Looking east down Monroe Street, across State Street. This section of Monroe Street is flanked by two University of Michigan law school buildings: Hutchins Hall to the north, and South Hall. (Photos by the writer. )

Following State Street north up the hill towards downtown will lead you to the intersection with Monroe Street. Turn right on Monroe, and you’ll wind up at Dominick’s, a local watering hole, majestic in its own right.

One parking option for patrons of Dominick’s is that first block of Monroe Street east of State. And what better topic to discuss over a pitcher of beer, sitting at a Dominick’s picnic table, than Ann Arbor parking rates. How much should it cost to use an on-street parking space on Monroe in that one block between State and Oakland?

Here’s a different question: How much for the whole damn block? I don’t mean just the parking spaces. I mean the whole right-of-way.

That question is part of a current conversation among public officials from the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. The university is not interested in parking cars on that block. In fact, it’s the university’s desire that the thoroughfare be blocked to vehicular traffic. Permanently.

By tackling this topic, I’d like to achieve a two-fold purpose. First, I’d like to promote the daylighting of conversations now taking place out of public view. Second, I’d like to provide a rational way to approach calculating the value of city right-of-way, specifically in the general context of city-university relations.

Otherwise put, I’d like to sketch out a kind of Monroe Doctrine for Ann Arbor, which might in some ways mirror the message in the original Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in his address to Congress, on Dec. 2, 1823.

I’m not going to suggest including the part that talks about when “our rights are invaded or seriously menaced …”

Monroe Street: Place, Time Not Random Coincidence  

It’s not a random accident that the university would like to see that block of Monroe Street essentially absorbed into its campus. Two university law school buildings now stand on opposites sides of Monroe Street. On the north is Hutchins Hall, which dates from 1933. On the south is the newly-constructed South Hall, which opened just this fall.

On a scenario closing that block of Monroe Street to automobile traffic, only a pedestrian-type corridor would separate South Hall from Hutchins Hall. Arguably, the university’s law school campus would have better physical coherence with that layout.

The university’s desire with respect to Monroe Street is not news. In fact, The Chronicle reported on a meeting hosted by university officials for residents in late 2008, when the proposal was floated. The idea was that the city of Ann Arbor would grant permanent use of the right-of-way to the university for one block of Monroe Street. The presentation was given by Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, and Sue Gott, the university’s head of planning. At that point, the plans for South Hall were still on the drawing board.

Residents did not give the proposal a warm reception. One argument against the proposal was based on civil liberties, public access to the space, and the substitution of the university’s police force for the city’s police department as a means to discourage expression of dissent. Another argument was based on the idea that one of the distinctive and valuable qualities of UM’s Ann Arbor campus is the degree to which it is integrated with the rest of the city. That contrasts with Michigan State University’s campus in East Lansing, which is more isolated and sharply delineated from the city. Closing down Monroe Street and turning over control of the right-of-way to UM was seen as counter to that positive quality.

A few months later, the university’s Monroe Street proposal was pitched to the city’s planning commission at a working session of the commission in early 2009. Planning commissioners also expressed little enthusiasm for the Monroe Street closure. Their concerns included the loss of on-street parking spaces. At that point, the university seemed to be contemplating bringing a formal proposal to the planning commission later in 2009. But that strategy was apparently re-thought in light of the lukewarm reception at the two public meetings.

However, based on email correspondence obtained by The Chronicle through a Freedom of Information Act request, it’s clear that conversations between the city and the university about Monroe Street have continued since early 2009. Unlike the two public pitches by the university from that timeframe, recent conversations have taken place out of public view.

It’s understandable, even reasonable, that the university would see now as an opportune moment in history. The current city council configuration is still ripe, just as it was back in 2009, for pitching that elected body a concept that would directly benefit the university’s law school. Then as now, two University of Michigan law school alums serve on the city council: Tony Derezinski and Christopher Taylor.

It’s time to daylight that conversation.

Private Conversation

Even while the university was pitching its Monroe Street proposal at public meetings in late 2008 and early 2009, not surprisingly, private conversations were taking place.

The following email from UM law alum and city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) to then-city administrator Roger Fraser shows that UM law school dean, Evan Caminker, reached out to Taylor and then-councilmember Leigh Greden (an attorney, though not a UM law school graduate, who also represented Ward 3) on the Monroe Street issue.

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Fraser, Roger
Cc: Miller, Jayne; Dempkowski, Angela A; Greden, Leigh; Lloyd, Mark; Hieftje, John
Subject: Monroe St. Closure

Roger,

The Dean of the Law School (and Third Ward resident) has contacted Leigh and me to meet regarding the proposed closure of Monroe Street. We hope to schedule this meeting for next week. To prepare, I would be grateful if you and Staff could provide for us by 2-9 am:

1) A description of the state of conversations between City and University on the subject.

2) Any technical information you believe relevant, including potential/likely harms/costs to the City that would result from such a closure.

Also too if you have any questions, thoughts or advice on matters that I may not have considered, I am, as ever, all ears.

Many thanks,

Christopher

The non-public conversations between the university and the city have continued past the second public discussion in early 2009. Here’s an email exchange from the summer of 2010 involving UM law school alum and city councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and a UM project director in architectural and engineering services, Thomas Schlaff. It leads to setting up a meeting with UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva [emphasis added].

From: tderezinski@comcast.net [mailto:tderezinski@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:09 PM
To: Schlaff, Thomas
Cc: Caminker, Evan
Subject: Monroe Street

Dear Tom,

I attended a reception last night on the U Mall sponsored by the Law School, and engaged Dean Caminker in a conversation regarding the new building and the status of Monroe Street. In addition to being an alumn of the Law School, I also presently serve on the City Council. I was specifically interested in the timing regarding action of the proposal before the City to vacate a block of it, and also the relationship of that action to the timing, and expense, of construction of the whole project, and who I could talk to regarding these matters. He suggested you and Larry Bowman, and Jim Kosteva. I happened to see Jim at lunch today, and he was interested in doing so.

So I woulld like to get together with you, Jim and Larry some time, perhaps next week, for about an hour, and perhaps also at or near the site (Dominics?) [sic] to talk about it. Jim said he would be happy to facilitate it.

I will be gone from early tomorrow through Monday, but will be checking my email. I hope we can do so; perhaps you could also call Jim Kosteva re same.

Thanks!

Tony Derezinski

==========

From: Thomas Schlaff”
To: “tderezinski @comcast.net” Cc: “Evan Caminker”
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:26:49 PM
Subject: RE: Monroe Street

Tony,

Thanks for messaging, and would love to gather with you and Jim. I’ll call Jim and make sure we get a date soon to chat. Next week would be great.

Again, thank you for your note, and especially for your support for our very special Law School Project.

Tom

Thomas G. Schlaff, P.E. – Project Director
Architecture, Engineering & Construction
The University of Michigan

==========

From: “Alicia Boltach”
To: tschlaff@umich.edu, TDerezinski@a2gov.org
Cc: tderezinski@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:13:03 PM
Subject: Meeting w/Jim Kosteva

Tom and Tony,

Jim has requested to meet with both of you to discuss Monroe Street.

He has asked for the meeting to occur around the 4 p.m. hour and to
occur at Dominick’s. Please see below available dates and respond with your availability.

Thursday, July 1st: 4 p.m.
Friday, July 2nd: 4 p.m.
Tuesday, July 6th: 4 p.m.
Thursday, July 8th: 4 p.m.
Kind Regards,

Alicia

Alicia Boltach
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations
University of Michigan

More recently, this past summer the university was interested in talking to councilmembers about two topics: Monroe Street and football stadium security.

By way of background, as a security measure the university has been interested in seeing the block of Main Street between Stadium Boulevard and Pauline Street closed during home football games. According to the city, the closure of Main Street for the Sept. 10 game between Notre Dame and UM this year stemmed from security concerns related specifically to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and was a one-time event. However, UM’s interest is in closing down Main Street for that block as a matter of standard operating procedure for home football games.

Closure of Main Street is related to the general issue of logistics on home football game days, which is a topic that includes both security (fire and police) and traffic controls. Historically, the university has reimbursed the city’s costs for extra staffing of fire and police on game days, but has refused to reimburse the city for costs related to traffic controls.

This year, the city council passed a resolution directing its city administrator not to provide traffic management services on football game days unless the city’s costs were reimbursed. And the university agreed to reimburse those costs, but at a much lower level of service.

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, UM’s Kosteva clarified that the clearly contemporaneous conversations about football stadium security and Monroe Street, indicated in the email below, were just that: contemporaneous but separate conversations that were part of the same meeting:

From: Robyn Snyder [mailto:rasnyder@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11 :22 AM
To: Robyn Snyder
Subject: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Good morning,

Jim Kosteva the University of Michigan, Director of Community Relations would like to request a half hour of your time to discuss
the universities [sic] interest in Monroe Street-Stadium security. We understand how busy you are, but if you can, please take a moment to complete this doodle poll for your availability. This can take place someplace for a coffee, or in your office.

Link to poll: http://doodle.com/d2c7ehezvey9dgxr

Once a date and time has been established, I will email you with a confirmation.

If you are unable to access this poll, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your time.

Robyn Snyder
Administrative Assistant Intermediate
University of Michigan
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations

==========

From: Teall, Margie
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:12 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John; Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: FW: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Did all of Council receive this request?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:57 PM
To: Teall, Margie; Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Yes. Met with the gentleman today.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 10:24 AM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Teall, Margie; Hiefije, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

How did that go?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 2:59 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He said he’d give us everything we wanted. [Ed. note: Read on to see that Taylor is kidding.]

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:54 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

what do we want?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:55 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He didn’t say that.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 2:39 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

are you pulling my leg here?

Public Conversations Between Public Bodies

Conversations about handing over control of a city block’s worth of public right-of-way to another entity should obviously take place in the public sphere.

UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva typically prefers to describe the city-university relationship as like “a marriage where divorce and separation aren’t an option.” That’s the analogy he drew for a group of visitors from Chapel Hill, North Carolina exactly three years ago last Friday. A member of that group Twittered out Kosteva’s remarks, which The Chronicle has preserved forever in its New Media Watch archives.

@orangepolitics is Twittering live the remarks of A2 and UM luminaries. Highlights: “Jim Kosteva, UofM: ‘town-gown relations are like a marriage wher divorce is not an option.’ Then he hands the city councilwmn some flowers!” Councilwoman in question is Briere.

I disagree with Kosteva that this is an appropriate analogy – although sometimes it might seem to residents in student neighborhoods like the university has a habit of leaving its underwear lying around the living room.

It’s not an appropriate analogy, because marriages are between private individuals, and topics of conversation in the context of a marriage are inherently not required or expected to happen in public view. But that is exactly the expectation for conversations between two public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan: They need to happen in public view.

I don’t think a colorful analogy is required to understand what the university’s relationship is to the city. What’s most useful is the straightforward factual description: The city and the university are two public landowners, whose property and activities are often proximate to each other.

The city and the university should thus behave like two landowners. If one landowner wishes to have control of the other landowner’s property, then what typically happens is that some kind of negotiation takes place between the two parties, and some consideration is offered in exchange for control of that property. The amount of consideration offered is based on some sort of standard prevailing practice.

An example of that is the kind of discussion taking place now between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) in connection with a strip of city-owned land. The six-foot-wide strip is adjacent to the two downtown parcels occupied by the Blake Transit Center (BTC). As part of the planned reconstruction of the BTC, the AATA would like to align the parcel boundaries.

The city of Ann Arbor is not simply handing over the six-foot-wide strip to the AATA. Instead, it’s being appraised, and there’ll ultimately be a cash transaction based on that appraisal. The acquisition of the six-foot strip has been mentioned at several AATA board meetings during routine updates.

Some kind of compensation was pointedly not a part of the university’s proposal back in late 2009 and 2010, when the city was asked to cede control of its right-of-way for an entire block of Monroe Street.

But currently, the conversation between the city and the university about Monroe Street has reportedly evolved to include some kind of payment. The amount of the deal and its structure – a one-time payment or a series of payments in perpetuity – is still an open question.

That evolution reflects progress. A deal struck on its fair financial merits would help avoid the possibility that an agreement on Monroe Street was being played as a quid pro quo in connection with some other deal – like Fuller Road Station, for example, or payments for traffic controls on football game days.

At a budget retreat held in December 2010, former city administrator Roger Fraser cautioned councilmembers against playing a game of tit-for-tat on unrelated issues involving the city and the university. Fraser’s comments came in response to a councilmember suggestion that if the university continued to refuse reimbursement to the city for costs of traffic management on football game days, the city should be uncooperative in some other area – like Monroe Street.  Fraser cited the specific example of Fuller Road Station, where that tit-for-tat strategy could yield undesirable results. [Fuller Road Station is a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that's a joint city/UM project. Design is already underway, but a contract laying out financial terms and other aspects of the partnership hasn't been publicly announced.]

In Kosteva’s recent phone interview with The Chronicle, he also described how he did not think it was in the interest of the overall health of the city-university relationship to play one situation off against an unrelated one. He likened it to a negotiation between spouses in which one agreed to attend a concert with the other as a condition on the other coming along to visit an unpleasant relative.

The marriage analogy aside, Kosteva still arrives at essentially the same conclusion as Fraser, as reflected in Fraser’s comments at the budget retreat. Each situation should be handled on its own merits. I think that’s the right way to approach Monroe Street.

And that means two questions need answers. First, does the city even want to do a deal on Monroe Street? Second, what should the deal structure and dollar amount be? The answers to those questions should be worked out in public view. And now’s a good time to start.

I’d like to focus on the second of these questions, because it looks like that second question will need an answer fairly quickly for a different UM project.

Potential Precedent: Institute for Social Research Expansion

North of Jefferson Street, between Division and Thompson streets, UM is building an expansion to the Institute for Social Research.

