Neighbors,
City Council meets on Monday, October 7th at 7pm. Here are some updates before my preview of our agenda.
Ward 4 Coffee Hour, October 20th
I'm hosting my next constituent coffee hour, Sunday, October 20 from 11-12 at York Food and Drink (1928 Packard St.). I hope to see you there!
Vote Yes on Ann Arbor Proposals A and B
Absentee and early voting has begun, and that means that many of you are looking at a very long ballot. I'm encouraging residents to VOTE YES on Proposals A and B.
Proposal A would authorize the City to establish a Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) to provide renewable energy to local residents and businesses. This would be opt-in and fee-based for residents who choose to subscribe and pay for energy through the SEU. It would require no new taxes. The SEU would not replace DTE, but would instead supplement it, ensuring that residents have more options in how they get their energy. You can learn more about the SEU at: https://tinyurl.com/32d34fyk
Proposal B would renew a 1.1-mill property tax to help fund maintenance and capital improvements for the city’s 160-plus parks and the recreation amenities in them. If renewed, the millage — last approved by voters in 2018 —would be levied for another 20 years. Learn more about the Parks Millage at: https://tinyurl.com/e25yher5
League of Women Voters, Washtenaw County Opposes Ann Arbor Proposals C and D
After thorough study and consideration of both proponent and opposition arguments for Proposals C and D, the League of Women Voters announced that it opposes both Proposals C and D.
Their statement on Proposal C, which would eliminate primary elections and partisan labels for City Council, reads: “While the goal of increased voter turnout is important, Proposal C is incomplete in addressing this issue. The main concern is this proposal does not provide a method for winnowing multiple candidates so that the ultimate winner will have a majority of total votes."
Their statement on Proposal D, which would use the City's general fund to provide 9:1 matching to candidates' campaigns, reads: “Public financing of campaigns where candidates adhere to reasonable spending limits is a key goal, but Proposal D falls short in a number of ways. First and importantly, the State Attorney General has issued an opinion that Proposal D is contrary to State law because only a city council can appropriate city funds.
In addition, Proposal D does not:
require candidates to raise a certain dollar amount before matching funds are made available
limit individual donations beyond state requirements,
provide safeguards against candidates running in bad faith from getting City matching funds,
require a candidate to return unused matching funds to the City."
The League of Women Voters joins a long list of local civic groups and elected officials who oppose these ill-conceived proposals. I urge you to VOTE NO on Proposals C and D.
City Council Meeting, Monday, October 7 at 7pm
Responses to Council Member Questions (this has not yet been posted to Legistar, so I include a copy hosted on my own website). Topics addressed include:
Community-Based Crisis Response Pilot Grant Contract with the Michigan State Police
OSI Enforcement of Energy-related ordinances
Agenda Highlights
Resolution to Approve Grant Agreement with Michigan State Police for a "Community-Based Crisis Response Program" (CA-11). After several months of negotiation between staff and the State of Michigan, Council is finally able to consider a resolution to accept a $483,000.00 grant from the Michigan State Police (MSP), Grants and Community Services Division, for establishing a community-based crisis response program and approval of the Community-Based Crisis Response Pilot Grant Contract with the MSP. Representative Jason Morgan secured the Grant from the MSP. The grant will be used solely to support a new or existing community-based crisis response program. The City is required to provide a 25% match of all grant funds expended. As many of you know, the City has thus far been unable to set up an Unarmed Crisis Response Program as articulated in two separate requests for proposal. The gap between the only proposal the City received and the City's responsibility to reliably serve its public safety function (e.g. 24/7 response and the ability to respond to calls that involve a clear and present danger to the public), means that the City must reconsider its original approach to providing this service. Our City Administrator is engaging in conversations with and site visits to other U.S. cities, including Durham, North Carolina, that have successfully set up unarmed response programs. The grant language allows the City to use the funds on either a new or existing program. The City plans to add 2 social workers through the City's existing Supportive Connections program to expand its reach. They could ultimately be meshed with our unarmed response program down the road.
