log in or create account

Add a new page

COUNCIL MEETING STARTED  19:07:05 [Corrections can be made based on CTN Video on Demand coverage of the Nov. 17, 2014 Ann Arbor city council meeting.]

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR if you are able, please rise and join us for 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 roll 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 Approval of the agenda. Can we have have a motion to approve the agenda. Moved by councilmember Warphehoski, seconded by councilmember Grand. Is there discussion of the agenda? 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  All in favor?. All opposed? It's approved. I believe we have a short ceremony. If the persons whose terms are beginning would  join us up at the front along with the clerk.

>>JACKIE BEAUDRY Would you raise your right hand and repeat after me: 

>>GROUP I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of United States and the Constitution of the state and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of city councilmember according to the best of my ability. 

>>JACKIE BEAUDRY Congratulations.

[Applause]

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR we now come to the organization of council resolution of appointing the  2015 Mayor pro tem. Are there nominations from the floor?

>>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI I nominate Sabra Briere. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Is there a second? Nominated by councilmember [sic] Graydon. Are there any further nominiations.

>>SABRA BRIERE Krapohl. 

>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR HA HA HA HA. How I made that mistake I'll never know. Councilmember Krapohl, thank you very much. Are there any second nominations. Seeing none, is there any discussion?

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

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR are there any communications from the city administrator. 

>>STEVE POWERS Thank you mayor, members of council. A couple of announcements, although it's a little bitearlier in the season than normal, the city's ready for snow and ice. We had five staff out last night  and this morning were monitoring  the weather. Our automatic plow locator AVL is ready. Also a reminder on Wednesday, November 19 at the downtown public library there will be a meeting of the pedestrian safety and access task force to seek and gather input regarding pedestrian safety and access in the city, targeted areas and for specific corridors. For those who aren't able to attend a meeting of there is a web survey and interactive map to provide input. It's at a2gov.org/pedsafety 

>>STEVE POWERS At this time I'd like Chief Seto to come the podium and share  information with council.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Excuse me, Chief Seto your mic needs to be turned on actively.

>>POLICE CHIEF JOHN SETO. On November 9 an Ann Arbor police officer fatally shot a resident during a reported domestic disturbance in progress. The outcome of this incident has been difficult for all involved. I recognize that the community has many questions and the council and citizens would like additional information. The Ann Arbor Police Department is an outstanding law enforcement agency. Our officers have a difficult job and they go out each and every night potentially risking their lives to serve the community. I hold my officers to a high standard as do the citizens of Ann Arbor. The preliminary information that I received about this incident indicates that the officers met this high standard. However, my priority as chief of police must be to ensure that a complete and unbiased investigation is conducted. This is essential to maintain the community's confidence and trust. For this reason I requested that the Michigan State police  conduct the investigation. I've been assured by the investigators that this is a top priority. We must respect this process and allow the MSP to complete its investigation. I will speak more on this issue when the process is complete. Just as all of you have reflected on this incident I too have given considerable thought to this matter. I would reiterate what I have publicly stated in the past that I'm committed to continuing to engage the community on all law enforcement issues. At this time I  ask for your continued patience and respect for everyone involved.  THank you.

>>STEVE POWERS that's all I have thank you. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR THank yu. having no introductions we move to public commentary general time. Public comment is where members of the public speak to the council and the public at-large about matters of municipal interest. You need to have signed up in advance. Speakers have three minutes so please pay attention to the timeclock. Speakers may not delegate their time to third parties. We can have only one person speaking at a time. If you require assistance in speaking to council we'd be delighted to provide it. Our first speaker to day is Tom Partridge 

>>PARTRIDGE I am Tom Partridge. I want to congratulate everyone who was sworn into office tonight including our newly elected and seated mayor. I'm here tonight to call on the council and the public at large, to urge planning for more accessible and affordable city environment and to do that on a 12-month basis. Not only the city planning commission but also other allied committees and commissions in the Ann Arbor city government devoted to ending homelessness in the city of Ann Arbor once and for all to provide better stopgap measures for warming centers in the city until sufficient funds can be found to eliminate homelessness, to provide better planning for affordable housing in the city and the county, on a 365-day basis, and to make access to such affordable housing more accessible through better public transportation system including handicapped paratransit transportation and senior ride transportation. Advanced cities throughout the state and throughout the nation are tackling the same subjects and doing them many times more successfully than the city of Ann Arbor. We should not have people wandering the streets on this type of cold polar and frigid environment that we are encountering this week who are homeless and yet we do have individuals homeless. I would hope that everyone could find a place at the shelter tonight or in a warming center tonight but we can't be assured of that. Indeed the estimates given at the very last council meeting I believe the figure of $178,000 comes to mind for even homeless shelter improvements to cope with the current amount of homelessness in the county are not being addressed on tonight's city council agenda 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR thank you. 

>>PARTRIDGE and I call for that to be redressed and addressed. Thank you.

>>SETH BEST good evening I'm very pleased that you will be deciding whether or not to provide more funding for the emergency warming shelter, the winter emergency center and warming center. The daytime warming center is something that is very important as there are not many places where homeless people can go to to be able to get out of the cold that we are experiencing. As most of you who are in council know I came to Ann Arbor back in 2008 after facing much discrimination in the South, because I am transgender. That's important to me to bring up because on the 20th of this month is the Transgender Day of Remembrance when we remember people who have been killed who were trying to live authentically. Through September of this last year 250 trans people were murdered. As somebody who is trans it's important to have someplace safe to come to. And Ann Arbor was the only place I knew in 2008 where I was able to do it. The money is important to be able to run and staff appropriately. Last winter, MISSION and Camp Take Notice took up the charge with the assistance of St. Mary's student Parish who has again offered to use their facility to be able to host a daytime warming center. We were able to do that without city funds. However in order to be able to continue it, we need help. MISSION is a nonprofit organization that is supported by the local faith community and I believe the faith community  is also asking the city to help because we are the most important vulnerable people. I just want to thank council so much for the work that you have done and will continue to do to be able to keep people who are in this town safe. Tonight I know of at least 30 to 40 people who will not go and access the shelter, because of either mental health issues or drug or alcohol issues, because they feel that if they do go there that they are unsafe. Also with the new policy of having to register through Access, people are unsure that if they don't do that if they show it at the shelter door even if they are sober if they will be turned away because there will be only the limit of 50 people at the shelter. So when considering putting these funds first forward, please also put make sure that the shelter is not going to turn any sober person away because of the max of 50 people. Thanks so much and congratulations and to everyone who was sworn in tonight. Thank you for your time and I hope to see you again.

>>GEORGE GASTON hello my name is George Gaston. I live down by Island Park on the Huron River. I would also like to welcome our new mayor and council people here tonight. It's a pleasure to see you in person. I am the person who sent you the cost analysis on the Fuller Park parking issue, the per hourly rate thing, it was about two months ago. And you're going to be talking about that tonight. I'd like you to realize that my figures are very conservative in favor of the university, the lots are heavily used, the hospital runs 24 hours a day 365 days a year, they are not paying for the amount of time they are actually using the lots. There are four levels of university lots available, the gold blue yellow and orange, in descending order. All of the other lots around the hospital are gold and blue lots. Much more expensive. This lot in question, Lot A in Fuller Park, is a yellow lot. Much cheaper. The university, if they wanted to, could designate one of their other surface lots in the area as a yellow lot but they haven't. This is a much better deal for the U than for the city. This whole program was intended to be temporary, I hope you've had a chance to go out to the VA hospital and see the bur oak grove that initiated this discussion for a temporary lot over 20 years ago. As you drive down Fuller you will notice that the Huron Valley along Fuller Road is filling with cars. Both sides of Fuller in Fuller Park, Mitchell Field, the North Campus area facing Fuller, has all become a large parking lot. Lower Town has been bulldozed and is all parking at this point for university buildings. The only opportunity you will have for open space is Fuller Park. That the only land you own and control. And it's a central part of our parks system. Is part of the string of parks and the border-to-border trail should run through it, the PROS plan should deal with it this year. You should take back control of the park. And if nothing else tonight, I hope you reduce the term of the lease to one year with a renewal at the end of one year. Thank you very much.

>>MAUREEN RILEY Hi, I am Maureen Riley, the director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, The Original, but I'm here representing all of us. The Summer Art Fair, the State Street Art Fair, and the South University Art Fair as well. We are here really to thank you for the support that you have given us over the years. The art fair is second only to the University of Michigan in bringing visitors to Ann Arbor and we couldn't produce this event without your support and the support of all of our stakeholders, so thank you. I also want to welcome you, Mr. Mayor, and the new councilmembers we look forward to working with you as we move forward. That's it.

>>JEREMY FLACK members of council Mr. Mayor, my name is Jeremy Flack. As a fire department employee of the city I am the elected pension board representative for the fire department. When the pension board is in session I currently serve as the chairperson. I rise to speak to you regarding possible changes to one of the best run pension plans in the entire state of Michigan. For example, our assumptions are more conservative than 75% of all other state plans. The actuarial evaluation that will come before the board this month shows improved funding levels and reduced unfunded liability. Speaking of police and fire employees, did you know that police and fire employees do not participate in or receive Social Security? Even if an employee worked another job beforehand to qualify for Social Security the amount is reduced by two thirds, so even what the employee receives is a nonfactor in retirement planning. Retirement studies indicate that almost half of all workers only have less than $10,000 in personal savings. Changing the pension system to a hybrid plan without exploring all options could become a detriment to recruiting and retaining high-level employees, not only in the fire and police departments, but in the entire city as a whole. As you consider those potential future changes remember these things that have already been accomplished working with the various employee union groups. The fire department, the union, was the first employee group to agree to higher pension groups, other employee groups followed. Two-tiered wage agreements that immediately lowered pension costs and liabilities. Vesting changes have been made on how long an employee must work before a benefit is earned. And final average compensation changes that avoids pension spiking and a host of other issues. We are always available to assist and answer any questions regarding future changes. Thank you for your time

>>DAVE MONROE thank you I don't want to be redundant with what Jeremy had just said. I am the police representative on the pension board. We had a pension board meeting on October 16. We reviewed a lot of the different plans and I do believe the council has a summary of that review. It was discussion that involved the labor group, our labor representatives, city representatives and the pension board as a whole, I think was a very productive discussion that we had. I would like to see that dialogue continue. I think we've had a history of having not as much dialogue and I think we could perhaps have council involved on future dialogues on this topic. It would be appreciated. I do have a concern that a defined benefit plan offers some of the best returns when it comes to pension plans when it comes to return on the dollar invested. Studies have shown that. I have concerns that if we move away from that we will not generate as much of a return that would negatively impact retirement security for individual employees and to move move away from that doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I would like to see a dialogue in the future and if we can understand exactly what council's objective is, and review that together and if it becomes necessary to give consideration to other plans, if we can actually try a team effort involving both the union and labor groups, city employees, and the pension board, I think that would be a very productive way to try and do it. I appreciate your time.

