The resolution considered by the council would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…” The resolution was sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

But after nearly an hour of debate, the council voted to refer the resolution to the park advisory commission instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broaden the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments] Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) cited the fact that under parliamentary rules, a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend, so the council voted on the referral before the vote to amend.

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. The resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations on June 16 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on this resolution. Taylor, one of the resolution’s co-sponsors, serves as an ex-officio member of PAC. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy.

PAC meets monthly, but its June 17 meeting has been canceled. The group had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which they completed last year. The council accepted the recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The result of council action is that a significant portion of the surface is still reserved as an urban park, and the property will be listed for sale without any delay for a public process. A decision on how to use the net proceeds of a potential sale of the land will be put off at least until June.

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

Originally on the agenda were just two resolutions related to the Library Lane parking structure: (1) a resolution directing the city administrator to allocate half the net proceeds from a possible upcoming sale of development rights to support affordable housing; and (2) a delay in hiring a broker to list the property for sale, until an additional public process could be completed. The council had voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to list the property for sale.

But the council wound up re-debating that March 17 resolution on listing the property for sale, as well as a resolution from March 17 that designated a 6,500-12,000 square foot area on the western portion of the Library Lane site as an urban park. At the start of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added the reconsideration of those two March 17 resolutions to the agenda.

First up for the council was the March 17 resolution on reserving a portion of the surface for an urban park. Kunselman moved to amend that resolution to restore the original wording of the March 17 resolution, which had called for a 12,000 square foot portion of the surface to be reserved as an urban park. That amendment passed over dissent from councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje. An attempt to postpone the resolution then failed on a 5-6 vote, with Kunselman, Hieftje, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) voting no. The vote on the question – which specified the portion of the Library Lane site to be reserved for an urban park as 12,000 feet – passed on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

Next up was reconsideration of the March 17 resolution directing the city administrator to list the Library Lane property for sale. Kunselman made it clear that he was bringing back the resolution for reconsideration to highlight why he had wanted the property listed for sale: He wanted definitive answers on the question of how many of the Library Lane structure parking spaces could be dedicated for private use – while still meeting the restrictions of the Build America Bonds used to finance the structure. The vote on that reconsidered resolution was 7-4 with dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin.

When the council arrived at the resolution that would have delayed the listing of the property for sale until a public process could be completed, a roughly 40-minute debate ensued. After a brief recess to sort out some kind of compromise, the general consensus – shared even by the resolution’s sponsors (Eaton, Anglin and Briere) – was that it should be voted down and possibly brought back sometime in the future. The vote to reject the delaying resolution was 11-0.

On the item allocating 50% of the net proceeds from a potential sale of the Library Lane development rights, the council wound up postponing the question until the first meeting in June, which comes after the council approves the FY 2015 budget. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

More details on the debate to increase the square footage of a park is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the April 7 meeting. The live updates also cover deliberations on reconsidering the resolution about listing the Library Lane site for sale, and on a move to delay hiring a broker. The discussion about allocating net proceeds from a potential sale is also part of The Chronicle’s live updates.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron after the meeting concluded at around 1:30 a.m.

From left: AADL associate director Eli Neiburger, board president Prue Rosenthal, and board treasurer Jan Barney Newman.

On a 6-1 vote, the board asked the council to reject designating a portion of that city-owned site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time. Nancy Kaplan cast the lone dissenting vote.

In presenting the resolution, Rebecca Head noted that the library hasn’t objected to the concept of open space at the Library Lane site, as part of overall development of that city-owned property. But the AADL board resolution states that the council resolution “does not allocate the City resources needed to create a successful park, such as physical maintenance, programming, and monitoring unsafe behavior; and … the City has not been able to allocate resources for those purposes to the nearby Liberty Plaza park, Wheeler park, Sculpture plaza on North 4th Ave., or the Kerrytown plaza. …”

Several trustees weighed in to support the resolution. Barbara Murphy said she was conflicted, because she supports having a park or plaza on the Library Lane site at some point. But the council resolution seemed to be putting the cart before the horse, she said. She pointed out that the AADL board resolution is not advocating for tall buildings – but some kind of development is needed, she said.

