over there might not know, then we need to find a solution to that. So is it online updated, I'm not sure. But an individual councilmember taking it on to inform the public during public deliberation, I'm not sure that's the way we need to be taking on this issue.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN I agree with councilmember Briere in councilmember Kailasapathy. The idea of us engaging in social media during a meeting is just rude. The idea that we can send amendments that are much longer than an 140 characters via Twitter doesn't make sense. And if we have a problem with informing the public of the amendments we have before us, that should be the clerk's office responsibility. Anything that's coming from us that's an amendment, that goes to the clerk's office, to the clerk during the meeting. However they clerk distribute it, I have no problem. So if the clerk wants to twitter during the meeting, that's is fine with me, if you se wants to send that information out. Because at least we will be focused on the meeting. My concern is that language that's here, says "members may send publicly accessible electronic communications" doesn't define what that is. So the last thing we want to do is start somebody saying, hey did you see what that councilmember said about you in that tweet during the meeting? That's not ok. So just  I think we're trying to bite off something here that really opens up a Pandora's box to take us back to a time when we had problems we had communications outside the meeting so it's really a necessary and I don't think we should be using social media during meetings.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR For my part I understand the objections; I don't share them. I think tweeting is a publicly-accessible act and that's really what's key here. It's communicating with the public at large. Communicating with a restrictive organization like the neighborhood alliance is not open to the public as so that is the key distinction that I make. Something that is tweeted is open to everyone, it's open to everyone, people who live in Ann Arbor and live throughout the world. So that's where I view the difference and that's why I am not in favor of the amendment as proposed.

>>JACK EATON So I received an email Sunday evening from counsel, privileged and confidential so I'm not going to get too deeply into it, but it raised a number of open meeting act concerns regarding social media – Facebook, Twitter and especially participation in those forms of communication during a council meeting. If you didn't read that, I would encourage you to do that because I don't think that we should be engaging in, that kind of communication. If enough of us participated on twitter using same hashtag, it would be a deliberation or it would conceivably be a deliberation under the open meetings act, that is not open to the full public. Twitter and Facebook are only available to people who have a computer and have the appropriate social media account and log on during the meeting use the correct hashtag or whatever you get to those discussions. First it excludes a large portion of the population and second it complicates our discussions, if enough of us participate in social media at the same time during a meeting. I think we really want to be careful to avoid those complications.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Perhaps I can observe, using councilmember Kunselman's encouragement, that the arguments have been fully and nicely articulated, and we'll move to a rollcall vote. Rollcall vote starting with councilmember Eaton. On the amendment, thank you councilmember Anglin.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, no
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, no
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, no
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, no
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>JANE LUMM Thank you. I actually have a question about Rule 5c on page 8. This rule covers the categories of the meeting agenda and there's a new clause called communications and petitions that speaks to a new city clerk report and council process surrounding clerk's report. I wasn't clear what that was, so I'm wondering if someone from the clerk or the rules committee could elaborate on that and how much work is required to prepare the new report.

>>SABRA BRIERE Actually is not a new report. All I did was move this from one part of the rules to another. This language was exactly what was already in our rules. I'm sorry that somehow when wee look at this the wonderful colors that show up on my computer the blue, the red, the green to indicate what's new and what's moved, what's replaced, all come out red.

>>JANE LUMM Thank you councilmember Briere. It was ... to distinguish the new from what had been there.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of the council rules without regard to the ethics rules.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Thank you Mr. Mayor looking at the specific rule, but since the 25-minute time clock rule failed, I'd like to move that we amend the rules regarding councilmember speaking times from five and three to three and three. This accomplishes two things. First of all, it puts us on the same level as the public in terms of our ability to comment on issues. Second of all, in my experience, as somebody who has occasionally timed myself and others, we say what we need to say in the first three minutes and after that we are just filling space. So I move that we change council speaking times to three and three.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN I'll support it.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion? Rollcall vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, no
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, no
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, no
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, no
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of the rules as amended? Rollcall vote with respect to the rules as amended, excepting the ethics rules, which we'll deal with following.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Moving forward with respect to the council ethics rules. Discussion. Let me suggest that we move through them in order if we can.

>>SABRA BRIERE I would like to recommend that we separate this into two groups. Sorry. So I am moving that we separate this into conflict of interest as one area of discussion, and the second area of discussion would be improper use of position. I personally posit that conflict of interest become ethics and the improper use of position is kind of iffy as whether that's ethics.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR What is the result of this?

>>SABRA BRIERE When we get to improper use of position I intend to send that, to move to send that back to the rules committee. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Noted. Any discussion of separating, effecting a further separation. All in favor. All opposed. It is further separated. We are windowing this down. Discussion of the rules with respect to conflict of interest. All in favor of rules one through four. All in favor of rules one through four. All opposed. Rules one through four are adopted. Rules five through X.

>>SABRA BRIERE I would like to move that the improper use of position segment of the rules be returned to the rules committee. I have two concerns. One is improper use of official position is not an ethical concern. It's, and some of these actual rules are already practiced, they are already covered in the manual that new councilmembers receive. I'm not I'm not certain we need to consider them as a part of ethics. But the other thing is that because these are particularly potentially thorny personnel issues, I think we need a more elaborate discussion on how we would implement and monitor these rules. It's perfectly fine for us to talk about conflicts of interest. That's a pretty straight forward issue, and most of us understand it. But when we start talking about the circumstances under which a councilmember accepts a gift and how we find out about it and what we do if they have improperly accepted a gift or when we begin to talk about whether a councilmember has disclosed confidential information prematurely, implicitly we're also talking about: And what will we do then? And we had not talked about and what we do then. And we should have that discussion before the council approves or rejects these rules.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI I will support the postponement because I agree that these could use some more work. My request to the rule committee though is not, if the rules committee determines that something along these rules are appropriate but that the enforcement isn't figured out, I would rather us move forward and have something on paper that we adopt and say yes to as a body, and figure out how we will hold ourselves to it down the line, than say we're not going to make that agreement because we don't know how this can be administered and enforced. Not a perfect analogy, but I set rules for my kids all the time without knowing what I'm going to do if they break them. And sometimes it's a negotiation what happens when they break them. So I think if we agree that something like these are rules we want to hold ourselves to, then let's move forward with that, then I'm fine working out the rest when and if it becomes necessary. A second point is I agree with councilmember Briere that much of this is already included in the councilmember handbook. But the council handbook isn't something that we adopted and set and affirmed for ourselves and set as rules for ourselves. So I think there's a difference between saying oh yeah the city administrator told us how he would like us to behave, versus council as a body saying these are the rules we hold ourselves to. I think that's particularly important in terms of figuring out the, you know, how we work with staff. What is currently ethics rule 12 abuse of official position and encroachment on administrative responsibility. This is a tricky one. This is one that I certainly think could use more hammering out by the rules committee. Maybe I'm glad I'm not on it for that reason anymore. But I have heard concerns raised on the one hand of councilmembers either giving improper direction to staff or giving improper giving what I'm sure councilmembers consider to be giving corrective feedback to the staff rather than working through the lines of the chain of command. I hear that on the one hand and I hear on the other hand that if everything has to go through administration and the area administrators, then that might be an undue clogging up the works. I hear both of those concerns, but I heard enough concerns about councilmembers, and I don't have any specifics, I've just heard the rumblings in the halls, but I think it's important that something like this where we set where we as a body affirm what our relationship with staff below the administrative level is something any think we need to work out as a body.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion on postponement?