>>CATHERINE WILKERSON good evening. On the night of November 9 as the we have heard about from Chief Seto tonight two Ann Arbor police officers responded to a domestic disturbance call from 2083 Winewood Ave. There upon encountering a woman reportedly carrying a knife, one of the officers shot and killed her. Thanks to Mlive.com and to the astonishingly quick response by the city of Ann Arbor to their FOIA request, we now know a lot about the woman killed. Her name was Aura Rosser, age 40 mother of three, African-American. She'd been convicted in the past of shoplifting and stealing a credit card and may have had mental health and substance abuse problems. We know that police had been dispatched to 2083 Winewood on a number of prior occasions, once after a gunshot was reportedly heard, a neighbor reported that a lot of yelling could be heard from the house, that suspicious people lurked in the shadows, that according to a previous police report she had admitted to smoking crack cocaine. We also know that the man who owned the house on Winewood, Victor Stevens is the man who called the police.  We know that he reportedly called to ask police to escort her from the premises and was distressed that they killed her instead. There are many things we don't know, among them Aura Rosser's side of the story of what happend on the night that police shot her to death. She is taken her story with her to the grave. Among the things we don't know are some that are simply being kept secret by the AAPD and the Michigan State police to whom Chief Seto to has referred the investigation of the fatal shooting. In a press release he stated he thought it was necessary in order to get an unbiased review of the facts surrounding the incident. With that goal in mind I call upon him and the officials of the city of Ann Arbor to end the secrecy, release the police report, release the dispatch tapes and audio and video recordings as available, identify the officers involved. Answer these questions: How many shots were fired and where was Ms. Rosser struck? Did the officer shoot her once or twice, in center body mass, in the head or both? How did the officers gain entry into the house and do they have their guns drawn? How much time elapsed between the shooting and the call for EMS until EMS arrive? Did the officers or EMTs attempt to resuscitate Ms. Rosser? Since it's highly unusual for paramedics to pronounce someone dead at the scene, why did they not transport her to the hospital? The AAPD, the city and the county prosecutor are waiting for the report of the ostensibly independent investigation by the state police. I call upon the AAPD to disclose the record of the Michigan State police investigation and the conduct of other agencies and I call the establishment expeditiously of an independent civilian review board..

>>BEN SAYLER first I'd like to welcome and to congratulate the new members of city council and you as well, mayor. I'm here to talk about the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in our food system and the threat it poses to public health. Currently in many other industrialized nations this practice is heavily regulated, but in the United States, it's a common practice  for factory farms to give their livestock a small regular dose of anti0biotics daily.  these are the same antibiotics that are used for the treatment of human health, put in the animal's food and water and are used mainly to help the animals grow faster and not to treat illnesses. Low doses of the drugs only kill some of the bacteria present.  stronger bacteria survive, pass on their genes creating new bacteria even more resistant to those drugs. When people get infections from these bacteria they are harder to treat. Medical authorities, including sorry one sec, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association the Word Health Organization and the infectious disease Society of America all believe that this practice is directly related to an increase in  antibiotic resistant bacteria.  Now many people believe this only affects people who eat meat, and it is true that if you do eat meat, testing by the sea DC says that 47% of raw beef pork, chicken, and turkey from grocery stores are contaminated with staph bacteria and half of that meet is contaminated with at least one type of bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics. Again a study by consumer reports a doctor poll, 93% of doctors believe this is directly related to the use of antibiotics in our food system. If you don't eat meat, only 22% of antibiotic resistant infections come from foodborne pathogens. This leaves 78% of infections ??.  antibiotic resistant infections created on these factory farms don't stay there. They end up in our water and soil and can even travel off the farm as people may travel out in the community. I recently attended the dinner, fundraising for the Ecology Center and one of the highlights of that dinner was that the acknowledgment of all the progress that Ann Arbor has made over the years on issues concerning health and the environment being ahead of the curve nationally. We're talking about the greenbelt, were talking about the legislation or the resolution passed earlier this year banning fracking, the expansion of our public transportation network. I see antibiotics in the food system is another area where Ann Arbor can be ahead of the curve on and take on before the rest of the nation. Many people throughout the country are working on similar resolutions in their communities and actually important that we put this in punt of the federal government and show all the public support there is for us to beat this health crisis before really gets extreme. So I'm here today to call on the city Council to consider passing resolution calling for the band of the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in our food system. Thank you

>>ALAN HABER hello council in your new place. Welcome new people. Welcome old people. I hope this new configuration of the council is a very cooperative group that can make some headway on important questions in the city. Every time of new beginning is a new opportunity. I have written to you about the shooting of Aura Rosser. This wasn't very much on my mind because so many things happen and there are great tragedies continually in the world. And yet here in our town, and then some people called and said well, let's get out in the street and demonstrate and express ourselves and see what people feel. And that kind of human setting that I, Odile said it's Shabbat, it's the Sabbath we should stand for justice, and definitely we should. So we went to this and I found myself in a situation where there were so manny people you know, more of a darker hue than here, who found this shooting just kind of hit hard because there is so much fear, there is so much a sense of unstability in society particularly with relation to police with relation to color lines and here in our town it comes right from Ferguson right to here somehow. And I said I hope that the council, because we don't have a civilian review review board, we don't have something like that, you are really the civilian review. And when something happens it's more than just saying let the investigators investigate. You are the people who have a conscience and a set of standards, you know, how do you feel, how do you think they should proceed and what are the problems that you see. An investigation is fine but the human engagement is what people are calling for. One of the people who was there at this demonstration and he doesn't live in Ann Arbor, so he didn't sign up to come here and I'm here only because you know, greenhouses with solar mirrors and I think is a good idea and I will stand for that, but because Kermit didn't show, I get to say here. He says [reading aloud] my thought on the subject is to express the Ann Arbor city council that there is a likelihood of a mishap such as the killing of Aura Rosser,  repeating itself here in Ypsi. And elsewhere in the county, based on the current number of law enforcement agencies that work here (five) in the community tensions resulting from that. Therefore Ann Arbor as an opportunity to take a lead in making a statement of precedence by supporting and protecting the local minority citizens and people of color. So I wanted to carry that message to you. Thank you.  

>>KATHIE WEINMANN good evening. I'm here to speak today on the issue of antibiotics in our food system and what Ann Arbor can do to help address this increasingly dangerous threat to public health. Currently 80% of the antibiotics used in the United States are used for raising livestock. Most of these drugs are routinely fed to animals to compensate for atrocious living conditions and to make them grow faster. This practice the non-therapeudic use of antibiotics is rampant in the livestock industry. Recently Reuters published a report on the impact on human health and further the emergence of resistant superbugs. Donald Kennedy, professor emeritus at Stanford University and a former US Food and Drug administrator called the report astonishing adding that this could be a larger part of the antibiotic resistance problem than I had thought. Two major poultry corporations, Koch Foods and Georges have administered anti-biotics that belong to the same class used to treat infections in humans. The anti-biotic resistance bacteria that develop on factor farms can get into the environment or the food supply and puts us all at risk whether or not we eat meat and no matter where we live. Little is currently known about the specifics of antibiotic use in livestock. Even worse the researchers who study antibiotic resistance don't have that information either. The USDA collect some data via the national animal health monitoring system but it is limited to voluntary participation and only covers one species each year. The lack of basic data collection by regulators on antibiotic use in factory farming coupled with ineffective regulatory policy surrounding their use provides a serious threat to the continued effectiveness of antibiotics in human health. According to the Center for Disease Control each year in the United States 2 million people become infected with the antibiotic resistant bacteria and over 23,000 people died as a result of these infections. It is unacceptable that factory farms use more antibiotics than hospitals. The fact that nothing is being done despite the scientific consensus on the severity of this problem makes this a political issue. Citizens like myself across the country are reaching out to their city councils to support passage of legislation to protect antibiotics from misuse in agriculture. In Ann Arbor where we pride ourselves on our conscientious politics, we are poised to be at the forefront of the movement to call for an end of this deadly practice. That is why I am asking the city council to register this request for a local resolution to ban the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR are there communications from council. 

>>JACK EATON Thank you. I want to remind the public that there is a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation public meeting on Wednesday, November 19, two days from today. At Slauson Middle School auditorium. Where the preliminary findings of the citizens advisory committee will be reported to the public and everyone is invited to attend and listen. This is the process that has been reviewing the city's footing drain disconnect program among other stormwater problems. 

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two items. First of all on the issue of the shooting on Winewood Avenue last week. As some of you know, this happened right across the street from me. So I want to thank the community for all of the expressions of concern and condolences that I have heard and others in the neighborhood have heard. It has been hard. I know it has been hard the family of the deceased, on the residents of the house and on a lot of folks. A number of questions have come out about what happened that night. We heard some of them today. There are definitely fair questions there. And I understand the desire for action, for responses. At the same time I've been wrestling as how best to deal this as a neighbor, and as a councilmember, and as someone who works for an organization that works on racial justice issues. As a councilmember I support the approach that is taken where an ongoing investigation, limits disclosure during that time of investigation. About a month or so ago I helped organize a panel at which Chief Seto, the sheriff, and a representative from the ACLU spoke about issues that touch on this. And at that panel one of the things that Sheriff Clayton said stuck with me. He said that if there's a tough incident in our community he hopes that the community would give them the benefit of the doubt, that if there were mistakes made that the people would be held accountable, whether in law enforcement or in the community. When I look at the track record of our police department I have that confidence. Even before this incident I've been in conversation with Chief Seto about how the department does  administrative review about how officers behave on duty. One of the things that makes me, two things that make me feel more comfortable with the way our police department has addressed, conducts itself, one is that this is the first police-related fatality since before I was born. I think that safety record speaks well to our department. The second thing that gives me some confidence is knowing that just a month or so earlier to this, there was a time when our police officers were charged by somebody swinging a sword. And the police were able to resolve that situation without shots being fired. This to me shows that on the whole our department is responding with remarkable restraint and care. There are still concerns, there is still questions about what happened to this. But I am respectful of the process that has been laid out to carry that forward. In addition to the review that is happening by the Michigan State police and that will be turned over to the county prosecutor's office, our city human rights commission has created a community response group, which is a part of a network of community organizations across the state that is led by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. That community response group is also gonna be taking a look at this. So I see multiple levels of review. It is been hard, there are questions, but I'm confident in the processes that have stepped forward to answer those questions. Thank you. 

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY I'm the council liaison in the human rights commission. And all of us know what a thoughtful and caring group of people who sit in the human rights commission. They are the ones who brought forward the nondiscrimination ordinance last month. And we had a human rights commission meeting last Wednesday. While they are patient about waiting to hear what the Michigan State police has in terms of collecting additional information and they do want a policy discussion and evaluation giving the larger context of some of the questions that have been raised in the human rights commission which I will believe will be coming out as a resolution soon which I will be bringing to the city council is: Does the city have a shoot-to-kill policy? Do we use tasers? What about body cams? Are financial issues coming in the way of greater transparency and accountability? Are the police force adequately trained to deal with mental illness issues? So these are policy issues and that is what we need to be doing. So while they are patient and understand that investigation is going on about the facts of the death surrounding the shooting incident, they do think it is appropriate and I think it's appropriate as policymakers we do take up this issue and I will bring that resolution to council soon. 