The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research expansion is indicated in reddish brown, to the northwest of the existing building. The project will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

Constucting that project as currently planned will result in the elimination of two metered parking spaces on Thompson Street, which is partly balanced out by the addition of a parking space on Division Street.

So the ISR expansion will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

The city of Ann Arbor completed its review of the ISR project this summer and signed off on it.

Although the university’s projects are not subject to site plan approval by the planning commission and the city council, city staff from various departments do review the plans and provide comments. Those documents are available through the city’s eTrakit system. [Projects aren't linkable, but the ISR project can be found by searching for address, project name, or by project number: UM10-014]

Among the city’s review materials for the ISR expansion are two memos from Joe Morehouse, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority deputy director, to Connie Pulcipher, a city of Ann Arbor systems planner. [Morehouse Memo 1] [Morehouse Memo 2]

The memos from Morehouse address specifically the issue of the net parking loss associated with the ISR expansion. Morehouse cites a March 4, 2009 DDA resolution that addresses the value of on-street parking spaces. The resolution adopts the policy recommendations of the DDA board’s operations committee and encourages the city council to do the same. Those policy recommendations include the following:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 resolution]

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new space in a structure, either above ground or below ground.

So the March 4, 2009 resolution essentially calls on the city council to adopt a policy on the elimination of metered parking spaces – which it has not done over the last two and a half years. However, a new contract signed between the city and the DDA this year, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, gives some impetus for action on this issue and provides a role for the DDA to help determine what that policy will be for removal of on-street parking. [emphasis added]

2. Operational Powers and Responsibilities Within DDA Parking Area
…
e. The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

The ISR expansion involves just one parking space. One friction-free option for UM would be to simply pay the $45,000 that the DDA is recommending as the value attached to an on-street space. In the context of a $23 million project, $45,000 doesn’t seem like a lot.

However, that would likely define expectations for the dollar figure attached to any Monroe Street deal. And with 22 parking spaces at stake on Monroe Street, UM could be looking at more than $1 million as the starting point of a conversation about how much more should be paid to account for the additional right-of-way control beyond the elimination of the parking spaces. [Back in 2009, the number of spaces was described as 22; a recent count of meter heads on the block by The Chronicle gave nine twin-head meters, or 18 spaces, plus a loading zone area.]

Price of a Parking Space

Part of the challenge in determining a fair way to do a deal on Monroe Street is that there’s not really a robust market for Ann Arbor city streets. How would you establish the comparables?

Price: Community Benefit

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Kosteva did not argue for a specific dollar figure or a particular deal structure. But he did suggest some questions that the discussion should include.

One is the issue of “community benefit,” mentioned in the city-DDA parking contract. Kosteva is right in pointing out that this is somewhat vague.

Depending on how the council and the DDA wind up defining the phrase, it might turn out that elimination of parking spaces on Monroe Street meets the criteria of a “community benefit.” In that case, there’s no need to contemplate a parking space replacement cost methodology.

For example, it might be possible to construe “community benefit” in a way that translates any benefit enjoyed by the university, given its prominent role in the city’s economy, to a benefit enjoyed by the entire city. This would essentially formalize the idea that whatever is good for the university is also good for the city, and therefore a community benefit.

But that goes against the principle that each specific situation should be evaluated unto itself. It hardly makes sense to say that a Monroe Street closure will benefit the community economically because of the additional jobs that the university’s new children’s hospital will bring to the city. On the other hand, if the university could demonstrate that the Monroe Street closure would allow the enrollment of X additional law students, or the hiring of Y additional faculty, that could be part of a case that closing down Monroe Street brings an economic benefit to the community.

It’s not crazy to insist on that kind of specific accounting to claim a community economic benefit. It’s exactly the standard that’s used in evaluating the merits of a tax abatement, for example.

Economic benefits aren’t the only kind of benefit. If UM were proposing to close down Monroe Street so that a small skatepark could be built there and used by Ann Arbor’s skateboarding community, then that might conceivably meet a reasonable definition of “community benefit.” It would provide an amenity for city residents that they currently don’t have. [This is by way of a hypothetical example. As far as I know, no one is interested in seeing that location become a skatepark.]

But to sum up, I don’t see any reasonable way of defining “community benefit” that would encompass the closure of one block of Monroe Street. Indeed, I would point to the same considerable community detriment noted by attendees at the December 2009 public meeting and Ann Arbor city planning commissioners three months later.

Price: Who’s Asking?

Another question identified by Kosteva in his phone interview with The Chronicle is this: Should all parties be treated the same way?

Without arguing either side, Kosteva suggested that as the city and the DDA work to develop a policy, it’s worth considering whether a large multimillion-dollar private company seeking to build a large headquarters in downtown Ann Arbor should be treated the same way by the policy that a nonprofit organization – like a church – would be treated.

I think that’s a fair question.

But I think it’s clear that any difference in treatment should be based not on who the party is, but rather on the earlier notion of community benefit. If the large multimillion-dollar private company can demonstrate that X jobs will be created as a result of a project that eliminates the on-street parking spaces, then that’s relevant to the discussion. In the same way, if a church can demonstrate that its project will draw Y additional worshipers from outside the city every Saturday morning, some percentage of whom will stay for lunch in Ann Arbor restaurants, then that potential economic benefit is relevant to the discussion.

But I can’t see any reason to treat different parties differently based purely on who they are.

Price: Value Based on Parking Revenue

But even if we treat all parties equally, that doesn’t mean that we have to treat all parking spaces equally.

That’s an additional consideration suggested by Kosteva that should be part of the conversational mix as the city and the DDA develop the policy. Specifically, Kosteva suggested that the revenues generated by a metered parking space could factor into an assessment of the relative value of a parking space, compared with other spaces in the parking system. Some spaces generate more revenue than others, based on where they’re located.

Note that this is not equivalent to suggesting that replacement of a specific meter’s revenue would be appropriate compensation for eliminating that parking space. Rather, it’s a suggestion more like the following: If Meter A generates twice as much revenue as Meter B, then even if the starting point of a replacement cost allocation for a parking space is $45,000, surely it matters whether Meter A or Meter B is proposed for elimination.

Leaving aside the question of the absolute revenue, if a meter is generating so little revenue that the city and DDA don’t perceive a need to actually construct a parking space to replace it, it doesn’t make complete sense to insist that a payment be made to pay for the cost of replacing it. It’s possible to conceive of some kind of “discount” for low-revenue meters, or perhaps a surcharge for particularly high-revenue meters.

That’s all very well and good. But how much revenue do Monroe Street parking meters generate, and how does that compare to the rest of the parking meters in Ann Arbor’s public parking system?

Systemwide, here’s the distribution revenue annually by percentiles: bottom third generates 0-$960; middle third generates $961-$1,963; upper third generates more than $1,963. [The DDA is currently engaged in designing a tiered pricing structure for downtown parking meters – based on demand for the spaces, where demand is measured by revenue generated. So keeping track of this information is part of the DDA's current work plan.]

Taking the average of annual revenues generated by six of the meters for the Monroe Street block (those for which The Chronicle was able to identify data) yields $1,643 per year. So it appears that the Monroe Street meters are firmly in the mid-range for parking meter revenue systemwide.

In that case, at least for the Monroe Street meters, it’s hard to see how any “discount” that might be developed for the cost replacement allocation formula would apply to the Monroe Street spaces.

So based on a count of 22 spaces and the DDA-recommended $45,000 figure, the parking replacement cost would be $990,000 – a one-time cost. [The DDA's recommendation does not contemplate any additional payments.]

Of course, what the university hopes to achieve goes beyond the parking spaces, and includes control of the entire right-of-way.

Price: Based on Right-of-Way Rental

Rental of the right-of-way is another way to think about the Monroe Street proposal. For construction projects (requiring, for example, a temporary lane closure) the city applies a standard rate for the rental of public right-of-way: 1.5 cents per square foot per day.

The aerial photo provided by the Washtenaw County online mapping system still shows the surface parking lot south of Monroe Street. South Hall now stands at that location. The rectangle is drawn based on the parcel boundaries displayed on Washtenaw County's mapping website. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Using 17,500 square feet as a figure for the amount of public right-of-way at stake (as measured using online mapping tools through the Washtenaw County website), that would work out to about $96,000 annually.

From the university’s point of view, it might be not be desirable to enter into an arrangement that’s based on an annual payment in perpetuity. And it’s possible to argue against the 1.5 cent rental rate on the grounds that right-of-way rental for construction purposes is not the same thing as permanent control of the right-of-way. Ordinarily, there’s some kind of discount for rental agreements where the tenant is willing to sign on to a longer lease.

But from the city’s point of view, a right-of-way rental at $96,000 annually needs to be the starting point for the negotiation. If there’s not a $96,000 annual payment to be made in perpetuity, and the deal is instead structured as a one-time payment, then that lump-sum should be based on something real, not just pulled out of thin air.

One possibility for a real number is the projected useful life of any new parking structure built by the DDA: 75 years. So one approach would be to say that after 75 years, the $96,000 annual payment from UM to the city would end. That would amount to a total of $7.2 million (75 × $96,000) paid over the course of 75 years. If UM wanted to negotiate a lump sum payment (to avoid writing a Monroe Street check every year), presumably the city should be willing to negotiate downward from $7.2 million.

Monroe Street Doctrine

To oversimplify it, the Monroe Doctrine, expressed by President James Monroe in 1823, said “hands off” the Western Hemisphere to future colonization by other countries:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

Translating that to city-university terms would amount to a declaration that any attempt by the university to expand the campus would be considered as dangerous to the city’s peace and safety.

That seems overwrought and probably would lead to endless frustration – the university is free to purchase land from people who want to sell it. [In fact, UM regents just last week approved the purchase of a parcel that's currently the site of an apartment building, at 716 Oakland Ave., just around the corner from Monroe Street.]

But to my eye, there’s an obvious part of that Monroe Doctrine excerpt that could be adopted as a doctrine to help guide city-university relations on the side of the city. It’s the part about candor.

So in closing, I’d  suggest something along the following lines:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan that we should consider any land transfers between these two parties only in the context of public meetings between public officials.

There are multiple mechanisms through which this conversation can occur publicly. Those might include communications from councilmembers during their council meetings, or full-on working sessions attended by councilmembers and university officials.

Whatever the mechanism, it’s time to put the Monroe Street conversation in public view.

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

The agreement came after the Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution at its Aug. 15, 2011 meeting directing its city administrator not to provide traffic control services unless the university reimbursed the city for those costs in the same way the university reimburses costs for police and fire protection on game days.

However, the agreement will mean a reduced level of service. For example, the city will not provide traffic control before the games or manual operation of traffic signals at major intersections like State Street & Eisenhower or State & Briarwood. The city’s press release warns that increased traffic congestion might result, compared to what people have historically experienced.

An exception to the reduced level of service is one game on Sept. 10, for which Ann Arbor will provide the full level of service that the city has provided in the past. That’s the date of the game against Notre Dame, which will be played at night.

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford had indicated at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting that his discussions with the university included the possibility of reimbursement for last year’s service. The estimated cost per year of the traffic control service given at the meeting was $100,000. Update: Via city communications manager Lisa Wondrash, according to interim city administrator Tom Crawford, the reduced level of traffic control services provided by the city will be reimbursed by the university at a level of $2,800 per game.

The press release issued on Aug. 26 does not include dollar figures for the reduced level of service that the university has agreed to reimburse the city, nor any information about whether the agreement is retroactive. [.pdf of press release]

Leading up to the city administrator delivering a proposed budget in April – for FY 2012, beginning July 1, 2011 – the city council is also holding a series of work sessions on the budget. Their typical scheduling pattern is for the weeks between council meetings. Previous work sessions have taken place on community services, as well as the 15th District Court and police and fire services. On Feb. 28, the council held its final budget work session of the season – on public services and the city attorney’s office. [.pdf of  combined public services budget impact sheets provided on the city of Ann Arbor's budget impact web page.]

Streets, sidewalks, trash collection, trees in the right-of-way, water and sewers are all included under the general label of “public services” in the city. At Monday’s budget work session on those kinds of activities, public services area administrator Sue McCormick did not present the council with any news more dramatic than Roger Fraser did when he announced at the conclusion of the session that he’d be leaving his job by the end of April.

But McCormick did present the council with options for meeting reduction targets that would, if enacted, have a significant impact on the range of services offered by the city. In at least one case, the range of service would expand – the city (instead of adjoining property owners) could assume responsibility for sidewalk repair and replacement.

In another case – which McCormick stressed was not a recommendation, but rather just an informational ballpark amount for potential annual savings to the city ($2.1 million) – the city would get out of the business of trash collection. In another month, the city expects to give the council a report that provides more detail on possible alternatives to having city workers perform that task, including some kind of franchised trash collection operation.

Many of the specific reduction target tactics presented on Monday evening involved assigning costs to a unit outside the general fund. While the city’s total budget includes around $340 million in expenses, the annual discussion typically spotlights the general fund, which gets revenue from the general operations millage [listed on tax bills as CITY OPER] – and is currently levied at a rate of roughly 6 mills. The widely reported projected deficit of $2.4 million for the city’s budget is for the general fund.

During the work session, the assignment of costs to other funds caused Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to wonder if it was just a matter of “shuffling” money from one bucket to another. The answer she heard was: No – it’s a matter of assigning costs appropriately to whatever fund should properly bear the cost of a particular activity.

One of the largest instances of such a cost reassignment would use the stormwater utility fund, instead of the general fund, to pay for forestry operations for trees in the right-of-way. That move would save the city’s general fund around $660,000 a year.

Another example of that kind of “shuffling,” albeit with a smaller dollar figure ($35,000), was a proposal from the city attorney’s office to charge capital projects part of the cost of a paralegal specializing in easements, instead of burdening the city attorney’s budget with that expense. The city attorney’s reduction strategy, which had originally been scheduled for a prior work session, was also part of Monday evening’s presentation.

