Board of Education - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the second meeting of the Ann Arbor City Council. If you're able, please rise and join us for a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh before we uh before we get the meeting in full started, we do have a a full house today. I'm grateful for you all being here. We have put in a call to see whether there are more chairs to be brought up for folks who are not a seated. Um if you are seated and you feel like you're one of those people who might be able to be unseated, um reflect upon it. If you're uh you know, if you're one of those people who are standing and feel like standing is fine, then then deny then dis disregard when someone offers you your seat. Further, there is uh a gentle question been as to whether we are over uh fire capacity in the in the crowd. Um we don't know that but of course safety is is paramount. Uh I think we will have someone come up here to do a headcount. Um if it turns out that we are over whatever line we shouldn't be over, we'll uh pause the meeting at that point and have a conversation about how we can how we can best accommodate. All right. Thanks. Uh, would the clerk please call the role of councel?

Council member Dish here. Council Harrison here. Council Watson here. Councilor Malik here. Council Redina here. Council Gazi Edwin here. Mayor Taylor here. Council Ay here. Council Aman here. Councilor Briggs here. Council Cornell absent. We have a quorum. May have a motion please to approve the agenda. Moved by council member Malik, second by council member Watson. Discussion of the agenda. All in favor? All opposed. The agenda is approved. Are there communications today from our city administrator? No, mayor.

We do have uh an introduction today. Would uh folks in the house from ground cover please come on up. I don't know where everybody's at. All right, it's you. How you guys doing? You're not the politician of the group. All right. Welcome. How you doing, mayor? I'm well. How are you? Not too bad.

All right. So, we um uh we all know that uh you know, part of the the whoop and warf of our our downtown are the ground cover vendors. They've been uh on the job working uh selling uh a a respected street newspaper for for many years now. Um and it is a great way uh for folks to to lift themselves up and for folks uh who are uh walking and congregating the downtown to to learn a bit about um about the full scope of people's experience. And I'm from Ann Arbor. I I've been here 68 years. I went to Pioneer. My dad brother got his first teaching job under Don

Don Canam. Well, it was Don L the assistant athletic director to assistant athletic director. So, our family grew up in this town. I grew up I went to Dickens School Saw. I had a couple years of college and we I want to do karaoke downtown. If I stay with my health and we need a vi vibrant sea back, I'd still sell ground cover on the side. We do too. Absolutely. Oh, so uh we have a proclamation uh declaring uh February 2nd and the week of February 2nd as ground cover vendor appreciation week to celebrate and honor all the good things that ground tender vendors do. If you want to talk a little bit about your uh your ground cover experience, the the mic is yours.

I'm going to tell you I'm in the front page of the uh upcoming fundraiser paper and my bio is in there if you'd like to read about it about what why I sell ground cover. My u what would I do if I won a million a lottery ticket? I'd help with Yousef, start a UBI program, help all the people that are unfortunate that Trump wants to take everything away from us. And I would like to start a YouTube video with my karaoke, but I think that Trump would get a hold of that, too. So, we will. Your secret is safe here. All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you could pass this on to your to come tonight. That's what she told me to come for. All right. You bet. Thank you. We now come to public comment reserve time. Public comment reserve time is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to council and the community about matters of municipal interest. To speak at public comment reserve time, one needs to have signed up in advance by contacting our city clerk. Speakers in all instances will have three minutes in which to speak. So, please pay close attention to the time. Our clerk or the time clock will notify you when 30 seconds are remaining and when your time is expired. When your time is expired, please conclude your remarks and seed the floor. We have today more than 15 uh folks signed up for public comment. Um, according to council rules, we hear the first 15 members uh first first 15 speakers or uh the first 45 minutes of public comment, whichever allows for more folks to speak. Um, after that, the folks who have not yet had an opportunity to speak, but who has nevertheless signed up in advance with our clerk, um, we will listen to their public comment, uh, at the back end of the meeting uh, at public comment overflow. Our first speaker today is Maryann Peron.

Thank you. Hello. Good evening. Um my name is Maryanne Peron, resident of Ann Arbor and a member of Merura Movement for Immigrant Rights Action. Um, we came to you, many of us in this room, um, a few weeks ago, and asked for a resolution that would resist the cruel and often illegal ICE activities in our community, in our city, that would stand up to ICE courageously and boldly, and let them know that our city structures will not cooperate with them. Tonight, a resolution is on your agenda. Mr. Mayor and council members who worked on this resolution. Uh we thank you for your work in quickly preparing it the resolution. We are community advocates who have been working for years on immigrant justice and we have our eyes and ears to the ground. Your resolution is a good start. We ask you to pass the resolution and to work with us in Mera on the strengthening of it the policies that will follow from the resolution. As you know and as others who get a chance to speak tonight will say, many many municipalities in the United States have enacted very bold resolutions and we may be able to strengthen this resolution through the policies that um are worked on. We can do this in Ann Arbor. We should do this in Ann Arbor. Please work with us to protect all in our community, especially the most vulnerable and the targeted. Let's be bold and courageous in facing

these extreme times that we're living in. Mayor Mom Donnie of New York City, who actually put out a call to abolish ICE, says, "I am in support of abolishing ICE, and I'll tell you why. What we see is an entity that has no interest in fulfilling its stated reason to exist. We're seeing a government agency that's supposed to be enforcing some kind of immigration law. But instead, what it's doing, it's terrorizing people no matter their immigration status, no matter the facts of the law, no matter the facts of the case. So those of us who care about the law and worry about legalities, remember the people who hid Anne Frank were breaking the law. The people who killed her were following it. What is legal is not always moral and what is moral is not always legal. Please vote yes on the ICE free resolution on your agenda tonight and let the community be part of your next phases. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dennis Burke. I feel a little out of place here because I think most people are here to talk about ice and I have a rather simple thing to talk about which is an initial reading of an ordinance to u amend our zoning to D1 between South 4th and South Fifth Avenue just north of Madison. And I was going to urge you strongly to postpone or not vote in favor of that. But uh given that the civil rights and uh constitutionality behavior of our law enforcement's at stake uh I'm saying enough. I know I'll have an opportunity to come back and speak uh when we go through second reading in future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard Staller Schlaw.

Good evening. My name is Richard Staler Schul. I'm a 28-year resident of Ann Arbor and I'm with an advocate with Mera, the movement for immigrant rights action and we at MERA work closely with the Washington County Commission and commissioners to craft and support a county ICE-free resolution that recently passed unanimously. The community needs protection against the lawless and dangerous actions of federal immigration enforcement agents. We appreciate the efforts of the mayor and city council um to but to be clear, this resolution that's on the floor is not enough. We understand that the federal assault on constitutional rights has limited the abilities of local governments to protect communities, but the power of the people is greater than the people in power. That is why we must continue to take to the streets and the ballot boxes and everywhere else we can to stand up for truth and justice and basic humanity to stop the authoritarian takeover of this country. We must stop federal agents and their hired contractors and bounty hunters from terrorizing our communities and demand transparency and accountability. As one of the Los Angeles County supervisors recently explained in passing a unanimous resolution banning face coverings by immigration agents, quote, "We cannot stand down now and allow this type of policing to be acceptable in America. So if this means a fight in the courts with the federal government, I think it is a fight worth having." Ann Arbor is lagging. The cities of Detroit and Denver have introduced similar mask bans without waiting for exhaustion of Trump's judicial appeals. Chicago's mayor has issued executive orders banning masks and authorizing the investigation and prosecution of ICE agents who break the law. With militarized immigration agents traumatizing communities across the country and trampling on everyone's rights, we must not waver in our response. They are jailing children, terrorizing our immigrant neighbors,

rounding up the media and witnesses. In the name of Renee Good, Alex Prey, and the 30 people murdered by Immigration Enforcement agents before them, the time for powerful action is now. Yesterday, the Ann Arbor-based Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, ICPJ, sent out a message quoting from Timothy Snider's recent book on tyranny about the historical lessons on how to prevent the collapse of democracies. And the first bullet point was, "Do not obey in advance." To those who say we must be patient and wait for pending litigation, this is the same thing they said to the civil rights marchers. To those who say we're not sure we have the legal authority to act, we must say boldly ceue. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Peter Meritans. Good evening. I'm uh Peter Mertens from uh Sartorius um here in Albuquerque. I'm here to speak on behalf of uh South Ann Arbor. Um Storius, for those of you who don't know who we are, we're a German biotech company that provides solutions to companies who do cancer and pharmaceutical research. We are an active member of Spark and we have made a hund00 million investment here in Ann Arbor. I'm here for the Ann Arbor South um because we built the 130,000 foot building and it's a Lee Gold certified building and we have helped revitalize the research park um down south. We have enthusiastically occupied it since July of 2024 when we were allowed to occupy it. Um the benefits of that area um are in a few ways. Um we have it will revitalize a war area uh in South Ann Arbor. uh bring new economic boost to the site development and um just like we have done in the research park. It will allow our current employees and new employees to look for housing closer to our plant. We've had 15 um people who have transferred into Michigan from out of state over the last few years and they've had to choose the uh bedroom

communities around us to get housing. Um it will also create a more attractive um location for our out of town guests. Uh just some uh facts. Since we've been occupied in our building, we've had 32 meetings. About 1,000 participants. About 500 of those are from out of town, which is 1,550 room nights, which is generating roughly anywhere 400 to $500,000 in revenue. So these points are relevant relevant for us um to allow stories commitment here to an Ann Arbor to be stronger. Our company has given its update strategy for two factors that it strongly emphasize. Our bioanalytics is going to create a core area growth and that's who we are in our group down here. And we are also going to strengthen our North America market. The Ann Arbor South along with the Brierward Mall project will hopefully allow for even greater upgrades in the south area, making a bigger draw for our out of town folks to come and visit us. This area needs the improvement to keep up with future growth and make a compet uh make us competitive place to do business. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nicholas Swino. Mr. Mayor, council members, thank you so much for this opportunity. I'm Nick Sweno. It's great to see so many

familiar faces tonight for various reasons here. You know, I grew up in Ann Arbor in the 1960s. It was a much smaller town in those days. When I was seven or eight years old, it was normal and safe for my friends and me to walk downtown, maybe get a soda at Lucky Drugs, buy a model plane at Ryder's Hobby Shop. And that freedom set the tone for our entire childhood. The whole city felt like home. It gave me and my friends the sense that we could go anywhere and do almost anything. I left town after grad school and I've lived all over the world but happily moved back to Ann Arbor in 2006. I've been running businesses here since then. My dojo, the Japanese martial arts center, is right across boardwalk from the Arbor South project. This town and this project aren't abstractions for me. They're part of a living, breathing tapestry of people, culture, business, and history that I've been part of for most of my 65 years. If you know the area around Brierwood in the 777 building, you know it's almost 100% car-based. That's not a knock on it, but it's not really a neighborhood. It's not easy to walk to work, to walk to dinner, or to feel connected to the place you spend your day. Downtown Ann Arbor prides itself on its walkability. Still a work in progress in my opinion, but Arbor South gives us a real chance to bring that same kind of community to the southside. This project would help convert 17 acres of parking lot at state and Eisenhower into the start of a real neighborhood. I'm told that there'll be over a 100

homes, shops, restaurants, and public spaces where people can actually walk to what they need. It's a development coming at the right time on land that's paved over, underused, but full of potential. I think the housing plan should inspire all of us. I understand there'll be about 200 affordable apartments. It'll be powered by geothermal energy and there'll be about 800 fully electric homes, electrified homes. It's affordability and sustainability working together in just the same way I've heard members of this council speaking to in recent years. It's going to help people who work in Ann Arbor, live in Ann Arbor, teachers, service workers, healthcare workers, entrepreneurs, young professionals without pushing growth farther and farther out as we've heard other folks talk about today. My understanding is that the tax increment financing means that existing properties, property taxes won't rise because of this project. tax revenues won't be redirected here from other priority from other priorities right now. Is this my 30 seconds or is this my

That's your final time. I'm sorry. Last sentence. I hope that in a few short years folks on the south side will be able to walk through their neighborhood and feel a kindred sense of freedom and safety just as I felt growing up here many years ago. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathy Boris. Mayor, I believe Kathy Boris is on Zoom.

Caller with the phone number ending in 644. Press star R six to unmute your phone. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Kathy Boris and I live at 1726 Charlton in the fifth ward. I want to thank everyone who's speaking tonight about ICE. Thank you. But I need to speak about DC1 on tonight's agenda. The resolution to approve a brownfield plan for the Arbor South project which would allow Jeffrey Haltman and his Arbor south investors to pay no taxes to the city and county for the next 30 years. Approving the brownfield subsidy for Arbor South would be a smack in the face to the Ann Arbor voters who have voted for many millages which increase their own taxes. Millages for affordable housing, for climate action, for schools, and for our AAATA bus system, among others. But there are more good reasons to vote no on DC1. First, the fact that seven of the 11 sitting city council members have accepted campaign contributions from Jeffrey Hman. This creates a conflict of interest. Second, the fact that the brownfield plan does not follow the city's own brownfield policy. A policy which was written to safeguard public funds by limiting the value of brownfield tax breaks to 20% of the overall project investment. In the case of Arbor South, the tax breaks would be far greater than 20% of the overall project investment. Third, reasonable questions have been raised as to whether the parcels on which Arbor South will be built will be

built actually qualify as brownfields both under state law and ar and under Ann Arbor city policy. Fourth, because many other projects that this city council has approved are paying their fair share of city and county taxes, it would not be fair to give Arbor South this huge and hugely questionable tax break. Fifth, affordable housing in Ann Arbor South is not guaranteed because Ann Arbor South and the Ann Arbor Housing Commission do not yet have a development agreement in place. Let's watch to see what that agreement will actually turn out to be.

30 seconds.

It is possible that Arbor South will only be making a contribution to the affordable housing fund. So, I urge I urge you to vote no on DC1. Let's find a developer for this TC1 district who can and will pay their city and county taxes for the next 30 years. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tom Weider. This is what corruption looks like. That's a development agreement that of course you've had a lot of chance to read because it just came out last Thursday and it's only 6,000 words, 1300 words just about the housing uh that probably or might not be built. There are a number of things about this project. There's two reasons were given for getting brownfield. One is supposed contamination on the former gas station site. If you read the consultants report, they do not identify any current pollution contamination on that site. In fact, it seems that was remediated about 10 years ago when new underground tanks were put in. And everything that the consultant came up with didn't show anything on that property. Now, the other thing was that they said was there um functionally obsolete property. Now, I want to be clear. It's not functionally obsolete structure. The parking structure that's there, even the consultant there said, "No, it's fine. There's nothing wrong with the structure." But somehow the property is obsolete. The property, according to the city assessor, is worth $8 million. And if it's obsolete, I'm not sure why Jeffrey would pay $8 million for it because it's not obsolete. It's just they don't want they're going to put parking on part of that. they they want parking there for the people who are going to use that project. So, it's very

perfectly usable for parking. It's just not exactly where they want it to be. Um maybe the most distressing thing is affordable housing because um the agreement has so many loopholes, so many things that would keep that affordable housing from ever getting built. And you know, it has these nice things like developer agrees to negotiate in good faith. developer. Um, we're going to try to get fun. It's assumed contemplated that the source of funing funding will be the affordable housing uh by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. It's contemplated. Don't take that to the bank. Seriously, I have uh I have a check here. I contemplate that it's a good check. Will you please cash it for me? Um but the other thing is it the developer can get out of this anytime he wants because if this project if the housing cannot be built for any reason including the developer's own default that just pay the $19 million. But there's a problem there because as I read this agreement it says that the payment which would be you're getting a $329 million subsidy. N take 19 off you're only getting a $310 million subsidy. That's a pretty good deal. And it says as I read it that the payment can be done in parts as they do different phases of the project. Well, so what happens? Where's the money? We just does that to be waited until it's all done before the 19 million is paid or if not who's going to pay it in the meantime as these phases are done because it's not going to be helpment according to this.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Muhammad Khalil. Good evening. My name is Muhammad. Um, I've been working in Anaba since I moved to Michigan in 2014. Over that time, I have found uh I've come to know the city as a vibrant place with strong neighborhoods, engaged residents, and the real sense of community. Many of my many members of my family also work in Anaba and we have built our professional and personal lives around the city. I genuinely love Ann Arba and I and I care deeply about the long-term uh success of the city. I'm here this evening to register my support for the Ann Arbor South development. This project would transform approximately 17 acres of surface parking. Let me repeat that. 17 acres of surface parking into walkable, mixeduse neighborhoods that includes housing, public spaces, and 209 permanently affordable apartments owned and managed by the Ant Arbor Housing Commission for families earning approximately 60% on of area medium income. That is mean meaningful housing for people who work in the city and want to remain part of the community. This is one of the many things I love about this project. With respect to finance, financing, I want to be very clear. Tax increment financing does not raise property taxes and does not divert existing funds from the city services. It captures new tax revenue generated by the development revenue that does not exist today and reinvests it into infrastructure necessary to support the project. After the TIFF period concludes, all of the tax revenue flows to schools, libraries, and other public entities. Without this development, and the future revenue is simply not created.