>>SABRA BRIERE we seem to be going around in a circle. I want to thank councilmember Warpehoski and councilmember Kailasapathy for those words. I really appreciate the intent and the drive you both show on this issue. I have nothing but mundane stuff to talk about. Just as councilmember Eaton mentioned the sanitary sewer wet weather project among public meeting on the 19th at 6:30, those who can be in two places at once or who choose to go to another meeting at the same time may attend a pedestrian safety and task force public meeting at 6:30 PM at the downtown public library. There is no single issue that excites us, we are excited by all issues, so I hope to see other people present at both of those meetings, because of course I will go to both.

>>JANE LUMM Thank you, mayor Taylor. Also thank you councilmembers Warpehoski and Kailasapathy, as councilmember Briere said to segue into her meeting announcement, this is also a mundane meeting announcement. But it is of interest to many, this has to do with deer management. I would like everyone to know that the first public meeting has been scheduled for December 10 from 6 to 9 PM at Huron High School. The city website, we actually have a deer management website,  it has not been updated with this meeting information yet, but it will be shortly and the city is also developing a survey. Many people asked if we are going to be providing the public a survey, and we are, the city is going to do that. And it will be published and disseminated. The plan at this point is to get it added to the website by next week and then you know it will be more widely circulated as well by all of us. So again the meeting on deer management December 10 8:54 PM at Huron High School. Thanks.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN. Thank you, mayor Taylor, and congratulations. I'm going to go back to the comments or to the issue that councilmember Warpehoski and councilmember Kailasapthy were talking about. I'm going to put in a little bit different perspective. I have been working in the public sector for since my late 20s. And to all of you new colleagues here at the table, when you're working in the public sector you have to be ready for threats. As a councilmember, you know we have heard across this country where there are threats against elected officials and we have to be vigilant. I have been threatened as a public sector employee. I also want to give the issue of our police department, I want them to know that I have my utmost trust and loyalty as a public sector elected official. I as a juvenile delinquent here in Ann Arbor had an Ann Arbor police officer pull a gun on me and ask me to raise my hands. He didn't shoot me. I did as he commanded. Those are the kind of things that I think we need to put in perspective. Our personal experiences and the experience that we have in this community of knowing that this has been the first tragedy in decades – in decades. And while there's lots of questions about what happened, I doubt that were going to find any answers that would lead us to believe that there is anything more than the most professional and most respected agency that this city knows. As while there is concern out there among the public, and I understand that concern, we as an elected body, or I as an elected official, will not kowtow to those kind of demands that treat our police officers as if they did something wrong first. Until we know the answers until we know the investigation, let it run its course. Once we know, then we can pass judgment, then we can work on issues of policy. But I will not bend over to think that we have to put our police officers out there in a world of speculation and I won't do it. And I would appreciate those around the table and others who will stand with me  not do that as well.

>>JACK EATON I would like to follow up on councilmember Kailasapathy's remarks about the human rights commission. First I'd like to say that I support chief Seto's efforts and his professionalism and the manner in which he is handling this investigation. But I think that we need to use this incident as a reason to review our policies. And so I agree with councilmember Kailasapathy that the human rights commission should take a look at our policies in a broad sense. And she mentioned a review of our deadly force policy. She mentioned a review of the need for body cams. But I would also ask that she take back from council a request that they consider the idea that Ann Arbor should have a citizens review board to review not just deadly force issues, but all complaints about our police officers. We don't often have horrible incidents like this one, but I think that we should while we face this go back and review our broad policies. And so I would ask her to take that back to the human rights commission. I applaud them for the great work they did on our human rights ordinance and I trust they will do good work on considering these issues as well. Thank you.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR are there further communications from council?

>>CHUCK WARPEHOSKI now that others have begun to address some of the mundane issues of council, I understand that there had been a tradition that councilmember Eaton's predecessor had started when council met in these chambers to adjust our seating arrangement and sit by different people and make new friends. I would like to offer the suggestion to the mayor or maybe I would just get her early and change things around that we may use this opportunity to see things from a new perspective. Thank you. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR fair enough. Is there further communications from council?

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I do have some communications. I would like too to address the subject which many members of council and members of the public have come to speak about, the somber events of last week. You know events of this nature are thankfully rare in Ann Arbor. We have a safe community with a disciplined and professional police department. It is led by Chief Seto, who I think is widely respected by all. I would for myself like to express my sympathy to everyone concerned. The death of Ms. Rosser was of course deeply sad, to her family and friends. We as a community I believe offer support, thoughts and sympathies. I would also like to offer different though valid thoughts sympathies and support to the department and the police officers on the scene. You know these are people. And they are people who have gone through a difficult experience in the course of their challenging work on behalf of the people of Ann Arbor. Absolutely no one no one involved is untouched by what happened that evening. And that bears that is worth bearing in mind. The investigation conducted by the Michigan State police is ongoing of course with the full cooperation of the Ann Arbor Police Department. Once this investigation is complete, the facts established by the state police will be referred to the Washtenaw County prosecutor's office for review. And this is the standard and appropriate procedure for police shooting. What it does is it ensures that the deceased, the officers and the community have a painstaking, independent and professional consideration of the events of November 9. And I fully expect that process to result in an assessment that will earn the community's full confidence. Until the Michigan state police and the county prosecutor have concluded their procedures there's little substantive that I can say as mayor or council because we at this point we do not have independently verified information. And that is what the process and procedure is all about. Finally, I would like to echo something that has been touched upon a number of times here, that I would like to comment on our community's response to the event as it's come to me and to my experience. You know in Ann Arbor, we are committed I think, and Arborites are committed to seeing a fair and thorough investigation completed, so that we will have all the facts in hand before arriving at any conclusions. And this is exactly as it ought to be. And so for my part and I hope others, I would like to thank the community for this this measured and patient response to this matter. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR And from that on to the mundane although I don't wish to cast aspersions on confirmations as mundane but I would like to request council's confirmation of the following nomination that was presented at the November 6, 2014 meeting and that is the nomination of Praveena Ramaswami to the park advisory commission replacing Graydon Krapohl. Could I have a motion to approve the nomination. Councilmember Briere seconded by Councilmember Lumm. Is there discussion? All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further would like to recommend the following nomination for your consideration to the recreation advisory commission, Ruth Kraut, Ravi Srivivasan and Angela Johnson and to the historic district commission, John Beeson which is a re-appointment. Those will be up for our consideration in all events at our next meeting.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR We have no public hearings and so therefore move to approval of the council minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Moved by councilmember Lumm seconded by councilmember Kunselman. Is there  discussion of the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR The consent agenda. Would someone please move the consent agenda. Moved by councilmember Briere seconded by councilmember Krapohl. Discussion of the consent agenda. All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR We have no ordinance at second reading therefore move to ordinances at first reading. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR C-1 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 55 (Zoning), Rezoning of 0.39 Acres from TWP (Township District) to R1B (Single-Family Dwelling District), Rayer Property, 2640 Miller. Moved by councilmember Warpehoski seconded by councilmember Krapohl. Is there discussion of C-1. All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR C-2 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 Moved by councilmember Grand, seconded by councilmember Westphal.Is there discussion of C-2 All in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR C-3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 55 (Zoning), Section 5:10.20.A Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts Building Massing Standards  Is there a motion. Councilmember Briere seconded by councilmember Westphal. Is there discussion of C-3? Councilmember Briere.

>>SABRA BRIERE lots of motions. Wait until we have little timer clocks. One of the communications that the council received today was a recommendation that we postpone this item to the December 1 meeting. And while I will be moving in that direction I want to say a couple of things before the postponement. Because there are a few things to think about as we think about the potential changes that this ordinance revision indicates. First, it's become clear to me that there are multiple ways to think about what D2 zoning means. The zoning is covered by two separate ordinances, one that established the intent of zoning and the floor area ratio and one that establishes the height and placement of any new construction. The intent of council regarding D2 is that it be a transition area between the urban core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In many cases though there is no opportunity for a deep transition area, in some cases it's nonexistent. And that's the reason this item is up for discussion again. The council desired to increase the size of the residential area and urban core. The governing D2 zoning include the amount of floor area any developer may use to calculate the mass of the building. A developer may propose a project in D2 that in essence is double the size of the lot although it may not fill the lot from border to border, it's not allowed to. If the developer seeks additional area through the use of premiums, which at this point may not be fully defined , then the building could comprise as much as four times the area. This part of the zoning does not specify height, it's only talking about mass. And if the city does not impose height limits, the building could be whatever height the owner designed, but it could not have more floor area. The council chose to require additional constraints through defining character districts and all character districts for D2 were initially established at 60 feet. That's the height that the city council at the time believed would present the right transition from downtown core to residential. With these proposed changes the council is being asked to reconsider that definition of the transition. This reconsideration could have broad reaching effects especially as the planning commissions ordinance revisions committee begins to look at the appropriate zoning of several properties on E. Huron  that the council recommended be considered as D2. I say that as a preamble for us to all think about and then I move to postpone. To December 1. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR is there a second. Seconded by Councilmember Lumm, is there discussion of the postponement? All in favor. All opposed. It is postponed to December 1.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DC-1 Resolution directing the city administrator and the city attorney to negotiate a lease with Fifth Fourth LLC for short-term parking area to be added to the municipal parking system. Moved by councilmember Lumm seconded by councilmember Eaton. Discussion.

>>JANE LUMM thank you, mayor Taylor. I would like to pass along quick thanks to councilmember Anglin for introducing this initially and to city attorney Mary Fales for her work in pulling together the resolution itself. As a reminder     Fifth Fourth, LLC purchased the Y Lot in April for $5.25 million. The commitment is to build by 2018 and the action proposed here is to temporarily return surface public parking to the site for approximately two years until construction commences with the net cash flow split 50-50 between Fifth Fourth and the city's  affordable housing fund. Staff had provided financial projections for our last meeting. And assuming this were in place for two years, the contribution to the city's affordable housing fund would be about $140,000. In addition to providing over $100,000 to the affordable housing fund, the proposal also at least temporarily provides additional surface parking downtown. The DDA has told us that the demand for downtown parking continues to grow. Garages are filling up more frequently and the DDA has just announced price increases effective in January. Obviously not something you do unless supported by demand. And while some areas are more stressed than others, adding desirable surface lot capacity can only help downtown businesses with  potential additional customers. Specifically the resolution directs the city administrator to provide notice to the DDA that the lot will be added to the municipal parking systme, for the DDA and RePublic to manage just as all the other municipal lots are managed. The resolution further directs the city attorney to negotiate an agreement with Fifth Fourth and the DDA and also to report back periodically on the status of the negotiations. It's worth mentioning there is a long-term precedent for this type of arrangement where private property is leased to the city for use as a surface lot managed by the DDA as part of the municipal system. The Brown Block Lot at Main and Huron has been leased for years. The DDA operates the lot, pays all the operating expenses as well as the $350,000 annual rent to the private property owner. The approach and vision for the Y lot is the same, except that the payment to the private property owner is based on the net cash flow generated as opposed to a fixed fee. Here is an opportunity to help meet two needs – generating funds for affordable housing and adding desirable surface parking downtown, which can only add a boost to economic activity downtown. In my view both benefits are significant and far outweigh any potential downside to this proposal which is that some of the revenue might have otherwise accrued to the DDA. Hopefully you can all agree that the benefits dollars for housing and for parking, even though temporary,  are stil worth the effort. Thank you. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR other discussion of DC-1. Councilmember Anglin. 