In dissenting, Kaplan described the long history of efforts to put a public park or plaza on the Library Lane site. She didn’t want to cut off that process. Kaplan also raised the point that the library board would be asking the council to reject a resolution without knowing the exact content of that resolution – because the council could amend the resolution during its deliberations later in the evening. [The council did make a significant amendment to the part of the resolution addressing the amount of square footage.]

Board president Prue Rosenthal told Kaplan that “I don’t think we’re trying to cut off anything.” All that the AADL is asking, Rosenthal said, is that issues should first be addressed – like how the park would be used, who’ll take care of it, how the security will be handled – “so that behavior we’ve seen around the outside of the [downtown library] building will not increase in that space and spill over into our library.”

AADL director Josie Parker attended the city council meeting, which started at the same time as the library board meeting but didn’t adjourn until 1 a.m. Parker read aloud the board’s resolution to the council, and described some of the challenges that the downtown library faces with security.

The downtown library was the focus of another part of the March 17 AADL board meeting, as trustees were updated on renovations to the front entrance. Ken Van Tine, an architect from InForm Studio, answered questions about possible design revisions since a March 13 public forum. InForm will be presenting a revised design to the board’s facilities committee, before the design is brought to the full board for approval.

Trustees also received results from an EPIC-MRA survey that the library had commissioned. About 500 respondents were surveyed in mid-February. Bernie Porn – president of the Lansing-based firm – described the outcome as “a great news poll, in terms of results, and I think you all should be very, very proud.” There are a couple areas of concern, he said, “but they’re not the kinds of things that can’t be overcome.”

The library previously did a survey in early 2012, in part to gauge public support for financing a new downtown library. The board later put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to fund a new downtown building, but it failed to receive a majority of votes. Since 2012, the positive job rating for AADL has increased by 7 points – from 81% in 2012 to 88% in 2014. That’s a significant increase, Porn said. The 2014 survey also showed that only 3 in 10 respondents knew that AADL is “an independent governmental body” funded by its own separate tax assessment. This is one area of concern, Porn noted, adding that it’s certainly something that’s “solvable.”

The current survey results are expected to help guide development of the library’s next strategic plan, which will be completed later this year.

On March 17, the board also passed a resolution authorizing the library director to enter into a bike share program license agreement with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition. The CEC is managing the new program called ArborBike, which is launching this spring. It would include a bike station on AADL’s downtown library property on South Fifth Avenue, as well as locations at other sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. There will be about 14 bikes at the downtown AADL station on the north side of its property.

Library Lane Park

The Ann Arbor city council’s March 17 agenda included two resolutions related to the city-owned Library Lane site, where an underground parking structure is located just north of the downtown library on South Fifth Avenue. A new resolution directed the city administrator to take steps toward possibly selling the development rights for the top of the Library Lane structure. Another council resolution, proposed from its March 3, 2014 meeting, would designate a portion of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

It was the second council resolution that prompted action from the AADL board on March 17.

Rebecca Head, chair of the board’s communications committee, reported that the committee had met with Ann Arbor city councilmembers and the mayor “to open up the communications pathway between the Ann Arbor District Library board and city officials.” Committee members are Head, Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal.

Head said that each councilmember was asked about their vision for downtown development and for the future of the city-owned Library Lane surface. At the end of those meetings, she said, the committee drafted a resolution in response to the city council resolution that focuses on the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of AADL resolution] [.pdf of council resolution at the start of its March 17 council meeting]

Head introduced the resolution from the floor – it had not been included with the original board packet. [At the March 17 council meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that he'd met with AADL board members, but that they had not indicated that they were contemplating passing a resolution.]

The resolved clause states:

That the AADL Board asks the Council to reject the Resolution until the entire site at 319 South Fifth Avenue receives a complete review by experts in zoning, land use, economic development, and others who can determine the highest and best use of the property; ensure the safety and security of AADL patrons; and consult with the owners and occupants of surrounding properties, downtown business owners, and other stakeholders Council may identify.

Library Lane Park: Board Discussion

Jan Barney Newman thought the resolution stated the board’s feelings very clearly and accurately regarding the aspects of development needed on that site for the safe, intelligent and productive use of the space. She supported the resolution.