>>JACK EATON Point of order. I think we're referring it back to the committee. And we're instructing the committee to engage in further work on these particular rules.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Thank you. Councilmember Krapohl.

>>GRAYDON KRAPOHL I was just going to say I agree. I think the rules are important to adopt, especially 6 through 12. I think it sets a standard because I agree that although we have the handbook, we did not vote on this, it's not our handbook. I think they set a tone that only for the council but for the public and their expectations of us. I think number 12 is important because I think our role is as a policy making body not as an day-to-day operations body and I think we have to work through the administrators to do that, and not work directly with staff. Because I think puts them in a very difficult position. But I think they could use a little more work, but I think these are important to accept, only for us but for the public.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Not having worked on this previously, you'll have to excuse my lack of familiarity. Is the amount of direction that we've given to the rules committee adequate to get what we want back? Or could we could we be more specific perhaps to what we're looking for? 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I see it as largely engaging enforcement and post-allegation process. 

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Do we think that's a doable task? 

>>JACK EATON I think that's an important aspect of it, but it's going back for other reasons as well. There's a rule here that says we can't give direction to staff. Which means you walk into this room before a meeting and your computer is not working, you can't ask the IT guy to fix it. Without going to department head. It means that you can't send something to Sara, you have to send it to Steve. I think that both the city attorney and the city administrator made clear that the restrictions don't really reflect their wishes, you know, certainly there are abuses. And we need to address that. But it's not just implementation and enforcement. It really is getting down into how these rules are going to work in the real world. And the second point is what councilmember Briere pointed out is that these aren't really ethical rule, these are rules of conduct. There's no morality in this if I talked to a staff member. And so it shouldn't come within same scope of consequence or penalty if we ever get to a point where we describe what the consequent of an ethical violation is. So I understand what councilmember Westphal is saying, but I think the rules committee is actually going to do more than that.

>>JANE LUMM I think just in terms of the enforcement aspect of this, I think so much of this is going to at the end of the day self-enforcement really. I mean we're talking about whether it falls in the ethics category or not you know I think this is just you know the guidelines for proper conduct. And I will also say that I'm comfortable all the rules, and I have never experienced a situation where a colleague has violated any of these. I think everyone here you know is ethical. And will conduct themselves appropriately and properly and this really just commits to writing what everyone here is already doing and I have complete confidence will continue to do. Because that's your nature, that's your makeup, we take this rule very seriously. I would just like to thank the rules committee, I know you've put a lot of good effort into this and I trust that whatever other tweaking you do to this you know to further refine and improve it will be equally high quality. So thanks.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Rollcall vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, no
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR It is referred. Appointment of the city council committees.

>>JACK EATON I would like to move to amend the appointments and include councilmember Kailasapathy on the budget and labor committee in lieu of the junior member of council, Julie Grand. It's nothing personal, I just believe that councilmember Kailasapathy has unique skills that would be of particular value on the budget committee.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Ah, I have to, without any disrespect of course to councilmember Kailasapathy the rationale wherein I was putting these committees together was in part to achieve a balance. That balance I think was successfully reflected in the committee assignments that have been suggested. It is to give both old members and new members an opportunity to participate in some of the important council committees, as well as take advantage of their skills and perspectives. That was the rationale for putting together the broad set of committees as they have been offered. And for my part I think the group balance achieves that goal.

>>JANE LUMM I am certainly grateful to be on this committee, and again with all due respect to councilmember Grand, I do I do think that councilmember Kailasapathy obviously with her finance background and professional academic background, she would bring a lot of value add to this committee, again, and not to suggest that councilmember Grand would not. I know she has expressed interest in this and she is the more senior member and I think it would be a nice gesture to defer to her interest and acknowledge it. And also respecting what you're saying about the balance. And so I know you put a lot of thought into all these assignments and you have that authority, of course, so some just offering my perspective, if you will

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you. Boy this is really tough. And I'm not sure how I can go on this right now. One is that we have combined the budget and labor committee so obviously that five seats of council that are on a major committee of sorts. I having once been on the labor committee. But I see the rationale of having a junior member on with all of these seasoned veterans to help bring some balance and freshness to the committee. But on the other hand it would be nice to have seasoned veterans on this combined budget and labor committee. My comment to the proposer on this, maybe you should just give up your seat if you think that councilmember Kailasapathy is a better fit. I said that I didn't want to be on it because I think there are others that bring a different perspective than I and having already served on the labor committee, I think its is important to have freshness. But at this point, boy, I'm gonna have to wait and see what others say.

>>MIKE ANGLIN I would just mention that the selection process for committees I think was very well done. We were all asked what we wanted to work on. And I think someone who wants to serve on it should be able to serve on it if they are very qualified. We all know our skills and interest levels. As for the fact this was a new member, that wouldn't faze me at all, I wouldn't have a preference either way. But if someone is passionate about being able to serve on a committee, that committee should open to them for particular reasons. I think they would do a good job, because of the passion they have for the issues.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR The question's been asked: Would you be willing to give up your seat in exchange for councilmember Kailasapathy? 

>>JACK EATON Actually, when this fails, being the second junior member on this, I was going to offer a second amendment where I would offer my seat so she could serve. I was going in order of reverse seniority here. If this doesn't fly, I would withdraw myself and allow her to do that. But I would like a vote on this. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Understood. Further discussion.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Culturally obviously I'm very new to this, the procedure established for how this goes. I didn't know if there's any inclination to look at succession planning, you know I don't know if that's what's meant by balance. But I also see the merit and having junior and senior mix on some things. So thanks.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion. Rollcall vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, no
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, no
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, no
councilmember Westphal, no
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, no
councilmember Kunselman, no
councilmember Krapohl, no

>>CLERK Motion fails.

>>JACK EATON I would move to amend the appointments to replace myself on budget and labor with councilmember Kailasapathy.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR All in favor. All opposed. Care for a rollcall vote? Roll call vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, no
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>SABRA BRIERE I wanted to thank councilmembers Eaton and Kailasapathy for the gracious way they just handled a very difficult situation. When 10 seats become five and there are a variety of people who are sitting in each of those 10 seats there is no way to give everybody a seat on a five-person committee, as someone in in this case two someones didn't have a seat on that five-member committee when the two are combined. I appreciate mayor Taylor's concept of giving opportunity to councilmembers to sit on some of these committees that, in my experience as a councilmember, tended to be something you got after your first year or after your first term more often than in your first term. It will help with the integration of council with three new members. It will help new members learn more from the senior members by serving together and working through problems at the committee level. I do not serve on budget and labor. I'm looking forward on serving with both councilmember Eaton and councilmember Kailasapathy though on rules. Which will be a good and vigorous discussion next year.