>>MIKE ANGLIN just so for the public to understand what we're talking about here. There are four sponsors of this, we need two more to make sure that the city administrator proceeds with our request to come up with some hard data and negotiation with the Fifth Fourth LLC. Here's a private group coming forward and saying, use our land and you can use our land for a time and the money that is accrued we will get half and you will get half. I think it's a good deal. If you were presented with an opportunity and someone gave you you know a deal like that where you would get money for doing nothing I think you would accept it and that is what we are asking here this evening. We need six city councilmembers to say yes and direct the city administrator to proceed with this and bring us hard data so that we can make a decision that and also to actually have negotiations with his group. And the group is Dennis Dahlmann who owns several buildings here in the downtown area and always has done a good job in maintaining his buildings. So he owns the Campus Inn and does a very nice job with that. When he first bought it he removed the whole front and put in a water fountain for the you know a fountain there so that people could enjoy the walking in the street a little better. He is also improving the property right across the street from City Hall at the present time. So we're dealing with someone who has a reputation here i town, who has a sterling reputation here as far as I'm concerned. He stepped forward and said I'm willing to allow you to use this property and I think it's to our financial gain. Even though it's short-term, in this next resolution we have we're looking for money for things that we need in this community. So in this particular case over a two-year period,  estimated to be about $140,000.  I think it's worth proceeding. It also sends a strong message to the moneyed interests in this town that the city is willing to make deals with them and cooperate with them. We're going to be asking them probably as time goes on for money to help the arts. And this is kind of the same sort of thing. They have property they wanna have us use it and I think it's a really good deal for us to consider and do a decent study and do our due diligence so that we know what were going to be voting on, and at that point will need eight votes to do it. But the statistics and thefacts that we have at that time will be stronger, and we can make a stronger decision at that time.

>>JULIE GRAND I have a lot of concerns about this proposal. On Thursday and Friday councilmembers Kraphoh and Westphal and I were very fortunate to get a thorough orientation from the city. So, thank you Mr. Powers for that. I was struck by all the moving pieces that it takes the get the city working. But also by all the moving pieces it takes to get a building like what is proposed by Fifth Fourth LLC to completion. And with their certificate of occupancy set for early 2018, if you work backwards from that date, I don't see how two years of parking is realistic, given what needs to happen, given all the moving parts that need to take place to get this done. I'm also, although intrigued by the potential for money for affordable housing believe that it's in our interest to get this building occupied as quickly as possible. I think the economic impact to our city is much greater if this building actually gets occupied when it's intended to. I'm concerned that putting a parking lot there will slow the process down. In addition, as was mentioned previously, there is a public open space element to this proposal and there's been a lot of interest from residents in the city to see that happen, so I like to see that go forward as quickly as possible. Unlike those other lots that have been used for parking for a long time that's not what we intended to do with this lot.  So I don't feel like not putting party on this is not doing nothing, I feel like it might be slowing us down from achieving our greater goals.

>>SABRA BRIERE I certainly appreciate any caution about moving forward with something that may or may not financially benefit the city. In order to understand the implications of this, and the concerns about timely development that councilmember Grand just expressed, I did a little bit of research talking to developers, talking electronically with Ms. Rampson from the planning staff, and I learned that a reasonable estimate of time from the day ground is broken to the day a certificate of occupancy is provided is between 18 and 24 months. This, the arrangement that we built into the sales agreement is that the building must receive a certificate of occupancy in April 2018. To my math that means that the maximum end date that is in this proposed agreement which is September 2016, exactly hits 18 months. It's short. It's doable, but it's not great. However, there's also a 45-day notice built-in for the developer to give notice saying, I'm going to break ground earlier than the end of September. And if ground isn't broken that we have good sense by the end of September 2016, if ground is not broken, we have a clear idea that the developer is not going to be able to make the deadline. That is about as strong a piece of communication as we can receive – the developers inaction tells us he's not going to fulfill the agreement, because of the typical constraints involved in construction being able to get masonry built at the right time being able to do all the internal finishes, being able to meet all the inspection requirements. So I'm not seeing that this is a lose-lose for the city if we go forward for the process. It seems to me that the opportunity is there, and if we don't find that it's a good opportunity when the lease arrangement comes back, then that's perfect. But to close out the idea now doesn't strike me as fiscally prudent, and I will be supporting this piece.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN thank you Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I will also be supporting this and I appreciate the comment from councilmember Briere. You know when I look at proposals such as this I think of today all right. Speculating on the future and what actions may take place in the future, future councils in 2016 or 2018 may have different ideas than what this council has today. So there's always change in the future. To speculate on the future that this might not get built, if there's cars parking on the parking lot, that's pure speculation, alright, and I don't think we can really say that the building is not gonna get built just because the cars parking on the parking lot. Right now it's a vacant lot. And the last thing I want to see is it is just sitting there is a vacant lot for two more years. That is not a good thing. That makes our downtown just kind of look empty. It's next to the bus station, which is you know, and across from the Library Lot, so there's a lot of open area there that is ripe for development, but we can't control the economy. If the economy tanks, the building may not get built. So we will have lost out on some revenue coming from this effort. So I will be voting for it because today if we vote for it, money will be generated, two years from now we will know more. If the developer has got it ready to go to start breaking ground, if not. If it doesn't pan out, the property is coming back to us if a future council buys it back. There's a lot of things that can happen in the future. So I think it's very dangerous when we think about all of these what-ifs, because we won't necessarily always be here to lead or to find those answers to those what-ifs in the future. So I will be supporting this.

>>SUMI KAILASAPATHY I would just like to make a comment regarding, I think there is this fear among some that somehow or other that the Fifth Fourth LLC will use this as a backdoor way to use this lot as a parking lot in the future. The Fifth Fourth LLC spent $5.25 million to purchase the this lot. And if you calculate the rate of return they will beginning splitting 50-50 between affordable housing and their share, the rate of return is less than 2%. I don't think any businessman is going to spend 5  and a quarter million dollars to make less than 2% rate of return. So I don't think that should be our fear that somehow or other Fifth Fourth LLC is going to use this as to sneak in and try to become a parking lot.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL thank you Mr. Mayor. I would like to echo some of commissioner, sorry, councilmember Grand's sentiments. I suppose on the surface it appears to be a pretty logical "why not?" scenario, if this was going to be unused. However, I guess given my background, I particularly sensitive to what the community has stated in their plans. And it's been fairly unambiguous to me given our planning documents, that we envision stakeholders, the community at large, envision that this is part of the downtown core and that this is suitable for the highest density development in our city. So just given that, on it's, on it's face  it gives me pause about delaying the implementation of that vision. I think it's been as it's been discussed before by the folks who'd we be asking to manage the parking, that this is not necessarily a net win for the city, I guess unless it really encourages a whole new crop of people to start parking down there. The logic has been presented that might be drawing people out of surrounding structures. They're all kinds of financial implications that I think folks have brought before. So for those reasons it seems we can, we can, the community is excited to move forward and that this development is happening. I would support just staying on the timeline that we are on and not reverting the use of this lot back to parking. Thanks.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR further discussion of DC-1.

>>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI Thank you Mr. Mayor. There were two statements this evening that caught my ear. one was to say that the only potential loss is the loss of some money that would otherwise accrue to the DDA. I disagree. Under the current parking agreement, if we move money from existing parking spots to this lease, if it goes forward, there is also a general fund loss. We're taking money out of our general fund. This gets to the second thing. Somebody said, money will be generated. Some money will be generated, but two other things would happen. One is that money will be moved. As councilmember Westphal indicated, I don't think that the $450,000 over two years that is modeled for this lease is just going to magically appear out of nowhere. I don't think were gonna get that many new visitors downtown just because we put parking on a parking lot. I think of those numbers hit, it's going to be because people are choosing to park there rather than other places. So rather than money being generated, a lot of that is just money being moved where we get all the net to a situation where we only get half the net. So that's one thing. There's the money move thing. And what do we pay for this opportunity to get to the point of splitting it 50-50. To get to that point, we have to pay the costs of new capital costs and new maintenance costs. Once the lot is operational the marginal cost to park there is minimal. We're paying a lot of money just for the privilege of sharing it 50-50. For the short term that this lease will be in operation I would rather just keep the money. So that's what why, when I do the numbers, even if the lease were for a dollar, it's hard for me to see this making sense for the city. The concerns that have been raised about how this will affect the proposed or the anticipated development on that lot, I spoke with Mr. Dahlmann about this. He explained to me what he saw as his timeline was a year for planning, six months to a year for planning and approval and two years for construction. He sees himself still is on  timeline. That's personally not a concern for me. What is a concern for me is spending money, losing money out our general fund to share it with someone else.

>>GRAYDON KRAPOHL Yeah, I would like to echo some of the comments of other council members. I do have some concerns just in my reading of the financials and other aspects of it. I don't see, there's big gaps in what the gaps really are and what the net benefit is. I don't think especially having done some work on some construction projects in the past, is I don't see where we would get two years out of it. Especially with a 2018 dropdead date, back planning I don't think that's gonna happen. I think that's a very very optimistic estimate of what we would be able to get out of it compared what we're putting into it. And to share profits for revenue 50-50, when the owner of the property doesn't invest anything, I don't think is a good investment. The other aspect that I'd like to bring up is that we do have a business agreement to manage the parking with the DDA in the downtown area. Good, bad or in different whether we like it or not, I think in principle we should go forward with this when they've had an opportunity to say they don't think it's in our interest. I don't think that's a good principle to start setting, to work around our partners that we have, and I don't think it works for our best interests in the long-term. If there's a problem with the DDA and the way they manage parking that should be addressed the next time around in the agreements that we develop and work with them.

>>JACK EATON first I would like to thank councilmembers Lumm and Anglin for doing all the work on this. But I am a cosponsor, and the reason I am a cosponsor on this is that I believe that we have an opportunity to really use what is going to be vacant land, it's simply going to be vacant until the planning process runs its course. And we know that its takes a year or so probably more for a complex development like this. So we have this choice, we can either just let this piece of property be vacant and unattractive in the middle of our downtown, or we can put it to good use. I don't believe that we should prevent a property owner from putting their property to good use even on a temporary basis while we are waiting for the site plan to work through the process. Providing him the ability to use this property in a manner that I think is favorable to the city doesn't change the timeline for the planning process. He's going to proceed in a manner so that he can complete his building by April 2018 one way or another. And so passing or not passing this resolution doesn't change that timeline. Were going to end up with a building. Or not. But I think that really is not a good demonstration of good faith if we begin to presume that he has some sort of ulterior motive. This is a good local businessman who does productive things in the downtown. And we are questioning his good faith. And I just don't understand why anybody would do that. He has a reasonable timeline. I believe he has some very interesting plans for the property and it's going to move forward at its own speed and our choices whether we allow him to put it to productive use while the site plan winds its way through the laborious process down at the planning commission. And so I'm gonna support this and I really do hope that people to understand that this just an effort to understand this is an effort to make use of the property while the process works through. Thank you.