AADL trustees Ed Surovell and Rebecca Head.

Barbara Murphy said she found herself somewhat conflicted, because she strongly supports the concept of some sort of open space there. But in some ways, she said, the cart is being put before the horse. The council resolution talks about creating a park there of a certain size without addressing the various issues of how it will be handled financially or in terms of security, she noted. Further, the council resolution makes a suggestion that the library be part of programming the site, she said, but there’s been no consultation about that.

Murphy supported the AADL resolution, but hoped that the council would take it in the spirit in which it’s intended – that the board is cautious about the council moving too quickly and approving something without full details.

Margaret Leary said the communications committee drafted the resolution very carefully. “We didn’t want to overstate AADL’s position,” she said. AADL never objected to the plans from 2007-2008 that showed a plaza on that site, Leary noted. The library board also reviewed the report that the city’s park advisory committee had passed in the fall of 2013 – which called for a plaza at Library Lane – and trustees didn’t object to that.

The intent when the Library Lane parking structure was built was to create a plaza in conjunction with development on that site, Leary said. The city went to the trouble of rezoning that property as D1 – rather than public land – so that a very large, tall building could be put there, she noted. The idea was to surround the plaza with buildings that would be filled with people as much of the day and night as possible, seven days a week, in order to activate the park or plaza. The park would be activated by the presence of the buildings, she said.

The second important piece of that approach is that the city wouldn’t have to pay for the park or maintain it, Leary said. The developer and owner of the buildings surrounding the park or plaza would see the advantage of having it, and it would be sized appropriately for the number of people who might use it. There would be activities planned on it “so that it would not become a lounging area for people who had no place else to go,” Leary said. Her hope is that the site will be developed as originally planned, and that it won’t be an expense for the city at all.

Murphy responded, pointing out that the AADL resolution doesn’t mention tall buildings or indicate support for that. Murphy said she agreed with Leary that the plaza or park should be activated by something, but not necessarily by tall buildings.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

Nancy Kaplan said this resolution had caused her to do some homework. She noted that the proposal for a park or plaza on the Library Lane site has been on the city’s agenda for a long time. She pointed to a 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman report that looked at development of the entire block. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] The report includes a concept drawing for a park or plaza on South Fifth Avenue, in addition to Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division, she noted. Kaplan read from the report, which stated that a park or public open space should be developed on the South Fifth Avenue side: “Downtown is almost totally devoid of grass. There is no grass to sit on or eat lunch. No grass for young children to play on. No grass to provide a welcome change of ground plane from the concrete, brick and asphalt of downtown.”

Kaplan said she gives this report a lot of credibility because the authors included Carl Luckenbach, the architect who designed the AADL’s Malletts Creek branch as well as initial plans for a new downtown library. He was also the architect for the Library Lane underground parking structure, she noted.

The city’s park advisory commission report is another factor, Kaplan said. PAC’s report came about after the Connecting William Street study, when the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority stated that they “don’t do parks,” Kaplan said. So the city council asked PAC to study the issue. Kaplan said PAC’s process was very good, and included meeting with specific groups as well as the general public. PAC also did a survey, she said.

PAC’s recommendations state that “any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences,” Kaplan noted. She read from the PAC report: “The Library Lot is large in size and has a central location that was ranked highest by survey and public meeting participants alike for potential park space.” She said PAC acknowledged that programming and maintenance would be needed.

Finally, Kaplan pointed out that the AADL board isn’t at the city council meeting, “so we do not know precisely what will be proposed, how it will be modified, whether it will be voted up or down or postponed.” There are two council resolutions that are on the agenda that night, she noted – to designate an urban park location, and to use a broker to sell the property. The library board doesn’t know how deed restrictions or premiums might be used to get commitments that would benefit both the park and the developer, she said.

Those people who support a park on the site want it to be successful and safe, Kaplan said. “I think it is not necessary to cut off all that has been done to study the Library Lot.” Rather, the process should continue with participation from all the property owners and the community, she said. Kaplan concluded by saying she wouldn’t support the resolution.