Ann Arbor South supports small businesses, city investment, and long-term community stability. It replaces underutilized land with housing, economic activity, and public spaces that strengthen the city as a whole. Isn't this what we want for the city? So, I respectfully urge council to approve the brownfield plan for Arbor South. Thank you for your service and your time today. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sam Holman.

Hello. Uh I have a change of pace, I guess, for this evening. Uh my name is Sam Hullman. I live at 1451 Coler Road. I wanted to comment on the transportation commission's uh schedule. um ag schedule uh which on your agenda this evening. I specifically want to draw your attention to the fact that the commission is intending to hold all of its meetings on Zoom which I find problematic. Uh the transportation commission has assumed many of the responsibilities that once were the purview of the planning commission and the proposals coming forward have a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of the citizenry. Uh with this in mind, I think it's both reasonable and appropriate that transportation commission have the same in-person meeting requirements that the transport that the planning commission does. Uh, I also think the city should be required to post large signs for significant projects coming before the transportation commission. The same types of signs as are as applicants coming before the planning commission currently have to put up. Uh, it's my hope that with something like the Katherine Street Bikeway project, St. Andrew's Church would have been able to bring its concerns to the city earlier in the process uh and and uh facilitate a more equitable outcome. Um going out and meeting the community face to face is good. Uh like what we're doing here tonight. Uh there's a reason this meeting is being held in person. I don't think every or even most uh boards and commissions need to be held in person, but I think one as important as the transportation commission should be held in person. And finally, I just find it ironic that that the the transportation commission doesn't travel. So thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Stoops. Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Jason Stoops and I'm a local business owner at 1350 Eisenhower Place near the Arbor South site. I wanted to speak tonight in support of the project. From my perspective, this is exactly the kind of redevelopment in Arbor should be encouraging. that takes 17 acres of surface parking and turns it into a real neighborhood with housing, local retail, and public space instead of land that mostly sits underused. I also want to highlight affordable housing component. The project includes over 200 permanently affordable apartments that will be owned and managed by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. That's important because it creates long-term reliable housing for working households, not just short-term affordability targets. I run a consulting business and one of my constant challenges is attracting and keeping good employees. Talented people want to work here, but housing cost and commute distance are real barriers. When employees can find attainable housing near where they work in walkable mixeduse areas and improves quality of life, it makes it more likely they'll stay. Projects like this directly support local employers in our workforce, not just residents. On the financing side, I understand the project will use tax increment financing. My understanding is that this does not raise existing property taxes and does not pull money away from current city services. It uses new tax value created by the project itself to help support the infrastructure needed to make this project happen. That seems like a reasonable performance-based approach to me. At a big picture level, I'd rather see housing, shops, and public spaces here than more parking lots. The project moves us in that direction. I encourage you to support the brownfield plan for Arbor South. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Christine Singh. Christine Singh. Mayor, I believe this caller is on Zoom. Caller with the phone number ending in 224. Press star six and go ahead. Press star six to unmute your phone. Go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Christine Singh. I'm a business owner at the professional services firm Raymond located in the Brierwood area. I'm calling in tonight to strongly support the Arbor South development. This project is a rare opportunity to transform 17 acres of underutilized parking into a vibrant mixeduse neighborhood. More importantly, it delivers over 200 permanently affordable apartments managed by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for families earning 60% of the area's median income. Arbor South isn't just about housing. It's about creating neighborhoods we need, including over 1,000 new homes to help ease our local housing needs. Groundf flooror retail, dining, and a new hotel that will turn a transit corridor into a destination. It replaces asphalt with public places where people can actually gather. For my business, Arbor South would significantly impact talent attraction and help beautify a currently unattractive cement gateway into the south side of the city. And Arbor needs walkable spaces where the people who work in our city can afford to live. And I urge the council to support Arbor South. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Duame Baratu. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. My error. Our next speaker is Marjorie Seaffort. My apologies.

Good. Good evening. My name is Marjorie Zefort and I live on the old west side in the same house for the past 45 years and I am a mirror advocate. I come here tonight because life in Ann Arbor has radically changed for us in the last year and it is about to get even more profoundly impacted by the dangerous and lawless thugs at homeland security. If we not do not prepare ourselves and our community, we will not be able to resist the onslaught that's about to come. I am heartened that you, the mayor and city council people who worked on this proposal have done so. We thank you very much for doing so. I'm also heartened by the fact that community members, affiliation groups, schools, neighborhoods, wards, churches are stepping up to protect each other. As a city, the safety of our community needs to be a top priority. I thank you again for all that you have done so far to make what we would call Ann Arbor an icefree zone. I know you believe that the proposal on the table is as much as you can legally do, but I am not sure exactly what it does as that is not already in place. Businesses and organizations have been designating private spaces for a year now. Those private spaces hold workers that may be vulnerable. The people who use city hall never get to those private spaces. The proposal on the table falls short for making of making Ann Arbor an ice-free zone and truly protecting our community. This current proposal does not ban ice from city property and it does not extend the many to the many places that programs in which individuals, families and children might need to participate with the proposed policy. Citizens are not protected from ICE lurking in

corridors while they pay their taxes, apply for permits, pay a traffic ticket, or turn in a ballot. People cannot safely participate in activities and food banks in our community centers. The current status of our immigrant neighbors is unacceptable with many hiding behind their doors, fearing to go to work, sending their children to school, or just getting groceries. Not a place we want our community to be at. second-guessing responses to bold actions, seeding ground by waiting for outcomes of lawsuits, hoping to minimize his ISIS impact by going so far thinking that we've squeakaked by they won't recognize us. They won't notice us. I don't think that's what's going to happen. They are pushing the boundaries of what they define as legal every day. We cannot exceed to their demands that are lawless. If we do, we will tie our own hands. People are suffering. Their very lives are now at stake. We need to be bold. Please do not obey in advance. Um create develop a proposal that will wrap safety around all of us.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dwame Barathu. And while he's coming up, um, I'll just observe for those of you who are wondering what the fire marshall would say. We're all good.

So, there's there's that. Uh, good evening, mayor, council members. Um, my name is Deg Maui Brahanu. Um, I'm a graduate student at the University of Michigan and I'm a resident of the city's north side. I'm here to speak in support of the resolution reaffirming and expanding Ann Arbor's policy on civil immigration enforcement and I'm asking you to make it as strong and as clear as possible. First, I want to say this plainly. No human being is illegal. People are not contraband. They are our neighbors, our classmates, our co-workers, and our family. I'm the child of Ethiopian refugees. Uh I've had family deported and uh as of this week uh my cousin has decided to self- deepport out of fear. Out of fear of retaliation, out of fear that if they stay one encounter with the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong place could upend their life. That fear does not stay contained in immigrant households. It spreads. It keeps people from calling 911, from going to clinics, from reporting violence, from using city programs, from showing up to school events. That makes all of us less safe. This resolution matters because city-owned and city operated spaces should be places where residents can access services without being hunted, profiled, or intimidated. So, my ask is simple and direct. One, make the protections apply to all city- owned or operated properties and all city programs without loopholes or carveouts that quietly exclude people. Two, immediately prohibit law enforcement from using face masks or other identity concealing coverings while operating on city property or in city programs. In a just system, we should be able to identify our accusers. If someone is exercising state power, they should show a visible badge, a name, a unique

identifier, and their agency affiliation. That is basic accountability. Yeah. Please pass this resolution, strengthen it, and send a clear message. A message that says that Ann Arbor chooses safety through trust, transparency, and dignity, not by making a human being's existence a crime. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Decki Alexander.

Good evening. My name is Jessica Decki Alexander and I'm a resident of Ann Arbor and here to speak in support of the Arbor South development. So many of us hear here because we have some connection to its colleges and universities. Maybe we came here for school. Maybe we are employed by one of them. But most likely we are here because there was an opportunity for us to root and build and become the investors. The partners of those opportunities for the most part were are for now uh the state and the federal government. We know that there is no way that colleges and universities could grow without a public partner. There is no way that colleges and universities could invent, innovate, transform this city without funding. funding that might not bear fruit for 10 20 years or 30 years. I mean that's the purpose of the government isn't it to invest invest both in the now and the next the future even if the future is not ours and that is the role of the city government to be the primary investor in our now and our next for many elected officials or those involved in politics and I count myself among them it's hard to enact policy projects whose impact is so deferred a dream for another era but that isn't but isn't that our responsibility here to plant trees and and make sure they grow, to create green space and make sure we can breathe. To build housing that is inclusive, equitable and affordable to make sure those who come after us can live, work here. For some, Arbor South is too large, too grandiose, too much dream deferred for people who are policymaking now. But it's really not. It's both an investment in the now and the next and encapsulates exactly who we are as a city, repurposing what we have, a surface parking lot into a community of possibility for all incomes. I recognize that to some Arbor South is complex and weedy defer tax revenue in 30 years. I mean, will this American

democratic experiment even be here? Will climate change make us perpetually cold or hot? I do not know. But I know that 30 years happens in a breath. And now it's our turn to make sure that we see the next three decades for our next mayors, our next city council members, our future faculty, our activists, our actors and our artists to root here. So listen, read closely believe and move us forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Oscar notes.

Good evening and thank you for the opportunity. My name is Oscar Nuts and I'm resident of W 415 Colin Circle. Been in there for 24 years. I'm here tonight to express my strong support for the Arbor South project. As envisioned, this project brings together critical resources to address the city housing, affordable housing and transportation challenges. Specifically, Arbor South would deliver removal of widespread surface parking lots replaced with dense and vibrant mixeduse community. Some 25 years ago, I took a real estate class with Peter Allen is all about mixeduse, leave, work, and play. And this is exactly that. Significant economic activity that supports job retention and creation. Utilize the TIF to capture new tax revenue generated by the development, not raising taxes within the community. Bring approximately 1,000 muchneeded housing units. More than 200 affordable housings would be part of the development. Improve walkability. New bicycle infrastructure in the area of the city that currently lacks sometimes not even a sidewalk across from that to Costco. Enhance bus stops along South State and Eisenhower Parkway. a publicly accessible park and gathering spaces available not only to Arbor South but to the broader community. With all the projects come home challenges, but the benefits of Arbor South are clearly solutionoriented and would be an enhancements to the city of Ann Arbor. For these reasons, I strongly encourage council to vote in favor. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Daniel Rubenstein. Good evening, council. I'm Daniel Rubenstein. I had a speech prepared, but in light of given the similarity of the comments appear to be a very well orchestrated uh campaign by Abra South, I want to address some of the things that have been said. One of the biggest observations is that this does not raise taxes. I haven't heard anybody who opposes Arbor South complain about it because it raises taxes. That is not the issue. Then I hear people say that it it doesn't divert taxes. That is absolutely false. Of course. Excuse me. I reclaim my time. Of course it displaces taxes. This the whole premise of this tiff is that this will not get built. Nothing will get built here unless you do this. So I'll quote from one paragraph of my letter. The only other rationale for this would be but for the assertion that this development wouldn't get built but for the tiff. That is contradicted by the development right across the street at Eisenhower Parkway in Brier in Brierwood which included enhanced infrastructure which includes a parking deck with no public subsidy whatsoever. Someone else made the point that it's not equitable to give this to this developer when other developments are happening all over Ann Arbor with no public subsidy. And I very much agree with that. And common sense tells us that a company that has spent tens of millions of dollars to acquire property will not want to hold it unproductively on its books forever. It will either develop it or sell it to someone who will. The buttfor argument is not backed up by evidence or experience. So once something gets built there and the tax revenue does start coming in, yes, this

tiff will divert the tax revenue from the city for affordable housing, for other for other matters, for the county, for lots of things. So, I just want to I I the the the talking points that have been profered tonight. I I I was going to come up here and and start out by saying I'm going to upset my friend Tom Weer here because I support Arbor South. I think it sounds like a great project. It's the perfect place to build tall and dense. It would be wonderful if it had affordable housing, but that's not promised, but it would be nice if it did. it. I It's a great place to enhance uh TC1, the TC-1 concept, and have a an enhanced transit corridor there. That makes perfect sense. I support Arbor South. It's great. What I don't support is this financing mechanism. I'm not going to call it corrupt, but one of the things I would love to see this council do is what is being proposed with getting money out of politics. If someone has business before council and you take donations from them, you should recruit yourself. I'm sorry. This I'm I'm really It's it's been a lot of misinformation, misdirection. It's not about raising taxes. It is about diverting taxes and it is about a public subsidy for a private developer who doesn't need it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peter Exein. Peter Exin. Sorry, I thought I was on the Oh, here it goes. Uh, Arbor South could entail cost to taxpayers well beyond the massive unprecedented TIF benefits before you today. These benefits would represent as much as 92% of the proposed investment. But at your last meeting, a staff spokesman said that the TIF proposal is a step in the process. But there is still a financial gap. To make this project feasible is going to require some level of public participation. That can only mean dollar contributions or citybacked bonds whether for parking

lots or decks or for something else. But how much money and for what pieces of part the project that is the report says under evaluation. They will let us know later, but only after you propose approve this proposal. I think the issue is not housing because there's lots of opportunity for new housing at our at Brierwood and the two are competitive in the sense that we have limited water and sewage infrastructure. But Arbor South is highly carentric. Brierwood is already highly walkable. One may have a little firstf flooror retail, but the other is already mixed use with a supermarket built in many existing shops and restaurants and snacking spots. One will have its affordable units completely separated from those at market rate. The other at Brierwood is putting its market rate and its affordable units together in the same building. One is just a hope, even a fantasy. The other is already a reality with room for further growth. I do not understand why the staff which has spent probably thousands of hours working on the Arbor South pro proposal has done so little to communicate with the Brierwood people. see what might be done to get them to, let's say, not have a sporting goods store there and instead put additional housing in addition to the uh hundreds of units they already have within a one minute walk of a supermarket.

Thank you. Thank you. Our final speaker, final final speaker at this time will be Ryan Hussy. No, it's okay. Ryan Hussy on Zoom. Go ahead. Yeah. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Uh well, thank you for your time. I'm here to speak in support of uh passing the resolution to approve the Brownfield plan for Arbor South project. Uh my name is Ryan Hussy. I'm the business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Uh I represent over a thousand members in Washington County and Jackson County. Uh we've we strongly IBW local 252 strongly supports the brownfield plan and the Harbor South project. Um the project not only will support hundreds if not thousands of skilled trades uh hours coming from that project, but it'll also redevelop the area of Ann Arbor that desperately needs it. A thousand units of housing. I know that's been talked about quite a bit here. Uh in addition to the housing aspect of the projects, hotel, retail spaces, restaurants, open space, and providing a a walk walkable community for all to enjoy. My local has grown over the last few years, which provides a lot of extended opportunities and apprenticeships for county and arbor residents. This in a large part because of projects like this one. Uh these are careers. These are not just jobs. They provide employer provided health care, fair wages, education, and the ability to retire with dignity. The building trades need these jobs and the community needs this project. I encourage you all to pass the resolution to approve the Brownfield plan. And again, you know, thank you for your time and also for your public service. Thank you.

Thank you. Per prior, we've come to the end of this portion of public comment. The remaining speakers will be heard at the uh towards the tail end of the meeting at public comment overflow. Are there communications today from council? Council member Adena. Uh thank you, Mayor Taylor. I just wanted to briefly mention that Council Member Gazi Edwin and I uh will be at Malletz Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library on Sunday, February 15th from 10 to 11:00 a.m. for our next coffee hour. Uh so we hope to see residents there. Further communications, Council Member Briggs.

In response to one of the public comments, I just wanted to assure the member who was wanted to see transportation commission meeting in person that the transportation commission is is talking just about that. Um this is simply a schedule of the the meeting schedule for the year. Um and also I know that my um colleague in the fifth w Jen Cornell um sends her regrets. Uh she is ill this evening. Further communication.