>>JANE LUMM I'd just like to thank you both mayor Taylor and mayor pro tem Briere for how you adroitly assessed everyone's interest, reached out to everyone, met with folks, met with all of us to find out how we would like to serve, so I certainly appreciate your good leadership on this, and I'd also like to acknowledge the graciousness with which councilmembers Eaton and Kailasapathy just dealt with this slight change to this one committee, an important committee, and again I think if we, I also appreciate what you're striving to achieve, which is balance in all of these committees which is important. I know you analyzed this in various ways and it shows, so thank you. And I'd also just like to, as a member of the board of insurance, the only councilmember on that, whereas the ordinance calls for two councilmembers, and we now have two. So I'd like to thank my second ward colleague for stepping up and serving alongside me and the city treasurer of course is the other voting member. This is important, because there are occasions where there are ties, not too many, we have worked those out. So it's nice, it's been a decade or so, at least a decade I believe, since we have had two councilmember serving on this committee officially. So thank you for making that correction, it is an important one. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion. Before we close I should say too that we are still looking for someone to volunteer for energy commission. I will be sitting on the energy commission. Two councilmembers are called for. We need another one so. Come one come all. Actually not all, just one of you. Further discussion. All in favor. All opposed. It is approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Resolution to establish 2015 council calendar. Discussion of the council calendar? All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Resolution establishing the order of succession for acting mayor.

Discussion? All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-5 Resolution to Recommend Approval of Issuance of a Downtown Development District Liquor License to Resco K, LLC dba Miya Sushi.com 

>>JANE LUMM Thank you mayor Taylor. This is a recommendation from the liquor license review committee to approve recommending to the Michigan Liquor License Control Commission that Resco K, LLC should be issued a downtown development liquor license for 714 N. Unit No. 2. Although Resco K, LLC holds the license the business name is Miya Sushi.com As you know these downtown development district licenses are granted under the state's Act 501 established in 2006 to stimulate economic development. The proposal here for 714 N. University meets all the criteria of the act, including having invested at $75,000 in the premises. Ultimately, the MLCC must approve this application, and the license review committee is recommending that the council approve this resolution tonight, which recommends that the MLCC that they do, indeed approve it. Thank you. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of DC-6. All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-6 Resolution Directing the City Administrator to Revise FOIA administrative policy.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY [inaudible no mic]

>>JACK EATON This resolution is meant to restart a process that was kind of bogged down because of the legislature was considering a variety of different amendments to the act. In keeping with the Republican legislature they didn't really accomplish anything on those points, so I think it's time for us to revisit our FOIA policy. The Michigan Freedom of Information Act creates a strong presumption in favor of disclosure of public records. The presumption is demonstrated in the act by its provision of penalties if you fail to disclose records, but a lack of any consequence or penalty for disclosing a record that could be withheld. Section 13 of the FOIA allows a variety of narrowly interpreted exceptions, but they are permissive. The FOIA does not require withholding any record. Other laws do. The Social Security Act requires us to withhold social security numbers. A variety of common law concepts like attorney-client privilege and the right of privacy require withholding. But the FOIA itself makes no mandate to withhold public records. So all of us in running for office have made some mention of our support for open and transparent government. Fundamentally, FOIA is the cornerstone of that openness and transparency. And so we just want to re-visit our policy and emphasize the point that we are trying to make public records more available and put fewer restrictions on it. We note that the staff of the former Ann Arbor Chronicle has commented at length on our previous proposed FOIA policy, and we're asking the administrator to take those comments and suggestions into consideration as he renews his effort to review our FOIA policy and so I hope you will support this. That's all I have to say.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Thank you councilmembers Eaton, Kailasapathy and Briere, you're both still over there, I'm looking at the wrong screen on my computer. This is something I had spoken with councilmember Briere eight months or so about but had not moved on, so I'm glad you took the initiative to move on it. That said, I do have one small concern with the resolution as presented. The Freedom of Information Act states that "fees shall be uniform and not dependent on the identity of the requesting person." And I'm concerned that this plus the instruction to the city administrator to give a blanket waiver of fees to media outlets may put the proposed changes in conflict. And beyond that I'd like a little more chance for the city administrator and his staff to be able the flesh out some of the questions around the apartment of a FOIA officer and a appeals process. Therefore, I have a proposed amendment. I sent it to the clerk and the clerk is sending it around. So the proposed, the resolved clause that includes the four goals of the review that councilmember Kailasapathy stated, if amended, if this amendment passes would read "Resolved, that the Ann Arbor city council desires that the ensuing revisions to be undertaken add 'increase openness and transparency and shall include an exploration of: ' so bringing that first goal into the instructions directly, strike 'increase openness and transparency' in the bullet list, and then include "waiver of fees for media outlets, appointment of FOIA officer," and establishment of a process whereby denial of a FOIA request my be appealed to council. So we're keeping the goals, but we're giving the administrator a little more flexibility in dealing with legal, potential legal and potential policy issues around them. 

>>JACK EATON I would accept that as a friendly amendment. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Based on our recently passed rules: Is that friendly to the body? It's friendly to the body.

>>GRAYDON KRAPOHL I have a few concerns as with the as it's written. First I don't thing the definition of media, what defines media? Is it someone with a blog site? Is it somebody who does a neighborhood newspaper? And how is a determination made to waive fees, then? I think that anybody who comes can say, well I have a blog site and I have 100 people, I'm a part of the media. I think that needs to be clearly defined what is media what isn't, and what is our cutline there. I don't think the uniform waiving of fees for media is good. ... some explanation of other FOIAs, whether its state, local governments and most seem to fall in line with what we do. There is a certain cutline where fees aren't charged but at a certain point they are, whether it's by pages produced or time spent and that is to prevent abuse of the FOIA system by doing blanket requests for as much information as you can get so you can clear out a filing cabinet and have it printed and sent out. I'm not sure what a council FOIA officer is going to do. I think my initial impression that creates another level of bureaucracy and redundancy that already exists within the city. And I'm not sure if the council having their own FOIA officer is something where we can meet the timelines required by FOIA to respond to requests to meet our obligation there. And I'm not certain again that it is anything other than creating another layer of bureaucracy that does not need to be there. So those are my main concerns right now.

>>SABRA BRIERE Councilmember Krapohl brings up some really important issues, and the amendment that was just accepted as friendly actually addresses those issues by suggesting that the revisions to the FOIA policy include an exploration of these things rather than that they include these things. That exploration allows not just the leeway but the ability for us as a council at a later point to understand the pros and cons. And so with councilmember Warpehoski's suggested language and councilmember Eaton and Kailasapathy's acceptance of it as friendly, I think that reduces, I think it ought to reduce the concern that you just expressed. We're not eliminating it because of course it's a valid concern. I don't think I want to define media these days and I certainly don't know what appointing a FOIA officer for the city and for the council means. I do want to ask that we make a tiny little administrative change in the language that councilmember Warpehoski offered because I believe he missed a word – "that the Ann Arbor city council desires that the ensuing revisions to be undertaken increase openness and shall include," I'm having trouble with the parallel construction. The ensuing revisions ... yeah, please. 

>>JACK EATON Would be better if it said "increase openness and transparency by including by including an exploration of ..." ? 

>>SABRA BRIERE That would probably do for me. 

>>JACK EATON Would that work for you? 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Is it friendly to the body? It is friendly. 

>>JULIE GRAND I just want to point out that I share the concerns expressed by councilmember Krapohl, in particular the waiver of fees and the council appeal process. I'm fine for staff with councilmember Warpehoski's amendment to take a look at this. But I have serious reservations that we may be gifting ourselves a giant can of unintended consequences if we were to move forward either of those.