Basic Background

As budget planning began in December 2010 with the first of two off-site budget retreats, the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, had projected a $2.4 million deficit for the general fund. That amount assumed that: (1) the city would continue to receive roughly $2 million in “rent” from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for use of city facilities to operate the city’s public parking system; (2) that state shared revenues would remain relatively constant; and (3) that union contracts would settle with no wage increases and with greater employee contributions to the benefits plan.

However, based on the state budget recently proposed by Gov. Rick Snyder, city administrator Roger Fraser has estimated the additional negative impact to the city’s budget – including statutory and constitutional state shared revenue and fire protection grants – as ranging from $0.5-1.7 million.

But for the part of the public services budget that is supported from the general fund, public services area administrator Sue McCormick offered some brighter news – she’d identified more reductions than her target for both years of the budget planning exercise: nearly $600,000 in FY 2012 and $500,000 in FY 2013. If those savings can be realized, it could offset a significant part of the reductions proposed by the state.

Current reduction targets for different departments vary from 2.5% to 4.0%, depending on the number of employees who are not on the city’s new benefits plan – departments with higher reductions are those with a greater number of workers whose benefits packages are more expensive to the city. It’s part of the city’s attempt to align its budget strategy with its labor strategy.

Forestry: From Field Ops into Stormwater

McCormick told the council that across the country, more and more governments have recognized the importance of forestry in helping to manage stormwater. This year, she continued, when the city applied for and received a $0.5 million grant from the state’s revolving loan fund for sanitary and stormwater utilities, it was for planting trees. So the state of Michigan is aware that – based on the state of the art in stormwater management – the benefit of an urban forestry program is predominantly for stormwater management, she concluded.

What she’s proposing is to move forestry operations out of the general fund and into the stormwater utility fund for a savings of $659,798 to the general fund. Some forestry expenses would remain in the general fund – expenses associated with past retirees, for example. Moving forestry to the stormwater utility would include the elimination of two vacant full-time positions, and a strategy of contracting out services like tree trimming, planting, and stump removal. Tree planting levels would be maintained, McCormick assured the council. [Previously. the city has paid for some stump grinding activity out of the stormwater fund.]

During council discussion of forestry and stormwater, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed concern about the trees, saying they were the most important thing in Ann Arbor. McCormick told Anglin: “I don’t disagree.” She said that moving the payment from the general fund to an enterprise fund like the stormwater utility would bring with it “an ethic of asset maintenance.” You recognize that you have an asset, she said – it’s a mental shift that would be of value to the city. The city had recently done an asset inventory of all the trees in the city, she pointed out. That includes the age, condition and maintenance activity on the tree. [Chronicle coverage of the inventory as it was underway: "Where Are Ann Arbor's Trees?" The result of the geomapped inventory is available as a .kml file on the city's Data Catalog]

McCormick noted that the city does not trim trees just for aesthetics, but to protect the health of an asset.

Anglin was also concerned about the use of contracted services instead of filling vacant staff positions. By way of reply, McCormick noted that the question is how to do the work most cost effectively. The work load isn’t constant, McCormick replied, saying that contracted services gives the city flexibility to achieve the scale it needs to deal with backlogs – like stump grinding, for example, and planting.

When McCormick discussed the stormwater fund, she noted that the reason the stormwater utility could afford to absorb the cost of forestry operations this year is that a certain amount of loans the city had received through the county had been forgiven through federal stimulus funding. The planned rate increase would be 3.25% in FY 2012 instead of 2.25%, and 3.50% in FY 2013 instead of 2.30%, she said. That extra revenue would have otherwise gone into debt service, instead of supporting forestry operations.

Each 1% increase in the stormwater rate across the whole system is about $60,000, McCormick said. The roughly $2.7 million fund is comparatively small, she said. So if the city were trying to move the forestry operations into the fund at any other time than when it had this extra capacity, it would be difficult.

Streetlighting: LEDs Plus More Conversation – Golf?

McCormick pointed out to the council that an upcoming meeting agenda included an item authorizing an expenditure to buy LED fixtures for those city-owned streetlights that have not already been converted to lower energy fixtures. [The March 7, 2011 agenda item shows 500 LED cobra head fixtures at a cost of $315,968.] Anticipated energy and maintenance savings from installation is expected to be $32,000 in FY 2012 and $47,000 in FY 2013.

The budget impact sheet that McCormick presented for FY 2013 showed a $120,000 savings, which she characterized as a “placeholder” – it’s the same target they’d had when they implemented a program to deactivate lights in some areas of the city last year, as part of the FY 2011 budget. The city council eventually voted to restore the lights in October 2010. [Chronicle coverage: "Streetlights Back On"] McCormick stressed that it was not a proposal to reimplement the de-lighting program, but rather to engage the community in a conversation about how to fund streetlighting. [Options discussed last year during the council's budget work session included streetlighting special assessment districts: "Budget Round 4: Lights, Streets, Grass"]

Also in field operations, McCormick pointed to $158,248 in savings that is expected from using temporary labor in park operations to accomplish work done by workers in now-vacant full-time positions. McCormick reported that the city had discussed with its AFSCME union the idea of keeping positions open in order to provide soft landings in case there are operations in the city that it chose not to keep in the future. So if the city eliminates a position in one area, it could transfer that worker to another job that’s been kept vacant elsewhere.

[One of the potential legacy costs to converting Huron Hills to a non-golf use would be two union workers – one AFSCME and one Teamster – for whom other city positions would need to be found, if golf operations were ended at Huron Hills. At the community services budget working session, the city council had expressed a consensus that for the next two years, which corresponds to the duration of the five-year plan put in place for improving financial performance at the city's two golf courses, Huron Hills would remain a golf facility.]

Sidewalks, METRO, Street Repair Millage

A total of roughly $200,000 in field operations savings is forecast for FY 2012 as a result of reallocating costs from certain field operations – snow removal, graffiti removal, and some mowing operations – to the METRO expansion fund. To do that, future METRO money needs to be freed up. So what does METRO money pay for currently?

[The METRO fund gets its revenue from payments made by the state, based on telecommunications companies that pay to use the city's right-of-way under Act 48 of 2002, which established the Metropolitan Extension Telecommunication Rights-of-Way Oversight (METRO) Authority. Expenses/revenues for the city's METRO fund in the council's authorized FY 2011 budget were $635,000. However, budget impact sheets from the working session showed $340,000 for FY 2011 as well as for FY 2012-13.]

Over the last few years, the city has chosen to spend most of its METRO funds on maintenance in the right-of-way – McCormick explained that a restriction on the use of the METRO funds is that they must be used in the right-of-way. The city has chosen to pay for general fund obligations out of the METRO fund, so that it effectively supplements the general fund, McCormick said. [The METRO money is not a part of the general fund.] For example, the city has used METRO funds for streetlight pole replacements. Early in the program, the city used METRO funds for tree planting.

METRO funds also pay for administrative expenses associated with the city’s sidewalk replacement program – the marking of slabs, notification of property owners and the like, McCormick said. That’s key to understanding a significant impact on the way that the city might fund sidewalk maintenance and replacement in the future.

By way of background, the city’s sidewalk replacement program is a systematic way of ensuring compliance with the city code on sidewalk maintenance and replacement, which places responsibility on adjoining property owners to maintain and replace sidewalks. From Chapter 49 of the city code on sidewalks:

All sidewalks within the City shall be kept and maintained in good repair by the owner of the land, adjacent to and abutting upon the same; and if any owner shall neglect to keep and maintain the sidewalk or any walks and ramps leading to a crosswalk along the front, rear, side of the land, owned by her or him, in good repair and safe for the use of the public, the said owner shall be liable to the City for any damages recovered against the City sustained by any person by reason of said sidewalk being unsafe and out of repair.

The city’s experience with the sidewalk replacement program was uneven, with many property owners complaining about a failure by the city to communicate adequately. From a September 2008 Chronicle report of a city council caucus:

Residents along Second Street reported a variety of problems with adequate notification – including invoices sent from the city after work had been completed, work begun by the city without adequate notification, and lack of adequate marking. Under the rules of the program, property owners are supposed to make arrangements with private contractors to complete the work, with the city only undertaking the work when a property owner does not comply. During a period of low activity for the sidewalk program, council suspended it temporarily between November 2007 and March 2008 so that an ad hoc council committee could implement a clearer set of communication guidelines. Problems along Second Street this year could be remnants of ineffective communication beginning last year.

At the budget working session, Mike Anglin characterized the sidewalk replacement program as “an opportunity to get to know your neighbors under duress.”

In the upcoming months, McCormick told councilmembers, they would be asked to appropriate some additional fund balance from the METRO fund to make sure that the first cycle – the current one – of the city’s sidewalk replacement program is closed out. The closing out of the first cycle of the program would take place over the course of the summer, McCormick said. And that will, for the future, take the METRO fund out of the sidewalk replacement funding picture. What will take the METRO fund’s place in sidewalk replacement?

What the city is now contemplating, as McCormick laid it out, is for the city to start paying for the sidewalk maintenance and replacement – using the street reconstruction millage. Anglin wanted to know: What about property owners who already paid to replace sidewalk slabs under the old program?

McCormick explained that the idea of using METRO funds to close out the first cycle of the program is that all property owners, in the interest of equity, should have experienced one complete iteration of the program. This would entail, in part, performance of work by the city that property owners should have done. Property owners would be billed for the work, but the city would have upfront costs.

Making the city responsible for sidewalk replacement would require changing the city code on sidewalks as well as revising the street reconstruction millage language the next time it’s put on the ballot – on Nov. 8, 2011. Voters last approved the street repair millage in 2006 for a period of five years and a rate of 2 mills. The street reconstruction millage is listed as CITY STREETS on tax bills.

The point that some alternative revenue would be required – like redefining the street reconstruction millage – emerged during councilmember discussion by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who agreed that “it’s not magic.”

McCormick said there’d of course need to be a conversation about whether to roll the sidewalk replacement program into the street reconstruction millage. She said she’d heard some interest in making it a five-year millage, as well as some interest in seeing it be a 10-year millage.

On an ongoing basis, then, METRO funds in the future would not be used for administration of the sidewalk program, McCormick explained. That would free up METRO money to pay for other activities in the right-of-way. Among those activities proposed to be paid for out of METRO funds would be snow removal on sidewalks fronting publicly owned property, graffiti removal, and traffic island mowing and brush clearance. Paying for those activities out of METRO funds would relieve the general fund of around $200,000.

Customer Service – Return to Larcom

McCormick said she felt that a reduction on the $265,206 projected expenses for FY 2012 in customer service would be difficult to achieve in the first year, but doable in the second year. The return to the Larcom building – also known as city hall, which is currently being renovated – would provide some efficiencies due to co-location of some service desks.

Due to some changes in job classifications, she said, the city would have some ability to adjust staffing levels so that by FY 2013, half of one staff position could be eliminated. That move would actually result in exceeding the combined reduction target for both years.

Larcom Building: Five-Day Janitors

The facilities unit – with $1,406,393 in projected expenses in FY 2012 – was actually proposing several increases, reported McCormick. However, it is implementing decreases where it can. Those reductions include small adjustments in the IT fund, the elimination of a managed clothing program and the elimination of half of a facilities maintenance tech position.

The increases include restoration of janitorial services from three days per week to a five-day service. That move from five-day service down to three-day service, McCormick said, proved to be the “worst thing we could have done.” Exacerbating the issue is the age of the building, and there’s ongoing construction adjacent to the building, plus the fact that more people will be returning to work there. So next year’s budget proposes five-day service – an additional expense of $33,500 per year. In the new municipal center, McCormick said, a three-day-a-week janitor service would be a “recipe for decline” in the new building.

By way of brief background, the new municipal center has been constructed directly adjacent to the existing Larcom building (city hall) and is physically connected to it.

Several renovations to the Larcom building amount to roughly $350,000 in additional costs over FY 2012-13. The renovations reflect the reality of the decision to keep city offices in the Larcom building for the foreseeable future, said McCormick. She spoke of holding the building together with “baling wire.” In taking the ceilings apart to do some of the renovations, they’d found “systems” of keeping water off the ceiling tiles. She said that everyone had experienced some of the issues with bathroom drains backing up.

Asbestos mitigation is underway in the east end of the building now, because the plumbing in the bathrooms is failing. Fixtures need replacement – the bathrooms are deplorable, McCormick said. In the course of the next two years, the city wants to put a fresh bathroom on each floor next to the east elevator tower. In the second year, the city wants to do a complete renovation of bathrooms on the west side of the building.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to know if the improvements to the Larcom building were in the capital improvement plan (CIP). She also asked for confirmation that the renovations were not expenses that were anticipated when construction started: “It’s add-on, yes?”

McCormick said the answer was actually: yes and no. The city had originally intended the renovations of the Larcom building to focus only on areas intended for repurposing. For example, the planning department formerly on the sixth floor is being moved to the renovated first floor. The reason these activities don’t show up in the CIP, McCormick said, is that generally you don’t put capital improvements from the general fund into the CIP – they’re typically funded from operations.

McCormick clarified further that the Larcom building is a general fund facility. It shows up in the general fund, but to some extent those costs can be allocated – using the municipal service charge – to the departments that actually occupy the space, if they’re not general fund departments.

Bus Passes

The environmental/energy fund, which is part of the systems planning unit, had projected expenses of $113,478 for FY 2012. A savings of $8,800 was proposed to be achieved by reallocating the expense of participation in the getDowntown go!pass program. The go!pass program allows employers like the city to purchase unlimited bus passes for its workers at a cost of $5 apiece for the year. The passes are subsidized by a grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

McCormick’s proposal was to move the payment for the go!passes to the alternative transportation fund, which is not part of the general fund. Later in the discussion, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got clarification that the alternative transportation fund gets its money from Act 51, which is the state statute under which state gas tax money is allocated.