We have before us the consent agenda. May have a motion please to approve the consent agenda. Moved by council member Gazi Edwin seconded by council member Watson. Discussion please of the consent agenda. All in favor? All opposed? The consent agenda is approved with uh 10 with eight uh with 10 council members present. All vote in the affirmative, thus satisfying the eight vote requirement with respect to CA3. Thank you. We now come to a set of public hearings. Public hearings are opportunities for members of the public to speak to council and the community about the specific subject matter of the public hearing. To speak at a public hearing, one need not have signed up in advance, but your speech must relate to the specific subject matter of the public hearing. That is to say, the specific item to which the public the specific item on the agenda to which the public hearing relates. Speakers in all instances will have three minutes in which to speak. So, please pay close attention to the time. Our clerk or the time clock will notify you when 30 seconds are remaining and when your time is expired. When your time is expired, please conclude your remarks and seed the floor. Public hearing number one, an ordinance to amend section 8532 of chapter 105, housing code of title 8, building regulations of the code of the city of Ann Arbor. Is there anyone in house who would like to speak at this public hearing? Hey, Adam Juskevich here um in the fourth ward. Um I support this. I think that um as we build more housing in Ann Arbor and densify, we really need to focus on tenants rights. And this is a good resolution or good ordinance that um that supports that. And um you know, I think that this is it's probably going to be a wash as far as how much people

pay. Um, but at least they'll know upfront when they're um when they're looking at apartments how much they're actually going to pay. So, bravo. Oh, and furthermore, ICE must be abolished.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in house who'd like to speak at this public hearing? Iced. Linda est. Is there anyone online who would like to speak at this public hearing? Mayor, I don't see any callers um with their hands up for this hearing. See no on this public hearing is closed. Public hearing number two, a resolution to find the An Street curb cut at 201 North Main Street to be a traffic hazard and approve its closure as part of the An Street improvements project. Is there anyone in house who would like to speak at this public hearing? Please come right on up. Hello, Mr. Mayor and Council. Um, my name is Ian Gray. A little disclosure before I say what I have to say. Um, I occasionally do media work for the owner of Main Party Store, which is located in the area in question with this project. I was present for the city's first visit with the owner to discuss the improvements proposed in the project. And it was evident from the beginning that the city felt that the plan to take the store's parking lot away was kind of rubber stamped. In that first meeting to discuss the matter, eliminating the parking lot was given less attention than talking about brick materials and the aesthetics of the trees that were being considered. I in fact had to ask the staffer from the city to circle back when she seemed to intentionally gloss over the curb plan. In a follow-up meeting at city hall, the city staff ran offense explaining all the reasons that eliminating the parking lot was a done deal. I find the city's assertions that taking this lot away from main party is all about safety to be rather disingenuous.

The 1958 letter included in the media provided for this hearing only confirms the fact that while the city pays some lip service to the idea of a safety issue, they don't think it's a serious enough issue to actually do something about it. At least not for nearly 70 years after that letter when it suits the needs of more high-rise development. Also included in material provided today, excuse me, to support the city's position on the matter, there was a seemingly sophisticated five-page analysis from the city's engineering consulting firm. This was obviously solicited to bolster the city's stance that even though the city has shown zero concern for decades, public safety at the corner is suddenly of paramount concern. However, the document presents two notable weaknesses in its arguments. One, in spite of the preparer's sophisticated digital observation of how often a pedestrian was near a car that might exit or arrive at the lot, it clearly states that nothing actually happened. And B, or two, when citing incidents that did happen, the document only mentions five vehicle-onvehicle incidents in seven years. No pedestrian incidents. And then it fails to compare that to any other intersection downtown. Common sense suggests that other locations that don't have a lot like Main Party does, would easily experience incidents with similar frequency, which again is less than once a year. The city also included a couple of photos of cars parked on the sidewalk by the store. A driver's illegal parking choice is hardly the fault of the store or the parking lot. So, I was left wondering who actually took the photos and whether or not the city ticketed these drivers. The inclusion of the photos seemed a little contrived and desperate in my opinion. In conclusion, I'm shocked the owners haven't pursued legal action. It seems clear there's precedent to do so. But I'm actually here to express my own continued disappointment in the city's ongoing tendency to pay lots of lip service to supporting local small business and public safety, but in reality selling out the town block by block to out of town developers for more

high-rise development. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh Scott Trudeau. Uh I live on North Main Street, just a few blocks away from the site. Um I support this closure. The current condition is obviously dangerous. I walk by there and bike by there very frequently. Um drivers very frequently reverse out almost hitting other drivers, almost hitting pedestrians, and it's completely unnecessary. The reconfiguration proposed offers just as much parking. It's parallel parking like we have everywhere else in the city. It's there's no inconvenience. If you want to stop in the shop, you can park on the street instead of pulling across the sidewalk just to be a couple of feet closer to the front door. Um so, thank you all for finally taking safety seriously and making this a priority. And I hope we keep continuing to make these kinds of changes going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Adam Goodman, Fifth Ward resident. Um, I just wanted to quickly say that I had a bike commute that took me to this block every weekday for over six years. And I think that the city's proposal to determine this curb cut to be a traffic hazard is completely warranted. Um, you know, from what I observed over time, I I you know, I wondered why why something had not been done about this before. And so I am I'm really pleased to see something being done about this now. And I hope you all approve it. Thank you.

Thank you. Kathy Griswald, the second ward. Uh, people sometimes ask me, Kathy, why do you keep coming and speaking to city council? The reason I come is because I remember a better time. A time when the constituents were listened to. A time when something like the project that the DDA is proposing, which I agree with, would have been done in a very different way. The owner would have been listened to. There would have been a process to look at the functions, not just a map of the property, but the actual functions that go on on that property. There is a food truck. Can we design it in such a way that the food truck can continue to be there? Can we design it in such a way that we have deliveries on site? One of the problems I see regularly is that we have beverage trucks that stop on Ashley on First on different streets. They roll out their little ramp right across the crosswalk and then they unload all of their cases of liquor and beer and whatever, which we need, but let's do it in a way that's safe, that's not interfering with pedestrian safety. So if our goal is to improve safety as it should be, then let's do it the right way. And one of the things that we can look at is a curbless area so that we still have the parallel parking, but we also have the ability to put the food truck there in the parking lot and also off hours or whenever have the delivery trucks pull

up off the street and actually deliver. So I know we can do better. I saw better when we had a female lawyer, not lawyer, a female mayor uh many years ago. And I don't want to use gender, but I know we can do better and we just have to double down and do it. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh good good evening. Um, as I kind of got a chuckle over there when Kathy was suggesting a curbless because we've done State Street curbless. We a lot of places are going curbless and that's what we have now at Main Street Party Store, right? It's curbless. So, it works some places, doesn't work some other places. Well, I'm not here to talk about the safety because like another previous speaker said that that report was a little odd and and the foreseeability that I think you're going to lean this decision on um from a letter to a previous owner from 1958 is a little slim. And I saw that Tim Wilhelm got assigned this uh the city attorney, which means that you guys know that this is uh despite all the benefits that it's probably or maybe potentially going to provide um that it really represents a taking of property by eminent domain without just compensation. And that's what I'm here to talk about because it's crushing small businesses. So that parking lot uses seven spots. you're kind of replacing them, but it's also serves the four restaurants in that block and a lot of other places where the delivery trucks come. And so this is really a beat on small business. So when a state constitution says that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation being first made, that's the law. And it also says that you have to begin by discussing in a civil procedure and in a civil manner what that compensation is going to be. And this clearly fits the unlawful taking. It reduces access and it changes the utility of the structures in that block. And those are two of the five things that uh meet this criteria. And declaring something a public nuisance is also in the constitution. And to be declaring it a public nuisance in accordance with the local housing, building, plumbing, fire, or other related code or ordinance is the only

way you get away with that. And I'm not sure that a policy is an ordinance. And so I think it's clear that this is a regulatory taking and it's sort of what we call in inverse condemnation, which is the most defensible in court, which is no doubt why Mr. Wilhelm got this assignment. But I mean, if I was the folks who owned this, I would look at the actual statistics that your uh report uh the engineering report gave you and calculate that you're going to lose about 200 trips a week by doing it this way. And uh my understanding is a car trip to that location is about $40 each. So, if you kind of do the math times 52 weeks times the 40 years that this place has been in business, projecting that it's going to be in business another 40 years, that's $16 million. So, I think that'd be a fair place for these people to ask to start. And then as far as the 3 seconds, I'm going to use my last 3 seconds to walk away because they said 3 seconds was a danger. So, I'm going to go 3 seconds.

So, I think the car got out. Okay. But I still think it's safe, you know.

Thank you. Adam just fourth ward. Um just a couple of notes on the uh two previous speakers. First of all, um with regard to delivery, um this parcel is on an alley. Um they've got garage doors under the alley. So clearly that's not a problem. Um seven parking spaces. Uh no, there is maybe two, maybe three parking spaces. the rest are not large enough for a car to fit in them. So I don't see how you can consider those parking spaces if the back end of the car is hanging onto the sidewalk. Um so I completely agree that this is a public nuisance and I think that you should remove this curb cut. I don't think that this takes anything away from this business and you're actually adding parking by adding the parallel parking on the street. So, thank you. And ICE must be abolished.

Thank you.

Yes. Kevitz, the elder.

Good evening. My name is Evan. I'm a resident of uh the downtown development authority area and also fifth ward. Somebody mentioned why this owner would not have sued and I'd like to point to the prohibitive costs of the civil justice system. It doesn't function for anybody beyond the corporate person. We no longer have legal rights if it has anything to do with civil justice and civil justice is distinct from criminal justice. So, as my family has been the targeted, the target of equivalent actions on the part of the city that have cost us nearly $200,000 as we've seen them arbitrarily enforce rules and put allow gas meters to be put on our neighbors property in the front right up near the sidewalk with garbage cans that barely fit on the lot they just expanded and built And with the Bureau of Construction Codes after more than a year refusing to do their job and tell us what the code is for some things that have been done, our state representative has been unable to get a code response from the very bureau responsible for issuing code. So in short, we have a failure in the rule of law. It applies sometimes and it doesn't apply other times. And if you don't like it, we've got an army of attorneys who get paid even in the city while they laugh at us because we can't afford to pay $500 an hour for civil litigation.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in house who would like to speak at this public hearing? Is there anyone online who would like to speak at this public hearing?

Caller named Hope, do you have a comment? Yes. Hi, this is Peter Hal. Um, I'm on the transportation commission, but I'm speaking for myself tonight. Um, I actually noticed this uh curb cut in this area before it was on the agenda and uh thought to myself that it looked like a hazard. I I guess I don't know if if if people parking on the sidewalk doesn't constitute a hazard, I don't know what does. So, I'm in favor of removing this curb cut and changing the parking configuration at the store. Um, it's the right thing to do and um I'm glad that it's been brought forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Eric Shalco, do you have a comment? Go ahead. Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Cool. Uh, hello council. My name is Eric Shleo and I live in Ward 4. Uh, I just wanted to voice my support for the closure of this curb cut. Um, while it may not be the fault of the liquor store for the actions of the drivers outside, the design of it enables incredibly dangerous behavior. Um, I've walked through it many times and have been nearly hit by drivers just as many times. Redesigning our spaces to be built for people and doesn't cater to cars will keep people safe. And it's not complicated to see what the issue is. Those parking spaces are crossing over the sidewalk. Of course, there are going to be conflicts there. And I guarantee you those two or three parking spaces aren't upholding all the businesses there. It's the walkable neighborhood that it's in that's connected to transit. And if someone really needs to drive, there are 827 spaces right behind it in the an garage. Also, apologize and get fashionistic quarter. Thank you.

Thank you,

mayor. I don't have any other callers online for this hearing. Seeing no one, this public hearing is closed. Public hearing number three, proposed amendment to the boundaries of the Ann Arbor downtown district and the development plan and tax increment financing plan. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this public hearing? Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Sarah Miller and I am the president and CEO of Destination Ann Arbor. In reviewing phase one of the DDA's proposed development plan, I'd like to share our support for these specific community initiatives, the event ballard's equipment and all supporting services, the downtown service team, public restroom and elevate public art program. Events play an important role in creating a vibrant downtown for both residents and visitors. And while their economic impact is meaningful, the safety of the people attending them is even more important. The Ballard equipment outlined in the DDA plan would add an extra level of security and help event goers feel more comfortable when spending time downtown at these impactful events. When implemented thoughtfully, these serviceoriented efforts in our installations can also make a real difference in maintaining cleanliness, accessibility, and the overall look and feel of our downtown that will contribute to our efforts of showcasing our destination as the worldclass place that it is. On behalf of the advocacy committee and executive committee of destination Ann Arbor, we are pleased to support these specific initiatives outlined in phase one of the DDA's development plan. Our support is intended to reflect the value these particular efforts bring to event safety, visitor experience, and downtown presentation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Lori Cloff and I'm speaking on behalf of the Lowertown Riverfront Conservancy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in support of the proposed expansion of the downtown development authority boundaries, particularly to the north. The Lowertown Riverfront Conservancy has been working for many years to advance Broadway Park West, a riverfront public space that sits at a critical gateway between downtown, the River River, and regional trail systems. As this park continues to take shape, it has become increasingly clear that its success and the success of the surrounding areas depends on thoughtful connectivity, infrastructure, and placemaking that aligns with downtown Ann Arbor. From our perspective, the proposed DDA expansion is both logical and timely. First, the plan recognizes the importance of physical connections, especially at key nodes such as the tunnel trail head off depot. Wayfinding and placemaking in this area would not only improve access to Broadway Park West, but also strengthen connections to the Cascades, the borderto- border trail, and downtown itself. These are the kinds of improvements that help people understand how places relate to one another and invite them to explore beyond traditional boundaries. Second, the plan's emphasis on Broadway Bridge and Beak Street improvements is critically important. This corridor is more than a transportation route. It's an entry point into downtown and a bridge between neighborhoods, parks, and the riverfront. Investment here has the potential to transform how people experience this area, making it safer, more welcoming, and more cohesive. Finally, I want to underscore that Broadway Park West represents more than a single park project. It's a part of a broader vision to expand the downtown footprint northward in ways that are inclusive, publicly accessible, and rooted in Ann Arbor's natural assets.

The DDH engagement and partnership are essential to realizing that vision. We strongly believe that bringing Broadway Park West and its surrounding connections adjacent to the DDA boundary will create meaningful opportunities for collaboration, leverage public investment, and ensure that this emerging area develops with the same care and intention as the rest of downtown. For these reasons, the Lowertown Riverfront Conservancy supports the proposed DDA boundary expansion and amended development and tiff plans. We look forward to continued partnerships as this exciting work moves forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Norman Herbert and I'm here as co-chair of the Treeline Conservancy and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Treeline Conservancy. We would like to voice our strong support for the DDA's proposed new development and tiff plan, particularly the proposal to expand the DDA's boundary north along Main Street. As all of you know, the treeine is in the midst of drafting a request for proposal with the city administrators for the design and engineering of what we call the gateway segment of the tree line. Briefly, the proposed plant path of the gateway starts at the deep depot pedestrian tunnel and the borderto border trail and elevates over depot summit and north main street to land at grade at 721 North Main. This is a 5 acre municipal yard through which the Allen Creek cover runs. The treeine conceptual plan continues at grade through the 5acre property to Felt Street. The Treeline Conservancy is working on a five-year plan which is to build this gateway segment. Therefore, we are pleased and encouraged that one of the top 10 projects to be addressed in phase one of the proposed DDA development and tiff plan is the remediation of 721 North Main. What a fantastic opportunity for two community-based organizations, the DDA and the Treeline, as well as the city to partner on a shared vision to remed remediate and activate a former industrial city property that has suffered from years of neglect. The possibilities for this space are exciting to contemplate. soil remediation and cleanup, increased green space, improved storm water management, and an avenue of safe pedestrian access

between the downtown, the borderto- border trail, and the Huron River. 721 North Main can be a wonderful stopoff place for folks on the treeine who are headed to the river for outdoor recreation and activity as well as an enjoyable way station for people traveling the treeine to the access to downtown area for work, shopping or entertainment. With that ambitious vision in mind, we enthusiastically support the DDA's renewal expansion to the north and ex and exciting plans for 721 North Main Street's development and tiff plan. Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts. Thank you.

