Feb. 18, 2014: Ann Arbor Council Preview

Public art, Edwards Brothers back on agenda. Also: equipment used to fix water main breaks, greenbelt deals, flashing beacons at three sites

The council’s Feb. 18, 2014 agenda is highlighted by public art policy issues leftover from its previous meeting, as well as several items related to acquiring various pieces of basic equipment – from a garbage truck to a wood chipper.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor online agenda management system. Image links to the next meeting agenda.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Feb. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

The meeting is shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday.

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is a resolution that would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of  resolution is typically analyzed as needing an eight-vote majority to pass, but it’s not yet indicated as an “eight-voter” on the online agenda. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: It's now recorded as needing eight votes.] Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass.  The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed be back  on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In real estate matters, the council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

A bit south of Biercamp on State Street is the topic of the most significant land acquisition matter on the Feb. 18 agenda. A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Public Art

Three items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18, 2014 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) a resolution enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The demised Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3  ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned  general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is an item that’s on the Feb. 18 agenda – a resolution that would return about $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which it was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of resolution is typically analyzed as meeting a charter requirement for an eight-vote majority to pass. However, as of mid-morning on Feb. 14, the item was not flagged in the online agenda as an “eight-voter.” Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, the city clerk’s office was checking into the question of how many votes are required. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: The online agenda has been updated to reflect the eight-vote requirement.]

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. Returning $819,005 in funding would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list  of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And  $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition  from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Updated 9 p.m. Friday: The wrangling over the amount of public art money to be returned has already begun. A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin.

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

  • Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
  • Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
  • Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
  • Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
  • Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
  • Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
  • Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

Bar-Chart-Water-Mains-small

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable do to water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up again on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

  • Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
  • S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
  • Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

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

8 Comments

  1. By John Q.
    February 14, 2014 at 5:24 pm | permalink

    Is the city’s action with Edwards Brothers simply to block the U from purchasing the property? Or is there some other plans for the property?

  2. February 14, 2014 at 5:54 pm | permalink

    Re: [1] For the immediate term it would simply block the sale to UM. If you’re asking the city has identified a specific plan for the property right now (i.e., an alternate buyer and a strategy for private development) that it can rely on with high confidence to make the numbers work out for the short to medium term, I think the answer is: No. Or at least: Not yet.

  3. By bob elton
    February 14, 2014 at 6:28 pm | permalink

    When the city buys generic vehicles, such as the 2 vans for the parks department, how come they don’t buy them from a local dealer?

  4. February 14, 2014 at 7:00 pm | permalink

    RE: [3] The city purchases vehicles through a cooperative purchasing program through the state of Michigan. And Red Holman was the lowest responsible bidder.

  5. By Margaret Leary
    February 16, 2014 at 10:57 am | permalink

    RE: proposed purchase of Edwards Brothers property to maximize property tax revenue at some unknown future date. Why spend $20 million on that, when there is a ready-to-build on, much more valuable option: sell the development rights above the underground parking structure on 5th Ave. Council has the Connecting William Street report to guide it, and the site is more valuable than ever with the number of downtown residents growing. We’ve all paid for a strong structure to support a D1 building there. The whole point of that expense was to generate significant new tax revenue What’s the hold up?

  6. By Jack Eaton
    February 16, 2014 at 11:51 am | permalink

    Re: (5). Without getting into the discussion about the Edwards Brothers property, I agree with Ms. Leary that the City should seek to sell part of the site above the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure for development. On the other hand, I disagree that development of that site should rely on the Connecting Williams Street (CWS) study. It is time that we admit that the CWS study was a failure.

    City Council passed a resolution asking the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to engage in a process that would result in recommendations that could be included in the Downtown Master Plan. After an elaborate process, the DDA issued its CWS recommendations. Importantly, none (zero) of the CWS recommendations were included in the Downtown Master Plan. Even when grading on a curve, zero is a failing grade.

    A good comparison is the downtown zoning review conducted by a consultant. After an elaborate public process, the consultant made recommendations. Those recommendations were approved and adopted by City Council.

    The difference between the successful downtown zoning review process and the CWS process is that the consultant listened closely to what residents said they wanted and made recommendations that helped Council address the public’s concerns. Conversely, the DDA either ignored or refused to hear the concerns and desires the public expressed during the CWS study. It should come as no surprise that failing to incorporate the wishes of residents results in failure. The CWS recommendations were not incorporated into the Downtown Master Plan and should not be part of the discussion about our downtown planning.

  7. February 16, 2014 at 12:11 pm | permalink

    Re (5) It is odd that an AADL board member would propose developing the Library Lot to increase tax revenue. Surely she is aware that the AADL (as well as the City) would capture very little of that revenue. Most of it will go to the DDA. The AADL millage is included in the TIF collected by the DDA.

    Ditto (6) on the CWS study. That study was notorious for refusing to consider open space uses for any of the downtown properties, despite much public interest in such a use for the Library Lot. Council ignored the CWS study with good reason. And applause for the consultant, Erin Perdu, for the excellent carry-through on the downtown zoning review.

  8. By Donald Salberg
    February 16, 2014 at 10:36 pm | permalink

    In response to the City Council agenda item regarding a possible purchase of the Edwards Brothers Malloy State Street property, I sent to each City Council member the following message:

    I hope that you will be able to attend next Tuesday’s meeting which I understand will be the last opportunity for City Council to approve the purchase of the Edwards Brothers Malloy State Street property by the city.

    I want to take this last gasp opportunity to further explain below my position which I expressed as a comment to Ryan Stanton’s February 10th article, entitled “Mayor cancels request for special meeting to discuss Edwards Brothers property.” [link]

    Hopefully, the cancellation of the special meeting to consider the city’s purchase of the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on State Street means that the city will allow the University of Michigan to buy the property for its offering of $12.8 million which is four times the assessed valuation and, thus, twice the market value for the 16.8 acres.

    City administrators and City Council members never told the public where the $12.8 million in city tax payer purchase money would be found within the city’s budget. As of the end of the last fiscal year on June 30th, 2013, the city had only $14 million in unrestricted funds in its general fund. Greatly depleting that fund to pay exorbitantly for land does not seem appropriate or wise. The city should not be in the business of real estate speculation.

    A few City Council members were considering flipping the property although no other offers to purchase the property materialized since the property was first offered for sale in August. A few developers who have not been identified are purportedly interested in developing five acres of the land which borders on State Street. These potential purchasers are unlikely to pay twice the market value for pieces of the land. Therefore, tax payers will incur a loss of as much as fifty percent of its investment.

    Furthermore, if the city buys the property and then offers it for development, developers will demand incentives that will cost city tax payers even more money. What incentives might be offered? The city could spend upwards of $10 million to construct a parking structure within a developer’s building as the DDA did for Village Green City Apartments. Perhaps, the city will install new utility services worth millions of dollars as I believe was done for Arbor Hills. Some of the 618 S. Main Street developer tax money will be used for street improvement where it fronts on Main Street. Packard Square and Arbor Hills have also received tax abatements based on Brownfield remediation which now covers site development broadly.

    The argument that purchasing the property will keep it on the tax rolls is hollow since the closure of the printing facility on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property will have reduced the annual tax payment to far less than the $183,000 paid last year of which only $50,000 was received by the city. In fact without development the city would receive no taxes at all after purchasing the property.

    The City Council and city administrators deserve credit for making a sound financial decision and sparing the tax payer losses if indeed the city does not purchase the land.