Dams

In the utilities budget, McCormick said, the city had historically supported maintenance and operation of dams from the drinking water utility. She noted that the staff has had significant discussion with the council about how dams are funded. [At its Nov. 10, 2010 meeting, the council approved a resolution that directed the city administrator to end the payment for repairs, maintenance and insurance of Argo and Geddes dams from the city’s drinking water fund. The shift in dam activity funding is supposed to be effective with the start of FY 2012, which is July 1, 2011].

McCormick said that funding for the city’s four dams – Barton, Argo, Geddes, and Superior – would be shifted around, in order to accommodate the council’s direction.

Barton dam, she said, has a hydroelectric function, but is also source water for drinking water. So the city staff believe it is appropriate to allocate some of the Barton dam administration and maintenance activities to the drinking water fund. Responding to a question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), McCormick explained that the amount of water drawn from Barton Pond, compared to the city’s well field, depends on the time of year – in the winter, more is drawn from the well field to moderate the water temperature.

In the snapshot presented by McCormick, Geddes and Argo were grouped together as recreational dams, with Barton and Superior grouped as hydroelectric dams. In FY 2011, $88,938 for Geddes and Argo was spent from the drinking water utility, but nothing was spent from the parks millage. In FY 2012, roughly $90,000 is proposed to come from the parks millage for those two dams, but nothing would be spent from the drinking water fund.

In contrast, Barton and Superior were not funded with any drinking water money in FY 2011, but in FY 2012, $19,661 is proposed to be spent on Barton – because of its role in the drinking water supply.

Maintenance, operation and insurance on all four dams will have expenses of around $330,000 per year over the next two years.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to know if the picture could change depending on what the VA Hospital wound up proposing – the VA has expressed interest in a collaboration on retrofitting Argo and Geddes with hydropower. McCormick said there would be an impact and that would need to be part of any conversation with the VA.

Utility Fees

McCormick walked the council through the projected rate increases for drinking water. In the last three years, the rate of increase has been somewhat higher than what’s been projected through FY 2017. Starting in FY 2009, the city has had annual increases of 4.62%, 3.61%, and 3.88%. Starting in FY 2012, the chart provided by McCormick to the council indicates increases of 3.36%, 3.25%, 3.50%, 3.38%, 3.38%, and 3.68%.

Mayor John Hieftje mentioned a study showing that Ann Arbor had some of the lowest rates in the state. McCormick said she predicted that Ann Arbor would maintain that distinction.

For the sanitary sewage system, the rate increases were higher, compared to drinking water. For the last three years, starting in FY 2009, the sanitary sewage rates have increased by 3.20%, 3.10%, and 3.00%. Starting in FY 2012, rates are projected to increase by 4.00%, 4.25%, 4.50%, 5.00%, 6.00% and 6.00%. McCormick said she felt that these increases were not outrageous.

Hieftje asked McCormick to give an update on the solids handling project at the waste water treatment plant. The city is just now wrapping up that project and bringing it online, testing the functionality. That was about a $22 million project, she said. The next step is replacing half of the liquids handling part of the plant – design is complete and it’s going out to bid in the next six months, McCormick reported. Much of it had been built in the 1930s, she said.

When the city builds infrastructure but depreciation isn’t built into the system to accumulate funds for its replacement, it’s financially difficult to undertake capital improvements. So the city has adopted a strategy of a “levelized rate increase” – where rates increase incrementally every year, in order to save up money to make a down payment on capital improvements, McCormick said. She later clarified for Hieftje that around $40 million has been accumulated through that strategy. To undertake the $110-120 million investment in that facility, in less than 6-7 years with only moderate rate increases, she characterized as “really quite an accomplishment.”

The city is still looking at applying for the state’s revolving loan fund for the project, which would be a nice benefit, McCormick said. But there would be some administrative burden, she allowed. The real problem is that the state does not typically fund projects that large. So the city may look at ways of staging the project. There’s a balance between bidding out a project in pieces in order to qualify for a state revolving loan, and taking advantage of a contractor’s market, which McCormick characterized as “hungry.”

Trash Collection

The budget impact sheet for solid waste includes a revenue drop of $226,077 from the solid waste millage. [The 2.5 mill levy shows up as CITY REFUSE on tax bills.] Contract increases for operators of the city’s recycling curbside pickup, its materials recovery facility and the commercial franchise recycling are expected to total $320,000.

On the savings side, McCormick showed the council a budget impact sheet that included nearly $600,000 in savings due to efficiency gains at the materials recovery facility, which are due to single-stream processing. Additional savings of $80,000 come from eliminating a full-time supervisor position at the compost facility – the city council authorized the outsourcing of its compost operations last year. Improvement in the market for recycled material is expected to add $250,000 in revenue.

A reduction in one full-time position for trash collection will be made possible through eliminating one trash collection route. In addition to savings on the labor side, McCormick pointed to savings of $84,500 in FY 2013 that the city would gain by not having to replace one of its garbage trucks. McCormick said the single-stream recycling effort – which added automated cart pickup for recyclables – had also allowed Recycle Ann Arbor to reduce a route as well.

In a followup phone interview with The Chronicle, solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that having fewer routes (six instead of seven) would, for the vast majority of residents, not change the day of the week on which their trash and recyclables are picked up from the curb. For some areas, that would change, however – probably sometime this spring. Both trash and recycling carts, he said, would continue to be emptied on the same day of the week. Yard waste collection routes are somewhat variable, he said, and there’s no expected change in those.

“For illustrative purposes only,” at the work session, McCormick gave the council a sheet that included a savings of $2,132,000 if the council and the community decided the city should get out of the business of trash collection. She noted that some households need more trash collection service than others. Some households are now approaching zero waste, with the availability of the larger single-stream recycling carts, she said. Some households might be able to share service, she said.

It’s something that the city would likely want to regulate through some kind of franchising agreement to ensure quality of service – one vendor providing service throughout the city instead of multiple vendors running trucks through the city. That would be one possible model, she said. In about a month, the council would be given a report on various approaches to trash collection, but McCormick stressed that it’s not part of the city’s budget plan.

Hieftje was eager to make clear that before making a decision to move away from city-provided solid waste collection, there would need to be “a ton” of community input and there would need to be a lot of discussion. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed his lack of enthusiasm for the idea by venturing that he was not sure he even wanted to have that discussion.

Vehicles: Fleet

In fleet services, McCormick said the city would be taking advantage of eliminating a vacancy due to a retirement, for a savings of $113,000. Another position would also be eliminated, for a savings of $84,309, based on reduced workload as a result of better preventive maintenance. Repair response times, however, could increase. A $45,000 savings was expected from a reduction in on-hand inventory for repair parts. The city will, said McCormick, attempt to reduce the amount of spare part inventory – they will monitor to see if that works.

Fleet rates charged to other departments are expected to be decreased for FY 2012 by 0.53% but increased by 8.26% in FY 2013.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted some information about why the number of large pieces of snowplow equipment had been reduced from 15 to 14 snowplows on the road, but only 12 of them had been available for service during the most recent storm. [Snow removal was discussed by the council at its last council meeting.]

Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, clarified that the extra piece of equipment that the city previously owned was a front-end loader – not effective for plowing streets, but somewhat useful for clearing cul-de-sacs. As the city had moved to a containerized collection system for leaves, and discontinued the loose leaf program, retaining and replacing a front-end loader was not a priority, Hupy explained.

Hupy said he was not sure of the details about why the two plows were down at the start of the storm. Briere asked if there was adequate staff for all the equipment – Hupy assured her that staffing was not a problem. In the most recent storm, they had staff for all the equipment that was available. He called that group of employees dedicated – “they answer the call,” he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to understand whether the city’s Wheeler Service Center was being used to its fullest capability. That came in the context of mechanics positions that appeared to be slated for elimination. He wanted to know what percent of the maintenance center’s capability was being utilized. McCormick said she would have to defer to Matt Kulhanek, who’s head of fleet services, on that question. He was not at the meeting, but McCormick said she’d pass along the question to him. She allowed that it’s not the case that the city operates the center with three shifts, with all bays full. The city runs two shifts – the second one is smaller.

But the maintenance center was not, she explained, originally programmed for that kind of use – the center is relatively new, dating from 2007. She clarified for Kunselman that although there had been discussion with Washtenaw County about possibly collaborating on the use of the facility, the county had elected not to collaborate. There have been discussions, she said, about collaborating with the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on the use of the facility. The Wheeler Center has bays that are nose-to-nose, which can accommodate longer buses – that’s why those two organizations are interested in the facility, McCormick explained.

Town-Gown Issues

McCormick gave the council some numbers just as an informational sheet to keep in front of them: costs incurred but not directly reimbursed by the University of Michigan in connection with UM home football games. The costs in question are those associated with signs and signal reconfiguration to manage traffic on football game days. Each home football game costs the city $20,000, according to the information McCormick provided the council.

If additional homeland security measures are implemented for home football game days – by closing Main Street – it’s estimated to cost the city an additional $8,900 per game. McCormick said that in conversations with the university about that proposal, the city has made clear that in order to implement the street closure, the city is interested in getting reimbursed for the expense.

The money to pay for this work comes, for the most part, out of the street maintenance fund, said McCormick, so it affects things like pothole repair, snow plowing, crack sealing.

In response to a question about the December 2010 Big Chill hockey game at Michigan Stadium, Craig Hupy, head of systems planning, said an invoice had been sent to the university for the signs and signals work – he had no information about whether it had been paid.

Responding to councilmember questions, McCormick said the city did not send the university invoices for the regular home football games, because the university has made it clear that it will not pay. McCormick said when she’d notified UM of the city’s intention of invoicing for the Big Chill, the response she gotten was, “We really don’t know how we’ll fund that.” There was little recourse for the city to take, she said, and in the end the city would have to write it off.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) expressed what seemed to be a council consensus that the university be invoiced as a matter of principle, so that it’s on the record. There should be a constant reminder, he said, especially when the university comes and asks for street closures and other things. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allowed that the university’s rationale for not paying – that the home football games bring commerce into the city – was correct, inasmuch as they did bring commerce into the city. However, Briere pointed out that the additional commerce does not put money back into the street maintenance fund.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) expressed some caution about the possible accounting implications – what might the city’s financial auditors have to say about these amounts that get written off? McCormick said that it does create some complications, but it’s doable. Taylor agreed with the principle of billing the university for the costs, but wanted some additional assurance that it would not cause more administrative hassle than it would be worth.

City Attorney’s Office

The 2.5% target reduction on the city attorney’s $1,912,106 budget amounts to roughly $47,000 in reductions.

City attorney Stephen Postema began his work session presentation by asking the council to consider the reductions he was proposing in the context of three retirements last year, which had resulted in the merging of three positions into just two: an office manager position and two paralegal positions had become just an office manager and one paralegal. The reduction in one staff member, he contended, had a large impact on his small office. [In FY 2011, the current budget year, the city attorney's office was budgeted for 13 full-time positions, including eight attorneys.]

The required reduction this year, Postema said, is being achieved partly through a reduction in “materials and supplies” of roughly $12,000. Materials and supplies, he said, includes the library, much of which is available online through sources like Westlaw.

Postema said that in conversation with Homayoon Pirooz, who is head of project management in the public services area, they had concluded that work done by paralegals on easements in most other cities was done in a department different from the legal department. Postema said the reason easement work is done in Ann Arbor through his department is through happenstance. When Marylou Zimmerman – the paralegal who had previously handled easement work – was originally hired, Postema said, her salary was funded by another department. Now, the legal department pays for it.

Although it hasn’t been done as carefully as it should have been, it’s important now, Postema said, to charge out as much time as possible, through whatever grants are supporting various capital projects – like the Stadium bridges project. So the other reduction is actually a revenue source, he said, to charge out half of the easement paralegal’s time to various projects. That $35,000 in additional revenue, combined with the $12,000 in savings, would meet the $47,000 target for FY 2012.

For FY 2013, Postema said, the savings might have to be realized by reducing the easement paralegal to a half-time position, and he remarked that it would be painful, if the department had to do that.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wondered: If a project is not grant-based, and the easement paralegal’s time is charged to the project, doesn’t that amount to shuffling it from one bucket to the next? Postema replied by saying that what’s at issue is the amount of time that is properly and legitimately allocated to capital improvement projects.

City administrator Roger Fraser, also responding to Smith, put the easement paralegal work in the context of an ongoing analysis for all of the city’s operations, regarding what the appropriate sources are for funding different activities. It’s easiest and most convenient, he said, to bill something to the general fund, but the city has not been as diligent as it should have been in making sure that the activity is supported by the appropriate departments.

Postema returned to his earlier point that most city attorney offices do not have a position for an easement paralegal – that position is in the engineering department, he said.

Stephen Kunselman asked if annexations of land to the city from the townships were in the same basic category as easements. There’s paperwork that needs to be done for that, Kunselman said. Postema replied that annexations had not been contemplated as part of the additional revenue projection, but if additional revenue could be realized, then that’s all the better. There have been a lot of annexations in the last two or three years, Postema said, but he was not sure if the volume will continue.

Sue McCormick began her part of the evening’s presentation, which immediately followed the 10-minute discussion of the city attorney’s budget, by providing some additional comment on the question of charging easement paralegal costs to capital projects.

She invited councilmembers to think about how the general fund works. Many of the general fund departments – such as finance– provide support to non-general fund departments. Those services are eventually allocated to the non-general fund departments as part of their operating expense budget. That allocation is achieved with the mechanism of the municipal service charge (MSC). But capital expenses, she said, should be capitalized as part of the project.

The changes are in response to a plea for unity by mayor John Hieftje, who had attended PAC’s May 18 meeting where he spoke with commissioners for an hour about their concerns. He told commissioners that the city has a better chance of getting federal funding for the project if they show a united front.

PAC members have been concerned that if the project moves forward, the city would receive less revenue from UM for parking than it currently gets from the surface lots it leases to the university on Fuller Road. Those revenues support the city’s park operations. Among other issues, some commissioners are also troubled that the structure is to be built on land that’s designated as parkland, and that there’s been limited opportunity for public input.