>>JANE LUMM  thank you very much. Just to respond to a couple of points that were raised. All good comments, obviously, just like to respond to a few things however. In terms of the timing, it is tight and as councilmember Briere and others noted they must have the CO by April 2, 2018. So the request here is again for the lease end date     of April 2, 2018, so planning staff in concert with the city attorney's office, when this was drafted so as not to change the timeline for construction. And this addresses that concern. In terms of the parking agreement that we have with the DDA, under the city-DDA parking agreement, the city has the right to add to the municipal parking system but  we must give the DDA 30 days notice and the DDA has a right to object, and if they do then the city-DDA agreement requires that both parties  work together in good faith to resolve it. This is an option within the parking agreement, so this is an option within the city's parking, basically there are four ways to make this happen and this is one of them, with respect to the parking agreement. And just on the finances, we know that the revenue of the three lots did go down after the Y Lot was closed, meaning as has been shared that some people who elected to park in the lot did not elect to park in the two structures. It went down by 34,000. I think that seems to reinforce the point I made that by adding the surface lot  back in the system there is an opportunity for additional potential customers for downtown businesses, obviously a good thing. From a pure DDA standpoint they may lose a bit of revenue from this action. But it can only help downtown businesses themselves, their potential customers,  it can add $100,000 before the housing fund.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN some of the comments were based on speculation that we're going to lose money or that we're  going to pull people out of the parking structures to park on the surface lot. And you know from my perspective, I know that people like surface parking. It has been a huge issue for a number of businesses, for people that go downtown for whatever purposes they like surface parking lots. We also know that our structures have been used quite a bit for permit parking. And those users are not gonna be leaving structures to park in a surface parking lot. So I look at this is a benefit to the community because it provides again a surface parking lot that was heavily used. And there's no reason why it shouldn't be used during the planning process of this building. That is not changing. So again, the speculation that if people start parking there there's never gonna be a building there because it's more desirable as a parking structure really doesn't quite make sense to me. And I'm not sure the logic of that kind of argument. So again, we know people like surface parking lots, we know that this is a surface parking lot that needs a minimal amount of work to be re-purposed or brought back. And that the timeline is still there to build a building. We can't guarantee that it is going to get built. We don't know the economy or the future, we don't know anything about what our future council might do in 2018 if something is not going right. They may give them an extension. They may not want the property back. That's four years from now. Think about it. In the meantime, my wife doesn't park in a  structure. I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't park in structures. Ask yourself, would you wanna park in a structure if there was a convenient surface parking lot to meet your needs downtown? This is an easy vote, this is two years, I don't see the problem.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR for me, I, my, to be short, I'm are largely persuaded by the arguments presented by councilmember Warpehoski in terms of the parking Peter to park for Paul nature of the lot as opposed to what the DDA currently provides for us. I think, I'm not, I do think that the there's a little bit of strawman going on. I don't think anyone is saying that there is never going to be a building here if it were to be turned over to parking. But what I think people have been saying, and I find myself in part persuaded by this, is that it alters the incentive. That there's no incentive for speed if there is revenue coming off the lot. That's something that works with me. I you know fully expect there to be a building there. Mr. Dahlmann indicated there would be a building there. He put up his $5.2 million and pledged to us his plan and I expect his plan to be delivered. But I think it is in the public interest that we not make it easy for it to be 2018 by a nose. I want it in 2017 I want it in 2016, that's where I'm coming from on this. Further discussion on DC-1. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Rollcall vote starting with councilmember Kunselman. 

Councilmember Kunselman, yes
Councilmember Krapohl, no
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

>>CLERK motion carries.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DS-1 resolution to approve Fuller parking lot land lease for the University of Michigan. Moved by councilmember Eaton, seconded by councilmember Lumm. It was indeed Lumm, if you two want to fight about it, go ahead. Discussion of DS-1. 

>>JACK EATON I sent amendments to the city administrator, I'm not sure if the clerk got them. I'm about to send amendments, I'm sorry. I'm not sending anything to anybody. [laughter] 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR darn it all. Can you read it? Is it readable?

>>JACK EATON I can, but Mr. Warpehoski insisted that they be in writing and that's why we're at this meeting rather than at the last meeting. Mr. Powers do you still have the amendments I sent?

>>STEVE POWERS: I don't have access to it, either.

>>JACK EATON you know if we took a break for a moment I could load it on a key drive and I can walk it over to her.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Walk. Who could imagine. We'll take five.

 RECESS

 >>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR in a beautiful moment of city-county cooperation we now have printed copies of councilmember Eaton's, I gather, councilmember Eaton's amendment.

>>JACK EATON yes. I think we skipped DC-2.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR we did. I guess I propose that we resolve, being here, we resolve this and then we pop on back over.

>>JACK EATON alright. I've sent out a proposal to change the lease from a two-year lease, with a two-year option to a one-year lease with a one-year option. I've added a resolved  clause to the resolution to ask the administrator to devise a parking management plan to enforce parking on these lots outside of the hours of the operation of the park and outside the operation of the lease itself, because the lease actually provides for limited hours of university parking on these sites. And in the lease I change the early termination to just a six-month termination by either party, because of the reduced duration of the lease in general. If anyone has questions I can answer them.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR is there a second to this amendment. Councilmember Lumm, second. Discussion of the amendment. Councilmember Eaton. Sorry.

>>MIKE ANGLIN I would like to ask councilmember Eaton why, what was the impetus to the change to one year. Why is that a proposal at this time?

>>JACK EATON a couple of decades ago or more, we entered into a temporary lease arrangement with the university that is going on a quarter of a century now. And some of us I believe would like to see this terminate, but not abruptly. So changing this from a potentially four-year lease to a potentially two-year lease gives us time to look at what we would rather do with this property than provide university parking.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Councilmember Anglin? further discussion of the amendment? 

>>MIKE ANGLIN At the PAC meeting when this came forward there was some discussion of a one -ear and there was further discussion of the one-year so they were not unopposed to that. In addition, they felt, if you watch the tape of the PAC meeting, as fellow councilmembers I hope you take the opportunity to do so, there was a rather insightful discussion about the renewal of the PROS plan, which is coming in this coming year of 2015. That opens the door for the possibility of looking at the lease agreements we have along Fuller Road and what are the implications for the future parks. That is, we put some rather heavy investments in soccer fields over there, we know that the area is actively used quite a bit, and does this give us the opportunity to open up for more use. Access to the river is another consideration. Their primary concern was losing the $78,000, which is of course a bit of revenue. But when compared to the money in the general fund which supports the park system and the millage that's a very small amount of money. The fact that the, as stated in many of the other things, it's used by the staff at the University ofMichigan particularly in the evenings, which is very important to them I'm sure for safety reasons to be close to parking. But at the same time there are other options for the people getting out after 12 o'clock and later than that at the university at other lots at that time a lot that are rather empty. So I think consideration can be given to those and for others so I believe that the onus that will be place on the university at some future date may not be as severe as it has been discussed to date. So, those are some of the things that as a part of a whole general discussion here about this particular. As far as the cost benefits, you heard people talk about this, this is a really good deal for the university and we like to cooperate with university of much as possible at this particular time, because it is parkland, it is important to us to take a closer look at at this.

>>JULIE GRAND one of the concerns I have about limiting this lease is looking at the relationship that park staff has with the university. We don't often hear about amicable and smooth relationships between the city and the university, and to me this is a terrific example of a relationship between staff, between city staff and the university that has worked very well with the parks system. Not everyone around the table was there to see the benefit of what this funding did for the park system. When times were hard, the money from this lease literally kept  facilities open. It kept PAC from having to make recommendations about which pool to close, or other facilities to keep open. So while the money may seem small, it is not insignificant to the parks budget. I would also like to point out that the relationship that was established between park staff and the university has also allowed for the use of 100 free spots to the city at Argo. And Argo as many of you know has won statewide awards, it has been just been a tremendous success and lots of people want to go down and use Argo. It brings revenue into the park system, it brings people onto the river, it helps foster and environmental ethic by bringing more people to the river. It's helped revitalize and change our thinking about what can even happen on that side of town. And we need to be able to park people there now. And to get 100 free spots, the university doesn't typically offer us things for free. And I think that that offer comes as a result of this relationship  and the long-standing relationship between the city and the university. I also don't, the other part of this amendment asks the city administrator to look at parking enforcement. I'm not sure, and maybe we can hear from staff if someone  can answer this question, that it has actually been a problem for users to be able to use the facilities at Fuller. If that is actually a problem that we need to address, then enforcement may be reasonable. If not, I'm not sure that this is the best use of staff time to be enforcing parking down at that site.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR would you like to have staff address that? You could ask staff to come and speak to it or just make the assertion and move on. 

>>SUMEDH BAHL something new. people may be parking after 5 o'clock or whatever time the lease ends, but it has not created a challenge. I can say that, so.

>>JULIE GRAND can you speak to the advantages or disadvantages of having a two-and-two  lease versus a one-and-one lease from your perspective?

>>SUMEDH BAHL it gives more certainty to both parties, university and city both, that we have that four-year lease. And so that is a source of revenue for us and whatever planning they have to do, they can. And yes we do depend upon this funding. That's what the stability part which is important.

>>JACK EATON So I want you to understand that we did receive an email from Jim Kosteva from the university saying that the one-and-one amendment was acceptable to the university. So we are not acting outside of our relationship with the university, that is acceptable to the University. And to answer your question about why we would need to begin a program of parking enforcement, if in fact we're looking forward to the time when we control our own parking lots and perhaps sell our own permitting, we need to trans- look at how we would transition to maintaining control over our own lots, rather than lease them to the university to control. So I think that both aspects of these changes are reasonable – ff you look out at what we may do in the future.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR further discussion of the amendment? Councilmember Lumm.

>>JANE LUMM I will support this amendment. The sites are city-owned parkland, and think any agreement should be short-term in nature, and maintaining flexibility is essential. For the time being as long as there is no other park use has been identified it does make sense for the city to rent out these lots during the times that are not needed  to support our parks. It also does generate much-needed revenue for the park general fund, about $85,000 annually, it provides U of M parking for the hospital. But I do think that because the future plans for this parkland are uncertain I I think maintaining flexibility is key. While the 2-plus- 2 was not a long-term commitment meant, I think shortening the term to 1-plus-1, does reinforce that point, and the U of M is agreeable to this arrangement and it does give the U of M the heads-up that they should be considering alternatives, which I think is good, so yes to the amendment for me. Thanks.