Uh uh Jim Muggson. So back in 2003, the late Paul Lambert and I were the only members of the public who spoke to the DDA uh uh plan. Uh it was the Iraq war time. It's always something, right? Um but I want to tell uh something about the history that is informative relating to how these things play themselves out. At that time we learned that the Forest Avenue parking structure was not entirely in the DDA district and there was a proposal to you know modify and tweak some of the boundaries. But there was a problem. The library was expanding its branches and was deciding whether or not to go ahead and sign off on the plan. So they decided not to change the boundaries because if you don't change the boundaries not everybody has to sign off. Back in 2011, the DDA began to be having troubles financially. They were having budget problems, and there was a great tussle between the DDA and the city council. And they were trying to decide what to do. And finally, somebody at the city, probably the attorney's office, as I remember, and the and the treasurer realized that in 1982, they had put a cap in place. Everybody forgot about it. Nobody paid attention to it, but it was there and that changed the dynamic and controversy associated with how to sort through that. So I bring this to your attention because I I wouldn't surprise me if you have 10 years there's another budget problem and another tussle and people trying to figure out what to do and it would not surprise me because tiff money can only be spent in the downtown development authority area there. Yeah, I can I can imagine DDA lawyers saying, "Yeah, we came up with this agreement so that we would give you some of the money, but it turns out we

really weren't allowed to do that, and sorry, everybody loses all the money except for the DDA. People need to be really careful about thinking through these things. If you think about it in those terms of 10 or 20 years, they some of these things come back. You can't see it now because everybody's talking to each other, but in 10 years that may not be the case. I think it's really important you keep that in mind. Some of these development plans are very aggressive and assertive. They're going to go over budget. You can just kind of anticipate that there will be challenges and I think it would be in the best interest of city council to keep that in mind as you think through and decide how to move forward. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Good evening everyone. Um, my name is Rebecca Erenss. I'm a Ward One resident. I live in Arowwood Cooperative and I want to speak on the DDA, but first I want to give some words of affirmation. I had coffee with Mayor Taylor and we had a very nice time. We don't agree on everything but we were able to share ideas with each other and come to a very civil understanding that in future we could work together. Um, I want to apologize to Mora Thompson because when I came up here on the 15th of December, myself and literally 50 other people I've talked to assumed that because the DDA says, you know, they have a mission statement of an attractive and vibrant downtown that they were sort of to blame for some of the trash and graffiti and weeds and, you know, all the issues that we're seeing that are cosmetic downtown for quite some time. Come to find out, she told me that it's mostly infrastructure. And she was kind enough to walk around in the cold for over an hour with me around downtown. I was like, "Look at this." She's like, "Yep, yep. I get that. And I have a solution. It's called a service team." So, I'm very excited about this service team. But I'm also very irritated because why has it gotten this bad? Why has it gotten this bad? I've been doing graffiti abatement for over a decade. Where are these cracks that it's been slipping through? We have so much money. Like, what is going on? So, I'm not for the DDA to continue. I'm speaking on behalf of a lot of my W residents that do not want that encroachment into mostly W one. But, of course, I want the service team. Who doesn't want a more

attractive downtown? My business neighbors are very frustrated with some of the issues. So, I'm stuck in this place where I feel like Mora Thompson is a wonderful city staffer with a lot of insight, but like if she knew about the problems, then why wasn't she supported to do something about it and she clearly has the passion to make downtown better? And I'm like wondering why this wasn't enacted before. And I wrote about this in my blog post um street lights and DDA drama on rebeccaforan arbor.com. So I'll keep it short. There's a lot of people here that have pretty you know big feelings about all the things going on nationally. And I just want to say anyone running for any candidacy this season, can we be progressives and stop ca stop cannibalizing each other? I will not be attacking any candidates and I hope that we can keep it civil unlike 2018, 2020 and 2022. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi. Uh my name is Karen Castimo and I know most all of you. I've been a resident uh in Ann Arbor since 1976. I bought my home own home in 1996 on Fernwood Ward 3 precinct 29 and I've been a precinct delegate forever. What brings me here tonight actually is a article about what Rebecca Warren Erin said uh and it got me very very disturbed about if they have a surplus in funds in the DDA why should they expand? We need those services now for other services like the public health and safety which was taken away when I voted for that many years ago and I that was the last time I came here publicly when the mental health services were taken away and public safety and it was spent on other things. So, and then Chris, I remember and I was so proud of you. Back to that south quarter, uh, you said, "We are not spending tax dollars on parking lots." And I was, "Yes, that's the Chris Taylor I know and love." But something has happened. I mean, we're all peeps. We're all citizens in Arbor. We love Ann Arbor. And uh golly, why can't we do every more for the everyday person? We have issues and needs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. My name is Matt Carpenter. I'm the executive officer of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, the Ride. I'm here this evening to say a few words regarding the DDA's development plan and uh tiff proposals. Thea, the ride has a decadel long collaborative partnership uh with the DDA. Uh we've known them for a long time. This new development plan builds on that partnership with shared goals such as cing vibrant downtown environment and growing transit ridership. I can tell you that there are more public transit riders in this city because of the DDA. I can tell you that they have a better, easier, more accessible time in downtown because of the DDA. The plan's elements for transit projects are exciting, including enhanced bus rapid transit corridors and rider amenities. It directly supports the goals of the A20 plan and transportation master plans for more transit ridership and aligns very well with our own long-range plans. Investments in transit infrastructure make downtown more accessible for everyone. Better transit connections expand access to jobs, education, services, as long as equity and long-term community stability. The plan allows long-term commitment to creating a healthy, successful downtown environment, which in help in turn helps create better environments for transit users who are after all pedestrians at the beginning and end of every trip. A stronger, more flexible DDA financing model allows Ann Arbor to take on even larger and more complex projects without outside funding or review processes. This plan is a forward-looking blueprint that balances growth, mobility, and equity. Public transit is better for the DDA today. It will be better in the future. Thank you very much and have a good evening.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening. Nate Fipps, W 5. I'm here to speak about my personal experience working with the DDA. I'm here to speak in favor of the expansion. Um, so I represent the Bicycle Alliance of Common Cycle, two cycling groups locally. Um, and the things I want to talk about are people, process, and pudding. Stay with me. Uh, the people, the people of the DDA, um, they're warm, approachable, patient, some even spoke to that tonight. Uh, and energized by their work. The processes they run are some of the most open, creative, and engaging that I've encountered. Really great. I don't usually say that about engagement processes and pudding. Uh as in the proof is in the pudding. Uh the results are progressive infrastructure, bikeways, streetscapes that are peoplefriendly and some of the best that I've encountered in places I've lived and certainly some of the best in town. Um, it may feel in Congress to speak on these topics at the this moment, but permit me a segue. I joined about a hundred cyclists locally and tens of thousands globally on Saturday uh at a solidarity ride to honor Alex Prey. Uh, and that group, those 100 cyclists and I largely used the bikeways downtown. Took a short ride. It was cold. But the the safety of those bikeways and that infrastructure was why we could build community in that way that day. and the community we've built also built solidarity. Um, thank you for your support of this proposal and I look forward to seeing what they do with the expanded boundaries. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. I'm a W one resident. I live on the other side of the Broadway Bridge and a few years ago we were joking that I think we're about to be a near downtown neighborhood uh by North Side School and clearly that's what's going to happen when this DDA is expanded. I think it's kind of common knowledge in the community that if something appears on this agenda, it's here to be passed. I don't think that there's a lot of listening that happens. And I've sat on the other side of that table and I've listened. And uh this DDA question is one that's pretty interesting. I'm not a big fan of the DDA because this tiff capture notion that they're trying to increase. That's money that could go right to our general fund, of course. and they're doing good things with it. It appears there are some good things, but uh at the same time I I I've always asked myself why why do we sort of have a middleman, pardon the expression, in between this tax money and uh you know maybe six years ago or so or 10 it or even 20 it might have made sense to have someone who was dedicated to this business or it might have not made sense. I wasn't in favor of any of the DDA expansions because I always felt that the city public works could do a better job with that money and the city council who is an elected body unlike the DDA board which is unelected body and appointed body would have an ear of the people to say where should this money go but with all due respect I don't believe that the people are heard in this chamber much anymore and so it makes me wonder if maybe the DDA is a better opportunity to get the kinds of projects we need out of this city because when you heard and I actually read that uh um Miss Aaron's post that a lot of these were public works issues that we've had and the DDA can't do it. They're not supposed to do it. It's not their wheelhouse and it's

the city's wheelhouse and but and yet it's not being done. And so I'm, you know, for for once I'm on the fence about something usually, well, it's not not for once, but I I really can't decide. But I I would like to point out that there seems to be a general misunderstanding about how tiffs work in this community. And so the tax increment financing capture the DDA gets is because of development happening. It's very much unlike the Brownfield TIFF, um, which is essentially to me that we're going to discuss later is a $350 million uh, competitive advantage to a private investor for 30 years. And that's different. Brownfield creates its own money supposedly by redeveloping Brownfield sites. TIFF capture by the DDA while also enumerated in state law and described in state law. It just is taken some. It's just a middleman taking something on the way to the public schools, on the way to the transit authority, on the way to the general fund. And we have to make that up just like we make up the taxes that the university doesn't pay. We have to make that up somehow. And if the unappointed board is deciding what to do with it, that could be a problem. I'm I'm not in favor of this expansion. It's come to that. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Chris Nielsen. I'm the director of housing and economic development for the Ann Housing Commission. This evening, I'm here uh on behalf of the Anber Housing Commission in support of the DDA expansion of the Northern Boundary Line. Uh one of the added benefits of expanding this uh to the north is increasing the amount of available funding for affordable housing projects, which is important to our organization. Um, the DDA has been a great partner with the Amber Housing Commission. It's funded renovations at Baker Commons, the development of 121 Katherine, known as Dunar Tower, and a pending request put forth for 350 South Fifth. The expansion of the DDA district will enable several uh Anna Housing Commission properties such as Westside Neighborhood to become more eligible for DDA's affordable housing funds, including 404 North Ashley and 123 West Summit, which is something that we're looking to develop in the future. We would highly encourage and support your um consideration for the DDA's request and appreciate your support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Ed Shaffron, downtown property owner. I am also chair of the Main Street Biz, representing 125 properties in the downtown here with an SEV in excess of 150 million. In addition to the smart growth group of Ann Arbor, uh, as a former chair of the DDA, I'm obviously very supportive of the expansion of the DDA. I think all you have to do is look at the wonderful products that the DDA has accomplished over the years and the burden that has taken off the city for its accomplishments. I remember when I first was on the DDA in 1999, the parking structures in the city of Ann Arbor were at a state of disrepair. Two of them were to be demolished, not even to be occupied. Yet the city was occupying them. We embarked on a $52 million repair and replacement program for that. Not a penny to the tax dollars to the taxpayers. That was all done by some creative financing of increasing parking rates and a bond that we paid off. I think the city in its best interest would be to expand the DDA in itself and I welcome you to do such. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Curtis Davis. I've uh been a longtime resident of Ann Arbor. Um I uh am not sure what the DDA uh is going to do for my area, but I'm directly affected by what's going to take place. Uh one of my caveats is I don't know what uh lack of oversight DDA has, why there isn't a DDA RCC committee for public input anymore. And I wanted to find out why that releasing the cap on DDA's funds uh and how that might be unpoliced by the rest of the city government. Um I don't know if uh the Beak Street corridor where I'm located because Ann Arbor Transit comes down Fourth and Fifth Avenue all the time and if that's a part of the TC1 project or how that is affected. But I know the traffic in my area is it's a corridor to M14 and 23. So there's a traffic jam there every day. Um and so I just ask the council to be very very cognizant of the life that's lived in the village as I call it and to uh go forward with with some empathy. And that's all I have.

Thank you. Good evening. Uh Scott Trudeau again at North Main Street in Ward One. Um first I'd like to I'm a This is my neighborhood. Um uh my home is inside the expansion boundary. Um and I I enthusiastically support this expansion. Um I'd like to thank the DDA and the city for the ample notice we received. We got a letter explaining what was happening that this hearing was happening. There's been a lot of news coverage and multiple public hearings. um my neighborhood heard about it through the local neighborhood association emails. So there's been a lot of information out there about what's happening and it's been very clear. Um so I I appreciate that. Um the DDA shines at managing the physical public realm that holds together sort of the densely populated and heavily used public and private spaces downtown. That's I mean that's what they they're really doing. Um in my neighborhood just across the line that's already inside the DDA boundary. We saw that um I think the best example is with the Fifth Avenue redesign next to the farmers market um which is not only significantly safer for pedestrians and drivers uh but it's also a much more attractive and pleasant place to be in. Um and I've also appreciated their work uh proactively doing infrastructure work to make the Dunar Tower affordable housing project um together. I've gone to multiple stakeholder meetings with the DDA. Whenever they do something nearby, I hear about it even though I'm not in the boundary currently. Um, and I think they've done a great job. Every time I've encountered uh their engagement, like they they listen to people. They really they they ask the right questions to the right people at the right time. And I think that speaks to how so many of their projects are so successful. Um, the upcoming comprehensive plan calls for upzoning my neighborhood, which is something I also support. Um, with this new density will

come new development. And with this new development, I'll be much more confident that we'll have a public realm that stitches that together in a way that creates a downtown that stretches from the current center all the way down to the river to embrace the river. Um, I think it's it's really a great opportunity. I'm very much looking forward to it. Um, and I hope to see you approve this tonight. Uh, and in conclusion, abolish ICE and dissolve DHS. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, Kathy Griswald. I think we can all agree that the DDA is a very popular entity for doing special projects and we've heard about some of them today, but we need to take a comprehensive view and look at where the money is coming from and also the operation. Historically, the DDA has been an unelected costly bureaucracy that has been used as sort of a little extra arm of the mayor and the politically powerful to do projects that wouldn't necessarily be supported if they went out for a public vote, such as the treeine, beautiful bridge. uh that we all love, but is it a want or a need? Should we be doing the bridge or should we be improving crosswalks in the neighborhoods? I wish my neighborhood had a DDA. I wish every neighborhood had a DDA so that people could advocate for what we need because I feel like my neighborhood is no longer walkable like it was 20 years ago. Uh, and I won't bore you with all the crashes and things that have happened, but um, we're taking money. So, the other topic was where's this money coming from? We have a finite amount of money unless we raise property taxes. We're taking money from the county. The county has critical critical needs in the mental health area with the homeless with so many areas.

Can we really justify taking money away from the county? I don't know. So, just in conclusion, I would say that this is a want, not a need. Let's look at all of our needs and determine if we can afford this at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, Adam Goodman again. I'm here because I want to express enthusiastic support for the DDA's expansion plan and and development plan. I something I've kind of heard in the strain of some other comments is a question of why do we even have a DDA? And for me, I think the DDA actually has a superpower. Too often in our city, there's a gap between our aspirations for development on private land and what we are a willing and able and what vision we have for the public realm for the public right ofway for what our roads and streetscapes look like. And the DDA is the one organization in this city that I've seen really effectively bridge that gap. The streetscape improvements that they've done downtown have not only improved safety dramatically, which they have, they've also brought life to previously neglected blocks. And this isn't just my impression that EDA has data to prove this, they're also good at collecting data and analyzing their work. So, I'm a huge fan of all of this. If I had one complaint about this plan, it's that I would have preferred to see an even broader expansion, particularly to the south of the current borders of downtown. We're seeing some rapid and transformative development happening in those areas that I think really could have benefited from the DDA's uh focused approach to improving the public realm to match what's happening with on private land. You look at something like the Packer Triangle. It's got some issues and but I will say when I read the development plan, I I I sort of got it. I understand why we are looking to the north. why why this is the priority and that's because these projects that

are planned are actually not just about improving downtown whi which is a bit of a a change I think from from things that have happened before but a really good change some of these projects are critical projects for our city's aspirations around our multimodal transportation network um we're looking the DDA is looking to close some gaps in our bike network that have problems for the over two decades that I've lived in the city. And you know, as Mr. Carpenter already attested, some some transformative ideas about public transit infrastructure in our city as well. So, um, all this to say, I'm super excited about this plan and I know you're not voting on it tonight, but I hope that when it does come to you for a vote, you will all vote to approve it. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I am also Adam. Um, Adam just coverage fourth word. Um, and I also support the DDA expansion and the changes to the financing for it. Um I think some of the projects that the DDA has done downtown in the past um number of years, past few um years and decades have been really transformative for downtown and they've really improved my experience downtown. Um in particular, I think the two-way conversion of First and Ashley has been a massive success. Um and the downtown bikeway loop is great. um and building a cohesive streetscape, adding uh benches and planters and just kind of getting all of those streets to kind of feel the same. So, you know, you feel like you're downtown. And um it they've done a really great job with that. And I'm looking forward to seeing what they're going to do. Um particularly with the division um Beaks Broadway Bridge um that whole mess of an intersection there cuz that's um that's that's pretty gross of an intersection and um I'm looking forward to seeing what the DDA will do to improve that. So thank you and um abolish ICE.

Thank you. Uh good evening. Hi, Mayor Taylor. Uh Mr. Deon, council members. I'm Peter Honeyman. Um I'm here to speak in uh in support of the DDA amended development and tiff plan. Uh, I'm lucky to have lived downtown for decades. So, I get to see firsthand some of the really great things that the DDA has done in downtown Ann Arbor, like the fifth and Detroit Street uh project up in Carytown, which gave us more and more accessible streetscapes, better pedestrian infrastructure, and major safety upgrades, huge and measurable uh safety improvements for pedestrians and drivers alike. Or the State Street Project, Ann Arbor's first curbless street, or Hiron uh just past those windows. I mean, it's still a car dominated corridor, but it's now far more human accessible with uh with trees, benches, planters, pedestrian uh scale lighting. And of course, there's the growing network of of protected bikeways, which has also made downtown cycling safer and more accessible for everyone. But I'm also excited about what's coming next, like the Fourth Avenue project. This is going to make 4th Avenue safer, more comfortable, and more accessible, especially for bus riders like me and will provide important and necessary infrastructure upgrades for the affordable housing project uh at 350 South Fifth at the old WAT. These are real results thanks to the DDA that benefit everyone who lives, works, or visits downtown. Now, the amended plan expands the DDA boundaries, extends the TIFF funding through 2055, and implements a 7030 sharing model. The DDA has already reached the three and a half% cap imposed in 2013 and its capital activities are effectively kneecapped in the words of uh one of the uh DDA board members u spoken privately to me even as infrastructure needs continue to grow. This new sharing model lets DDA meet that demand while also ensuring that the city county library and community college also receive 30%

of the new tax increment revenue. And this change to DDA's funding model will also enable a full a full-time downtown service team to address gaps in maintenance, repairs, and snow and ice removal. And as a downtown resident, I can tell you we really need these things. So, this isn't just about the DDA doing more. It's about downtown Ann Arbor continuing to grow economic activity, which benefits the entire region. And this plan ensures that all taxing jurisdictions share in that success. A thriving downtown strengthens the whole community. I I urge you to approve this plan. Thank you. Thank you.