Immediately following a June 1 meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee, which includes all members of the commission, PAC members stayed for a working session on the Fuller Road Station. Chair Julie Grand brought a revised resolution to consider, and the group thrashed through issues and language to come up with a draft that will be discussed at PAC’s June 15 regular meeting.

In addition, commissioner Tim Berla plans to propose an alternative resolution, which he emailed to other PAC members on Monday. His resolution focuses on process – asking that the city council and staff be fully transparent in providing details about the agreement to the public.

Fuller Road Station: Some Background

PAC commissioners have addressed the Fuller Road Station in different ways over the past several months. They’ve heard presentations from city staff, but have not been asked officially for input on the project. Its first phase is a proposed structure, located on city-owned land south of Fuller Road and east of East Medical Center Drive, that would have roughly 1,000 parking spaces, with nearly 80% of those designated for UM’s use.

At PAC’s April 20, 2010 meeting, commissioner Gwen Nystuen proposed forming a committee to evaluate the project. But instead of acting on her proposal at that meeting, commissioners agreed to discuss it at their May 4 land acquisition committee meeting. By then, however, Nystuen, Grand and Sam Offen had come up with a different approach – a resolution that asked council to either halt the project, or to negotiate with UM for higher payments to use the parking structure. [See Chronicle coverage: "Better Deal Desired for Fuller Road Station"] The resolution they drafted was brought for consideration at PAC’s May 18 meeting. [.pdf of original resolution]

With PAC possibly poised to pass the resolution, Hieftje appeared at the May 18 meeting to urge them not to take that stance. From Chronicle coverage:

Hieftje described a discussion on Friday, May 14, that was organized by Congressman John Dingell and focused on high-speed rail funding for this region. The media event included Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman, Congressman Mark Schauer, Deputy Secretary of Transportation John Porcari, and Dearborn mayor Jack O’Reilly, among others. Hieftje said he’d also talked with U.S. Sen. Carl Levin during the May 2 UM commencement ceremonies, saying that Levin expressed support for Fuller Road Station and the possibility of commuter rail.

There’s a “lively” negotiation going on between Amtrak and Norfolk Southern, Hieftje said – Norfolk Southern is interested in selling the rail line that runs through Ann Arbor, and Amtrak is interested in buying. He said that he and Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, emerged from Friday’s discussion very enthused about the possibility of federal funding for high-speed rail – and track improvements for high-speed rail would be the same ones needed for commuter rail, he said. “Rail transit coming to our region is inevitable.”

Ann Arbor is applying for about $40 million in federal funding for Fuller Road Station, Hieftje said, adding that he would very much like the city to present a “cohesive and unified effort” to bring rail to this community. There’s no other location that offers the synergy and impact of the Fuller Road site, he said. It’s near a concentrated employment center, which might bring even more jobs in the future. Rail transit holds tremendous potential for providing easier access to Detroit Metro airport, as well as for development in downtown Ypsilanti, he said.

The rail project could take years to unfold – it could take a decade, Hieftje said. And even if commuter rail doesn’t happen, the high-speed rail will, he said, giving this region something that every other major metro area in the country has. [Hieftje later clarified in an email to The Chronicle that he intended to say that every major metro area in the country has commuter rail.]

He told commissioners that he had read their resolution. If PAC wanted the city to drive a harder bargain with the university, then he would appreciate their support of the Fuller Road Station project.

At that meeting, commissioners discussed the project with Hieftje, asking questions and airing a range of concerns: among them, the fact that it seemed unclear whether the train station would ever be built; safety issues related to increased traffic at the site; a loss of revenue to the parks system if the university ends up paying less for parking at the Fuller Road Station than it currently pays for the city’s surface lots; and a lack of public input.

Later in the meeting, after Hieftje left, PAC members discussed the resolution itself and ultimately moved to table it, with Grand offering to bring a revised version to their June 1 land acquisition committee meeting for further discussion.

Fuller Road Station: A “Vision Quest”?

At the June 1 working session, Julie Grand began the discussion by assuring fellow commissioners that she wanted honest feedback about the revised resolution, saying “no one can offend me.” Her goal was to get close to consensus on the language, so that they wouldn’t need to wordsmith the resolution at the regular PAC meeting on June 15, when they’ll likely take a vote.

She said in general she’d tried to soften the language, and had removed some of the more pointed statements. For example, the new version removed the resolved clause recommending that the city council not approve plans for the Fuller Road Station at the proposed site. Instead, a new resolved clause indicated general support for the goals of an intermodal transit station, but stated that there were concerns about the overall benefit to park users if the project remained as a standalone parking structure.

David Barrett said he was trying to get a sense of process, to figure out if the project as currently configured was unstoppable, like “a boulder rolling down the hill.” He also feared that if the proposal were done in phases – the first phase being a large parking structure, with a bus depot, bike racks and taxi stand – then the second phase of a train station might be a “vision quest” that never materializes. He noted that the mayor said the city is trying to encourage Amtrak to participate, with the hopes that by building the structure, the train station would eventually be relocated from its Depot Street site to the Fuller Road Station. But at this point, that still a leap of faith, Barrett said.

Grand pointed out that although Fuller Road Station is a major focus of the mayor’s office, support might change depending on the outcome of the August primary elections. [Hieftje is being challenged in the Democratic primary by Patricia Lesko. A section about the project on her campaign website states "If U of M wants that land, we’ll negotiate a price in the best interest of the taxpayers, and Ann Arbor voters can decide whether to sell the parcel or not." Currently the city does not intend to sell the land to the university – rather, a memorandum of understanding between the city and UM states that the university would pay 78% of the cost to build the $46 million structure, and would pay additional amounts each year to use that proportion of the parking spaces. .pdf file of memorandum of understanding between Ann Arbor and UM]

Gwen Nystuen noted that the architectural drawings are very detailed and nearly complete for the parking structure, but have not been done for a train station – making it less clear that the station would actually be built.

Tim Berla weighed in, saying the issues seem to be 1) whether the location is right for a train station, 2) whether a parking structure benefits parks, which seems dubious, and 3) how the process is being handled. It seems that from the city’s perspective, he said, the belief is that in order to get financing for a train station, the parking structure needs to be part of the project. And if the city says it’s not going to move forward with the project at all until financing is in place, they won’t get any federal dollars.

Berla said he was okay with that approach, as long as things are transparent. If people know what the details of the project are – including the financing – they’ll be able to decide whether to support it.

Grand asked whether everyone agreed that if the project ends up being only a parking structure, then that’s not a benefit to the parks. Barrett said he could make the case that if the structure brought in a significant revenue stream because of payments from the university, then that could be a value to the parks system.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks manager, noted that at the May 18 meeting, the mayor had indicated that one possible benefit to building Fuller Road Station is that it might free up the surface lots on the other side of Fuller Road, which could possibly be returned to green space. Smith said that from the staff’s perspective, there’s no benefit to that – the parking lots on the north side of Fuller would still be needed for patrons of Fuller Park Pool. And if UM doesn’t lease those lots – which it doesn’t plan to do, after Fuller Road Station is built – then the parks system will lose about $38,000 of annual revenue.

Berla came back to the issue of process. He said he wanted to urge council to put all their cards on the table. For example, could the city have set a higher rate for the parking services agreement with UM on those existing Fuller Road surface lots?

Nystuen reviewed the history of the parking agreement with UM, dating back to 1993. Smith confirmed that the original agreement, signed in 1993, was a 15-year deal that expired in 2008. It was renewed but is set to expire in August 2010. [.pdf of current agreement for Fuller Road parking lots leased by UM and .pdf of fee schedule]

When Berla asked whether the city could charge a higher rate, Smith said that was a possibility. Nystuen noted that the city could rent the parking spaces for a “pretty sum.”

Berla said his point was that whatever the agreement, he wanted it to be “way out in the open.” He observed that it seems the parking services agreement won’t be determined until after the Fuller Road Station project has been approved, which “seems like an odd way to do business.”

Smith noted that Hieftje has indicated there might be other opportunities for revenue as part of the project. That might come from agreements with other entities to use Fuller Road Station, like bus or taxicab companies. When Barrett remarked that this is part of the mayor’s “sell,” Doug Chapman said that the “sell” was also the need to give the appearance of unity.

Barrett said that the original version of the resolution had at least resulted in the mayor coming and talking to them. Smith responded by saying that the reality is there’s a memorandum of understanding between the city and the university about the project. PAC members now need to figure out what they want to recommend to the city council going forward.

Nystuen urged the group to ask the council for a clear project timeline, to note that the finances don’t make sense as they stand, and that it’s not acceptable at that location, which she described as the city’s Central Park. If the city didn’t already own the land, she said, they’d want to buy it for the parks system.

Berla was in favor of a shorter resolution, one that simply asked council to make available specific details about the project so that the public could have the information and PAC could hold a public hearing on it.

Smith passed out a timeline he’d received from Dave Dykman, a project manager for the city. The dates were struck out because they’d been pushed back and not yet finalized, he noted. But it gave commissioners a sense of the process, he said, and of the length of time that would occur between these events.

Fuller Road Station Phase 1 Preliminary Project Schedule

• June 2, 2010: City of Ann Arbor Citizen Participation Meeting #4
• June 15, 2010: City of Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission Update
• June 14, 2010: Petition Package Submitted to City Planning & Development Services Unit
• June 15 – June 25, 2010: Petition Package Review by City Staff
• June 28 – July 7, 2010: Petition Package Revisions by Petitioner
• July 8 – July 14, 2010: Petition Package Final Review (verification that Petitioner addressed all comments)
• July 14 – August 2, 2010: City Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice Period; Staff Report Prepared
• August 3, 2010: City Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation of Approval
• August 18 – 25, 2010: City Planning Commission Recommendation Forwarded to City Council via Resolution
• August 30 – Sept 13, 2010: City Council Public Hearing Notice Period
• September 13, 2010: City Council Work Session
• September 19, 2010: City Council Caucus Meeting
• September 20, 2010: City Council Public Hearing and Approval of Resolution
• September 16, 2010: U of M Board of Regents Schematic Design Approval
• January 20, 2011: U of M Board of Regents Approval to Bid and Award Construction Contracts
• July 2010 – January 2011: Site Preparation and Utility Relocation by City
• February 2011 – Summer 2012: Fuller Road Station Phase 1 Construction

Smith noted that a public hearing will be held when the planning commission reviews the project’s site plan, and another one will be held by the city council before they vote on it.

Grand pointed out that even though PAC raised the issue of public input, there’s nothing on the timeline to indicate a public hearing at PAC. Karen Levin wondered whether the city will say that there were public meetings – city staff held informational sessions in September 2009, and in February and May of 2010. Grand said she attended one and that it was set up as a presentation plus Q&A, but not a chance for meaningful public input. [For Chronicle coverage of the Feb. 10, 2010 public meeting, see "Fleshing Out Fuller Road Station"] Another public meeting originally planned for June 2 was canceled, but is expected to be rescheduled.

Berla noted that it seemed the site plan is slated for approval before a parking agreement would be in place – if so, that’s a process problem, he said. If PAC wants to have a public hearing, he added, then details of the site plan and the parking agreement should be made available to the public first.

Barrett highlighted the role that PAC had been charged with as a commission – its job is to protect the parks financially, he said. Saying that he had a lot of trust and faith in Hieftje, Barrett added that with the way the current process is set for the Fuller Road Station, PAC is not able to do its job. They’ve been told that if they do their job – namely, if they try to protect the financial interests of the park system – then the project might not get financing.

Chapman said that for him, it’s always been about the financial aspect. And it wasn’t clear to him whether the city approached the university, or whether the university had come to the city about the project. Grand noted that UM was building a new women’s and children’s hospital, set to open in 2011, with no additional parking. “That was a really stupid thing to do,” she said. The parks system should take advantage of that, she said – it could be used as leverage in negotiating the parking services agreement.

Fuller Road Station: PAC’s Revised Resolution

Part of the June 1 meeting was spent going over Grand’s draft resolution line by line. Several of the “whereas” clauses were removed, to be added to an accompanying cover memo.

The most significant changes were made in the “resolved” clauses. The original version proposed at the May 18 meeting had just two “resolved” clauses:

Resolved, that PAC recommends that the City Council does not proceed in its approval of plans for the Fuller Road Station at the site where it is currently proposed.

Resolved, that if such plans are approved by Council, that the agreement with the University of Michigan is renegotiated to include a significant increase in revenue allocated to the Parks and Recreation Department. 100% of payments should come from the University of Michigan. Revenue at the current FY 2010 rate of approximately $125 per space would result in an annual payment of between $100,000 and $127,500 to the Parks Department.

The revised version considerably expanded the “resolved” clauses, and notably eliminated the request for council not to proceed with the project. Grand noted that the first “resolved” clause in the new version was “as far as I could go to respond to the mayor’s request for support.” From the revised resolution:

Resolved, that while PAC is generally in favor of the goals of an intermodal transit station, concerns remain about the overall benefit to park users of the proposed Fuller Road Station as a stand-alone Phase One project.

Resolved, that if such plans are approved, PAC urges Council to negotiate the final agreement with the University of Michigan to include a significant increase in revenue to the Parks and Recreation Department above and beyond that currently agreed upon in the MOU [memorandum of understanding]. Further, PAC recommends that the final agreement should indemnify the Parks and Recreation Department for any shortfall in revenue caused by the University’s decision to discontinue leasing the North lots on Fuller Road.

Resolved, PAC recommends that the final Parking Services Agreement will be published at least two weeks prior to Council approval of the proposed FRS.

Resolved, PAC recommends that all revenue generated from lessees of the proposed transit center should be dedicated exclusively to the Parks and Recreation Department.

Resolved, PAC requests that project staff will present PAC with a clear project schedule for the proposed FRS, with future updates as necessary.