>>SABRA BRIERE councilmember Lumm just brought up the notion of giving the University of Michigan due notice that the city and the parks might find a different use for the parking lots at Fuller. And indeed that's a possibility. But as the, I just want to say if the university is looking at this as a short-term arrangement, as it may be, it must also be looking at the possibility of building an additional parking lot or an additional parking structure on Maiden Lane. It just finished the completion of one. And another one is in their master plan for this area. They also have a transit station in their master plan for this area. That will bring potentially the same number or more people to this very limited area to park. In addition it will continue to put pressure on neighborhoods and neighborhood parking as residents find that people who are unable or unwilling to find parking at U of M lots and U of M prices park in residential streets. And that residential-street parking keeps moving further and further into the community, pushing therefore residential neighborhoods into establishing residential parking districts to try to reserve the on-street parking for their own needs and for the needs of the services that come to the neighborhood. We have, in my view, a parking issue that is bigger than Fuller Road, and that is bigger than the University of Michigan and bigger than the city. And in as we talk in short-term vision of this area we also need to establish a longer-term vision for this area. Relying on revenue from parking for support for the parks encourages us to use parks as overflow parking. Probably not not something we want to be doing long-term. But without enforcement we also have people who are avoiding paying university rates parking at Riverside Park, parking at Island Park, parking on residential streets, all in an effort to park close to where they work but not pay university or city rates. So while I will support the lease in whatever guise it fits, I do not personally want to put pressure on the university to build another parking structure right away.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL thank you. I heard multiple references to conversation that took place at PAC and we have heard some of the staff perspective. Again, it gives me always pause to reconsider some of these issues that have been at least partially vetted through staff and other commissions, advisory bodies, so if somebody has a little bit more color on what the conversation was like, I heard about the relationship piece, I guess as a default I'm less comfortable contradicting the advice from PAC, but I sense that this obviously does give us more flexibility, but I'm, I would be hesitant to second-guess our professionals' advice. So if somebody was to comment a bit more on that, that would be helpful. Thanks.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN can somebody just repeat what the amendments are that we are looking at, so I can be sure that I know what I'm looking at, because I got distracted. 

>>JACK EATON in the resolution, we will be changing "two-year" to "one-year" with a one-year extension available. The last resolved clause is added to ask the city administrator to look at parking enforcement in our parks. Then within the contract itself, reflects the one-year and one-year extension and reflects the early termination language, which had previously allowed termination 12 months in advance, but this is only going to be a two-year agreement tops, so it changes it to allow either party to terminate on six months notice.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN alright so everything is on the floor. I have not problem supporting a one-year with a one-year extension. I do have some hesitancy about devising a parking enforcement plan or effort on those lots. Because if it's not really an issue, I don't really want staff trying to solve something that may not really need solving, given their limited resources. And from the times that I have driven past these lots, in the evening, there tends to be lots of spaces available. So it's not like a situation where there's too high of a demand in the evening. There just may be cars there all the way who know 24-7. I think that may be a possibility, especially if there are some people there working some big shifts. That being said, I have no problem also trying to revise this early termination language, but six months seems a little short for the amount of planning necessary for the university to respond to a different parking situation. And so I'm just wondering if that can be revised and my question was that that something that Mr. Kosteva was accepting?

>>JACK EATON he did not speak to that issue and I would accept a suggestion of a different period of time for the early termination.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN well, it seems if we're gonna have a one-year extension that we would just notify them that this is the last year that they're going to get. So I would just put it as a year. Alright, so if you had an extension you would just say that this is the last extension because we're going to do something else. I would think that six months is really too short. And I just want to make a comment about the parking all the way in the river valley as we heard from one of the public speakers. You know when we take out all this language regarding the intermodal center and the Amtrak station, one of the things that caught my attention in that whole effort is that they are planning for a 2000 cars of parking for the train station, which I found very bewildering. Where's that going to fit? Fuller Park? Was that just a carryover for the original effort to build a parking structure at Fuller Park? Is this something that the staff or the consultant are looking at for the DTE site? Are we looking at a 2000-car parking area to support Amtrak? That seems very, very excessive needs for Amtrak. But at the same time we know there's a lot of demand. The Cascades, the parking situation is out of control in those neighborhoods. It would be great if PAC and the university could work some parking arrangements, so that the people who are using Argo Cascades can use a shuttle bus provided by the city to park at the lots over by Maiden Lane. So there's a lot of opportunity I think for the benefit of those neighborhoods, and so I would like to leave some of that flexibility. So I will support one year and a one-year extension, and one-year termination. I'm offering an amendment to item (4) early termination to change six months to 12 months.

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

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR friendly to councilmember Lumm?

>>SABRA BRIERE although it is a complete digression, and we're talking about the amendment, I want to acknowledge  councilmember Kunselman's queries about the size and location of any potential parking structure for any putative train station. As I understood, from being present in those meetings, the consultant is required to look for sites that are large enough to hold that size parking structure. The system, whether that is Amtrak or the city or the federal government, is not expected or required to build such a large parking structure. It's simply  has to be that large on paper in order to be certain that if the need grows that the capacity of the site exists. It's a simple capacity calculation, but areally shocking number. Beyond that there's definitely people who park at Broadway, at Maiden Lane, at Island Park Drive, at Riverside Park Place, at Riverside Park, just a series of places there where people are parking already because they work at the university. And certainly we see people parking as far away as Wright Street, which is about a mile and a half from the university hospital.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR on the amendment as amended. The, I understand that the university has expressed its acquiescence to one-and-one, I'm, and in the interest of getting this done I am will support one-and-one. In my view however, one-and-one doesn't serve the city's interests because of many of the reasons why, because of many of the reasons identified in particular by councilmember Briere, this is an area with a long-term parking problem. We are dealing with an entity with the ability and land and demand,  the ability to build new parking, and the demand to build parking and the land upon which to build parking – which we do not want it to do. And driving them, and an institution that will need and want certainty in its parking plans. Shortening this lease from a two-and-two to a one-and-one increases uncertainty. The one thing that institutions with a lot at stake don't like  is uncertainty so I think this is not very wise. But I'm willing to support it, because I want wanted one more than zero and zero. I will say, for my part I don't see this as one-and-one and done. I see this as one-and-one and let's really talk about what is going on. There is certainty that there is an alliance of interests here in dealing with the parking problem in this area. That alliance of interest will not be advanced by cutting this off in 2016. So that's my view on the one-and-one. The addition of the change to the early termination provision moves this from one-and-one to one-and-done. It takes away the university's right to renew – functionally. Thereby increasing the uncertainly. I would hope that a member would move to strip this concept apart from the one-and-one. Because the university has said that the one-and-one is fine, but with the early termination provision does is changes it to one-and-done. Because it gives the city the option to pull the plug at 366 days. Unless I misread it. 

>>JACK EATON are you offering as a friendly amendment that we take at out the early termination clause entirely?

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I'm, I'm still new at this councilmember Eaton, so whether I can offer such a friendly amendment am uncertain, but I for myself would support, would be delighted if someone else would.

>>SABRA BRIERE I will move to remove the entire clause dealing with the early termination clause for a one-and-one contract. 

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

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR councilmeber Lumm? Well, aren;t we moving forward. Thank you for that. I think I've said what I had to say about the amendment which is now friendly. Now I'm confused. We're still talking about the amendment here. 

>>JANE LUMM I have a staff question about the amendment that speaks to parking enforcement. Looking through the agreement, the lease agreement, and I'm wearing my board of insurance hat now. And the city has we have on occasion received claims for you know incidents that have occurred in these lots. And it's not clear to me from looking at this lease if, if our current enforcement adequately addresses and if it's addressed in the lease, if it addresses our liability for any potential mishaps, claims against the city if were not enforcing it, you know, according to the time frames when the lease is, when the parking is specifically to be utilize by the university. Is that clear? Probably not. 

>>STEVE POWERS I think so. But I would refer that to the city attorney as far as the city's liability for unauthorized use per the lease agreement 

>>JANE LUMM because I think there's an incentive for us to do more enforcement in a way, if something occurs after hours when someone is parking there, let's say it's a university employee and they are not authorized to park there at a given time, and say something should occur, is that, are we addressing that in our agreement in the lease and are we covered by maybe not doing a little more enforcement?

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA I can address it further I would have to consider it more, but this lease agreement is sufficient. It is sufficient for the purposes that you're doing. Additional liability as I understand it is not an issue as I understand it at this point.

>>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI thank you. Two points. First of all on the issue of the plan for enforcement. I hear the point that councilmember Kunselman raised, but I and I had a similar one when I first saw this I thought was what's this cost us? They I read it again, usually a good thing for me to do, and the point of the resolution is to revise the plan but does not require the implementation of that plan. So for me, we know what our options are, and what we do our budget and our deployment it gives us the ability to say, is this worth it. I haven't heard about this recently but when I first ran for office one of the things I did hear about was that people were doing weekend soccer tournaments and concerned about parking in this area. So I'm happy to have plan, an enforcement plan. The second thing is just seeing how much we have picked at this little thing, I am comfortable with the lease term being a one-year term. I'm comfortable with it being one-and-one if that's the will of council. But I would like to move that we change it to one-year lease with up to three one-year renewals. This addresses gives us, addresses the concerns that councilmember Briere raised about ensuring that and providing a little bit of additional stability to the university. The renewal would still be by default in the hands of staff, but a council directive to say, ok we're done still gives us the chance as a body to intervene prior to the end of that four-year window. So my resolution that I'll be submitting by writing and hopefully it will get to you, is to change in the final whereas clause to read lease four three additional one-year terms and then likewise in the term section of the contract.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I think we are still on the amendment.

>>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI And I'm moving to amend the amendment. So it would be three terms with in the ...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR is there a second. Seconded by councilmember Krapohl.    

>>JACK EATON the manner in which the lease is written, if you allow the option for three one-year renewals, that's solely at the discretion of the university, it doesn't provide us with any opportunity to say no. We can negotiate the terms of each one of those optional years, but we would be surrendering  control over the subsequent three years to the university. Without any early termination language, we would be basically binding ourselves for four years, and so I can't support this amendment of the amendment.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR further discussion of the amendment to the amendment.

>>JULIE GRAND what if there is a friendly amendment, I don't know how many, I won't even try, that put back in the termination language with 12 months?

>>JACK EATON I don't find that friendly. I think that we should decide on – preferable to me – the one-and-one and vote on that. Two years from now we can have this conversation if we haven't conversed about it in the interim. I understand what you're trying to do, but I think what were trying to force with the one-and-one is that we pay attention to this rather than just rubberstamping it every four years. So the purpose of the one-and-one is that we focus our attention on this in the next four years and we decide what we are going to do. Are we going to use our parklands for parking spaces, or are we going to use our parklands for parks? And I don't see the difference in the university developing a parking lot somewhere else, if it allows us to use our parks for recreational purposes. So I just think that the one-and-one serves a particular purpose, which is to focus us on deciding what we're going to do with our parklands on Fuller Road.