>>JANE LUMM I also a share concerns articulated by councilmember Krapohl, but I appreciate how this is proposed to be amended by councilmember Warpehoski. As councilmember Briere pointed out we're asking for an exploration of these things were not saying bring this back to do these things. I'm okay with it. Because were going to ask the, we're directing the administrator to take a look. To your concerns again they are concerns I share in terms of waiving all the FOIA fees for the media, as has been noted to us the city already waives fees in many instances, I also think a blanket waiver could be problematic. I think fees limit the scope of requests and that is a good thing because it forces requestors to be specific, otherwise you would get these broad requests that would take hours and hours and hours of staff time, and again as noted by councilmember Krapohl the definition of media is not clear and it does need to be clarified. And as staff has advised to get council to work with them to clarify these things, I think that is a good thing. As far as the FOIA coordinator for council I'm also not sure this makes sense or is necessary. I think the current practice of the police chief for police matters or the city clerk for other seems to work. Having another would just complicate and confuse things. Just in terms of FOIA appeals made to council I don't know why we would want to get into that business honestly. As councilmember Krapohl noted, this certainly could lead to there are often tight timing requirements for these things and council may not be in to meet which this would potentially require, and I don't think we're experts on those topics but in general the intent to improve openness and transparency are all things that I think we all support. I also think that doing this now, bringing this forward makes sense, because we're going to be revisiting this policy in all likelihood anyway, because the legislature is close to making changes on the state FOIA legislation and it does build on the work already being done by staff. And take you for bringing this forward and talking through this amendment.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN I share all the concerns that were raised. FOIA harassment is a very real issue for local governments. As is FOIA fishing. But so when I was looking at this my concerns were certainly raised and I'm glad to hear that others at this table also have the same concerns. So with the new language that has been accepted, I can move forward with that. But for staff to know I will not be supporting a waiver of fees for media outlets because we cannot define it. I will not be supporting denials of FOIA requests coming to council. And the idea of having a FOIA officer other than what we have well we can talk about that but there are two things right there that I will support out right. I will not support waiving of the fees and I will not support FOIA appeals coming to council. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion? All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-7 Resolution to appoint councilmember Briere to the planning commission. Discussion. All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-8 Resolution to appoint councilmember Krapohl to the local development finance authority. Discussion.All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-9 Resolution to appoint Julie Grand to the Greenbelt Advisory Commission. Discussion. All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-10 Resolution to appoint councilmembers Mike Anglin and Sabra Briere to the environmental commission. Discussion. All in favor. All opposed. It is approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DB-1 Resolution to approve the Woodbury club Apartments annexation.

>>SABRA BRIERE Earlier this evening we heard a member of the public address us suggesting that annexation should wait until we had established the infrastructure for pedestrians in this area. And while I want to appreciate the concept, because this is in the township rather than in the city we can't build sidewalks or cause sidewalks to be built on this property. The rationale for annexation in my mind includes the fact that for us to begin to address the intersection of Nixon Dhu Varren and Green, which is very complex intersection, we not only need to have annexed the properties on Nixon, we may need to talk about how the proposed developments help to defray the costs of fixing that intersection. I know that the developers of the properties on both sides of Nixon, were they to be approved by his council, would be required to build sidewalks. And that would be an expense the city would not have to participate in. I wanted to just say that upfront about this. Annexation is an interesting challenge for us to talk about. I appreciate the concept of small farm-lettes in the city but note that we already have them. It's called Project Grow. And while this council no longer provides financial support for Project Grow we certainly provide parkland for Project Grow. We provide materials for Project Grow. We plow for Project Grow. And many of the people to use their small Project Grow plots indeed sell at the farmers market. So we are supporting sustainable local agriculture within the city. 

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY I was present at the planning commission meeting when Woodbury Club apartment annexation was brought to the planning commission, and I just want to make sure that I raise the issues that were brought up at that meeting by the residents and neighbors as well as what we have been hearing the past couple of months from them. The traffic issue actually goes beyond fixing or aligning the Dhu Varren Green intersection with Nixon. It is also regarding traffic flow meaning is a two-lane what you have on Nixon is two-lane but you put in, okay let me back up. The traffic study that was done, and this was raised at the planning commission, looked at traffic flow in isolation. It did not take into consideration the impact of other developments that are proposed on Nixon. Two other developments by Toll Brothers, which in round numbers would add another 500 units. So this is about 280 units, I believe, and another 500. So that the problem when you're looking at this development in isolation when there is going to be maybe doubling or even tripling of the population in that Northeast Area. So yes we need to fix that. So now we need development in order to fix that, so and then we have additional traffic for all these units. The planning commission was kind of making an argument which basically said if you had density people are going to use public transit, so it wasn't going to be an issue. I'm not sure it's such a direct correlation, I mean, so I just want to make sure that people are cognizant of the fact that this goes beyond fixing the alignment and fixing the intersection. And another valid issue raised by many neighbors is according to the current plan city staff are speaking with the developers to acquire almost half of the 54 acres, I think 26 acres is being negotiated to be acquired with the greenbelt millage. Why not acquire the whole thing? I mean, that's a valid question too. Many residents feel that our greenbelt millage dollars are working for other cities and towns to preserve their farmland. It's kind of ironic that we go and destroy our own farmland. So that's another question. And also natural features removal of 193 of trees including 12 landmark trees. So this is not a critique of this project alone. I'm looking at the big picture of the Northeast. And annex- my concern is once we annex this are we going to be put in a position where we are pressured to say okay the Northeast plan says this has to be zoned R4A. So I don't want to go on that path and I plan to vote against this.

>>JANE LUMM This potential Woodbury Club project as well as the potential Nixon Farm projects are both very large developments that have generated a significant amount of public conversation and concern in the Second Ward much like the First Ward. Tonight of course we are not approving zoning and the site plan of the Woodbury Apartments project, just the annexation to the city from Ann Arbor Township which is the first step in any development. However, recognizing that there will be a good deal of discussion and debate down the road on the project site plan and density, I did ask staff to confirm that approving annexation at this point does not create any implied commitment that the site plan and zoning would be approved, and it does not. I do think that annexation is appropriate. It is in the city's water and sewer service area. That's not the issue. The primary concern as councilmember Kailasapathy has noted, one of the main concerns expressed by neighbors is the impact on traffic in the area in an already congested area. Neighbors I do think recognize that development will likely occur here, at least that's what I'm hearing from many folks and at the proposed Nixon Farms property, and I think that while most are not opposed to development, everyone is concerned, I think it is safe to say, about the adverse impacts on what is already what is recognized as problematic traffic situation particularly at the Nixon Green DhuVarren intersection. I also agree with what councilmember Kailasapathy said about this, we are hearing from many folks who are telling us, and anybody who drives out there particularly at any of the peak times you experience it firsthand. It is difficult to access and egress off of Nixon Road. It's not just the intersection where there's a problem, it's that entire stretch of road that is really problematic and I'm glad again that on December 11 at Clague Middle School there'll be an opportunity to get community inputs about what we need to do to address these concerns. The traffic study done by Midwestern Consulting did conclude a couple of things. They acknowledged that this development would further congestion at Nixon Green Dhu Varren, they also concluded that an acceptable level of service could be achieved if the intersection were aligned. We know that this is just to approve the annexation and that discussions about zoning and site plan come later, but I also raise this traffic issue now because I think there's no question that an improvement plan for the intersection before moving on to any site plan is absolutely essential. Without it we shouldn't be heading down the paths we are for these developments. Staff agrees and has acknowledged that no new development can be approved before a plan is in place for these intersection improvements. And again I would just reiterate that on December 11 at 6PM at Clague Middle School there will be a meeting to present the recommended design for the intersection and to get feedback, so that would help and also guiding what happens in terms of you know further zoning and site plan recommendations. Thank you.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL Thank you in the interest of expediency. I will say I echo my councilmember colleagues' remarks regarding sort of the difference of the question between annexation and site plan zoning. I understand that we have an understanding with the townships that we will annex properties within the freeway ring. If I suppose we want to revisit that that should be done in a separate effort. I guess an analogy is when those are annexed – and this is my take on the subsequent discussions – is that whatever the master plan is in place should be the presumed guide, community guidance that we have. So I would concur that is reasonable to recommend annexation at this point.