Resolved, that an effort be made by project staff to provide opportunities for PAC and the public to give meaningful input into all future significant decisions regarding the proposed FRS.

This version, along with a cover memo, will be discussed at PAC’s June 15 meeting. [.pdf file of revised draft resolution]

Alternative Resolution: Focus on Transparency

At the June 1 meeting, Berla told his fellow commissioners that he thought a resolution should focus on clarifying and opening up the process. He elaborated on that in an email he sent to PAC members on June 7: “My feeling is that if we can make sure that the public really understands the specifics of this project, then the city council will be fully accountable for whatever decisions it reaches. If, after getting this information PAC wants to pass a resolution opposing or supporting the project, we will be able to do so at that time. Right now, I feel that there are still a lot of details, most notably the final Parking Services Agreement, that are not clear to me, and thus I can’t say whether I support the overall project or not.”

Berla’s proposed resolution reads:

Whereas the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) supports the establishment of an intermodal transportation station in Ann Arbor to promote the development of alternative transportation, and,

Whereas PAC’s duties include providing a forum for advice and public input to the city council on matters relating to the park system, and,

Whereas the construction of any building for non-park use on park land is a large and potentially precedent setting development, and,

Whereas the parks department currently receives revenue from the University of Michigan for parking in lots located within Fuller park, and any change to that revenue may impact the already stretched parks budget,

Be it therefor resolved that PAC urges the city council and staff to promote maximum transparency in the development of any such project. Specifically, PAC urges the staff and council to make public a complete plan for the development of the projet, including which features will be part of each phase and the details of any significant agreements such as the Parking Services Agreement. Further, PAC urges that such publication include a full presentation at a regular televised PAC meeting, in such a way that PAC commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions, and that this PAC meeting be at least one month prior to any city council vote which could commit the city to building on park land.

Public Commentary

The June 1 meeting was held at Cobblestone Farm, and one person from the public attended. Nancy Kaplan told commissioners that she appreciated their efforts and agonizing over the resolution, but that the focus seemed to be on price and information – how much the university should pay, and how much information the city should provide to the public. She hadn’t heard any discussion about the fact that this would set a precedent for the use of parkland – that seems to be getting lost, she said, and it troubled her.

Kaplan said her understanding is that there’s no architectural drawing of the train station. So what PAC is really supporting is a huge parking structure, she said. It benefits UM, she said, but she didn’t see how it benefits the city. It’s not clear why there’s a rush to do the project, Kaplan concluded – why not wait until the entire project, including the train station, is designed?

Present: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen. Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: John Lawter, Sam Offen, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio) and councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, June 15 begins at 4 p.m. at the studios of Community Television Network, 2805 S. Industrial Highway. [confirm date]

From left: Greta Brunschwyler, the new executive director at the Leslie Science & Nature Center, talks with park advisory commissioner Sam Offen and Jason Frenzel, volunteer and outreach coordinator for the city's Natural Area Preservation program, prior to the March 16 PAC meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

Several commissioners had pointed questions for Cooper. Sam Offen pressed him on the issue of revenues, noting that when the parking structure is built, the university might have no need for the spaces it leases from the city on the opposite side of Fuller Road – resulting in a loss of about $38,000 per year to the city.

Also attending the meeting was Greta Brunschwyler, the new executive director at the Leslie Science and Nature Center, who started the job on March 4 and came to introduce herself to park commissioners and staff.

Leslie Science and Nature Center is where Jason Frenzel’s office is located. Frenzel, volunteer and outreach coordinator for the city’s Natural Area Preservation program, gave a brief presentation about volunteer opportunities.

Scott Rosencrans, PAC’s chair, wasn’t able to attend the meeting, which was led in his absence by vice chair John Lawter. Lawter announced that Rosencrans has decided not to seek reappointment to PAC when his term ends in mid-April. So not only will PAC need to elect a new chair, Lawter said, there will also be an opening on the commission.

Fuller Road Station

The park advisory commission had been briefed on the Fuller Road project at their September 2009 meeting –  at the time, it was called the Fuller Intermodal Transportation Station, or FITS. The presentation at this month’s PAC meeting gave a progress report on the project, and included more members of the design team.

The agenda item drew several speakers during the meeting’s time set aside for public commentary.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Former park advisory commissioner John Satarino urged the group, if they were given the chance, to vote no on the Fuller Road Station. He said that asking voters to weigh in on the project would be the “honorable thing to do.” It’s a precedent-setting decision, he said, and could impact the future of parkland on the Fuller Road site. The deal with the university is “awful,” he noted – at the least, the city’s parks system should get more out of it – the university probably wouldn’t bat an eye, Satarino said, if the city asked for $1 million. He cautioned that if the project moves ahead, it will break the bond between the city and its citizens – and that’s a relationship they don’t want to destroy.

Alice Ralph said the structure seemed designed  primarily to serve university employees, yet the city was paying about 20% of the costs. If the loss of parkland is perpetual, the least that the city can do is to ensure that they get perpetual compensation, rather than a lump sum payment. A trade in land would be another option, she said.

Barbara Bach noted that the name Fuller Road Station implied that it would include train and bus service, but this first phase is really a parking garage for the university’s hospital and employees. She questioned whether there has been an assessment of the market value of that land. She also noted that the parking structure was substantial and not easy to remove – its size would obliterate the cliff in that valley as a streetscape. The project would also entice more cars into the area, which Bach said she didn’t like. Additionally, Bach raised the concern about circumventing a vote on the sale of city parkland, saying she didn’t like the precedent it set.

Lisa Jevens described herself as a resident who uses the parks almost every day. Characterizing the Fuller Road Station as a transit center was a smokescreen that’s obscuring today’s financial realities, she said. It’s primarily a parking structure for university hospital employees, yet the city is being asked to pay millions of dollars for it – in return, getting the same number of spaces they have at the current surface lot. That just doesn’t make financial sense to most people, she said.

Jevens said she’d like the university to pay a lot more money for use of the site. The project goes against the city’s vision of increasing greenspace and reducing traffic. There’s also no money that’s been allocated to fund future train service, she noted. There shouldn’t be a rush to build the structure, Jevens said, but the rush is being created by the university, which is opening a new hospital next year with insufficient parking for it. She suggested that the university explore other parking options on its own property, like land on Wall Street or at the former Pfizer facility on Plymouth Road.

Peter Pollack spoke during both opportunities for public comment, at the beginning and end of the meeting. He noted that his office had been involved in designing the Fuller Road boulevard in the early and mid-1980s. It’s the only place in the city where you get a sense of being in the river valley. It’s a very difficult place to put a very active facility, he said. Though the Fuller Road Station concept plan has been approved, he acknowledged, there’s still time to rethink the design. He urged commissioners to consider a structure that would be long and low, stretching across the current two soccer fields to the east – rather than building the taller structure that’s being proposed. It can be designed to be part of the park, rather than an object that’s plopped into the space.

Pollack said that in some ways he felt like he was on a horse tilting at windmills. The current design team are “good folks,” he said, but there’s just one chance to design the facility at that location, and they should do it in the best way possible. He noted that he’d met with city staff in mid-September of 2009 – at that point, there had already been a decision to build on the current footprint, he said. The decision had been based on a large meeting between city and university officials, he said – a meeting that hadn’t been open to the public.

Fuller Road Station: Presentation

Much of the presentation to PAC repeated information given at a Feb. 10, 2010 public forum [Chronicle coverage: "Fleshing Out Fuller Road Station."] Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, described how the project team had been meeting with many different groups, including two public forums and a working session for the planning commission. Answers to questions from the Feb. 10 forum are posted on a website devoted to the project. There have been ample opportunities for public engagement, he said, and there will be more.

Cooper said the project’s emphasis is in the eye of the beholder. Though it’s frequently characterized as a parking structure by opponents, Cooper talked mostly about the other elements of the project, which would be built in later phases.

The master plan for Fuller Road Station, a joint project of the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor. Phase 1 would consist primarily of a large parking structure. (Links to larger image.)

He showed commissioners the final concept plan for the project, which if built would include a train station for high-speed and commuter rail. The location next to the largest employer in the county – the University of Michigan health system – is one reason why the city has eyed it as a site to suggest for possibly relocating the Amtrak station, he said. Visitors to the city, coming to use the medical facility, also could use the station.

In addition to rail transit, the station is designed for bus transfers. One feature defining it as a transit center, not a parking garage, are the 17-foot-high ceilings on the first level, Cooper said – designed to accommodate buses. Another key element is a bike station, which could eventually include showers for bike commuters, a bike maintenance area and possibly a café. Cooper said he’s heard the bike station described as just an add-on, but he sees it as an exciting element, creating a trailhead for the county’s border-to-border trail, which runs through that area.

There is a substantial parking component, he said, with capacity for up to 1,600 spaces – though the first phase will build 900. City officials hope that commuter rail will be the preferred way to travel in the future, he said, and the master plan has been designed to reflect that possibility. Phase 1, however, is a much more modest project, he said. [In a presentation at the city council's Feb. 1, 2010 meeting, Carmine Polombo sought to lower expectations about the Detroit-Ann Arbor commuter rail project, making clear that early service towards the end of 2010 would be very limited – day trips and special events.]

There’s high demand for parking in this area, Cooper said, from both the university and from city park users. In addition, AATA and UM’s bus system will use the structure, and there will be an area with bike hoops and lockers.

Clearly, it’s a large structure, Cooper said. But relative to nearby buildings, it’s dwarfed, he said. They’ve also directed the design team to maintain a human scale, he added.

PAC members had submitted questions to Cooper in advance of their meeting, and he addressed many of them during his presentation.

• Is this a transportation center or a parking structure? “I believe it’s a little of both,” Cooper said. It began as a transportation center, he said, then turned into a larger parking facility to meet the short-term need – while at the same time proving to potential partners, like the federal government, that the city is serious about the project for longer-term uses like commuter rail.
• Why are additional rail facilities needed in Ann Arbor? Cooper said that Amtrak anticipates doubling its ridership in the next 25 years. That’s not including potential commuter or high-speed rail. Right now, the Ann Arbor station, located on Depot Street, has 75 long-term parking spots. Their current location won’t accommodate future growth, Cooper said. He noted that the Ann Arbor station is the second busiest one on the Chicago-Detroit route – only downtown Chicago is busier. The Fuller Road Station is also intended to be an alternative for driving to the Detroit Metro airport, Cooper said. And though the Fuller Road Station didn’t get chosen in the latest round of federal funding, the project was approved, he noted – the feds just ran out of money.
• What transportation entities have expressed interest in the facility? Cooper cites the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), AATA, the University of Michigan and Greyhound as entities that are interested in the project. Greyhound, which currently has a station in downtown Ann Arbor on West Huron Street, has indicated that it would have to be a revenue-neutral move for them, Cooper said. The city has also has talked with Norfolk-Southern. The railroad’s main concern is that they can continue to run freight along that line, he said. The city hasn’t yet reached out to taxicab companies, Cooper said, but there are provisions for them in the design.
• What are the terms for cost sharing? Phase I issues were hammered out between two willing partners, Cooper said – the city of Ann Arbor and UM. The memorandum of understanding calls for a 22%/78% cost-sharing split between the city and university on all items except for the environmental assessment, which the city will pay for. The city will get 200 of the 900 parking spaces. The MOU doesn’t address the later phases of the project, including the train station, except to say that both parties will work to bring it to reality, Cooper said. [.pdf file of memorandum of understanding between Ann Arbor and UM]
• Will the payments continue from UM to the city’s parks and recreation program? The simple answer is yes, Cooper said. The MOU includes the amount for leasing the footprint of the Phase 1 facility, he said. The numbers are based on the area that the structure will be built on, which is slightly smaller than the current surface lot. Users of city parks will have access to the remaining surface lot, as well as to about 100 spaces on the first level of the structure.
• Are there requests for funding in progress? The project didn’t receive federal high-speed rail funding, Cooper said. The state Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) had requested that the city join in with the state on the application – in hindsight, Cooper said, maybe they shouldn’t have. Fuller Road Station is a project that’s been approved by the Federal Rail Authority, he noted – but funds ran out. If more funding is available, the project will be in line to get it. There’s also the possibility of funding via the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Cooper said. The AATA has an application for funds through the Federal Transit Administration – AATA will be notified of that decision in mid-April, he said.
• Explain the types of agreements related to the use of this land. The land on which Fuller Road Station will be built is city-owned and always will be, Cooper said. The structure will also be city-owned. It’s a use agreement, not a lease agreement, between the city and the university – allowing the university to use 78% of the structure.
• Describe the history of parking at this location. The city and the university entered into an agreement in 1993 to create a surface parking lot on the Fuller Road site, which the university agreed to lease. The agreement has provisions that allow the lot to be used at certain times by users of the Ann Arbor parks. [2MB .pdf of the 1993 agreement]

Cooper said that he could provide answers to other questions in more detail in the future, if commissioners wanted.

After Cooper concluded his remarks, Dick Mitchell of the Ann Arbor firm of Mitchell and Mouat and Deb Cooper of Beckett & Raeder, also based in Ann Arbor, described design elements of the project, covering much of the same ground that had been presented at the Feb. 10 public forum. Dave Dykman, a project manager for the city, gave an update on the project’s timeline, which he had also covered at the February forum.

Fuller Road Station Questions and Comments: Finance

Sam Offen asked several questions related to financial aspects of the project. He clarified that the university pays the city $31,000 annually for use of the lot, and will continue to do so for the next two years. But when the structure is built, the city will get only $24,846 in annual payments.

Cooper reiterated that the future payments reflect the smaller footprint on which the facility will be built, compared to the current surface lot.

Offen then asked whether the city will continue to get payments from other properties that the university currently pays for. Cooper said that the existing surface lot isn’t covered in the MOU, but that he didn’t think it was a stretch to say that there could be revenue from that lot too. That would be a decision for city council and administration, he said.