 >>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN  yeah, boy, we are going around in circles, aren't we?  I can't support the amendment amendment. Because again it's making us go around in circles. To kind of counter, or to build upon what councilmember Eaton was talking about, the reason I'm interested in, or that I am supporting this one and one is that what was driving this is the trees over at the VA. I still want to hear what the future is, or what will be the response of the University to the VA and the trees that are taking, or have taken a hit from being parked around, so to speak. With this two years on the table, after two years, we will know I am sure what is happening over at the VA. That's what was driving all of this to begin with. So if we take it all the way back to we are trying to save the trees, and the trees are no longer safe, that's going to change the discussion within a matter of a couple of years. Then it's really more about the whole big parking situation. But you know, I speak as the Lorax, I speak for the trees, that's what was driving this, so that's what I want to stay focused on.

 >>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR rollcall vote starting with, this is the amendment to the amendment to one and three. I'm sorry. Is everyone clear about what, this is councilmember Warpehoski's amendment to the amendment which would alter the one and one amendment to a one and three amendment. So if you are voting yes, you are going in favor of one and three and moving forward on that basis. Rollcall vote  please.

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

>>CLERK motion fails

>>GRAYDON KRAPOHL  I guess my preference would be to have the University have some certainty and what they're doing, but I would also support the one and one, I think with the PROS plan coming due,  and I do think it is necessary to have further discussion. The parking down along that area is going to get, it is not going to get better. And if the University chooses to build a parking structure, it's going to put a lot of pressure on the neighborhoods and the people living down in that area, we do need to have that discussion over the next couple of years. But I think one and one without the termination clause, I think that's fine.

>>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI thank you. I will be supporting the amendment, even without my amendment. The piece that I don't want to get lost in this though, one in one, two and two, one and three, there is this narrative out there that this is about returning parkland to park use. We heard at the previous meeting that the existing footprint of parking is because that is the footprint that is needed for the park use. That is why my constituent was complaining about not having enough parking for the park use of soccer. Their parking lots, I'm thinking of the ones in my area, we've got parking lots at West Park got parking lots at all lot of our parks, because people need to park to use a lot of these parks. Fuller Park is one of those. The existing parking lots are part of the park use, but during the workweek they are not needed, so we found a way to generate revenue off that use, that resource that would otherwise go vacant. So I support the amendment, but I don't want us to, I don't wanna let what I consider to be a misrepresentation of the parking system at this site go unchallenged.

 >>JULIE GRAND can I also add to that point, which I completely agree with. We have a pool and soccer field there, we need parking so that people can use the pool and soccer fields there.  There is also been discussion about the idea that because there is parking there, that that eliminates the possibility of putting the border to border Trail through that space. I think that's a fallacy, that one could still could connect the border to border trail through that space even if there is parking there. So I think that just important point out.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR a roll call vote on the amendment. Starting with councilmember Kunselman.

Councilmember Kunselman, yes
Councilmember Krapohl, yes
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

 >>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR further discussion of the resolution as amended. Councilmember Briere.

>>SABRA BRIERE I wonder if Mr. Kosteva could come to the podium  just briefly to touch on the university and the VA and the oak trees.  I know that this is only tangentially important to the item in question, but it remains a topic of discussion.

>>JIM KOSTEVA  madam councilmember, and others, I have not been fully briefed. I know that after the university did send a letter to the Veterans Administration, that we were contacted shortly thereafter by representatives of both the Washington DC offices as well as the local office, and the extent of those conversations I have not been fully briefed upon. However, if you did happen to visit the VA site this afternoon you might have notice but they restricted across the asphalt drive which had previously provided access to some of that expanded parking area in the most ?? have been removed.

>>SABRA BRIERE thank you.

>>JANE LUMM I appreciate councilmember Briere calling on Mr. Kostevea and Mr. Kosteva responding to that. I am grateful that the university reached out to the VA. I was actually on council when this "temporary" in quotes, lease arrangement was established  and it was to protect the trees, and I have to note that I see county commissioner Rabhi sitting in the audience, and someone recently sent me a photo of county commissioner Rabhi when he was just a little guy when he was taken on a field trip to, and was part of an effort to preserve this oak grove. So he knows full well the value of these trees as everyone here does. So again I'm glad that the university, our city staff followed up with the VA. And it sounds like the VA has been receptive to the suggestions and I know the city contacted the arborist subsequently so that is great. Just a question about the rates, because I noticed that in the agreement, the original rates, not the rates with a 7 1/2% increase, are in the agreement, so do we need to amend this so that it reflects a 7 and 1/2% increase that PAC is now recommending? Because it's not, if you look at page 9 of the orignal agreement it's the original rates. They were not adjusted.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR perhaps as an administrative matter, we could, is that. Can we do that as an administrative matter.

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA I think you should state what the rates are for the two years.

>>JANE LUMM I'd be happy to do it.  the rates pursuant to a 7 1/2% increase for Lot A it's $38,581. Lot B $38,581. For Lot C $7,390. That assumes a 7 1/2% increase. So I move that those rates be reflected in the fee schedule...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR we'll just bring them in as an administrative matter. 

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA you're voting on that with that rate structure. 

>>JANE LUMM is that a separate ...

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR they're being incorporated in as an administrative matter, and we're voting on it with that being done. Thank you for raising that.

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA I just want the clerk to actually have the ... 

>>JANE LUMM I would send them if I were connected but I am not. I would do with my phone, which I'm not supposed to use.

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA you're talking about Exhibit B to DS-1? You're saying those numbers in Exhibit B are not correct? 

>>JANE LUMM it's not. Those are the original rates. They are not the rates with a 7/2% increase, I am quite sure. 

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA Again, I don't know at this point. Tom Crawford has looked at it.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR councilmembe Lumm, my understanding is that you are correct. Can you reread those and we will incorporate them in. 

>>JANE LUMM For Lot A $38,581. Lot B $38,581. And Lot C $7,390. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR with the total being whatever that total is. $84,554. I gather. With a corresponding ...

>>STEVE POWERS nothing had been approved so there was nothing to change. Now that  this direction has been given will make sure that the lease is accurate with the 7 1/2% increase.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion on the motion as amended?

Seeing none roll call vote starting with councilmember Kunselman. 

Councilmember Kunselman, yes
Councilmember Krapohl, yes
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

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  As members of the public and  councilmembers know there has been an error in the agenda can we have a motion to open the agenda. Discussion to open the agenda? All in favor. All opposed. The agenda is open. Is there an amendment perhaps.

 >>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI move to add to the agenda DC-2. Resolution authorizing the city to allocate up to $89,318 for the 2014-15 winter emergency shelter and warming center response.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  discussion. Councilmember Briere.

>>SABRA BRIERE okay we could have just gone quickly to having a unanimous vote, but I have a couple of things to add. Tonight it's going to be quite cold.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR we are just adding it to the agenda.

>>SABRA BRIERE were just adding it to the agenda. Okay then I have nothing to say.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  further discussion. All in favor. All opposed. It is added to the agenda. DC-2. Resolution authorizing the city to allocate up to $89,318 for the 2014-15 winter emergency shelter and warming center response.

>>SABRA BRIERE I think part of my own confusion is  this was part of the agenda it just wasn't part of the printed agenda. And so playing catch-up here is confusing. But tonight it is supposed to be in the neighborhood of 10° above zero, it's going to be quite cold. As well as a little snowy. We are all excited to have winter come so early. But winter coming so early can be a problem for the people who have been for one reason or another living rough. This resolution allows us to encourage Delonis Center sooner and to allow Delonis center to open their doors to more people, although they are on the open, and this doesn't affect their immediate occupancy of whoever comes to Delonis  tonight, in the long term it allows the Delonis shelter to be open longer and for more people and that is a value to the community. If this passes council tonight, and a similar sibling resolution passes the county commission on Wednesday, that gives assurance to Delonis, to the Shelter Association and to a variety of other organizations that provide services and shelter for people who are living rough, that there will be shelter for them. And we heard from one of our speakers earlier today that he, she, I am sorry, I lost track who spoke that we should not have beds only for 50 people. I appreciate that comment but need to point out that about 100 individuals can be served at Delonis, finding emergency shelter during the day, and as many as 150 uncomfortably can be served in the overnight shelter. There is additional shelter in churches and at a variety of nonprofit organizations not only for the sober but for those people who need shelter, but have indulged in chemicals that alter their capacity. So this is a really important thing for us to talk about, because none of us want to tell those people who are living rough under bridges, in the woods, in parks that they have to move move along when they have no opportunity for a place to move to. And it's my hope that you will all support this.

>>JANE LUMM thank you Mr. Mayor. There were a couple of comments made during public commentary that I think it would be helpful to have some clarity on, if you will. And I see that Ms. Shuleister, Executive Director of the Delonis center, and I would just like to ask if anyone would have any problem with asking her to come forward. Thank you so much for coming for being here tonight. One of tonight's speakers said that the shelter turns way people if they don't have a screening reference and I wonder if you could speak to that.

>>ELLEN SCHULMEISTER I'd be happy to. We've been out for the last month or so alerting people who are living in campsites and out in the community, we have been doing a lot of outreach to let people know that in order to come to the warming center this year they need to call Housing Access which is our centralized response for homelessness, and to get a referral to the warming center so that they can be properly screened and we will know who's coming in. So we have been out saying that, and unfortunately people might think that they can't come in even if they qualify and just come to the door – which is not true. We do have screeners six days a week in person at the Delonis Center at dinner time. And we are opening at 7 o'clock for the warming center, so you can get a screening nearly any night of the week,  on Tuesdays and Thursdays when housing access is open, until 7 PM and also with personal screeners. And if it happens to be that there is not a screener available, they can get a screening the next day. We are not going to turn people away because they didn't get a screening but we're just gonna ask that they do. We are required to collect data from a lot of our funders and so this is just a means doing that in a coordinate way we know who's using the services in fact 71 people have already gotten a screening and referral to the Delonis Center. We've actually been open, we opened up her cafeteria last Wednesday, just to have it open for a place for  people to get warm when the weather turned cold, and we started the official warming center tonight. So were going.

>>JANE LUMM thank you Ms. Schulmeister that was very helpful. I am pleased to be a cosponsor on this and I want to thank all those who participated on the winter shelter response workgroup. The recommendations and actions reviewed with us at our last meeting are very well thought out reasonable responses to this serious challenge and I also think is reasonable that the city and county each fund half the cost. I think it is also important to note that the response would be significantly more costly if it were not for the support of three local churches. Bethlehem Church of Christ, Crossroads Baptist, and St. Andrews Episcopal. The workgroup recognized that this is a temporary response for this winter. Obviously, that's right, the challenge of homelessness is not going away, and going forward, we need to address the issue of the increasing number of homeless from outside Washtenaw County using the shelter services. Clearly that isn't sustainable long-term or fair to the city or fair to city or county residents paying the bill here. Other communities will need to take responsibility for the homeless in their communities., At a minimum stopping the practice of transporting individuals to Ann Arbor. In the meantime as we address that issue is appropriate that we provide additional funding for this upcoming winter and I hope we will all support this and that the county will also agreed to provide half the funding.