Prue Rosenthal responded, saying “I don’t think we’re trying to cut off anything.” All that the AADL is asking, she said, is that issues should first be addressed – like how the park would be used, who’ll take care of it, how the security will be handled “so that behavior we’ve seen around the outside of the [downtown library] building will not increase in that space and spill over into our library.” Rosenthal thought the council resolution actually cuts off the possibility of making the most out of that site.

From left: AADL trustees Margaret Leary and Nancy Kaplan.

Kaplan said the council resolution merely designates the space as a park. The community has supported that, she said – even architects and engineers. She noted that the resolution being brought forward by councilmember Stephen Kunselman would direct the city administrator to hire a broker to start the process of developing that site.

Head told Kaplan that she appreciated the history Kaplan had highlighted – “in particular the report from 23 years ago, though I have to say that a lot has changed in Ann Arbor in 23 years, including the use of Liberty Plaza.” Head was very concerned about what happens in Liberty Plaza, saying she knows it’s not a sustainable park. The whole point of the AADL resolution is that “we are for parks,” Head said. Although it’s the city council’s business, “it has a huge effect on the downtown library.” So the AADL resolution asks that the city do its homework first, she said, “and then let’s have a park – that would be great.”

If there’s a park at the Library Lane site, Head said she wanted it to last. “I don’t want it to be a park that isn’t used, that has problems, that is not sustainable. I want a sustainable park that we can all use.”

Murphy said Kaplan had brought up an interesting point about the uncertainty of the council’s action – because it’s not clear what the council resolution will ultimately be. She wondered if the AADL resolution should be amended, asking the council to exercise extreme caution in moving forward until the entire site receives a complete review. That might be a way of letting the council know how concerned the library board is, without opposing a specific council resolution, she said.

Newman noted that the council resolution called for a park along the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue. She said she’s read opinions from planners and architects who say that would be a detriment to any other development on the site.

In fact, the council resolution was amended later in the evening on March 17. Council deliberations highlighted the question of whether the public area would take up the entire Fifth Avenue frontage. The idea of a cantilevered building over the northwest corner of the site was championed by Kunselman as one approach. The city council’s key resolved clause, as adopted at the Mach 17 states:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

Newman said the mayor had made a very interesting proposal of connected green areas on city properties, “which would give a lot of opportunity for gathering and meeting in a public grassy area in a number of locations,” she said. [Mayor John Hieftje made that presentation at the council's March 3, 2014 meeting.] As long as those proposals are being considered, Newman added, it’s really premature to designate the Library Lane site as a park. The library is interested in careful planning of a permanent public space.

At this point, Leary called the question – a procedural move to end debate and force a vote.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, the board passed a resolution opposing the city council resolution about designating a portion of the Library Lane site as a park. Nancy Kaplan dissented.

Library Lane Park: City Council Action

Later in the evening, the council did amend its resolution during a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

AADL director Josie Parker before the start of the March 17, 2014 city council meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) brought forward an amendment to the first resolved clause, describing the site as a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time. The original resolution, developed by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) in collaboration with the Library Green Conservancy, had designated 12,000 square feet as the size, running across the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue.

The council’s discussion included remarks by AADL director Josie Parker, who attended the council meeting and was called upon by mayor and other councilmembers to comment. She read aloud the AADL board’s resolution.

In her initial remarks to the council, made at the invitation of mayor John Hieftje during the council’s deliberations, Parker described the current challenges faced by the library in managing its space. She rejected the idea of labeling the problem as one related to the homeless.

And I would just like to point out to all of us here tonight that the public library in Ann Arbor is actually the only public building in the community that is a park within walls. All of the conditions that exist in a public space outside every day exist every day inside the public library.

It takes a lot of money to manage that space in such a way so that everyone there is comfortable, everyone there is safe. And it isn’t about a label. You have not heard me use a word used here tonight multiple times by many of you. You’ve never heard me use that word in expressing concern of the public library board about the existence of a public park next to the public library.

It’s about behavior. Any group that tilts the balance of a public space out of proportion to anyone else in that space can cause a disruption and discomfort. A teenager. A lot of crying babies. Anyone. It is not about a condition. I will say to you this evening, because I’m compelled, some of the most obnoxious behavior exhibited at the public library in Ann Arbor is done by persons who are very well housed, very well fed, and very well educated. It is not about those things. It is just about simply behavior.