Offen asked about the city-owned parking lots on the north side of Fuller Road, which the university also leases. Cooper said those lots hadn’t been part of the talks regarding Fuller Road Station. Offen noted that the 1993 agreement between the city and UM covered those north lots, and that the city still receives payments for them. Is there an agreement with the university about the future of those lots?

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that the commissioners had received copies of an agreement covering the lease of city-owned lots on Fuller Road. [The two-year lease, which expires on Aug. 31, 2010, includes annual payments of $31,057 for Lot A, on the south side of Fuller. For the two lots on the north side, the city gets $31,057 for Lot B and $7,438 for Lot C, which is unpaved.]

Offen wondered whether the university would need to use those lots on the north side, given that they’ll be getting so many additional spaces when the Fuller Road Station structure is completed. If they don’t need those north lots, then the city will be losing about $38,000 annually, he noted, which goes into the parks budget. Offen said he didn’t want that possibility to get lost during negotiations.

[During a March 1, 2010 city council meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser alluded to the fact that the university likely won't use those north lots, though he did not mention the financial implications. From The Chronicle report of that meeting: "Fraser said the expectation was that access to city parks would actually be improved – cars currently parked across Fuller Road from the planned station would be parked in the structure, and that would 'free up land for that game of frisbee,' he concluded."]

Cooper said there was a cost involved to building the structure, but added that the project was also expanding opportunities for new revenues – for example, from Greyhound or for rail. Those opportunities haven’t ripened yet to the degree that he anticipates they will.

Gwen Nystuen asked how much of the project’s financing the city council had already approved. The council has approved some aspects, but the project team will be returning to council for additional authorization of expenditures, Cooper said. [In May 2009, city council approved $80,000 as its portion of a feasibility study for the project. In August, council approved a professional services contract with JJR for conceptual design, environmental assessment and engineering work, and set a budget of $541,717. The council approved the master plan concept, an additional $111,228 for work by JJR, and a memorandum of understanding with UM in November.]

Doug Chapman asked whether the university’s current payment to the city for the Fuller Road lot was all directed into the parks budget. Colin Smith confirmed that it was. Chapman pointed out that under the memorandum of understanding, the new payment of roughly $25,000 will be paid proportionally – that is, the university will pay only 78% of that amount – so there will be even less than $25,000 coming to parks, he said. Smith wasn’t sure that would be the case. It was possible that the city’s 22% portion would be directed to parks via a transfer of city funds.

Julie Grand acknowledged the people who had spoken during public commentary, and said that many of the PAC members shared their frustrations. At a time when the mayor has indicated they can’t spend more on parkland, the project seems like it will be adding costs related to upkeep, she said. Cooper noted that much of the landscaping would be native plants, which require low maintenance. There will be some investment required in establishing bioswales on the site, he said, but those expenses are being factored into the project cost. Details still need to be worked out with the university over ongoing maintenance costs, he said.

Grand said it sounded like the ship had sailed on the project, but that she had very serious concerns about its operating budget. It was ludicrous that the city would be getting less money from the university, she said.

Tim Berla raised concerns over how much UM was paying to use the structure, saying it sounded like a good deal for the university, but that it didn’t make as much sense for the city. Cooper said there would be future agreements negotiated between the city and the university.

Cooper later noted that the discussion seemed to reflect that commissioners viewed the situation as a zero-sum game. In fact, he said, there will likely be other users of the facility in the future who will provide additional revenue to the city. The expectation is that Fuller Road Station will become a viable, busy facility with several transportation providers, he said.

Fuller Road Station Questions & Comments: Design

The parking structure is being called Phase 1 – Doug Chapman asked how many phases are there? That depends on the funding they can secure, Dykman said.

Offen asked Cooper what he thought about Pollack’s design suggestion – to use the soccer fields and create a longer, lower structure. Cooper praised Pollack’s experience and knowledge about that area. Members of the design team have taken their cues from the city council as well as the park advisory commission, he added, and that was to preserve, as much as possible, the integrity of the park area, including the soccer fields. That’s why they’ve kept the east and west footprint of the structure within the existing boundaries of the surface parking lot, he said. Pollack raises an interesting design concept, Cooper said, but “I’m not in a position to make those decisions.” They’ll continue to advance the project under the design concepts approved by city council and the UM board of regents, he said, while passing along input like Pollack’s.

Gwen Nystuen noted that Cooper had talked about both a concept phase and a design phase – which phase was the project in, she asked. The city council and the university regents have approved the project’s concept plan, Cooper clarified. Designs are now being worked out beyond the site’s footprint and the number of spaces involved.

Tim Berla asked for clarification about when the public can provide meaningful input. Christopher Taylor, who serves on PAC and represents Ward 3 on city council, said the council hasn’t written the final check, but he wasn’t sure what the next step would be in terms of the approval process.

Cooper clarified that a site plan would be submitted to the city’s planning commission, probably within three to four months. No approval is required by PAC, he said.

Colin Smith told commissioners that they could draft a resolution giving input to council, but he also noted that two councilmembers serve on PAC – Taylor and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – and they could convey PAC’s concerns to their colleagues on council.

Fuller Road Station Questions & Comments: Traffic Issues

Offen asked whether the city had conducted a traffic study of the area around the Fuller Road site. Yes, Cooper said, an exhaustive study was done – the 396-page report is posted online – and it indicates that there’s a problem at the Maiden Lane/Fuller Road intersection. The city is preparing a request for proposals (RFP) for a design team to address the situation – that might include converting the intersection to a roundabout. Other options include installing high-intensity activated crosswalks, known as HAWKs.

Julie Grand asked whether these changes would require using additional parkland. Cooper said that a roundabout would likely expand the intersection’s footprint, but that in exchange, there would be land in the center of the roundabout. He noted that the intersection issue will exist regardless of what happens with the Fuller Road Station.

Gwen Nystuen expressed concern that there are already traffic problems in that area, even without a large parking structure.

Fuller Road Station Questions & Comments: Misc.

Offen asked whether there would be spots for Zipcars, the car-sharing program that currently operates in the city and on UM’s campus. Cooper said that’s one of many things they’re talking about.

Grand said that she regularly rode her bike to UM’s School of Public Health, and that many people rode their bikes to the medical center. Why would they use a bike station at the Fuller Road Station, she asked, if they could just as easily ride directly to their destination? Cooper said the initial phase creates a “palette” for the concept of a bike station to evolve. In the future, it might include showers where people can freshen up after a long ride, a bike maintenance area and other amenities. He said he believes there are commuter cyclists who would use such a facility.

Berla noted that it was PAC’s job to evaluate whether the project was good for the parks system. Now, there’s a parking lot in that location. From the parks standpoint, there’s no need for more parking. A large building isn’t good for the parks, and less revenue is bad. So it seems like it’s difficult to argue in favor of the project, assuming they’re looking out for the parks, he concluded.

Cooper said he believed the agreement kept the city at parity, and said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He hoped that in the end, everyone would be pleased and proud of the facility.

John Lawter wrapped up the discussion by saying that PAC would likely ask Cooper to return for additional updates as the project progresses.

Leslie Science and Nature Center

Earlier in the meeting, John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair, asked commissioner Sam Offen to introduce Greta Brunschwyler. Offen is on the board of Leslie Science and Nature Center, and said they’d conducted a nationwide search following the resignation of former executive director Kirsten Levinsohn. [See Chronicle coverage: "Leslie Science Center Turns Calendar"] Brunschwyler had been the board’s unanimous choice to replace Levinsohn, Offen said.

Brunschwyler spoke briefly, saying she’d received a warm welcome in Ann Arbor. She previously was vice president for programs at the High Desert Museum in Bend, Oregon, and she had also served as director of the Nevada State Museum and Historical Society in Las Vegas. She planned to bring her skills to bear on her new job, she said, focusing on bringing really great programs to the community. She said she looked forward to an even stronger, more wonderful relationship between the city and the science center.

Volunteering with Natural Area Preservation Program

Jason Frenzel, volunteer and outreach coordinator for the city’s Natural Area Preservation program, gave a brief overview of different volunteer programs within the city. He told commissioners that in the coming months, he’d be bringing volunteers to PAC meetings – they would provide more detailed descriptions of the programs, he said. Volunteer opportunities range from biological inventories like the breeding birds survey or the toad and frog survey, to stewardship workdays, controlled burns, tree plantings and other activities.

In response to a question from commissioner Gwen Nystuen, Frenzel said that last year between 1,000 to 2,000 volunteers logged a total of about 7,000 hours. Each program varies in terms of the number of volunteers, recruitment policies and retention rates, he said.

Frenzel also thanked commissioners for their own volunteer efforts in the city’s parks.

Report from the Parks and Recreation Manager

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that their meetings in June, September and December of this year would be held at the Community Television Network studios, 2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite 200. Because of construction at the city’s new municipal center, PAC’s meetings are currenlty being held in the boardroom of the county administration building. During those months, however, the county needs to use the room for other meetings, Smith said.

PAC’s April meeting will be devoted to the budget, Smith said. Also in April, the parks staff expects to provide the city’s golf course task force with a draft of a request for proposals (RFP) for the Huron Hills Golf Course. The RFP will likely come to PAC in May, Smith said. [As part of the city's budget deliberations, the possibility of privatizing Huron Hills is being discussed. At their February meeting, PAC members received an update on that possibility from Julie Grand, who serves on the golf task force.]

Smith also noted that there had been quite a few emails about dogs being off-leash in Bird Hills. Last fall, police officers had spent some time in that area informing people about the city’s leash ordinance and handing out informational cards. Smith said he’s asked the police department to do the same thing this spring, if possible, but he said that given everything else on their plate, with fewer resources, this task might not rise to the top. It’s fair to say, Smith added, that the city’s leash ordinance isn’t followed very well – people should keep their dogs on a leash and pick up after them.

Present: John Lawter, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, Julie Grand, Doug Chapman, Karen Levin, Tim Berla, Mike Anglin (ex-officio), Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Absent: David Barrett, Scott Rosencrans

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 20 at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

The East Stadium bridges, looking west along Stadium Boulevard. (Photo by the writer.)

The city of Ann Arbor’s attempt to start accumulating cash to replace the East Stadium Boulevard bridges failed on Thursday when a statewide board appropriating money for large bridges declined to give the city a share of the available dollars.

City officials had hoped to secure a portion of the $5.7 million in federal and state dollars awarded by the Local Bridges Advisory Board on Thursday at a meeting in Lansing.

But with a limited pot of money, and applications for projects totaling tens of millions of dollars, the eight-member board opted to put the resources behind smaller-ticket bridges.

“Throwing a little bit at that big a problem isn’t going to get people anywhere,” said board chairman Robert Clegg, the city engineer in Port Huron.

Why Ann Arbor Didn’t Win State Funding

A share of the available dollars would have provided just a fraction of the $23 million that Ann Arbor officials estimate it will take to replace the bridges, which lead over the railroad tracks and State Street just east of the University of Michigan’s football stadium and Crisler Arena.

In contrast, significant portions of the three bridges that were funded on Thursday will be covered by the money approved by the board. The money will pay for projects in Kalamazoo County and in the cities of Hastings and Manistee.

Ann Arbor’s proposal was, in fact, the most costly of the 10 projects before the bridge board. And board member Wayne Harrall, of the Kent County Road Commission, also commented on the minimal impact an appropriation would have on the second largest project – a bridge in the City of Sterling Heights. That request also went unfunded.

Other concerns weakened Ann Arbor’s funding request as well.

Clegg, in particular, faulted the city’s application for the absence of any financial commitment from the University of Michigan.

“You’ve got a large partner next to the road that’s generating traffic impact,” he told Ann Arbor city engineers who were in Lansing to address the board, which is made up of representatives from county and local governments. “I don’t understand why the university hasn’t stepped up or used its influence to get federal dollars, and it’s disheartening.”

City of Ann Arbor engineers Mike Nearing, left, and Homayoon Pirooz responded to questions at the state Local Bridges Advisory Board meeting on Thursday in Lansing. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor engineer Homayoon Pirooz responded that it was unfair to punish the city for UM’s decision.

“Yes, the university benefits (from the bridges) like everyone else does,” he said. “We wish the university would contribute, but it’s not and the city can’t change that.”

Pirooz told the state board that the city was prepared to take on the lion’s share of the cost, if necessary.

That would mean using local street millage dollars normally dedicated to paving and maintenance. If Ann Arbor needed to use those locally-generated dollars on the bridges, most other maintenance work would be suspended for 3-4 years, he said. “It would have a significant impact on streets and roads.”

City officials have also contemplated the prospect of something like a 50-50 split between local and other funding sources, and of course still hope for a larger state and federal contribution, Priooz said.

The city is seeking federal funds either from a pending transportation bill or an economic-recovery program, known by the acronym TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery.)

It’s possible that yet another federal program could provide a low-interest loan to pay for sidewalks and bike lanes, Pirooz told The Chronicle. “If we get a little here and a little there, hopefully it will add up,” he said.

Clegg would have been happier to see more of that “adding up” done before an application for assistance reached the board.

“I’ve seen communities work and work and get [congressional] earmarks and then come in and tell us how much more they needed,” he told The Chronicle after the board meeting. “That gives you something to work with. This is a really big project and Ann Arbor’s asking ‘What can you do for us?’”

Short-Term Work to Address Safety Issues

Built before 1930, the bridges carry traffic over State Street and Ann Arbor Railroad tracks. They’ve been subject to weight limits for some time. Two of the four lanes were closed to take the load off a weakened beam on the State Street bridge earlier this year.

City officials last month decided to remove the sagging beam as well as several others alongside it, based on the advice of an outside consultant.

That will eliminate the risk of concrete dropping on to State Street. It will also leave “a big hole in the bridge,” said Pirooz, who heads the city’s project management office.

The beams would need to be removed anyway, as part of an eventual bridge replacement.

Concrete barriers and fencing will be put in place as part of the work scheduled to take place Nov. 15-18.