Do I get his 28 seconds? Okay. Um, I just want to mention quickly, uh, a few days ago, uh, Council Member Aman, uh, had a Facebook post and she said, "I would argue that high downtown property values indicate the DDA has done successfully done what the statute set it up to do, halt deterioration and promote economic growth. If that's true, then you are commanded to dissolve the DEA because that's what the law says. If the authority has accomplished the goals it set, it shall be dissolved. So I I guess you're just thinking let's ignore the um what the state law set this up. Now you know I think there's a feeling there's like free lunch here somewhere. Where does DVA get its money? It gets its money from um 22 other programs in this county. Every millillage that you pay money into. If you've supported the mental health mill, some of that goes to the DDA for placemaking and planters and and benches, street repairs, Washington Community College, the AATA, they love the DDA, but a chunk of their money goes to the DDA. So there there is no plus here. It's a zero sum game. And what and the DDA has been gaming this system for 40 years. It was set up because t town towns were failing because people go out to the mall and shop. Well, and the you get a deterioration of downtown property. That's what it was set up for. So, how did we get it? Because back in the 70s, mostly downtown merchants who were concerned about losing their business got their cities or got the state to allow this to be done. But here's the program. This is right out of the DDA program. For the next 30 years, they are going to get from their tip $978

million. That's not my number. That's theirs. Where do you think it comes from? It comes from every other thing you have voted for. Every millillage you vote, a piece comes out of that. It comes out of the affordable housing mill. It comes out of the uh climate action. Every piece of tax that you pay, a piece of it is going to the DDA to do whatever its unelected board wants to do. And it's not only unelected, it's legally unrepresentative. It says that a majority of the people on the board have to be people with the vested interest in the downtown. That's where the money comes from. It's coming from you folks that could go to anything else. the social services that the county does, veterans benefits, senior benefits, every one of those is getting nicked for these nice things about connection and welcome bill. I mean, that's a lot of money for those things and I don't think it's worth it. I don't think you should either. Maybe we should stop voting for these millages if you knew you'd get a piece of it taken from the DDA.

Thank you. Better than see the page. I've got lots of copies. On the 13th of January, I received a letter and it began, "Notice is hereby given that pursuant to State Public Act 57, well, this meeting is being held." So, not knowing a lot about the Downtown Development Authority, even though I live in it, I figured I should come. And sure enough, I've been fairly well educated by people speaking here. My concern is the TIFF. My concern is the guaranteed funding. My concern that it's targeting a central zone, and it's not necessarily representative, and I really don't like guaranteeing funding for the next 30 years. I don't even understand why the development authority isn't a division or a department of the city itself and why it needs to be separate that we need to look at development like this. Absolutely. That we need to guarantee funding in this way where there are recipients of benefits where there are other people who don't receive the same kinds of benefits where the receipt is unequal. I don't really understand that. The tiff concerns me. living inside the DDA. What have I experienced? Well, I've seen language that talks about my property as if it belongs to the DDA. I find that offensive. I prefer that language like that is not out there officially. my neighbor whose wife has a business in a two-floor older building because several years back garbage

collection changed from the city of Ann Arbor to waste management gets hit up by her landlord to pay for garbage collection. And I'm wondering as I reside downtown, waste management of course changed out our garbage cans to waste management garbage cans. When in my home after my family for nearly 70 years have paid taxes in Ann Arbor to develop none other than Ann Arbor waste management. When am I going to get hit with a bill that is basically denying my rights of my citizen ownership of this garbage collection? Now, I understand why Waste Management needs to service a 20 floor building because otherwise that's overflowing, but the rest of us, we're not 20 floor buildings. What's going to happen tomorrow? And that's where the accountability issue comes in and becomes a problem. So, I don't know a lot about the DDA, but this is my experience and my concern is particular within the financing and why the city doesn't own it. The city should own it. Regardless of what the plans are, regardless of how the funds are allocated, the city should own it and own its actions, good and bad.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in house who would like to speak at this public hearing?

Is there anyone online who would like to speak at this public hearing?

Mayor, we do have a number of callers online. Caller with the phone number ending in 326, press star six to unmute your phone. Go ahead. Hello. Uh, my name is Jeff Crockett. My wife Chris and I live at 506 East Kingsley. We have some concerns about the DDA development and PIP plan. You should have received an email with our complete response. First, we are concerned about the length of the agreement and the amount of money that will not be available to the city, the county, and schools. According to the plan, the projected amount going to the GTA rises from 10 million in 2026 to 47 million in 2050. Yep. 47 million. The assumption is that the net development growth is 2% each year. At that rate, over 25 years, the downtown would increase by 50%. Is this what the majority voters want in Ann Arbor? We think not. Scale down this proposal to 10 years. Secondly, we are concerned about the conclusion of the DDA resident consultancy council from this plan. We attended the DDA citizens advisory council as guests for over 20 years. Unfortunately, a number of us attending the meetings over the past few years found that the DDA only minimally engaged with the committee. We think this explains the decline in membership. Fortunately, we believe that the expanded area in the north side provides an opportunity to find new members at the DDA would promote it. Thirdly, we are concerned about the absence of handicap parking. In fact, all parking in the plan, especially since one of the plan's goals is equity. Handicap street parking is scattered and difficult to find in the downtown. The DDA should consider adopting uh handicap parking locator apps such as parking mobility which CM Gazi Edwin told us about at uh disability meeting which Grand Rapids has adopted. Our fourth concern is the minuscule amount of park space downtown.

According to the pros plan, in 2020, there were 4.11 acres per thousand residents in downtown compared to the citywide average of 17.96. The plan should include creating additional park space downtown to to address this deficiency. Our fifth concern is that the allocation of over $38 million toward affordable housing is conditional on the city indicating that affordable housing is important to downtown economic growth. We don't understand this contingency. That seems like an escape clause that allows these funds to be used elsewhere, not for affordable housing. Our last concern is the DDA's role in removing street parking downtown to install bike lanes. The downtown circulation study of 2025 details two projects in our neighborhood that remove 45 parking spots in Catherine and 18 on Division. These projects represent a major hit to local street parking for residents, commuters, neighborhood workers, and parishioners. Before proceeding on this project, the DDA needs to reach out to St. Andrew's Church. In conclusion, we believe the DDA did a great job in creating a plaza in Carry Town, but we also believe the current plan has six deficiencies that need to be addressed. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you.

Phil Santer, do you have a comment? Go ahead. I do.

Mr. Santer, you're on. Great. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Great. Um, so I'm calling to support the DBA expansion. Uh, there's a few reasons why. So at Spark, um we believe that Ann Arbor downtown is already one of the strongest innovation areas in Michigan. But to keep that lead, we need to move from being a city with tech to a truly unified innovation district. The first way to do that is to create a critical mass. And the DDA expansion does that. It connects the university to the north main corridor, addressing a major entrance to our city and an important and a place that imports people every day from elsewhere. My second point is about physical readiness. We simply can't attract tech or life science labs if the pipes can't handle them. The DBA's utility plan includes a multi-million dollar investment specifically for North Main Depot expansion. This is the hard infrastructure that makes these sites business ready. Additionally, there's a massive investment in sustainable energy provides a carbon neutral reliable power that modern investors require and we are building the foundation of that density that Spark is actively targeting. and a focus on carbon neutrality is frankly a differentiator for Ann Arbor. Third, this expansion is a win for equity. It elects a major investment into the affordable housing fund for these new blocks, ensuring housing is a priority and not an afterthought. And it supports our local entrepreneurs. There's a $2 million retail business incubator that aligns perfectly with Spark's small business support hub work to grow local founders. Finally, regarding the budget, I think the move to a 7030 revenue sharing model is a fiscally responsible way to grow. 30% of the growth generated by these investments will flow directly back into the general fund. So, in summary, the DDA is investing in the infrastructure that creates our tax base, and I urge you to support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Raymond Majuski, do you have a comment? Yes. Um, thank you for having me here today. I live in the fifth ward over on Dexter where explicit for division. I'm speaking here as an enthusiastic proponent of the DDA's plan on the basis of the transit and bikeway and trail improvements. Um, upon moving to Michigan as a grad student, which I then stayed and have, um, been a citizen since living in, I actually sold my car prior to moving here and moved here with no vehicle and have been purely biking around town, loading my bike onto the D2, going to Detroit and doing things and taking the bus every day. Um when I go home or travel with friends, I speak about the positivity um that I have here as like a urbanist being able to bike and walk where I would like to and be able to eat and meander across. Um not many cities have this and has placed Ann Arbor on the map globally known for it. be it that maybe there are PR campaigns that are paying for it to be placed on certain lists, but it is a positive place to live and can speak for itself when you are here in downtown. Um, I don't really have anything against it. I just wanted to come here and speak as someone that doesn't have a vehicle and is privileged to be able to have a job downtown, but I know that a lot of people that aren't as privileged as I will greatly appreciate and gain a lot from this plan. And that is the end of my statement.

Thank you.

Luise Vasquez, do you have a comment?

Yes. Greetings. Uh Luis Vasquez, 909 Barton Drive in, uh the north side of Ann Arbor, which will uh I believe benefit from uh this proposal should it go through. uh the expansion of the DDA and uh of their uh plans for development um starting to extend to the north side is a wonderful thing to see. Um, every time I walk over the Broadway Bridge, either on my way into uh downtown or back out to home, um, I see uh the development that is going on at the uh uh the park down there. Um, and it's it's really exciting to see uh this happen and um I look forward to uh perhaps that whole area being put under the umbrella of the DDA. Um, I moved to Ann Arbor in 1984 and back then that was before the DDA and uh I would describe downtown as being kind of dingy um uh undeveloped uh not the kind of place uh I wanted to go every night. Um uh but now uh over the last 40 years uh we've seen tremendous advances in uh the beauty of downtown um and once again I look forward to further uh development um and it extending out and uh just to echo Adam Goodman. Yes. Uh my only disappointment is that uh this is not being extended to the south. Um, so thank you very much and uh please uh please vote for this when it comes up.

Thank you. Peter Hul, do you have a comment?

Hi everyone. Um, I'm a member of the transportation commission, but today I'm speaking just as Peter Hal, a fourth ward resident who is very interested in improving the safety of Ann Arbor's streets. Um, downtown streets are safer today because many of them have been reconfigured, moderating vehicle speeds and reducing pedestrian crossing distances. And when these streets were reconfigured, we also got a network of protected bike lanes. And now anyone who walks, rides, or drives enjoys safer streets downtown because of these changes that the DDA championed. Um the DDA also takes very seriously the safety of people who enjoy uh the outdoor events that that happen on downtown streets and they've demonstrated this commitment by investing in improved vehicle barricade equipment. And now they are um planning uh permanently installed deployable ballards which are really the best option for these street events. I want more of these improvements in Ann Arbor. I want more of these outdoor events. I want more safer streets and I want this expanded DDA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any other callers online with their hands up. See no one this public hearing is closed. Let us uh been at it for a little while. Let's uh let's take a 10-minute break. We'll be reconvene at 9:20.

Hello. We are We are back in session after a short break. We have before us the regular meeting minutes of January 20, 2026. May I have a motion, please, to approve the minutes. Moved by council member Watson. Second by council member. Discussion please, of the minutes. All in favor? All opposed? The minutes are approved. B1, an ordinance to amend section 8532 of chapter 105, housing code of title 8, building regulations of the code of the city of Ann Arbor. Moved by council member Redina, second by council member Harrison. Discussion, please, of B1. Council member Medina.

Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh since we have a long evening tonight and I've been talking about this ordinance for a year. I'm going to be try to be incredibly brief, not repeat everything I said a couple of weeks ago. Um this ordinance is about rent transparency with one core principle, honesty and pricing. When tenants see a rent advertised, they should be able to rely on that number to reflect their real unavoidable monthly housing cost. No mandatory fees or hidden costs adding hundreds of dollars to the lease that they were that they were signing. The delayed effective date of August gives property owners reasonable time to come into compliance and will allow the city to prepare for enforcement. This ordinance advances fair and transparent pricing for renters while cl and while providing clarity for housing providers. I urge us all to vote yes.

Further discussion.

Uh I'd like to uh uh express thanks to Council Member Medina, Council Harrison, and the other sponsors uh for bringing this resolution forward. and of course the renters of commission. It is uh crucial that we do everything we can uh to support tenants in Ann Arbor. As we all know 50% of Ann Arbor residents are indeed renters. The power dynamic between renters and tenants is asymmetric. Uh transparency with respect to rents and fees and costs uh is paramount um and proper to obligate. Uh I'm glad that we're going to be moving this forward and look forward to its implementation. Further discussion. All in favor? All opposed? It is approved. C1, an ordinance to amend sections 1 5 1 15254. Sorry, let's roll this again. C1 ordinance to amend sections 1 152 1.54156 1 158 1559 and 160 of chapter 7 Downtown Development Authority of Title One of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor. Moved by Council Member Dish, second by Council Member Gazi. Discussion, please of C1. Council member Dish.

We've heard a lot about this. We are asked to consider the first change to the downtown development authority, the DDA boundaries, since its creation 44 years ago. And we are asked to consider the adoption of a new revenue share model. I strongly support this proposed expansion, not only because it is in Ward One, but because this is these are areas of the city that very much need connection. And I really loved uh what the speaker from the Lowertown Riverfront Conservancy said about how uh this can change the way places relate to each other in Ann Arbor. Um and I do think this would be a change for the better. I am surprised to hear people speak dismissively about the work that the DDA does as if it makes only cosmetic changes to our city. In recent years, the DDA has provided critical financial support for the city's affordable housing goals by contributing $1 million to the purchase of Lurri Terrace, which preserved 136 apartments for incomequalified seniors 62 and older. We have a lack of affordable housing for seniors. We have a lack of housing for seniors of any kind. So, that was big. The DDA also contributed $1.5 million to Dunbar Tower, the project in Kerry Town that will provide 62 units of housing to households earning between 30 and 60% of AMI. These are truly our most v well I should say 60% and other these are our most vulnerable residents of the county and city. So, the expansion will increase the DDA's uh total area by adding just 19 blocks to 67 current blocks. So, 19 city

blocks to the north. Um, this will enable the DDA to invest millions in improvements to North Main Street along the riverfront and at the gnarly Broadway division beaks intersection which is a pain in you know where every time I bike to the university which I do not do now. It is slippery but even when the weather is good I am terrified there. Now to the revenue share model. Uh Ann Arbor is unique among Michigan cities in limiting the revenue that can be captured by the DDA. Most cities do not kneecap their DDAs. Uh it the DDA cannot capture revenue generated by increases due to inflation or those derived when properties are sold and their tax rates are uncapped. Uh the other uh tax sharing entities to the DD to the partnership do get those revenues. So the DDA is getting quite a lot less. It's really important to understand that the recommended revenue share model will not reduce the revenues that the city, the county, community college, AADL, and AAATA currently receive.

Council member, yes, council member, sorry, Malik.

Thank you, Mayor. I share some of the concerns raised tonight uh regarding the proposed DDA expansion and the shift to a gain share model for TIFF funding, particularly the impact these changes could have in diverting future revenue from other taxing jurisdictions. I've previously expressed concern about the overall property tax burden on Ann Arbor residents, which currently stands around 54 mills for a primary residence. By gradually redirecting future property tax funds through this ordinance, I worry that other jurisdictions may feel compelled to introduce new millages in the future to make up the difference, further increasing an already significant tax burden. However, I believe this plan strikes an appropriate balance, addressing those concerns while ensuring the DDA has sufficient resources to make a meaningful impact on our downtown. The gain share model by design allocates future tax revenues to both the DDA and other jurisdictions, allowing each to benefit from new growth. Not to mention, the DDA often uses its funding to implement projects that complement other property tax destinations such as transportation, affordable housing, and sustainability. I feel confident that the anticipated DDA projects and downtown service team made possible through these proposed changes will enhance the downtown experience, attract more visitors, and help our city and region thrive. Therefore, I plan in voting in favor tonight.

Council member Briggs,

um I just wanted I know most folks that are here tonight um are not here for this um or this uh agenda item. I just wanted to let you know that our um you've heard there was a public hearing for um the DDA um tiff plan and expansion of boundaries. Um the the actual final vote on this won't happen until April 20th. Um, so I encourage you to go to age engage Ann Arbor and you can read the plan and um if you haven't already been engaged in the process over the last couple of years um you can understand kind of the background of this and um and catch up over the next um next 60 days. So um encourage folks to do that. Um I would like to say we um we heard from some commenters tonight about um how unhealthy our downtown used to be and it's really no accident that we have a healthy downtown today. It's because we chose to use uh wisely a tool that the state has given us um with um being able to create a DDA and use that tiff to invest in our downtown, invest in our community, invest in the heart of what is our community so that we have a healthy space. Um and today many of those places are thriving. We also see other opportunities and also there are new risks and threats today that exist that didn't exist 20 years ago. Transportation is one of those um large ones that you hear us talk about a lot because people are dying on our streets and we don't think that that should be the case. We think people should be able to walk and bike to school, that you should be able to walk to a park um without dying along the way. Um and crossing places like North Main Street unfortunately put our citizens all too much at risk. And so that's why you often hear these conversations around the table. So, um I'm excited with um and and um so grateful for what a good partner the downtown development authority has been in um helping us create safe spaces downtown um and look forward to um seeing what they can do for us in the future.