>>SABRA BRIERE I want to address one other item which is the traffic study. It is hard for us as laypeople to really dig into traffic studies. It certainly has been problematic over the years. I've served on council trying to figure out how these traffic studies could possibly suggest there couldn't be a problem if they add more cars. What I learned about this particular traffic study is that traffic studies look at what that particular development will do to the traffic. And they use some interesting and complex calculation in order to achieve that look. They don't look at what subsequent development might do to the traffic. They don't, that's any subsequent development's responsibility. They are looking at if we had this what does it do. They're not looking at what if the next person adds more. Anymore than when the city works with the developer about the impact of a new development on wastewater system or potable water system, and does that new development require upsizing any of water mains. They don't look at 10 potential property developments down the road, they look at what this one do. The one that triggers the increase in size is the one that has to deal with it. So I suspect if the quality of traffic that comes out of the traffic study for the Nixon Farm properties as proposed significantly changes the volume, and I imagine it's going to, we're going to see some further discussion about this. But this particular one doesn't trigger anything but what has already been triggered and that is we have to fix Nixon Road.

>>JACK EATON I think we're going at this backwards. We know that there's going to be a series of efforts to annex property and develop neighborhoods in this area. Where we already have significant traffic problems. Before we annex and encourage these developers to move forward we should have a plan in place as to how we are going to handle all of this extra population and traffic. Annexing piecemeal only looks at each individual project and its impact. As policymakers we should be seeking an overall plan that takes into consideration not just these township properties that were going to annex into the city, but also developments that are planned to the north of the highway. This area is well beyond its traffic capacity now. That was not foreseen when the Northeast Area plan was designed, and so these properties are described for development that's well beyond what was imagined at the time. So I think that we need to look at the process in its pieces. Annexation gives us complete discretion in making a decision. Zoning we have a lot of discretion but not as much as annexation. And when we get to the site plan, we have even less discretion. I think we need to take a big deep breath at this point when we have full discretion as to whether or not to annex and to say wait, let's develop a total plan for how were going to absorb all this population, all the infrastructure needs for this area in its totality, not in pieces as it comes forward to us. So this evening I will be voting against the annexation because I want to see the plan that comes forward for the traffic problem that we already have and how we will handle the traffic that we anticipate with all of these projects.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Thank you. On the topic of annexation. Prior to my arrival on council my understanding was that council had given direction to staff to work on developing a plan for annexing township islands and other properties within our final status boundary that are not yet a part of the city. How does this annexation fit in with that council direction to staff?

>>STEVE POWERS I think it fits very closely to that direction. It is one of the largest township islands left in the city. I don't know if Mr. Bahl or Alexis has a little bit more detail on that.

>>ALEXIS DELIO Phase 1 of that annexation process was staff did the necessary work to annex the properties that were in the township but were receiving city services – city water and sewer. That was phase 1. Another city planner Jeff Kahn is working on phase 2. The Nixon properties all three were at the bottom of the list, because those being large undeveloped properties, it was assumed that a developer would come in and initiate an annexation, so they are not in the annexation program, because we knew that they would be, the city would not need to initiate an annexation of those, they would be developer or privately initiated. 

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI So if I'm understanding correctly the, including the properties that aren't annexed is consistent with the council direction, but as staff has taken on that council direction, you have said we don't need to prioritize this because it will happen on its own. 

>>ALEXIS DELIO Exactly.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI So if that is asked consistent with existing council policy, I also see this consistent with our climate action plan goals. Our climate action plan land use element calls for supporting regional approaches to land use planning, to reduce origin and destination distances, so we want people living closing living closer to where they're going to and try to get people to live within 2 miles of their job, it's within 2 miles of the North Campus Research complex. I see this as being in line with multiple already-adopted city council policies, so I will be supporting annexation.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN I have a question for staff real quick. From previous annexations, staff has mentioned that there is a time limit from the time that we annex to when it has to have a zoning classification. 

>>CITY STAFF Two years. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Oh, two years. Great. Thank you. That being the case I will certainly vote to annex because we have two years to plan ahead.

>>JANE LUMM I would just like to follow on to councilmember Warpehoski's question about what was envisioned as part of the plan. This is consistent with if I am rephrasing your question correctly, with the scope of the work in terms of the phased work to annex these parcels, these township islands. Back in 1993 the city of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor Township entered into what is called the City of Ann Arbor and Township of Ann Arbor Peace Treaty, because at that time, it was actually called a peace treaty, because prior to that the city and the township would battle these various parcel decisions, annexation decisions in the courts. What was happening basically was the water or septic would fail on a parcel, we would provide them the infrastructure, they would go back to the township board and they wouldn't be released and now you're in court. Finally in 1993 we sort of settled on what the boundaries of the city would be and it is basically the freeway ring. And the parcels, the islands were to be annexed by 2006 and obviously that hasn't happened so now we're taking this phase approach. Of course we're getting from staff reporting on that progress basically, next steps and so just adding a little history there.

>>MIKE ANGLIN This is the first time we have seen a proposal like this come forward to us where someone is talking about that the parcel is 54 acres and half of it is unusable as large wetlands and woodlands. Will we be inheriting a problem with flooding here, that is my major concern. Where someone is looking at actually building on only half of the site. I would like to have much more details if we are entering or beginning a discussion on the possibility of using some of our funds in this project, what sort of deals are we proposing to them. With that information I be more inclined towards – since they have already limited their development quotient of it – I would like to know what our part of this is in this, before we move forward, because we can get a good deal now because controlling it, we are holding the cards. When we approve this we are not holding the cards. And I would rather be in a position to protect our interests more thoroughly than I see them being protected right now. There are promises, suggestions, meetings none of which is clear at all to me in terms of clarity as to what were getting. 

>>STEVE POWERS There is a draft development agreement that is a part of your packet that specifies the current proposal to the developer. Be happy to talk more specifically about that if council would like. 

>>MIKE ANGLIN Sure. That would help.

>>SUMEDH BAHL So the question if I understand it correctly is what the negotiation is about the land, about which could be open land and all that. It is no different than what is for any other land we do. And it is based on the fair market value, that's what we do for all of those so that is the only negotiation we are having. There is no other deals or anything going on. 

>>MIKE ANGLIN My question would be then, does land automatically assume greater value because of the $25 million investment that they're willing to make there. Or are we going to be offered a really big price tag for the land they want to turn over to us? 

>>SUMEDH BAHL As I said, the city doesn't pay for more than the fair market value than what that is. They can claim whatever they want to, but if the market study doesn't show that, then you don't pay that. 

>>MIKE ANGLIN So what is that value? 