Statewide, Condition of Bridges a Concern

A federal bridge engineer attending the five-hour session in Lansing expressed concern about the condition of the state’s bridges in general and the East Stadium bridge over State Street in particular.

Jon Nekritz, Federal Highway Administration division bridge engineer for Michigan, said he was relieved to hear that a crumbling concrete beam will be removed later this month.

“I’m real concerned about this and other bridges I’ve seen recently,” he said. “We need to take this much more seriously than we are.”

He voiced similar worries about an Oakland County bridge that was also reviewed for potential funding.

Mark Harrison, bridge program manager for the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, at Thursday's meeting of the Local Bridges Advisory Board in Lansing. (Photo by the writer.)

Michigan Department of Transportation’s Mark Harrison, an engineer and the bridge program manager, said he’s seen a marked increase in bridges in poor condition – but no additional money.

Clegg also pointed to the lack of funding. “It’s a little bit daunting to have tens of millions of dollars in projects and less than $6 million to award,” he said.

Despite that, there was no objective set of criteria or any real system used to make the decisions.

A rating system is used in decisions made at the regional level, said Harrison. But members of the state-level board use their own discretion.

For Clegg, that included the view that the East Stadium plan is simply overlarge.

“They’ve got two bridges connecting, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. They’re going to raise them from where they are now… If you need more clearance, that’s what you do. It’s just too much,” he told The Chronicle.

The planned replacement bridges will be higher to meet current design standards. Like the old structures, they will have two lanes in each direction. Unlike the old structures, they will have sidewalks on both sides and bicycle lanes.

Federal authorities require both, said Nekritz, the federal bridge engineer.

Only one Ann Arbor resident – Arnold Goetzke – attended the session. But rather than call for support, Goetzke spoke against funding for new bridges and instead favored at-grade crossings. Goetze also addressed the Ann Arbor city council at the conclusion of their Thursday meeting during public commentary. He reiterating the view that he’s expressed before to them: The no-bridge option should be given formal study.

What About Bridge Replacement?

However, the preliminary design for the new bridges is done. Pirooz said work has begun on construction plans. “We hope to have the blueprints by midsummer.”

Work to replace the bridges is expected to begin next October, Pirooz told The Chronicle. The new bridges would be completed in the fall of 2012, he said. If neither the earmarks on the transportation bill nor the TIGER grant application are successful, they may well use up the majority of Ann Arbor’s street repair millage funds.

A yet-to-be-made decision about whether to close traffic completely or allow one-way traffic during construction would affect the duration of construction. That decision will fall to the city council.

The bridges carry an average of 25,000 plus cars a day.

About the writer: Judy McGovern lives in Ann Arbor. She has worked as a journalist here, and in Ohio, New York and several other states.

Three-year-old Alex Enrique pilots the penguin car down the South University hill.

“Car number 4 wins, Pete, that’s car number 4!” declared Ben Kaufman into his walkie talkie. “Pete” was Kaufman’s Phi Delta Theta fraternity brother, Peter DiLeo, who needed that information to keep track of the brackets for 16 cars in a double-elimination soap box derby held Saturday morning.

To organize the ALS fundraising event on the South University Avenue hill just east of the Phi Delta Theta house, the University of Michigan fraternity had joined with Ann Arbor Active Against ALS [A2A3] a local nonprofit that launched last November.

The mechanics of the fundraising effort were laid out for The Chronicle by the captain of a pirate-boat car, Cameron Kortes. It cost $25 to race a car of your own construction, $75 if you wanted Phi Delta Theta or A2A3 to build a car for you to race, or $100 to have a car both built and raced for you. Kortes said that for this inaugural year of the race, the emphasis was not on raising as much money as possible, but rather to establish it as an event that would attract the interest of the community as well as members of the fraternity internally.

Cameron Kortes was captain of the pirate boat car, which was entered by the Phi Delta Theta "pirate house." It's not the fraternity's house, but is rented by students who all are members.

That was a sentiment echoed by Kaufman.  It was hard to generate enthusiasm for something like a walk-a-thon, he said – something the fraternity had tried before. The soap box derby was a new approach.

What wasn’t new was the  focus by Phi Delta Theta on fundraising for ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease). That’s a common fundraising goal across Phi Delta Theta chapters. As Kortes explained, “Lou Gehrig was a Phi.”

Kaufman said this year the soap box derby was timed during Greek Week at the University of Michigan, which consists of student-run philanthropic activities running this year from March 23-31. And next year, Kaufman said, they hope to more fully integrate the derby into Greek Week with the  goal of attracting the interest of other fraternities and sororities to participate in the derby.

Several people at the event  mentioned the possibility of a different venue next year. Later in the day, The Chronicle bumped into city attorney Stephen Postema outside the Michigan Theater, and he said he recalled from his youth a different venue for a soap box derby in Ann Arbor: the hill on South Main Street running past Pioneer High School, ending at Stadium and Main by the Michigan football stadium.

The races on Saturday had a minor glitch at the beginning. The steepness of the starting ramps was sending the cars crashing a bit too heavily onto the street surface of the hill. (A photo of the ramps was Twittered to us by a Chronicle reader.) The ramps were not constructed by Phi Delta Theta member Carl Stanhope, who’s currently enrolled in UM’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts, but is taking engineering courses and will be transferring to the School of Engineering soon. His fraternity brother, Cameron Kortes, reported it was an unnamed music major who had built the ramps, and who endured some mild teasing in his absence. Aside from their steepness, the ramps appeared to be solidly constructed.

Alida Norton and Madeline Ward convey how they feel about getting ready to zoom down the South University hill.

The ramps were quickly abandoned in favor of a push-start, and that method proved to work smoothly for the rest of the afternoon. The pattern would be repeated through the brackets.

A2A3 organizer David Lowenschuss would call out the start through his megaphone, “On your mark, get set, go!”

The cars would get  a steady push from a designated pusher.

A crowd of exuberant kids would give chase down the hill after the cars.

Phi Delta Theta brothers at the base of the hill with a line of straw bales, acted as “catchers” to help slow down the cars. The cars got carried back to the top of the hill.

Rinse. Repeat.

The speeds weren’t terribly fast, but for young drivers, the intervention of the “catchers” helped ensure safety. Three-year-old Alex Enrique piloted his car straight into a hay bale and sustained a busted lip, but it was quickly treated in the form of a piece of gum offered by a friend of his. Participants are required to sign waivers.

Also helping to enforce safety is the requirement that helmets be worn. Or two helmets, if you like. On Saturday, Max Showalter, grandson of Elmer Spreitzer, had duct-taped on top of his own helmet Spreitzer’s soap box derby helmet from the 1950 Cleveland derby, a year he won two races before being eliminated.

Spreitzer’s daughter, Gretchen, is married to Bob Schoeni, whose diagnosis with ALS last year led to the launching of A2A3.

Showing The Chronicle a photograph from 1950 of himself in a soap box derby car, Spreitzer summed up the photograph and the day’s race: “Everybody was young once.”

Max Showalter, grandson of Elmer Spreitzer, wearing his grandad's helmet.

Elmer Spreitzer in the early 1950s in Cleveland at age 13-14 years. Note: The T-shirt shows that the event was sponsored by the local newspaper.

An Binh Tran, kindergartener at Lawton Elementary, with his brother, Ky Nam Tran.

Bob Schoeni congratulates a young driver on his performance.

Bob Schoeni spritzes the wheels with some WD-40 at the top of the hill.

Maja Breivik-Carlsen and Siv Breivik get a push at the top of the hill. Breivik said they'd lived in Ann Arbor since January, and that Bob Schoeni and Gretchen Spreitzer were among the first people they'd met.

Ben Kaufman wields walkie-talkie and megaphone to manage the bottom of the hill.

Peter DiLeo kept track of the brackets for the double-elimination competition.

What fun looks like.

Everything's going smooth ... and then you drive straight into the city of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor city council authorized the street closing for the event.

Sketch of the proposed Monroe Street closure. About this sketch, planning commissioner Eppie Potts remarked that it showed only university property and that it appeared that nothing else existed around it. She said that when the proposal came formally before the commission, it would need to include surrounding properties.

At planning commission’s working session on Tuesday night, held in the 6th floor conference room of the Larcom Building, representatives of the University of Michigan described a request for permanent closure of Monroe Street, between Oakland and State streets. Previously, The Chronicle covered the proposed Monroe Street closure as part of UM’s early December 2008 meeting with neighbors, which is now required under the city of Ann Arbor’s citizen participation ordinance.

Sue Gott, university planner, and Jim Kosteva, director of community relations, made the presentation to the commission’s working session for the permanent street closure, which would not come before the commission as a formal request until April 21 at the soonest, according to Connie Pulcipher, senior planner with the city of Ann Arbor, who attended the working session.

The presentation by Kosteva and Gott covered the history of central campus in the context of previous street vacations, as well as what the proposal meant for the future of the campus. Kosteva ticked through some permanent street closures that had been granted by the city of Ann Arbor – East University Street and Ingalls Mall in the 1970s, as well as a section of Monroe Street further to the east in the early 1980s. He highlighted Ingalls Mall as a successful public space which was open to the city community, noting that it is now the venue of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival. The Monroe Street vacation, he said, would be a continuation of this successful tradition.

Gott began by saying that in connection with its Museum of Art expansion, UM had done a thorough corridor study for State Street. The impact on traffic, she said, would be minor. She described State Street as having evolved to become an important “spine” for the campus, with connecting gateways in the form of North Quad (at State and Huron) and Weill Hall (State and Hill). Professional schools like the business school and the law school, she continued, benefited especially from the existence of a cohesive space. The Monroe Street conversion to an integral part of UM campus would, said Gott, help “glue our campus together.”

Gott said that the new law school building, planned for the south side of Monroe Street, was being designed consciously with uses that would integrate with activity in other buildings and promote the movement of people between buildings.   The new building, she continued, was not envisioned to be a separate module within the law school campus.

In discussion with planning commissioners, Jean Carlberg pointed out that the loss of 22 on-street parking spaces was of particular concern, especially given the proximity of those spaces to Dominick’s, which she described as not just a neighborhood establishment, but a city-wide institution. She pointed out that Dominick’s had a proposal in the works to expand. [By way of background on parking spaces, at the DDA's last board meeting, a resolution was passed asking city council to consider a formal policy attaching a dollar amount of $45,000 to the removal of any on-street parking space.]

Dave DeVarti, whose brother owns Dominick’s, attended the planning commission’s working session and was asked at the end of the meeting by planning commissioners what he thought the impact of the street closure on Dominick’s would be. While he said that the impact would be negative, that was not the reason he was there to speak.

Just prior to being queried about the impact on Dominick’s business, DeVarti had laid out the case he’d also made at the previous neighborhood meeting based on planning considerations. He said that while Gott had emphasized the integration and the cohesiveness of the campus itself, what is special, strong, and worth noting about the UM campus – as contrasted with the MSU campus – was its integration and coherence with respect to the rest of the community. It’s the dynamic interplay between UM and the community, both physically and geographically, that is worth highlighting, said DeVarti.

In other discussion among commissioners, the loss of parking spaces seemed to be of greatest concern. Commissioner Eric Mahler suggested to Kosteva and Gott that they needed to think of their audience when they bring the matter formally before the planning commission: the citizens who are going to “raise a ruckus” about the loss of on-street parking. Commissioner Eppie Potts said that she likes to park along Monroe when she goes to Dominick’s, although she allowed that she did not go there often.

Potts also raised the issue of the impact of the closure on traffic, given the grid pattern of the streets in the area. She said that the reason the grid worked was that if one street was temporarily unavailable, a driver could choose a different street. So the impact of closing off a street permanently was that the street became unavailable as a choice.

Tony Derezinski, who is city council’s representative to planning commission, asked whether alternatives like the existing tunnels (with which he was familiar as a UM Law School alum) or arches over the street had been explored.  Gott said that the idea of the street closure had less to do with the convenience factor of being able to cross the street than with creating the coherent and cohesive sense of space for the campus.

Kosteva pointed out that the dean of the law school was very much involved with the project, which was not yet formally approved or fully funded, and that it was an important factor in possible fundraising with UM alums. [Editorial note: A missed opportunity by The Chronicle to ask Derezinski: Would you be more or less inclined to donate money if the project included the vacated street?]

A final note about parking. A brief discussion evolved of the overall role of parking spaces in transportation demand management, which Kosteva said was an issue at UM as well as with the city of Ann Arbor. He highlighted  the already-implemented efforts at reducing demand (e.g., vanpooling, the M-Card program) as well as UM support for longer range projects (e.g., east-west and north-south commuter rail). A fact he said he’d be happy to have people quote was that more than 40% of UM staff arrive at work in something other than a single-occupancy vehicle.

Christopher Taylor's hand holding an orange mug.

Christopher Taylor, one of two Ann Arbor city council representatives for Ward 3, rode the totter a couple of weeks ago. His conversation is ready to read.

I would highlight the discussion of city-university relations as a topic of broader significance that was touched on while teetering. For details, read Taylor’s Talk.

Other topics on the totter included the orange mug he drank from on the occasion, the CTN mugs from his recent appearance on CTN’s Conversations, getting stuff done at the individual constituent level, snow removal in Ann Arbor, and how Taylor came to live in Ann Arbor.

With Christopher Taylor’s participation in Teeter Talk, the voting block on city council consisting of totter alums has been restored to its peak of 5 (of 11) current members. To be clear, I am in no way suggesting that alums of the totter on council represent a coalition of any kind or that they lord their participation in Teeter Talk over other non-tottering councilmembers.

Taylor also joined a select subset of totter alums that is likely tracked by few people other than me. Call them the “Orange Mug Gang,” or O.M.G. for short.

[Editor's Note: HD, a.k.a. Dave Askins, editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle, is also publisher of an online series of  interviews on a teeter totter. Introductions to new Teeter Talks appear on The Chronicle.]