Unified Development Code Amendments (Transit Corridor Additional Standards, Parking Structures) (PH-1). Approval of this ordinance will amend the Unified Development Code (Chapter 55) related to the TC1 (Transit Corridor) district additional standards to revise the curb cut limits, building frontage, building dimensions, and specific building type regulations, and the parking structure use specific standards to revise the requirements adjacent to streets. A petition was submitted requesting amendments to the standards. Each request was considered and discussed individually by the Ordinance Revisions Committee and the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance was prepared by staff based on feedback received from those bodies and staff's recommendations. Following a public hearing on July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval. The full staff report on these changes is attached to the agenda item. (NOTE: the public need not sign up in advance to comment on this item)
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 102 HERD (PH-3). In September 2023, City Council passed the Home Energy Rating Disclosure (“HERD”) Ordinance. The HERD ordinance requires sellers of certain residential dwellings to provide certain disclosures relating to the energy performance of such dwellings in an effort to encourage safer, healthier, and more comfortable homes in Ann Arbor and reduce carbon emissions. Since this ordinance went into effect in March 2024, staff reports that sellers have discovered and exploited loopholes regarding the timing, duration, and public accessibility of the required disclosures. The amendments are intended to address those loopholes. (NOTE: the public need not sign up in advance to comment on this item)
Resolution to Approve 310 E Huron Brownfield Plan (PH-4). 310 E Huron LLC, is seeking to redevelop 300-312 E Huron to construct a six-story, 139 room AC Hotel across from City Hall. This resolution would approve a Redevelopment Brownfield Plan. If Council approves, it then moves to the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, to authorize Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer and City of Ann Arbor for eligible activities. The site is eligible for brownfield assistance for the presence of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) levels greater than State-established criteria. The site was previously used as a gas station, car stereo installation center, garage, and dry cleaner. This plan would reimburse the developer for environmental-related activities totaling $749,529 including: Baseline Environmental Assessment (BEA) Activities; Due Care Activities (installation of a vapor mitigation system, transportation and disposal of dewatering fluids); Soil Management (testing, transportation and disposal of impacted soil); Demolition, Brownfield Plan Preparation and Implementation; and 15% in Contingency Costs. As noted in the staff report, the plan meets all the City's Brownfield Approval Criteria, except for the following:
"If only Environmental Eligible Activities are requested, affordable housing is not required, and the project will generally be supported with the assumption of the inherent benefits of a cleaner environment and protection of public health. The City strongly favors additional remediation beyond minimum required for Due Care and compliance with applicable environmental standards. Examples include remediation beyond property boundaries within adjacent street rights-of-way and properties where such actions will result in meaningful current and/or future protection of public health." Staff reports they have not conducted this review.
"A real financial gap in project feasibility can be demonstrated." Staff reports "since the project is already underway, we cannot determine that a real financial gap exists" and explains "However, the developer could make cuts elsewhere to offset the additional remediation expense. Those cuts would likely result in less energy efficiency and sustainability upgrades. In this situation, the intent of awarding a brownfield TIF is to ensure these updates are completed as promised. Staff initiated the conversation and ultimately suggested the Brownfield TIF to offset the additional costs instead of removing non-required elements that are desirable to the City and County."
"The environmental conditions and/or extraordinary costs associated with urban, infill development prevent a reasonable Return on Investment for the developer." Staff reports that "Since the project is already underway, we cannot determine that the developer is unable to achieve a reasonable return on investment."
Based on this evaluation, I'm not inclined to support this, though I plan to ask staff in the meeting why the brownfield is being considered in the middle of the project and why the City is unable to assess on the criteria above at this time. (NOTE: the public need not sign up in advance to comment on this item)
County Millage Rebate Resolution (DC-2). In November, Washtenaw County voters will decide on a ballot measure renew the County's Public Health and Safety Millage. 24% of the total millage (the “General Fund Rebate”) gets allocated to those jurisdictions within the County that maintain their own police force (the Cities of Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Milan, Saline, and Ypsilanti, and Pittsfield and Northfield Townships). For Ann Arbor, that will likely mean a return of $3M+ per year beginning in FY26. This resolution establishes how Council will spend the returned portion of these funds:
40% to fund, support, perform, evaluate, administer, and/or do all things useful to realize and provide a program to provide for the response by unarmed personnel to requests for assistance from members of the public, provided, however, that until such a program exists, the City may retain General Fund Rebate monies in anticipation of the creation of such a program;
40% to fund supportive services for residents of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties, including but not limited to services related to mental health, physical health, finances, job skills, employment, daily living skills, crisis management and conflict resolution, youth programming, criminal legal system harm mitigation, addiction treatment, and community building; and
20% to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety through the installation, replacement, and/or maintenance of street lighting in accordance with approved plans, installation, replacement, and/or maintenance of pedestrian-activated signals, filling of sidewalk gaps, construction of protected and/or buffered bicycle facilities (in accordance with approved Transportation and Non-Motorized Comprehensive Plans), and funding of trail and other off-road active transportation connections. (Sponsors: Taylor, Akmon, Harrison, Song, Watson)
Please reach out if you have questions, concerns, or thoughts on any of the agenda items. Email: DAkmon@A2gov.org | Phone/text: 734-492-5866
You can also communicate your thoughts via:
Email City Council: CityCouncil@a2gov.org
Comment at the meeting (remote or in person): Call the City Clerk's office at 734-794-6140 beginning at 8 a.m. on the day of the meeting to reserve a public speaking time. NOTE: you do not need to reserve time to speak during a "public hearing (PH)" item.