>>SUMEDH BAHL We don't have it right now. 

>>MIKE ANGLIN Okay that's what I was asking. We don't have that information now. Thank you.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN I'm going to rephrase that question, because I think the value of the land is also dependent on its zoning. 

>>SUMEDH BAHL Yes.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN So they are requesting an R4A zoning is that what that was? Ok, so if within the next two years if we approve the next annexation tonight, and in the next two years we decided R$A is too dense, and zone something less than, then the value of the land that they are seeking for us to buy would also then be less I would assume as well – is that a fair assumption? 

>>SUMEDH BAHL If you change the zoning yes. But then there are other things too as to what their assumptions are, what can we put in and all that you need to look into that when they do that, so all that when staff looks at that. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN If it is all swamp is really not worth much anyway. Thank you very much staff. Again, like all the other comments, this is an annexation, we have two years to provide a zoning classification to it. We are not beholden to what the planning commission has recommended, or the plan, we have time if necessary and the idea that were we are going to use the greenbelt monies to buy swampland as it is, I would be hesitant on that vote myself, I would expect that the developer is going to give it to us, if they want R4A zoning.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion. Roll call vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, no
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, no
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, no
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I note that 11 o'clock is nigh and we are not quite ready for our closed session to start. Can I have council's acquiescence to suspend the rules in order to put our closed session at the end of the meeting. Discussion. All in favor. All opposed. The rules are suspended with respect to that rule.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DS-1 Resolution to approve the wastewater treatment's agreement with Scio Township. Postponed from our November 6 regular session.

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Thank you. As council may recall I did ask that this item be pulled from the consent agenda and postponed to have a chance to address some concerns questions I had with the Scio Township leadership. Those concerns fell in two directions. One direction is that I'd heard some question from constituents about whether this would be facilitating sprawl development in Scio Township. The second question was related to that around how increased residential and commercial development on the Jackson Road corridor would affect the city of Ann Arbor transportation system on our end of the Jackson-Huron corridor. I met with Spalding Clark from the township to talk about these concerns. While I think that reasonable minds can differ about the sprawl question, I left that meeting with two senses. One, it's, while I like to make lots of decisions and I like the city council to have lots of power, I think that deciding the land-use decisions for other municipalities is a probably a little bit of an overreach. Second the economics of this is not one in which, we're not subsidizing any development that happens in the Jackson Road corridor. The transportation one is an issue though, if there's more residents, if there's more jobs, if there's more businesses on that corridor, that's gonna mean more traffic. We just talked about the impact of traffic and how that all plays out. And it's particularly concerning for me because Scio Township is not a current partner with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to provide transportation services down that Jackson Road corridor. If you go to the corner of Jackson and Wagner down there just south of Weber's is one of the busiest stops in Ann Arbor, because there are so many people from Ann Arbor and from Scio Township transitioning between the triple-ATA services and the WAVE services trying to get from cohousing or other housing, you know, Alpha House or whatever it is in Scio Township they're trying to get into Ann Arbor for work, people who work out at the Meijer trying to get into town, there is a transportation need, a transit need that's not currently being met. In our conversations and subsequent to our conversation Mr. Clark indicated that Scio Township is in discussion with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to look some other options, to look at their price tag, to see what might be done. He wasn't going, he made no promises – I don't want to misrepresent the conversation. But also I didn't feel like this is a strong enough case to try to exact promises from him on this. So those are the reasons for my request for the delay. I wish, the transportation piece is to take some time to work out, but I'm at least glad to hear that the township is at the table of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to work this through. My concerns have been addressed I will be supporting this agreement at this time.

>>SABRA BRIERE I wonder if Mr. Hupy could come forward. Mr. Hupy I want to start by apologizing because I didn't send any caucus questions on this item so I haven't given you fair warning that I was going to be curious. I had a late afternoon conversation with someone who was quite concerned about two things. Primarily concerned about the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, whether by approving this we would be requiring increased capacity and whether the recent changes to the wastewater treatment plant had addressed potential capacity issues, whether all of the development in the city was already overtaxing the wastewater treatment plant and for us to allow this resolution to go forward, we were going to need to increase the size of the wastewater treatment plant in the near future. You can see the tendency I'm headed toward. My understanding is we did not increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and that this resolution if approved tonight will not increase the, immediately increase the demand from Scio Township, though, or the capacity that Scio Township is paying for, but really I called you up here to address for me the impact of change in Scio Township on the demand for the wastewater treatment, if any.

>>CRAIG HUPY When the wastewater treatment project was planned for, we looked at overall capacity what we would call in the business "ultimate capacity" – does the plant have it. And the plan does have the ultimate capacity we need to serve this area. When we look at our wholesale contracts, and we are doing long-range planning, we max out the contracts to their full amounts as we do the planning, so as the wastewater treatment plant was planned for, the assumptions were made right up front that Scio at some point will be coming into us at their maximum contract capacity, so that has been addressed.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY I have two questions, Mr. Hupy. Could you kindly tell me at what capacity level we are in terms of percentage or whatever for the sewage treatment plant? Where are we? I am concerned too regarding this, as councilmember Briere expressed, with all this new development coming and I mean I would like to know where are we in terms of capacity. 

>>CRAIG HUPY When we talk about waste water plant capacity, we have to talk about wet weather and dry weather. Dry weather capacity, we are well within our plant capacity. 

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY Yeah, but where are we? I would like to see like are we 90% or 95%? 

>>CRAIG HUPY No, right now we're operating right now we're operating with one of our treatment trains completely out, I want to say, one third of our treatment capacity out of service as we rebuild that treatment plant, and we are living comfortably, I don't want to say comfortably, but we are living within that capacity right now as we re-build it. The issue is wet weather capacity. The new construction that comes online has very low wet weather response. It is new construction and is built to a different standard than the construction that was done prior to 1980, where footing drains etc. were connected. So the plant has plenty of capacity and we have looked at when, as I say as we do the design work we look at ultimate buildout capacity. 

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY So why do we still do the footing drain disconnect? 

>>CRAIG HUPY As I said: wet weather. The footing drain disconnect gets at the wet weather capacity. New construction minimally impacts wet weather capacity. 

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY Ok. My second question is that the report says the city would lose approximately 8% of revenue. I think it's, when there's loss of service, there is loss of revenue, but there is also less expenses. So I think the net number makes, at least for me is more meaningful rather than to just say the revenue declines by 8%. 

>>CRAIG HUPY Much of our expenses are fixed in the wastewater. We have to maintain the same amount of pipes in the ground, same footage, the plant would still say the same, we have the same cost of the plant, there would be a slight decrease in electrical and chemical, but it would not be anywhere near proportional to the loss of revenue. 

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY So the depreciation, there isn't a discernible difference in depreciation, because I understand capital costs are the major component of ...

>>CRAIG HUPY Correct.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY So it doesn't impact depreciation in any significant way. 

>>CRAIG HUPY No.  

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you. Glad to have you up there Mr. Hupy. What is the expiration date on the existing agreement? 

>>CITY STAFF December 31. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN This year?

>>CITY STAFF Yes.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN So we are under the gun. I was reading the staff memo here it says that sewer lines, these boundary adjustments will account for areas where lines have been built outside the original boundaries of the area. Can you expand on that, I mean, so Scio Township had an agreement with us with a certain boundary line ...