>>STEPHEN KUNSELMAN Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be supporting this wholeheartedly. For those of you that may not know it, there is now a homeless encampment on Burton Road at the very far reaches of Ward 3 at the end of a dirt road. Somehow there is a port-a-john that made its way out there. So we know that there are people who are supporting this effort with logistics. And that was one of my questions, one of my driving questions when we were talking about this before and I think Mary Jo was here, but you don't have to answer it now, was if we increase the funding, if we provide these beds, will we be able to go to the people who are living in the woods and under the bridges and say, you have got to go and go to the center and go to the warming center and you cannot stay out here under the bridge or in the woods on private property or on public property. And I think that's, you know, it may be hard for us to say that, but it has to be said. And we shouldn't be making it easy so that people can live in the woods or under the bridge. A lot of other communities don't make it easy, especially if they are providing facilities, which we are. So that's one of the things that I will be addressing at one of our future meetings. What can we do about Burton Road? Why are we allowing of this road to be open to the public, when there is no reason whatsoever at the end of this road, or going down this road it's a two track, you need a four-wheel-drive if the weather is bad. So what can we do as a city, can we put a big log across it? So that there is only access for the adjacent property owners to walk in and  walk out. I don't know what the answer is but I want to do something. There is no reason why Burton Road  should be open to the public right now. If you drive down there there's a lot of dumping that happens down there, there are couches and debris and now there is a port-a-john  that is being used by a homeless  encampment. So we need to do something. That's why this money is a good opportunity to enhance our facilities, and I understand that we may be more desirable to those from outside of Washtenaw County but at the same time we could take care of our own communities. The Forestbrook community  should not have to be tolerating homeless people in their backyard, and have to live with that notion that they are having to put up with it, and not the rest of the neighborhoods across the city. So I'm going to be quite adamant as we move forward this winter to make sure that our police, our public services and our health department and our community economic development  do everything they can to get these people out of the weather in into these facilities where they can get the best care and they're going to be the most safe.

>>KIRK WESTPHAL I will keep it brief. I'm extremely comfortable and enthusiastic to support this. Once again we have a great workgroup advising us and I appreciate the work that the response workgroup did and to echo councilmember Lumm's sentiments, this is obviously framed as an emergency response and funding, you know I'm comfortable that this is a small net increase to the community support for affordable, to human services so I'm comfortable with that. I assume we will have a fuller discussion about the most effective use of additional funds going forward to really get at more core issues about how we tackle this regional, larger than regional problem. Thanks.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR for my part I am delighted to cosponsor and support this. I think this is an important effort to address a real and present problem in the community this winter. I'm also looking forward to the continuing conversation about how we can make sure that we are not bearing a disproportionate cost for regional human services problems. That's something that I'm delighted has been moving forward so far. I'm going to do what I can to continue to move that conversation forward. Further discussion.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  Roll call vote starting with councilmember Kunselman. 

Councilmember Kunselman, yes
Councilmember Krapohl, yes
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

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  DS-2. Resolution to improve inter-agency agreement for collaborative technology and services with Washenaw County.

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

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  DS-3 Resolution to Award a Contract to Guardian Tree Experts, LLC, for Tree Removal, Tree Pruning and Stump Removal along City Street Rights-of-Way ($192,160.00)  Discussion of DS-3.

>>CHUCK WARPHEHOSKI thank you, I had a constituent email me with a request for clarification. The funds that are being used for this are from the additional appropriation we did  the additional $1,000,000 for tree cleanup, is that correct? 

>>STEVE POWERS yes. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  Further discussion of DS-3. All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DS-4 Resolution to Award a Contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company for Tree Removal, Tree Pruning and Stump Removal along City Street Rights-of-Way ($175,875.00) Discussion of DS-4. All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  DS-5 Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech of Michigan, PC for Water Treatment Plant Manchester Tank Coating Project Test ($127,780.00) Discussion of DS-5. 

>>JANE LUMM Thank you. I would just like to thank staff for responding to questions to clarify the public art component.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Further discussion of DS-5. All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved. 

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR DS-6 Resolution to Approve Two Three-Year Professional Services Agreements (PSA) for Architectural Services for Parks & Recreation for a Not to Exceed Annual Amount of $150,000.00 per PSA. Further discussion of DS-6.  All those in favor. All opposed. It's approved

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Are there further communications from council?

>>JACK EATON I have two matters. I believe we all received the same email from a member of the public about our FOIA policy and a particular FOIA request, which prompted me to remember that on my short list of things to do, I'll be bringing forward a resolution at the next meeting for a review of our FOIA policy. It won't answer the particulars that the resident raised in his email to us, but I believe it's time for us to take a good close look at our FOIA policy. The second thing I would like to address is I was disappointed to learn that we signed a contract with Project Innovations to be a consultant in our deer management program. Project Innovations is the consulting company that we hired to do the SSWWE citizens advisory committee process, and repeatedly that company had problems in that process. Beginning with, it used a a private web communication system for a public process, it's called Basecamp. And only after much public complaint was it decided that those commuications would be reproduced after a time delayed so that the public could actually have access to the public process that the consultant was guiding. That  same consultant kicked one of the members of  citizens committee off the committee because the committee member was rather persistent on some issues. That same consistent threatened to have me ejected from a meeting if I engaged in whispering conversations in the back of the room, and the consultant conducted a public outreach process that on two occasions required armed police officers to be present during meetings. If we're engaging in the public in a manner in which we feel we have to have police officer present, there is a fundamental problem, so I cannot express how disappointed I am that we are once again  engaging that same company to engage the public when we have had such a bad experience with them. The contract has been signed there is nothing that we can really do to undo that contract. But I would hope that we would look at our experience with that contractor and grade their performance and really question whether we should be doing business with them when is seems to cause so much friction with the residents of that we are trying to tap into in our public process. That's all I have.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Are there further communicaitons from council?

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR I have before you the clerks report ...

>>STEPHEN POSTEMA I have some communications, I tried to send them to the clerk. The updated public opinion that your requested, that has been done, and I would just add it here to the two communications and it has been filed with the clerk for the benefit of the public. I have  sent it via this computer but whether you have it, if not I will make sure that that you have it as soon as possible.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR and now I have before you the clerk's report of medications petitions and referrals. Would someone move its acceptance. Discussion? All in favor. Opposed. It's approved.

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR  We now come to public comment general time. To become a general time is an opportunity for the public to speak to the Council and the public about matters of municipal interest. You need not have signed up in advance. You have three minutes so please pay close attention to the timeclock and we can have only one person speaking at a time. Is there anyone who would like to address Council today at public comment general time.

>>KATHY GRISWOLD hello.  Kathy Griswold. I have been advocating for pedestrian safety infrastructure improvements since I was a young person back in the 90s. Go ahead you can laugh, all right now. I am really really optimistic because of two things that have happened recently. One is the city implementing a2fixit, which is their actual free mobile application which is customized and which actually interfaces with the city's CityWork program that staff used to go out and solve problems like potholes and vegetation that needs to be trimmed. And it also interfaces with an international system called SeeClickFix. SeeClickFix is a homegrown system from New Haven Connecticut that was specifically developed to engage the community and input in problem solving. And the CEO was recently quoted as saying this system has helped neighbors appreciate city workers more. So not only are problems getting resolved quicker but the public is also realizing how much our city workers are doing in the city workers are more efficient. So you can tell I really love the system. The other thing that is happening is that the pedestrian safety and access task force has an online survey, and I would encourage everyone here and everyone in the viewing audience to please take the survey, because you can then document what the needs are. And one of the things that I noticed that in addition to the streetlight outages and we are now down to 89 open tickets versus 95 at the last meeting the other thing is that for crosswalk stripping, and it has come off and is no longer visible. The response has been, we'll add it to our list for 2015 striping. My concern is either we need it all the time, or maybe we don't need it and maybe let's save money and let's not stripe our crosswalks. So we really need to do that. So what I think we need to do is look at operational efficiencies, and the other thing is we desperately need money in the capital improvement plan. And I would like to request that we have $10 million over the next five years, so that would be $2 million per year, so that we can catch up with all of our infrastructure needs. Thank you.

>>LARRY YOUNG my name is Larry Young, lifetime resident here in Ann Arbor, born and raised here. The event that happened couple weeks ago with engaging the police officer with the shooting. I know her myself, and I've been sitting back trying to gather it all together, trying to figure out, the life that she lived ,it was just taken, the way it was just take, I know the police officers I commend them we haven't had this kind of thing in a long time, but I just kind of figure out they are still here to serve and protect, and I can understand of their life was being threatened the actions being taken. But I also know that their job is to serve and protect and their duty is to do everything they can to prevent from taking a life. They have vests, they have all kind of things to prevent certain things like this happening. And that is not something that can save them, I can understand being shot in the arm or shot in the leg taken a person out, but killing a person in the head for in the chest, I'm just trying to figure out. I don't know what was going on in her her head or what it happened that day. But still I'm trying to figure out these are the people we  put in a position to serve and protect in the community. I am on the people who live here. That could of been my daughter could been my mother could of been my sister. I don't under I don't know what was going on, I'm just trying to understand their job is to serve and protect that is the thing that sticks with me. That their job is to do everything they can to prevent the life in the course of the system, now if she did something that was wrong she has the right to have due process like we all have the right to do. I'm just trying to figure out how this life was taken without the actions to the fullest to keep from taking that life. I mean this is  not a dog, this is not an animal, this is a person who has been gunned down. Whatever excuse or whatever she has done I can't figure out why her life was taken. I was told she had a knife then I was told she didn't have a knife. I wasn't there I don't know what happened. But I understand that police officers, I know they have a hard job to do. That is their job, they come in situations even far worse than this. But I just couldn't figure out how this woman life was taken by two police officers who have vests and all she had was a knife if that was the case. You know, I just can't figure how they didn't do everything in their ability to serve and protect. And that's my problem. I just hope that you all can try to grasp that, you know.

>>YOUSEF RABHI why yes Mayor I would. Hello councilmembers, it is amazing to be on this side of the podium and addressing you this capacity. I wat to first of all thank you – for the viewing members I'm Yousef Rabhi chair of the county board of commissioners. I live in Ann Arbor in the Fourth Ward. I want to congratulate all the new councilmembers who were sworn in today and the mayor for a campaign well run on everybody's part and congratulations and we look forward to, I look forward to working with you, from the county's end of things as these two years go by. I also want to thank you all for your vote tonight to partner with the county on allocating funds for the Delonis Center and for ensuring or that we're taking care of folks in our community this winter. It is on our board agenda for this Wednesday I made sure it was on there. It is ready to be discussed. I certainly can't speak for my colleagues but I will be supporting it strongly and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. So I wanted to thank you all for taking that action and congratulate you once again and look forward to continuing our work together.

>>MEMBER OF PUBLIC [not audible] [general topic is homelessness] ??

>>CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ?? to have a close session for today. Motion to adjourn. In favor. Opposed. We are adjourned.