Council member,

thank you, Mayor. Uh, I too support expanding the DDA boundaries as part of a broader effort to better care for our downtown and ensure that the resources it generates are reinvested where they are needed. A clean, well-maintained, welcoming downtown obviously benefits residents, workers, businesses, and visitors alike. I want to comment specifically on the proposed downtown service team. Uh, I've been actively engaged in conversations with DDA leadership, the city's HR director, and APSME about how the service team is structured. For me, I want to note that it is a requirement that these be city positions and union jobs, not contracted out. As a matter of principle, full-time ongoing public work should be done by city employees with fair wages, benefits, and union representation. More broadly, I've been working with ASME to identify other areas where work is currently contracted out and could appropriately be brought in house. This approach to the service team is consistent with that effort and I will continue to push for it as this plan moves forward.

Further discussion?

Uh for my part, I am uh I'm excited about moving forward with uh with this plan. the properties in the uh in the proposed expansion district uh do need uh do need help. Uh they do need support and I'm excited about the prospect of the uh the new DDA district being uh a mechanism uh providing us the city prov through the DDA a mechanism by which by which to provide that support to provide that help. Uh the expansion effort will be of course good for the properties and the property owners and their value but it will also be good uh crucially good and importantly good for the the entire resident uh of those districts and uh the community as a whole. We have seen the success of the DDA. We have seen the benefits to the downtown which acrew of course to the entire community um as well as the frankly the jurisdictions that can provide uh provide some of their tax support through the DDA. The county has improved by a good down by by an amazing downtown. Uh the community college is improved by an amazing downtown. TripleA similarly. So um the ability of the DDA to focus on improving the property and use properties and user experiences downtown through their infrastructure work is crucial to the success of uh of the downtown, crucial to the success of the community. Uh I'm excited and proud about the work that DDA has done over the years and look forward to its expansion. Further discussion. All in favor? All opposed? It is approved. C2. An ordinance to amend the zoning map of chapter 55 unified development code reszoning of 0.95 acres from R4C multif family dwelling and M1 Limited industrial to D1 downtown core Midtown over Midtown Character Overlay secondary street frontage with conditions. The dean 558 South Fifth Avenue. Moved by council member Dish, seconded by council member redina. Discussion please of C2

council member Dish.

This is just a first reading of this resone, so I'm going to be brief because we have a lot to do still. Uh this site is located on the north side of East Madison Street between South Fourth and Fifth Avenue and includes nine parcels across from Albel Field. Approval of this ordinance will change the zoning designation of this uh site to D1 downtown base with a Midtown character overlay and some other things that we don't need to go into right now. Um to allow the construction of a high-rise residential building with one voluntary condition, which is to provide a 10-foot setback adjacent to residential. And that condition is important because this while it is uh across from Elbell Field is also adjacent to um our higher density multif family residential zone R4. So um this is an area that has seen a great deal of added housing opportunity due to construction projects that have been initiated by the University of Michigan and by private developers. And so it is an area in which such a reasonzoning can be appropriate as long as the context is appropriately um recognized. So uh I think did I say this specifically? It is anticipated to host a 14-story building that would be 180 units of housing above two levels of parking. The condition or planning commission believes that the condition the 10-foot setback provides a good way to recognize the proximity of this project to the older style housing in its surroundings, but also to enable um further housing opportunity of the kind that is beginning to be in that area. um planning commission had a pretty long deliberation of this item and I think when it comes before us for second

reading it would be appropriate that we think about whether D1 is can work here planning commission and I agree that that was the right decision but planning commission did think about that so I just wanted to flag this for you I I don't want us to get too hung up tonight unless you all want to hang for a little while

council member Briggs Yeah, since this is a um parcel that's in the fifth ward, I just wanted to um you know note that um again this is first just first reading um but planning commission has um you articulated that this is consistent the resoning is consistent with our um sort of current and future surrounding land use is consistent with the overarching goals of the 2009 comprehensive plan and it aligns with the recommend draft recommendations of the 2026 um comprehensive draft plan that we're um considering adopting this spring. Um so I'm um you know we consider a zoning change sort of irregardless of the parcel the development that is proposed. Um and that's that's how I'll be considering this um this request. Um currently I am supportive of it.

Further discussion. All in favor? All opposed. On first reading is approved. DC1 resolution to approve a brownfield plan for the Arbor South project. Moved by Council Member Dish, second by Council Member Redina. Discussion, please of DC1. Did I miss something? I'm sorry. Thank you. There's an intro. Uh Joe Giant. Mr. Giant. All right. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you.

Awesome. Yeah. Sincere apologies for not being there. Uh wish I was. Um so I had a question about providing um for an intro for this uh describing what's unique about this p uh project the public benefits and advances and why those factors may justify deviation from strict strict application of a brownfield policy and whether similar requests should be anticipated in the future. Um so I was thinking about it and I you know kept coming back to the vision u vision for TC1 versus you know the reality of implementing actual financable market informed projects. Um our vision is pretty aspirational. um is transforming places designed entirely around convenient automobile access where proximity doesn't matter at all to actual places where that is the most important thing. And it talks about adding housing but not just building you know big apartments along busy roads but actual neighborhoods organized around walkable blocks where the spaces between the buildings matter as much as the buildings themselves. Now this project is what that looks like in practice. 200 units, affordable housing, 800 market rate units, uh ground floor shopping, restaurants, a hotel, parking, and open space at an investment north of $580 million. Um it would transform the area, but there's really nothing particularly novel about the project itself. It's a highdensity mixeduse walkable neighborhood. Um now that city bonding isn't contemplated, it's it's a straight pretty straightforward ask, too. Um the only public funds involved are new taxes generated by the project itself uh which would not exist but for the project and only exist if the project is built. Um if that changes they will be back. Um you have the site plan agree uh site plan development agreement in front of you. Um next um this is set up to provide us essentially the same protections as the PPA that would ensure that the affordable housing is constructed. Um there's also a resolved clause in this brownfield resolution um making approval of the brownfield conditioned upon the execution of the

affordable housing development agreement. Um now at a certain point um we have to reconcile our vision of TC1 with the fact that the cost is the cost. Um most development projects benefit from decades of investment in the infrastructure surrounding their site. Um, a lot of times that does even include public parking, so they don't have to absorb these costs. But here we're going from an area with essentially zero on-site infrastructure to basically all of it that you'd find in about six blocks of a downtown. Now, we support this project and we support the use of TIFF because it clearly advances our policy goals. Um, due to major infrastructure needs, it cannot be constructed under normal market conditions as analyzed and verified by our municipal financial adviser. It doesn't address every goal at 100% but there is no perfect project. Um it was communicated to council when this project was first being introduced um that due to the level of infrastructure needed it would not meet the letter of our brownfield policy and because of that um it would receive greater scrutiny which has certainly occurred. Um the policy exists and should be respected but it doesn't account for the various types of projects you know we may encounter or changing economic conditions. So, we should use it as a framework and not not as a disqualifier. Now, this almost certainly won't be the last request for TIF in the TC-1 district. Um, but the degree of infrastructure needed, the associated financial g financial gap depends on the site, nature of the project, economic conditions, you know, etc., etc. Um, but there are in reality very few places where a project of this scale could even be contemplated. So, I would expect district scale requests like this to be few and far between. Um, now future projects support the purposes and intent of TC1 projects that add housing. They're made by people that are investing in our city. That's a really good thing. We want that. Um, but in leveraging TIFF to realize those types of projects, we should consider using TIF to make sure that we should make

sure that using TIFF, you know, is, you know, leveraged to extend along the corridors, not just be confined to the site themselves, so that we truly can make interconnected neighborhoods. and in evaluating larger requests, we really do look forward to developing performance metrics to ensure that our use of TIFF is accomplishing our intended goals. Um, so we support this project and this brownfield plan. It is a big bold project. Um, but it's hard to imagine the vision for TC1 aligning more with a concrete project proposal. Now, um, I'm I'm remote. I can answer questions. I know that a lot of our staff um, team members are there as as this is a de development team. So, with that, I'd love to turn it over to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Uh discussion of DC3. Let's try DC1. DC1. Council member uh Malik. Thank you, Mr. Giant. Uh I have really struggled with this project. As we all well know, it is large and complex with a lot of moving parts. But with complexity comes an opportunity to learn and dig in. And that's exactly what I've tried to do. Over the past year, by my account, I've had more than a dozen meetings with city and county staff to learn their perspectives and expertise and seek greater clarity and understanding. I've lost count of the number of memos andformational reports I've read and reread on this project, including each page of the financial reports from our independent third party financials reviewer. I've thought through more pros and cons lists than I care to admit to organize my thoughts. I've also had much appreciated conversations on this project with friends, neighbors, and constituents. After all of that, I'm still on the fence, but I can confidently say I understand the arguments quite well, both for and against.

I'm excited about the amount of housing this project proposes, and especially the number of affordable units. Transforming what is currently a sea of surface parking into a new vibrant community is exactly what our city needs. Previously the proposed public private partnership setup, my top concern was related to the level of risk to the city, but I was largely satisfied with the various risk mitigation built into the agreement and the process, especially when paired with the numerous direct benefits to the community made possible by this project. Now, with this brownfield plan before us tonight, more of the anticipated tax increment revenue is allocated to the parking decks and even less to the direct city and community benefits. That being said, I'm overall a big believer in the financial power of TIFFs, especially taking into account the but for arguments. I'm also a big believer in brownfield projects and their transformational potential. I'm excited that city council and city staff are exploring the use of this tool to add muchneeded housing to our city. So, while I have been on the fence in regards to this project, I have generally le leaned towards support because of my overall support for Brownfield TIFF's projects and their massive potential to our city. As one resident put it, take the possible good over the impossible perfect when it comes to this project. and that resonated with me. Therefore, I believe I will be voting in the affirmative tonight. Thank you,

Council Member Dish.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Malik. Um, I part of the reason I ran in 2020 was to see transit corridor zoning succeed. And I don't see this as the only kind of project that can make it succeed. But I see it as a project of historic proportions for Ann Arbor. It is the first truly transformational repurposing of a parking lot along a transit corridor that we have seen. I would like to emphasize a few of the points that ha that have fed my certainty about the project. I have always been inclined to support it, but I have studied it hard as you have met countless times with staff and frankly lost a fair amount of sleep thinking about it. Uh because this isn't what I do for my day job, but I trust the people who do. So the 17 acres of mostly service parking currently has a taxable value of $8 million. Its redevelopment with housing, restaurants, services, and public event space is estimated to generate an approximately 153 million increase in taxable value within a decade after construction is initiated. Development on this scale, an increase of this magnitude and taxable value cannot be achieved without public investment. So what do the words public investment mean? Initially, the city was to own and operate the parking garages associated with this project. That would have meant issuing city bonds. That is no longer the case. Instead, the garages will be built, owned, and operated by

the developer with public money supported by tax increment financing. This is not a direct use of city money or bonding authority. As you have heard several times, tax increment financing involves reinvesting in the project the increased taxable value generated by the project. The tiff reinvestment for this project is long. It is 30 years but the increased value as I have said is large. Uh I would like to uh address some comparisons to Briarwood that have come up. And let's start with parking ratios at 0.85 car uh yes 085 parking spaces for per unit. The parking ratio for the Brierwood Mall project is closer to one car per unit than the ratio at South AR at Arbor South, excuse me,

which is 66. Council member. Yes. Okay. We'll come back to that. Further discussion.

Council Aman.

Thank Thank we talking about this. We have been talking about this for a very long time. Um, and I think people know by now that I'm voting no. Um, but I do want to talk about a few things. Um, so as I've said before, this is not a vote against housing and it's not a vote against development at this location. I support more housing, including dense housing and I think this is a good project. Um, it's not even a vote against a brownfield tiff, which I do support as a valid tool for developing sites that otherwise would not be developed. I also want to recognize the changes that have been made um with respect to the city, you know, taking on ownership and liability of the debt and the maintenance of the parking lot is no longer in the picture. And I think that that's a positive. Um but my concern is still about how we're using the brownfield to whether this proposal aligns with our adopted policy and our stated priorities. Um, so as has already been said a couple of different times, including by staff and the staff report, um, under our brownfield policy, we say that the city's part should be capped at 20% of the overall project investment. In this case before the interest, the eligible activities represent roughly 31% of the total project costs. But I believe under the way that we normally calculate this um where we include the statutory interest the potential reimbursement rate rises to more than half of the total construction costs. So this is a significant departure from our adopted policy. Um and I know that the argument has been made that the economic context has changed in the time since that policy was crafted in 2019. And I can accept that and I can accept the fact that it might need to be reviewed and perhaps adjusted given those realities and our goals. Um, but what I can't stomach is making such a large large exception for one project, especially when I understand that the

typical rate of public contribution in plans across the state is more like 10 to 30% of project costs, not 50some, unless it's a transformative brownfield plan, which is a type of brownfield plan. Um, additionally, as I've stated before, this brownfield plan prioritizes the parking structures and parking access over other public goals that we've repeatedly said are central, especially around transit and safe non-motorized uh mobility from this site to downtown and other places in the city. And when parking dominates the eligible costs of this magnitude, I think we really need to pause and ask whether we're reinforcing the outcomes that we actually want. Um, so that's about all I have to say. Thanks, Council Member Briggs.

Thank you. Um, so, as folks know, I'm also going to be voting um against this this evening. Um, but I am really excited with how far the project actually has come. Um, when this came first came to us, um, it was, you know, the the level of of of public participation was quite different as as council member Aman mentioned, it was and and others. Uh we were we were going to be bonding for this. Um we were going to be uh owning purchasing owning maintaining these these parking structures in perpetuity for private development outside of the downtown. And I I didn't think that was um in the city's best long-term interest. Um and so when there and I appreciate my co colleagues for postponing this at the last meeting. Um it was a big restructuring of what was presented to us. Um, and I'm glad to see that we have a a development agreement in front of us tonight that will um articulate um those commitments um and and make sure that that um they're seen through if this project moves forward. But um you know I despite the um I've looked at this this project from a lot of different ways and and while I like the project um I have never really liked the financing that's been associated with it. I have gone down and visited the the the inspiration project in Dublin um walked around there compared it to other projects that we have here. um Beakman on Broadway um is a fairly similar type um typology as is what this will be. There's there are some differences um but that's essentially what we're talking about on with Beakman on Broadway. There was a brownfield there. We know that was on the spot of Kroger. You know, in that case um it was $146 million um private investment with a $10 million brownfield. The ratio was really different. here what we're talking about is a $380 million brownfield. Now, not

only is this the largest brownfield that we've ever done, which is why we're we've taken a lot of time um to consider this as well. Um but I've gone through the last couple of um years of brownfield adoptions in the state of Michigan and this is as far as I can tell except for transformationational brownfields the largest in the state. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to be um to be really considering whether or not this ratio of public versus private um uh participation is at the appropriate level. I mean at 56% um that's notably higher than our t typical policy of 20%. And so for me what that means is that I'm really looking at what are those areawide benefits. We know that affordable housing is required as part of our brownfield. And so while I appreciate that and I appreciate all of the housing, that alone is not enough to get me to support this. And so it's really looking beyond that to say, okay, where what are we doing beyond this area? Um, and things are written into our brownfield um plan staff report suggesting that transit is is benefiting from this. But really what we're talking about is an enhanced transit stop and 30 years of funding that is diverted away from AATA while we're adding, you know, 2,000 more people to our community. These are real tradeoffs um for us. So, um I appreciate that this is a tough dis decision for many folks and those value statements are different for me. I'll be voting no.

Further discussion? Council member Gazi. Uh, thank you, mayor, and thank you um to my colleagues for, you know, all of your of your thoughts on this. I want to thank staff for, you know, dozens of conversations. This is a very complex issue and I have really struggled with this one because housing has always been a main priority for me. It's why why I ran was to help build more affordable housing. Um, and you know, I think my main issue previously was the risk that the city was going to take on in purchasing and owning the parking decks. And that risk has been mitigated and what we see coming back to us. And I understand there's still some issues. For me, you know, after talking to almost maybe five or six different housing justice leaders just in the last week, the public benefit is so great with us being able to gain um you know, 200 some units of affordable housing to our to our housing commission that now this is something that that I I will be supporting tonight. Um although I do, you know, I do I do wish some parts of the arrangement look different, I also believe that we desperately need housing and I do think that this development is going to do some good. So thank you.

Further discussion, council dish.