>>CITY STAFF ... I'll give you an example of one, where the road commission building is the Washtenaw County office building that has the drain, excuse me the water resources commissioner in the county the Township Hall, that is outside the original sewer district. Don't ask me how that got there, but those are the quirks that we are trying to solve. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN So it sounds like we didn't have any teeth at the time? 

>>CITY STAFF I don't know, I wasn't around when those happened, so I'm not going to comment as to how or how not they happened. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Are there any penalties in this proposed agreement that puts them in a precarious situation if they go outside the boundaries? 

>>CITY STAFF They are to report their development to us as it occurs, that's added to their sewer district. 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN So even if it's outside the boundaries? If they build outside the boundaries that are being proposed. 

>>CITY STAFF I assume it would going to breach a contract and look to the attorney's office for enforcement.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN That starts to concern me that there should be something in the agreement that if they go outside of the boundaries that it kicks in with an enforcement action rather than a breach of contract. Because the breach of contract has already occurred apparently under the previous agreement, under the agreement that we already have. That's a little concerning. Alright so thank you. I don't know how to address that. A part of me wants to postpone it and get some language in there so that we have some teeth, because I'm a little concerned about. And councilmember Warpehoski brought up some issues about the township itself mainly about mass transit. Gere we are expanding boundaries and accommodating sewer lines that have already been outside the boundaries and yet they don't have mass transit. That is a big issue for me, because the lack of mass transit in Scio Township I look as a concerted effort to keep people from moving into the township other than the wealthy. And when I look at the boundary expansion alls I think of is high-end homes where there is no mass transit and that is really concerning to me because here we are just on a previous discussion talking about annexing properties into the city and doing high density developed within the farmland within the city and you can be rest assured that are not building apartment buildings as they will be high-end single-family homes out there. As a matter fact I think there's a proposal right now next to Scio Farms of single-family residential homes. Why we're not doing that is a concern to me. I would like to postpone this, I'll put this on the table, postpone this to the next meeting, and see if our city attorney's office can put in some language that gives teeth to make sure that Scio Township stays within the boundaries, since they have already shown that they are no capable of doing that today. So I move to postpone this until next meeting. Do we have time? The agreement doesn't end until the end of December. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Discussion of the postponement?

>>MIKE ANGLIN I think if council reads the whereas clauses, all just not very strong. They're not very, we have that Scio desires to smooth out the boundaries, So your painter tells you he desires to paint your house and you don't get a signed contract with that painter you kind of put yourself, I'm seeing a lot of stuff that puts us on the wrong end of the stick this evening, which is very disconcerting I'm sorry to say. We're passing things with an if and a possibility and were dealing with gentlemen and ladies here, I'm thinking and yet we're the ones holding everything. You don't deal that way, we should deal with a lot more force. I don't like the phrasing here it just moves things over. I think that councilmember Kunselman is correct if they're going to establish the boundaries then let's see what they are. Let's have a map, you will not go beyond the boundaries and that's what we will be using as a part of your system, because we want to develop too, I mean were gonna put more stress on our water treatment plant for sure, I mean our wastewater treatment plant for sure, because we have already talked about improving things increasing. The greatest capacitive of course is the University of Michigan stadium during a game. Do the numbers. So, there you go.

>>STEVE POWERS Yes, of course we have much experience football Saturdays and as Mr. Hupy said, we have a lot of capacity, dry capacity. The whereases are really just statements of intent. The agrement specifies that written notice must be provided to the city if there's going to be any change to this are, and there is a map that specifies the current service area, so we are dealing with concrete specifics. As far as enhancing the penalties if Scio Township chose to disregard the agreement, we can certainly a look at that with the city attorney's office. But there are specific articles in the agreement that specify how Scio Township must comply with this agreement. And what happened in the past, there may very well have been errors on both sides. 

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI On the postponement. I am not aware if – we do have a deadline at the end of December. That affects meeting calendars. Are we aware of how that affects Scio Township's meetings? 

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Townships are typically Tuesdays. 

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI It has a nice alliteration to it. I'll support the postponement, because even if we're not able to work something out, I think we can do with what we have. The piece in addition to the revenue question that councilmember Kailasapathy raised – that's one of the issues. Another issue we have to wrestle with that I would also raise my, one of the concerns that I've heard from Scio Township commissioners is that the development is going on out on Jackson, that is proposed behind where the Menard's?? is going to go in, apparently the developer has talked about if they can't tie into our system, to expand the sewer district to fill in that gap, that they might put in a private sewer system. The downfall of that is they have a higher failure rate, and they tend to have a higher rate of phosphorus discharge. Recognizing the concerns that councilmembers Anglin and Kunselman have raised in extending our boundaries, I absolutely see those, we also face risks if we don't extend our boundaries and we have a failed private wastewater system, or one that just discharges more into the Huron River watershed than our system does. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR For my part, I'm not inclined to support the postponement. This a contract has been written. There is a map. Breach of contract is a standard and established procedure. If it wasn't done in the past, there's no reason why it won't be done in the future, it seems to me. The contract, although not reflecting a perfect circumstance, and I am sensitive to this question of mass transit and the impact that that will have on traffic into Ann Arbor, at the same time, you know we are the 8% figure looms fairly large for me, so while it's not a perfect arrangement I think it's an important one I think that the concern stated, and enforceability being an area to focus on, that there are established paths to do it and that the contract is sufficiently strong to get it done. So that's where I'm coming from. 

>>SABRA BRIERE I just checked the Scio Township calendar and the Board of Trustees meets on the 9th and of the 23rd. I think having this delayed until the 23rd puts, makes it very difficult for them without significant benefit for us. If they met on the first and third Tuesdays of the month, I might support this, but because they meet on the second and fourth and the 23rd being the 23rd of December for all I know they won't be able to achieve quorum. Which I count as a significant issue when it comes to approving and signing a contract. So I will not support the postponement.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN I will withdraw my motion to postpone. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR It's withdrawn. Further discussion of the main motion. Rollcall vote starting with councilmember Eaton.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl, yes

>>CLERK Motion carries.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DS-2 Resolution to Accept a Water Main Easement at 700 Briarwood Circle from Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Discussion of DS-2. All in favor. All opposed. It is approved, unanimously with 11 councilmembers present, thus satisfying the 8-vote requirement.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Are there communications from council? Are there communications from the city attorney? 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I give you the city clerk's report of communications petitions and referrals. Discussion of the clerks report. All in favor. All opposed. It is approved. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR We now come to public comment general time. You need not have signed up in advance. You have three minutes to speak so please pay close attention to the timeclock. If you need assistance in speaking we would be happy to provide it and we welcome your attendance. Our first speaker, please come

>>SETH BEST [inaudible, mic off] I challenge council to call ACCESS and find out what it's like to go through that process. If you find out on Friday that you don't have a place to sleep that night you have to call and your next appointment to get ACCESS to do an intake is going to be on a Thursday. I would like to tell three very quick stories as fast as I can, two of them have to do with people who are from Washtenaw County who have been long-time residents and one is someone who is actually from out of the country, all very important to be told and I'll do them as fast as I can. First one a longtime resident went to try to find, be able to call ACCESS to be able to get onto the homeless voucher. She was told that if she would just show up at this one location she would be able to get onto the vouchers no problem, she didn't need an appointment she only needed to show up at 9 o'clock in the morning. She did this, and she found out that there was at least another 30 or 40 people there, she never had a chance to be able to access that voucher even though she did call and do her due diligence to make sure she could get an appointment to be seen. Another family just became aware to myself, a mother, a father with four young children all under the age of five, for the past month been calling ACCESS to try to get an intake – they were not able to. They are currently being housed at a motel locally, money is being put forward by a church. The last family is probably the most maddening to me is a family, the father moved to this country five years ago to the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. He has been couch surfing looking, after becoming a refugee, this man, he was a principal at a deaf school. He came here because of the brutal treatment that he received in his country. Just last year he had a stroke, he was able to finally bring his family, three kids and his wife here. For the past three weeks we've been trying to get them in with an intake with a certified interpreter which is required by law, and it has not been done. It is a frustrating situation. It is great there is money that is going there, but the system is not working the way it should. There is no reason that it should be that way. Thank you very much. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Is there anyone else would like to speak in public comment general time.