Later during the council’s March 17 meeting, Parker was asked again to take the podium by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In her second set of remarks, Parker was more explicit about some of the worst behavior: heroin use. She cited security concerns, and pointed out that the police are already called to the downtown library every three days or so. “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful,” Parker told the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had characterized the AADL board’s position as “fear mongering,” and Parker’s remarks in part responded to that characterization:

There have been five heroin ODs in the public library in the three and half years – the last one in the last five months. This is your public library. Your downtown public library. This is not fear mongering. This is real. … It isn’t about adding a problem, it isn’t about making a problem worse. It’s about acknowledging reality. It’s just a reality.

Most of the issues currently in the public library are drunk and disorderly. … Right now, it’s probably every day that someone is removed from the library by the police department for drunk and disorderly, almost every day. This is your downtown public library. …

We’re not saying “no park.” We’re saying take the time to plan it properly in the context of what is truly occurring downtown. … You have heroin in your community and no one wants to talk about it. It’s being sold in the public library, it’s being used in the public library. And people are being taken out unconscious OD’d in the public library. … We are asking you to think about this again. We are asking you to make sure you have the funds to manage what you’re planning, so it is a success.

I think a park with playground equipment and fountains for the little children who come in and out of the library sounds wonderful. I can’t imagine my child playing in a playground with needles on the ground. Unless someone is cleaning them up every morning, the way they do in Liberty Plaza, that’s what will be there. … We’re asking you to plan the same way, so that if a plaza or park is near the public library, it’s successful.

After about 2.5 hours of discussion, the council voted 7-3 to pass the urban park resolution as amended. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent.

The council also passed the resolution directing the city administrator to obtain brokerage services and to list the surface of the Library Lane deck for sale. A key “whereas” clause and two of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;

Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

The phrase “public space” sometimes is meant to include publicly-accessible, but privately-owned space. Kunselman responded to an emailed query about his intended interpretation of “public space” by writing: “It’s meant to give the broadest interpretation so as to solicit the widest range of interest by prospective purchasers.”

A report on deliberations at the council meeting is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

Downtown Library Entrance

The AADL administration and board have been seriously discussing renovations to the downtown library’s front entrance since the summer of 2013, prompted by concerns about the poor condition of the entrance doors. The board’s facilities committee – Margaret Leary, Jan Barney Newman and Ed Surovell – have been taking the lead from the board’s perspective.

Revised design for a sign on the renovated entrance to the downtown AADL building. (Image from InForm Studio.)

At its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting, the full board was briefed about initial concept designs for the entrance. The project’s architect is InForm Studio, the architecture firm that previously designed AADL’s Traverwood branch.

The entrance would continue to be oriented to South Fifth Avenue, with new doors into the building. The initial plans called for replacing the existing strip of teal panels that wrap around the front of the building – above the doors and windows – with a “concrete skin” panel. Wood paneling would be used in the ceiling of the outside walkway adjacent to the building. Sloping entry walkways would be located on the north side from the Library Lane parking structure and on the south side from William Street, with steps in front leading to South Fifth Avenue. Additional elements include landscaping, a bench, handrails and other features that visually link the library to the adjacent city-owned Library Lane.

One of the most dramatic elements of the original design was a large, translucent sign – made of glass or cast resin – that would be placed between existing brick columns on the north side of the front facade, closest to Library Lane. The idea was for the sign to be lit from the inside, with additional lighting along the walkway, to create a glowing effect. Some board members expressed concerns about that sign and the potential to create security problems, since it would screen a portion of the walkway.

Subsequently, a public forum was held on March 13 to get feedback. At that meeting, new versions of the design were presented that changed the size and location of the sign. Other revisions were made to the front steps and the color of the horizontal strip on the front facade.