Okay, so we've heard the question, if Brierwood can do without TIF, why can't Arbor south? And I just want to say quick facts. The new mixeduse project at Brierwood Mall is market rate housing, grocery store, and other appealing amenities. I'm excited for it. But at 370 units and eight acres, it's not at the scale of Arbor South. It does not contain income eligible affordable housing. So there is a big difference between those two projects. I think they're not comparable. I would like to ask Mr. giant to help clarify the different figures that we're hearing about the ratio of public investment to private investment. And I know that in the staff memo um there were two ways of calculating it. One that seemed to my mind to compare apples to apples, which is um public participation plus interest on debt to private participation plus interest on private debt. And if you did it that way, it's still 30%. I wondered if that's a common way of doing it. And if you could just say more about this because I'm not able to explain this. Well,

so um you know, I I took the first stab at this response, but we all, you know, circulate them and um the fir the first stab of it stab at it actually confused um one our brownfield coordinator. So it's a significantly cleaned up response, but it is kind of a confusing issue. Um, so the what what the way that we have interpreted the policy in the past is is the way that council member Aman described it. I I would note that we typically don't include interest as a as an eligible expense. So I think the intent behind the policy could have been articulated like a little a little bit more clearly and when we revised it we'll we'll certainly do that. Um, the the other thing I I do not know the answer to is how other communities in Michigan evaluate the percentage of public versus private investment if it's without interest, with interest, if the developers interest is included. So, I I don't I don't know how to compare how to speak to that that comparison. Um, but council member Dish, you did you did explain it essentially, right? Um, there's a couple ways to do it. Um there's the amount of tiff going into just hard and soft costs. So just cost to build and plan a parking garage, the cost to build and plan streets and sewers and everything divided by the entire cost of the project. So that's what is that 82 divided by 584. So that's where that that 31% comes from. Um that that feels in some ways like the cleanest way to do it, but I understand that that's not the way that uh we we had done it. The way that we do it is it keeps that same total investment, you know, static, but it includes all of the interest that occurs on the brownfield eligible items. So, I mean, the developer is obviously going to finance their project. But in this scenario, we don't include interest on that. We only include it on the reimburseable items. So, that's where

you get that ratio that's uh 56%. Um the staff response just was meant to articulate that the developer is financing the project and they're making interest payments on the project. So those are certainly project cost. So to make it, we've compared like fruit analogies way too much in this uh discussion, but to make it more of an apples to apples comparison. Um we said total cost with interest paid by the developer divided by or total cost with interest on the eligible activities divided by total cost of interest paid by the developer. And that's where we got the 31%. I don't know if that was less confusing. Um if there's follow-up questions, I'm happy to address them. Thank you. Further discussion, councelor Aman.

Yeah, I have a follow-up question uh because I actually did try to look at this and I I didn't look at the history of how the city has done it on past projects, but I'm wondering if you could if someone on staff could tell me how we've done it in recent brownfield projects. How have we calculated it? I am going to defer to my friend Derek Delicort if he's still around because he has a little bit more experience with past projects. He is indeed. He gasped. You had to rouse him. You did. He was He was He was paying wrapped attention.

My best Nathan vote his office here from the county who may be able to help. We do we have done some plans with interest. Certainly none at this scale. I mean this is I think it's fair to say from the beginning has been a different um animal for us to review and started from a place and a position of how can we make the project work from the beginning. Um in previous projects we have utilized interest from and paid back some interest. It's usually on a smaller scale and we just consider it part of the hard cost is how it's been calculated in the past. So it's been done in that simple manner in the past. I think both manners or both ways of looking at it are possibly valid and and and easy to do. Um how we've looked at this project from the beginning is is we started with a financial an analysis from PFM that said without a certain level of subsidy this project doesn't work and we worked backwards from there to try to find a way to make the project work. You have all seen the PFM analysis that started with these projects don't go unless there's a certain rate of return on them. they don't work, they're not financable. We started with a range of of financable um uh irr on the project that was in the normal range for what a dorm developer would or consider to be a viable project and worked backwards from what tools do we have to make this viable since then. Obviously, that was two years ago when we all started. It was very clear to us from the very beginning this project would not fit in the box of our policy. Our policy was designed for the 80th 85th percentile of projects. We see we saw it was not designed to be a stop for projects. It was designed to give developers the opportunity to understand what it was we were looking for in a project without the kind of arbitrary process where we were going through before where we just looked at each one

individual. It was designed to give them an idea of if you meet this policy, this is what we would consider acceptable. But we knew at the time there was always going to be projects that came forward that would not fit in that box. This is clearly one of those projects. Um how we've calculated interest to the day, we would have to go back and look at all of the different projects. I'm sure at different times we've looked at it different ways, but the shortest answer is is we've considered that hard cost to the project. But whether we consider those part of the hard cost, no matter which calculation we use, this project is not going to fit in that box. and the level of participation needed to make the investment work for the developer if we want a TC1 project like this is going to not conform with our policy whether it's by 10% or 5% it's not going to fit within that box so we can certainly go back and look at exactly how we did all those calculations but it was always clear from us from the beginning that it was not going to fit within that within those guidelines if it was going to work and deliver the kind of return that was necessary to make it work. So, I know that was a little bigger answer, I think, than the question, but

it is your time regrettably, but council Briggs, you got to clean up. I apologize. I was not necessarily going to comment for a second time, but I would say that it's really important for us as a city to be able to say if we have a brownfield policy um that has a ratio of 20%. It's not that, you know, this is a policy. It doesn't mean that we have to adhere to it. there are reasons we might um and and have in the past exceeded it.

However, we have to be able to compare what that um percentage ratio looks like from project to project to understand what the you know what the the trade-offs are, right? That's why that policy is there. And so certainly I mean I have not gone back into every brownfield either but it does seem based on the ones that I have gone into that the 56% ratio that was placed in our stat the council memo that is the way that it appears we have calculated it in the past when I looked at the um Broadway park um brownfield plan for example that was consistent with that calculation and so you know I think it's I would hope that we have a consistent way of measuring ing a policy when we when we have one.

Yeah. I mean, and and I don't disagree with that at all. Um either way we calculated it, it falls outside of that policy. Um and we knew that it was it was going to from the very beginning. Um it was never a question of whether this project would fit within the guidelines of that policy. So, we were always much more interested in coming up with a plan and a level of subsidy that made the project work to deliver the TC1 design project that the city was looking for. Um, and not whether it fit within the strict boundaries of that policy. But I don't I don't disagree. There has to be a way to to look at those consistently. Further discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Council. Council Ryer,

thank you. I see tonight's vote on Arbor South as a key test of how our land use goals translate into real world outcomes. And Arbor should be a place where people of different incomes, ages, and backgrounds can live near jobs, services, and transit. Affordability, climate action, and inclusion depend on our ability to allow new housing to be built in the right places at the right scale. No brownfield plan of this size is simple, and this one definitely involves trade-offs. But taken as a whole, the project aligns with our long-term land use goals, delivers substantial public benefit, and begins to transform one of the city's most autocentric corridors into a place where people can live, work, and spend time without relying on their cars. This is exactly the outcome TC1 was created to support. It's been said Arbor South would add up to a thousand new homes, including more than 200 affordable units along with infrastructure and public improvements tied directly to the Brownfield Agreement. In a city where housing scarcity continues to drive displacement and rising costs, that that's a win. The tax increment being discussed only exists if the project is built. If the project does not move forward, there is no captured revenue and there is no new housing here. I understand the concerns about structured parking, particularly in a city that prioritizes car uh reducing car dependence, and I share that priority. But turning shared values into outcomes, requires some workable implementation. This project proposes just6 parking spaces per unit, the minimum, it said needed to secure financing. And the city's financial consultant has found that without Brownfield support, the project is not feasible. If we reject the financing tools needed to make dense housing viable outside our downtown, where structured parking already exists, our zoning reforms are unlikely to succeed in practice. The most likely outcome would be a much smaller project or no

project at all. In 2024, this council adopted four economic development resolutions that set a clear direction for Ann Arbor, expanding housing at all income levels, focusing growth on placemaking and sustainability, and strengthening corridors where infrastructure and transit already exist. Arbor South reflects that direction by pairing housing with jobs, services, recreation, and transit in a way um that achieves those goals. As Amanda Carile, executive director of the Washington Housing Alliance, wrote to council today, the Arbor South development is not perfect, but we often let the perfect be the enemy of the good. With the Ann Arbor Housing Commission as a partner, the project will help meet a critical need for both affordable and market rate housing. For these reasons, I support this plan.

Further discussion?

Uh I'm going to uh vote in favor of the plan today. There's been a a fair bit of talk uh in the public and a little bit here in chambers about the developer and what the developer is getting at getting and I just want to say for myself and I think I feel without contra that this is without contradiction that I don't really give a rip about developers nothing that I do nothing that we ever do is for the developers what I care about what we care about are the people of Ann Arbor the city its current residents its future residents And Ann Arbor needs housing. We have a housing crisis. Housing prices and rents are too expensive. This is true because supply and demand is real. And we have not had enough housing. Seniors, they cannot downsize. Divorced couples can't stay in town. Young people can't move home. It's just too expensive. We have the opportunity today for thousands of new neighbors, 200 units of new permanent affordable housing, hundreds of long-term jobs, untold visitors, the creation of a new economic engine, a new center of gravity in our downtown. Nothing like this happens without public investment in infrastructure. That is crucial. This is going to be it is not definitionally a transformational brownfield but it is a transformational brownfield. We are going to be permitting the development of six downtownsiz blocks in an area of our city that is a concrete and residential wasteland. With respect to the taxes, if you're listening to my voice, if you're reading this article, your taxes are not going to this project. If you're listening to

my voice or reading this article, your taxes are not going to support the building of the infrastructure on this project. the taxes that are being going to build the infrastructure on this project which will crucially be used by the thousands of residents, hundreds of workers, untold thousands of visitors. Those taxes will be paid for in full by the property owner. This is a really good thing. It's going to change our city and change our city for the better, giving thousands of people new opportunities for housing, for labor, for work, for entertainment. And I'm excited about the opportunity to vote yes. Further discussion. Roll call vote, please. Starting with Council Member Gazi Edwin.

Council member Gazi Edwin. Yes. Mayor Taylor, yes. Council er, yes. Council Aman, no. Council Briggs, no. Council Cornell, absent. Council Dish, yes. Council Harrison, yes. Council Watson, yes. Council Malik, yes. Council Readina, yes. Motion carries. C2, an ordinance to amend the zoning map of chapter 55 unified.

Sorry, is that right? No. I'm behind my behind the time. It just sounded so familiar. DC2 resolution to approve the Arbor South Development Agreement 2845 South State Street. Moved by Council Member Dish, second by Council Member Mallet. Discussion, please of DC2. Council member Dish.

I'll be very brief. Uh the development agreement we have in a way not seen before but in another way we've seen it what feels like about a hundred times. Um there is not much different in this development agreement than what we had seen in the private public partnership agreement. Uh that is no longer necessary because there's no longer any city bonding going into this. Uh the major changes are that the development agreement refineses and specifies and spells out the terms of um of what the developer will do. These were indicated verbally at our last meeting. They are now nailed down. Um there is a shift. The developer will not be contributing $100,000 for a traffic study, but they will be paying in full for a signalized intersection along State Street. adjoining the project if that is warranted and if other improvements are found to be better than a signalized in uh in intersection the developer will pay for those instead. So warranted or not there will be a large investment by the developer in improvements to the state street intersection. Um, and if I'm forgetting anything that's materially changed, I'm sure folks will chime in. And that hadn't been a subject of discussion at our last meeting. So, I support it.

Further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? It's approved. DC3 resolution reaffirming the city of Ann Arbor's policy regarding civil immigration enforcement and mitigating erratic lawless tactics with intentional city efforts. Moved by Council Member Harrison. Seconded by council member Dish. Discussion please of DC3. Council member Harrison.

Thank you mayor. Thank you to all of the community members who are here tonight supporting this important piece of legislation. Before continuing I want to thank Meera and Wicker for their continued dedication and support of the local immigrant community affected by ICE and CBP. Thank you to these organizations and residents who have been diligently helping our local immigrant community through aid, advocacy, and exercising their First Amendment right to protest. I, like all of you, am here tonight with a heavy heart. As a black mother who raised black young men, the fear of law enforcement is not new or abstract to me. It is steeped in history. That fear runs from slave catchers and the black codes through Jim Crow and through generations of discriminatory enforcement to this present day. It echoes in moments like the killings of Philando Castile and Elijah Mlan, but it long predates them. That history lives in our bodies and our memories, and it shapes how black families understand the risk of every encounter with authority. This history, this fear, this weathering of souls is what we see occurring in the immigrant community today. What we are witnessing now builds on that history in deeply alarming ways. People are not just being stopped or questioned, whether an immigrant or a US citizen. They are being detained based on skin color, perceived ethnicity, a name, or an accent. They are being taken off the street, sometimes in front of their children or co-workers, and in some cases effectively disappearing into detention systems where families struggle to locate them, where people

are falling ill and where access to legal counsel is, according to multiple accounts, delayed or denied. That kind of insert of uncertainty is devastating. It does not simply revive old fears. It amplifies them rippling outward through families, workplaces, schools, and entire communities. This is why I, with the support of the co-sponsors who brought this resolution to council, we do not want Ann Arbor to wait until harm becomes normalized or until fear becomes routine. As a city government, we have a responsibility to lead by example. That means using our authority authority carefully and lawfully and refusing to facilitate actions that undermine constitutional protections. It means ensuring that our policies, our practices uphold due process and human dignity and that our city is not complicit in fear-based enforcement that fractures trust and harms families. My promise is to continue to fight for anti-racism and legal reform. My hope is that passing this legislation tonight is a start to us making it clear that we want to protect our immigrant community. Whether it is from abuses from the federal government and immigration or the microaggressions every day that cause significant harm to families tonight. I do not believe that we are being asked to solve every failure of the federal immigration system. I do however believe that we are being asked whether we will use authority, the authority we do have to protect people who live, work, go to school and travel through the city of Ann Arbor and whether our values will be realized through policy, not just words. I would like to thank all of the organizers that

are here. While this resolution is just a start, my commitment is that I will continue to push for ways to use the city government structure for change and for us to use all of the tools at our disposal to protect vulnerable communities. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to stand with our community by choosing clarity over ambiguity, action over silence, and dignity for everyone who calls Ann Arbor home. Thank you. Further discussion, Council Member Gazi Edwin.

Uh, thank you, Mayor and colleagues, and thank you to Council Member Cynthia Harrison. Um, thank you to members of Meera and Wicker and to all the community members who are here tonight who keep pushing us um and helped to bring this resolution forward. As a first generation immigrant who came to Ann Arbor as a child and the granddaughter of refugees, this issue is deeply personal to me. After 911, my mother was traveling home from a conference when her plane was grounded. She was detained and interrogated by the FBI for hours and separated from my 12-year-old brother who was confused and scared. She is a professor and a physician, but in that moment, none of that mattered. Her name, her accent, and where she was from were enough to make her suspicious. As I began hearing about other cases like this, people targeted because of foreign sounding names or ethnicity, what struck me was what I didn't hear or see. Clear, consistent leadership condemning anti-immigrant sentiment and racism. That silence mattered, and it sent a message to me. When those with power stay silent, harm becomes normalized. And what we are witnessing today is only possible because of what we failed to confront in our past. No level of government should be complicit in in signaling that the inhumane treatment of any person is acceptable. That includes rejecting systems like ICE that profit off human suffering and family separation. Systems that must be abolished. That is why speaking up now as this body through this resolution matters. Ann Arbor is built by immigrants, including mixed status families who are essential to our social, cultural, and economic life. We have one of the highest concentrations of foreignb born

residents in Michigan. Our community reflects the world and in our neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and universities. And immigrants contribute to the everyday vitality of this city. We must protect what makes Ann Arbor beautiful. This resolution draws a clear moral boundary. Our city spaces should not be used to intimidate or terrorize members of our community. And while there is more work to do to strengthen protections for our most vulnerable neighbors, I look forward to continuing that work alongside organizations on the ground. Finally, I want to be clear about something else in this moment. institutions and elected bodies will not save us. And sometimes those institutions will target us. We must continue to organize with our neighbors, building relationships, supporting immigrant-led organizations and immigration focused organizations, and strengthening the networks families rely on when fear keeps them from seeking help. I hope we continue to show up for for one another tonight and every night. Thank you,