>>EDWARD VIELMETTI Hi my name is Edward Vielmetti. I want to speak to the city's FOIA policy. I took a look at the last eight months of the beginning of the year to see if the people who had spoken about this on council, if any of their questions had come up that I can just look at the log of recent FOIA requests. I looked at about 270 different requests over the span of eight months that had come from 180 different people. Of those perhaps five or six of those people would be qualified as media. It's hard to know who media is, you can write a blog and have 100 readers and maybe you're media and maybe you're not. But generally speaking the requests come from a broad variety of people. It is completely routine business. It is not, except for one or two requests for councilmember emails over the span of multiple months, for the most part the FOIA system is a completely routine process of asking for things like fire reports, and for the police it's a matter of asking for things like police reports. It is utterly ordinary. The concern I've had personally with the system. I'm responsible for 9 of the 280 requests or about 3% which puts me at the top edge of things – is the process on which requests are routinely and apparently arbitrarily redacted, either by the clerk's office or by the city attorney's office. There's an unwritten policy that every email address be struck from the record. This is expanded to striking the email address from documents previously published by the city. There is apparently some rationale for it. I can't for the life of me justify it myself but I'm sure that if you have a policy uniquely and uniformly applied, that it makes sense. The document that I just recently got was a list of everyone who had requested the city absentee voter file. This file has, as I'm sure you are aware, people's home addresses and first, last and middle names. This document was not redacted at all. Yet the list of people who requested that document was in fact redacted. And I find this puzzling. I actually would've requested that the council direct the city attorney's office to re-evaluate its FOIA policies since it seems to be in control of the process. Thank you.

>>KATHY GRISWOLD I just wanted to quickly clarify something that I said earlier when I am referring to pedestrian infrastructure in the area in the Northeast Area I'm not referring to the area being annexed at this time. And one of the issues and why it's such a problem area for many of the residents is because Foxfire was built and many of the other neighborhoods and the infrastructure was not put in on the city property between Foxfire and Clague School and the strip mall where Kroger's is and it's very important that we do that. We have underfunded not only traffic infrastructure but pedestrian infrastructure for at least 10 years and now we have this problem and we need to address that as well as annex these properties in. Thank you.

>>KAI PETAINEN I'm a three-minute person. Make whatever joke you want of that. Sometimes I can squish a whole 6-minute speech into three minutes. I will say this that I understand that the statement wasn't said at this table, but it was heard by the mics at this table, and it doesn't offend me personally because I'm in the public eye enough, you know I expect people make fun of me, I can handle that. The thing that bothers me about that statement is that there's a lot of people who come here and they'll listen to you for four hours, and that's great, and then they have something important on their mind that they want to tell you for three minutes. That comment, when that comment was made, the person whoever made it, basically belittled those people and made fun of their stuttering and made fun of how fast they spoke, and that to me is bullying, and I don't like that. And if it ever came from this table and I'm not saying that anyone at this table did say it, then you know it is disappointing to me that people take come up here and they voice their opinions and their concerns about things. You don't have to agree with them or disagree with them, but at least respect them, that's all I'm asking for. I did want to add one other thing I don't know the status, if Mr. Powers, if you're leaving or not but I have always found that you're very professional at what you do even, even when I have criticized you on stuff, you have stopped me in the hallway and said nice things to me and you were always able to be cordial and professional at the same time I don't think you took personally. I don't know what you're going to do, if you're going to stay or go. I do hope you stay, and if the city can do something to keep you here, whatever that is, I just want to wish you my best. You are a Yooper and I am kind of behaviorally biased towards that. That is my stern remark to that person whoever said it, that please respect the public, that we come here, you know people do have things that are on their mind.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Is there anyone else would like to speak in public, general time.

>>MICHAEL BENSON Hello Mr. Mayor and members of council, for those who don't know me my name is Michael Benson I am resident of the Second Ward. I'd like to first congratulate mayor Taylor in the new members of council. Congratulations. I look forward to seeing all the great things you do for the city and to the councilmembers who were not up for election congratulations you survived the election. I will be relatively brief. I know that people get upset about a variety of things about, name-calling and whatnot, but that didn't happen at the table, so we'll avoid that topic. But that said, I'm a process person. Today was a fun meeting, I'm sure it was for you as well. You talked about the council rules and you made some ordinance changes, which was great. I would just suggest going back, I'm sorry I couldn't be here to speak at the public hearing, but the Taxicab Board while perhaps it is a minor board, the topics it deals with are important, and the people sit on it very dedicated. The change that you put forward today really was benign and I'm sure the board would've had no suggestions about it, but it was not presented to the board for consideration. So I would suggest that going forward if there are going to be official ordinance changes, for any board or commission, offer them the courtesy of at least looking at it. The decision is yours, you are the city council, you're elected to make those decisions, but if possible it would be nice to see it. That said, just one other point, the 25-minute cap that you discussed during the rule,s I'm pleased to see that that wasn't there. I think that's a slippery slope. One thing that come up and if you look to revise his later, council meetings have extended over a couple of days. Look at the budget meetings where, what was it two years ago, it extended over two separate weeks, three meetings. So if you had 25-minutes per meeting, technically speaking that meeting went on for about 12 hours, give or take. If you do bring it back, and I hope you don't, but if you do, keep in mind that under Roberts Rules a meeting is not a day, they're very separate things, so if you do look at it be cognizant of that. Last thing is that Legistar was down during most of the day. And I'm sure someone mentioned it at the beginning, I wasn't here, I apologize, it might be helpful if the final agenda packet before a meeting begins, if the city put it on its website since it seems that we have a better uptime. Also to for amendments as someone often in the background, it would be helpful if there were some sort of shared visible, but not editable Google Doc so that you could put it up on the screen while you're here, or when you're in your chambers it would make it very simple for us who are following along at home to see what's happening. With that said I hope you all had a wonderful holiday.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Do we have a closed session for today? 

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA We do have a closed session under the Open Meetings Act involving purchase or lease of real property and pending litigation as set forth in the state's open meetings act statute.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Rollcall vote.

councilmember Eaton, yes
councilmember Warpehoski, yes
councilmember Anglin, yes
Mayor Taylor, yes
councilmember Kailasapathy, yes
councilmember Briere, yes
councilmember Westphal, yes
councilmember Lumm, yes
councilmember Grand, yes
councilmember Kunselman, yes
councilmember Krapohl,yes

[Adjourned at 00:10:41]