Council Member Briggs. THANK YOU. UM, the Trump administration has armed with military scale weaponry and spyw wear an unaccountable and quite clearly untrained police force. And these in individuals have been unleashed into our communities with quotas for arrest. And they are directed to stop people based on race, ethnicity, language, and location, not criminal activity. When civil and human rights abuses occur, when US citizens are murdered in public spaces on video, we are told not to believe our eyes. Instead, we are told that the people are domestic terrorists. When law-abiding neighbors are disappeared from our communities, we are lied to and told they are gang members. Defending our democracy, defending our neighbors, defending our rights, um is not terrorism. It is the embodiment of patriotism. You have called upon us to regulate those who have proven willing to violate our constitution and laws on a daily basis. And while I concur that we must pass as strong a resolution as possible, sadly I don't believe it is going to fundamentally alter the actions of immigration agents in our community, we will and must do what is within the realm of our influence and that's what we're doing tonight. It has been carefully considered because our goal is to protect the most vulnerable in our community and their lives matter, their lives and safety matters. But I do believe in the people in this room and I thank you for being here. Um to um your your voices truly matter. As Richard shared earlier, the power of the people is greater than the people in power. And as our nation has taken to the streets, called and written their federal officials, closed their businesses, wa people have walked out of school and refused to comply and advanced to this authoritarian regime, we see glimmers of light. And in the darkness, as we know, the stars shine brightly. So, I call on all of you to continue to speak up and be visible when many of our community feel is necessary to hide to protect themselves. Um, I do have one question

um because I think it's something that um uh we um all need to be clear upon. Um, attorney Cow, if you wouldn't mind, could you please um speak to the rights of community members to record activities of federal immigration officials and what um what folks should do if they document a civil or human rights abuse? Thank you, Council Member Briggs. The one big beautiful bold thing about America is the Bill of Rights. You have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement officials. However, do not interfere, do not obstruct, and listen to instructions. That's the law, and it's also important for your safety. So, please do that. But you have the right to record law enforcement officials. What do you do with those recordings? I want to be clear, as much as we would like, the Ann Arbor, HRC, the Human Rights Commission does not have jurisdiction over the federal government. But there are things you can do. The FBI takes citizen initiated complaints. If you truly believe that a video or recording shows a crime, you can report it to the FBI. I know there's distrust in the federal government today, but we must believe in the institutions that have been set up for us, and there is strength in numbers. You can work with your local journalists, help them document, and bring it to the forefront if you truly believe a crime was committed or a civil rights um violation was committed. There are organizations you can research that are helping people archive evidence of human rights violations, civil rights violations, or crimes. You can work with

them to help your video get archived and they can guide you in how it can better be used. I hope that's been helpful. Thank you. Yes, thank you. And thank you for your service to the city. Council member Redina,

thank you. Uh first and foremost, I want to thank all who are here tonight to support the most vulnerable in our community and to confront the law lawlessness and abuses of power by the federal government. ICE and CBP have engaged in illegal and unconstitutional and immoral acts nationwide. From warrantless detainments and arrests and deliberate intimidation and racial profiling to murdering people in broad daylight and on camera, these are not isolated incidents. They are systemic failures. For those reasons, I personally support defunding and abolishing ICE and believe that accountability must extend to its leadership with the impeachment of Christy Nome. And I thank Congresswoman Dingle for signing on to articles of impeachment against her, for voting against DHS funding, and for taking seriously her responsibility to hold to hold this administration accountable. Locally, Ann Arbor has been clear and consistent in its response to civil immigration enforcement. Public safety is built on trust, not fear, and not on the misuse of local government resources to carry out a federal agenda that violates human rights. Our city is committed to the safety, dignity, and rights of all residents. For that reason, Ann Arbor has long refused to cooperate with ICE and CBP on civil immigration enforcement. Through our existing 2017 policy, and again through this expansion, tonight, city council is reaffirming a clear stand. Ann Arbor city funds, personnel, and properties will not be used to assist civil immigration enforcement, and ICE is not welcome here. It also confronts a deeply disturbing trend of federal immigration agents conducting operations while masked and without visible identification. That practice is dangerous, creates confusion, and invites abuse. Tonight, we direct our city attorney to begin drafting ordinances to ban masking and require identification by any law enforcement operating within the city as soon as we have the authority to ask to those asking us to go further. I commit to continuing to work with Meera and others in areas where we have the

power to strengthen policies. But I also believe it is incredibly important that local officials speak honestly and transparently about how and where we can truly protect our people and that residents can trust us when they tell when we tell them they are safe. False assurances from government leaders put the most vulnerable among us at risk. That's why I'm also incredibly cautious as a government leader about using the phrase ICE-free zones. Not because I don't want them, I do, but because I worry about creating a false sense of security for targeted residents who will believe they may suddenly be safe when they are not. While I believe this is a meaningful step forward tonight, when ICE and CBP show up in communities, we are not safe. None of us. They don't usually come to city halls or county buildings. They terrorize our people at bus stops, stores, and restaurants. They profile and stop people on the street and on their way into schools and churches. Now, they are arguing they can forcibly enter our homes without valid warrants. And we have seen in Minneapolis they may even kill us. So, I want to be clear. I am committed to doing everything and anything within my authority to protect our residents from this federal government's war on its people and our American way of life. But when it what when the time comes, it will depend on all of us and what we do outside of these chambers to come together to keep our neighbors safe. I'm confident by the response here tonight and throughout our community that Ann Arbor is ready to take a stand. Immigrants are welcome here. Thank you,

Council Member Malik.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Adena. Uh throughout much of 2025, I reflected on whether and how the city should respond given the federal administration's harsh harsh immigration policies. As those policies became more aggressive, I've come to believe that at the very least, we should reaffirm our 2017 commitment to being a welcoming city. However, as the past few weeks have unfolded in Minnesota and elsewhere, it became clear that we needed to do more. Having previously served over 5 years in the federal government, I can say that this is not the federal government I once knew, one that once worked tirelessly towards improving the lives of the American people. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening today. Initially, I worried that any action by Ann Arbor might make us a target. But after seeing other cities around Michigan and the country take action in recent weeks to protect their communities and most vulnerable as well as our own county and seeing the chamber filled tonight in support, it is clear there is power in numbers, there is power in people, and there is power in community. A big thanks to all who worked on this resolution, especially our city attorneys. I echo much of what my colleagues have already said tonight and agree. I look forward to supporting this resolution tonight and working to strengthen it where possible in the future. Thank you.

Council member Ryer.

Thank you. Thank you to everyone who came out tonight for to the organizations that are doing the advocacy work and for your input um on this and your continued input going forward. I vehemently condemn ISIS's actions and tactics. They rip families apart. They kidnap children from their parents. They terrorize entire communities. In Minneapolis, federal agents have killed American citizens. Horrors and more deaths are happening in detention centers that we don't even know of. This is the brutal lived reality of immigration enforcement under Trump. These actions are intentional. They are part of a racist project to reserve America for white people, enforced through fear. Immigrant communities are targeted first. Trust in government is destroyed. Public safety is undermined. people are deterred from reporting crimes, seeking medical care, or accessing basic city services. At the same time, these tactics are also meant to send a broader message to all Americans. Stay home, stay quiet, stay invisible, to suppress protest, to cause people to abandon their basic rights, to speak out, and demand accountability. Fear is the mechanism and silence is the goal. This body will not be silent. We oppose and will continue opposing ICE on the strongest possible terms. Since 2017, Ann Arbor has refused to use city resources, city staff, or our police to assist civil immigration enforcement. This resolution strengthens that policy by converting non-ooperation into enforcable action, prohibiting the use of city property for ICE staging, directing city staff and contractors, requiring training and implementation, and committing the city to require visible identification and limit face covering by law enforcement as soon as

is practical. Passing this resolution is not the end of the work. I'm confident that going forward, we will continue strengthening city policy in ways that are lawful, enforceable, and actually protective in practice. To the issue of whether the city should go further now and put itself in conflict with federal law by banning ICE in all public places, I want to just ask some practical questions for us to ponder. If ICE enforcement activity conducts enforcement activity in a public area of city property, who is expected to intervene and how? What outcome is the city expected to be responsible for delivering in that moment? Those questions aren't rhetorical. They determine whether we are promising safety that we can deliver or a mirage of safety that collapses when people need it most. I believe we can and must be uncompromising in our condemnation of ICE and we can and must be honest about what we as a city can do and we can continue working to do more. This resolution does all of those things and I'm unequivocally committed to protecting our immigrant neighbors. Council member Dish,

I just wanted to add my thanks to everyone who has worked on this resolution, to everyone who is in the streets, who is in this room. Um, I do not ask to be added to a resolution. That was a lot of work that I didn't participate in. So, I will not ask to be added to this one, but I will express my heartfelt support and pride at Ann Arbor's long history of standing up against the federal government, and we will continue it. and thank you for all your words about doing what we can do and not promising what we can't. Further discussion, council run.

I I just I wanted to be added as a co-sponsor, please. Thank you. I forgot.

Further discussion. Um, first off, I'd like to thank Council Member Harrison for getting this party started. Uh, her initiative on this has been uh, excellent. Thank you. I'd like to thank uh, city attorney's office and staff uh, for working extremely hard uh, on the quick on the on the on the long and deliberate and on the quick uh, to to get this done. Uh I'd like to thank to the advocates uh here in the in the room at the at this late hour and those who were here earlier. Uh Meera and Wicker are doing tremendous work in the community. Uh and I and we value the efforts you've done, the support you've given and the the the help that you've given to us as we you know craft these resolutions, as we craft what we can do. You know, I and we are committed to continuing the work. Uh I understand that there are some areas where you want where people are envision opportunities for improvement and uh opportunities or improvement or what municipal government is all about. So uh they keep the conversation going. Prelude done. Uh important prelude done. It's important to know that uh federal civil uh immigration enforcement is a fraud. We have masked gangs in the streets, indiscriminate beatings, indiscriminate pepper spray, unlawful arrest, and murder. All of which has been denied and erased in a blizzard of shameless lies. ICE as a federal agency, as a tool of federal civil immigration enforcement is corrupt and in my view irredeemable. It should be abolished.

It's important to know that these crimes have a purpose. Their purpose is to seow fear, to seow division, to create chaos. But there's a deeper purpose as well. And that purpose is to delegitimize black and brown people in this country. The purpose is to definitionally reserve America for what they call heritage Americans, which is to say white citizens. This is disgusting. It is loathsome. It is all the more infuriating because it of course erases and neglects the true Native Americans and the genocide, their genocide. and it erases the centuries of enslaved laborers and their black descendants who even today still today build the best of America. This is why we have the immigration enforcement that we have today and it's contemptable. We at the city of Ann Arbor have a limited set of tools but we're committed to implementing those tools to their fullest. We did this in 2017 with our strong resolution, emphasizing and establishing non-ooperation. We're furthering those protections today. Strengthening protections by prohibiting civil immigration enforcement in non-public areas of our city property. Prohibiting the use of city parking lots for staging and operations, implementing key cards and gates to ensure that it is both accomplished in law and fact. We are protecting immigrants data. This is crucial. We are protecting immigrants data that that are gathered and observed in the course of their interactions with the city of Ann Arbor. We want everyone to be safe and assured that when they are working with the city of Ann Arbor that what they tell us and what we learn

will not be used in federal civil civil immigration enforcement. And this resolution will accomplish that goal. The resolution will provide clear signage to that effect within city properties. It'll also provide meaningful and defensible, clear and consistent signage for members of the public so that they can participate, so that they can observe these are public spaces, these are non-public spaces. ICE is not welcome here. Ice is not allowed here. And finally, we all condemn masking and the absence of marking. What this resolution does is it charges our city attorney to draft an ordinance to that effect as soon as the legal landscape is more clear and when it is we will take and when it is and if we are permitted to do so we will take action and we will take action fast. You know, America was was born in sin, in the original sin of white supremacy. And this is a sin that we with which we have not truly grappled. And that is an enduring problem. When we are not candid about where we've come from and where we are and how that history and hate still rips us apart, we enable the cruel to dominate and we cause the good to suffer. Going forward, we have to do better as a country and a culture. In an arbor, we know that we love our neighbor and we have faith in the future and we're not giving up on either. In an arbor, we know that immigrants are at the center of the American story. No story of American greatness is complete without the immigrant. their strength, their courage, their optimism, their hope, their hard work.

That's exactly right. I was hungry. You gave me food. I was thirsty. You gave me drink. I was a stranger. And you welcomed me. This is the only way. And this is how we're going to do it at Ann Arbor. So, thank you again for coming out. We're going to support each other. Further discussion. All in favor? All opposed? It's approved. And now on to curb cuts. Resolution to find the N street curb cut. Sure. Hey man, it's lo it's local government. You got to you got to love every bit of it. Resolution to find the Anne Street Kurd cut at 201 North Main Street to be a traffic hazard and approve its closure as part of the Anakreak improvement project. Moved by council member Aman. Seconded by council member Watson. Discussion please of DS1. Council member Aman. Sorry, I'll be brief just because a couple people brought it up earlier in the meeting during public comment time and I wanted to note well first of all I'm happy that this is being addressed. Um the pictures that attach that are attached to this agenda item make it really visible that there's a problem. Um we see cars as people noted parked across the sidewalk on a regular basis. uh people with strollers pushed out into the street and this is not consistent with what we expect uh to be able to offer people who are trying to get around downtown. So, I'm happy this is being addressed. It seems like it's being addressed really thoughtfully with respect to the streetscape as well as the parking spots

that are being provided. And uh I think this is going to be a much more attractive corner aside from being safer. Further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? It is approved. Do we have the pleasure of a closed session today? No. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, alas, we have before us the clerk supported communications, petitions, and referrals. Can I have a motion, please, to approve the clerk's report? Moved by Council Member Dish, seconded by Council Member Red. Discussion of the clerk's report. All in favor? All opposed? The clerk's report is approved. Do we have communications today from our city attorney?

No. Thank you, Mayor. We do have public comment overflow. Thank you. Our first overflow speaker is Bal Shakura. Bial Shakir. Our next public speaker is Eric Shalco. Eric Shalika. Mayor, this caller is not on Zoom. Our next public speaker is Chuck Kefir. Chuck Kefir. Our next public speaker is Chuck Ree. Chuck Ree. Our next public speaker is Kathy Griswald. Good evening. And as the mayor said, this is local government and only local government can provide the illumination that we need at our crosswalks. The lack of illumination, for some of you who are relatively new to council, killed a student October 25th, 2016. We've talked a lot tonight about violence in our streets. There's also violence in our streets that we have control over and we need to step up and do that. And part of that is engineering and part of that is illumination. I just want to read a short statement. It's late. Despite spending millions on innovative infrastructure and underfunding operational oversight and crosswalk lighting, Ann Arbor's fatal

and serious injury crash rate has not declined. In fact, it remains at a 10-year high according to crashes in an ant arbor.org. There are two areas that I want to talk about tonight, and I posted them on Facebook. I've sent a letter to the U of M regents because they impact U ofM students. The U ofM students through central student government passed a resolution a couple of years ago asking the leadership to work with the city of Ann Arbor on illumination. However, there are always more important issues that take us away from it until another death occurs and then we mobilize for a short period of time. Zena Pitcher and Katherine Lieutenant Gary Fors of the M Police Department filed an A2 fix it ticket September 14th, 2022 nearly three and a half years ago. And this was for a lack of illumination at a very busy corner of Glenn and no, not Glenn, Zena Pitcher and Katherine. A number of tickets were put in. Gary retired and the city closed the ticket a couple of days ago and said if it's still an issue, let us know. Can't someone go down there and look and see if the light is working? The second one I notified the mayor about Maiden Lane at Broadway. Community members are walking in the street in busy traffic. There's a public rightway. Guess what? it has illegally parked vehicles and it isn't shoveled because it's not designated a sidewalk. This could easily be resolved in a couple of days, but we don't do it. So, um the last thing, the two-way cycle track that's being proposed, please ask

your engineer to evaluate it for appropriateness with ecycles and the elevation of that area. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeremy Haley.

Oh, Jeremy Haley, Ipsy Township. I just like to share a couple things with you. You know, it's Black History Month and stuff. Uh, one man I've had the pleasure to have in my life and still have in my life, I've known for over 30 years now is uh Johnny Lawrence. I met him after, but I've already went through learning how to play classical guitar and some other things. And I really want to learn how to play jazz. and I heard at that time he was the guy in the area that he wanted to learn from. So I sought him out and we've had a relationship since. The next person is uh had the opportunity to spend a summer with after moving from Ipsy from the Rerun schools to the Arbor schools when my grades weren't up to snuff. You can say that person was Joe Duelan at Roberto Clemente. And when I got there, it was a eye opening experience cuz I think I was the only person there for grades at the junior high at Ann Arbor. Like, wait, that gal there, she got kicked out of the school. There she was. I found her. that same guy from the junior high. Hey, I found him too. They were all at Roberto. And that experience from Joe Doulan that summer, he took the time to interact with all the students, come in all the classrooms, talk to everybody, see how everybody is doing, make sure everybody's doing all right. He took the time out of his life

to spend with the kids that really needed it. I didn't think I need it. I just needed better grades. But that experience, you know, helped me see other things. Actually got to go on a couple field trips with them. One was to Detroit to the Renaissance Center in the late 80s, you know, something else, you know, and he just let us go and just do our thing. But, you know, between those two men in my life, they helped kind of shape me and who I am kind of today. I just want to share that with you. Thank you.

Thank you. May I have a motion to adjurnn, please? Moved by Council Member Brig, second by Council Member. Discussion. All in favor? Opposed? We're adjourned. Where are