Downtown Library Entrance: Facilities Committee Report

At the board’s March 17 meeting, Margaret Leary, chair of the facilities committee, said she wanted to address an issue that was raised during the March 13 public forum to get input on the proposed renovations to the front entrance. Some people had advocated to move the front entrance from the building’s west side, facing South Fifth Avenue, to the north side, facing Library Lane. She said she had previously reported to the board about the facilities committee’s deliberations on that issue. From The Chronicle’s report of the Feb. 17, 2014 meeting:

The first thing that InForm was asked to do, Leary said, was to look at whether the entry should remain at its current orientation, facing South Fifth Avenue on the west, or be moved to the north of the building, facing the Library Lane underground parking structure. Leary noted that a north entrance would have been used if the library had built a new building.

But when the committee considered the consequences of moving the entrance now, in terms of the amount of usable space on the first floor, they decided against it. It would have taken all the space used by the existing teen room, she said, and the entire first floor would have been reorganized, as well as possibly some things in the basement and other floors.

People at the March 13 forum had asked about that decision, Leary noted, so she wanted to expand on the rationale for it. The idea of orienting the entrance to the north first emerged during the city’s planning for the adjacent Library Lane underground parking structure and discussion of the potential development on top of that structure, she said. That discussion was in conjunction with talks about how a potential new AADL building might mesh with whatever might be developed on the Library Lane site. Neither of those two possibilities – a new AADL building, or new buildings on top of the Library Lane structure – appear imminent, Leary said, so the reason for orienting the library’s entrance to the north no longer exists.

Will Hathaway, a member of the Library Green Conservancy, addressed the AADL board at a March 13, 2014 public forum about the downtown library front entrance. He asked the board to consider re-orienting the entrance to the north side, facing Library Lane.

Despite these circumstances, Leary continued, the AADL asked InForm Studio last fall to look at the possibility of moving the entrance to the building’s north side. The facilities committee learned that it would not be easy or inexpensive, she said. There are grade changes running in two directions on the site, she explained – from north to south, and east to west. That means that a new entrance on the north side, in order to be accessible, would require using much of the interior of the building on that side, where the teen room is now located. It would require complex structural changes instead of cosmetic changes to the west side.

In addition, putting the entrance to the north would require moving the teen room, Leary said, which would add to the cost and perhaps create a “cascading effect of moves” of other operations within the first floor and possibly the basement.

Leary also pointed out that installing a new entrance to the north would result in a disruption of operations for a significant period. The overall cost of undertaking this project would run into the millions, she said. This is based on AADL’s experience with earlier renovations and with cost estimates obtained in 2010 and 2011 for renovating the building. That compares to an estimated cost of a few hundred thousand dollars for the west entrance renovations, she said.

More importantly, Leary said, renovating the existing entrance will better serve AADL’s current patrons, who arrive from the north, south and west in about equal numbers. Putting the entrance on the north would effectively hide it from patrons arriving from the south or coming from the University of Michigan along William, she said. The improvements to the current entrance will also improve accessibility from the north, Leary said.

The current orientation to the west is appropriate for the library and for adjacent sites, Leary concluded. “An entrance on the north would be both expensive and impractical.”

Downtown Library Entrance: Revised Design

Ken Van Tine, one of the principals from InForm Studio, attended the March 17 meeting to answer questions about the updated version of the design.

Ken Van Tine of InForm Studio.

Barbara Murphy noted that the board had received several communications about the front entrance. One that struck her in particular was from a2modern, a group created to highlight mid-century modern architecture in Ann Arbor. Members of a2modern feel that any changes to the front will destroy Alden Dow’s original design concept. Her personal view, Murphy said, is that by making two large additions and various other changes over the years, “the building is not what it once was, and it doesn’t have any particular historic value.” She was curious about Van Tine’s opinion on that issue.

Van Tine replied that he had a lot of respect for Alden Dow. Dow was very innovative and progressive for his time, and was always on the forefront of architecture. “Do I think he’d want to stay set in his ways? No, I don’t think he really would,” Van Tine said.

The porcelain panels on the front facade probably aren’t what Dow would have selected if he’d had his choice, Van Tine said. Dow typically used copper, so the selection of porcelain was probably a budget issue – that was Van Tine’s speculation.

The a2modern members had also raised concerns about changing the color of those panels. Van Tine said keeping the same color would be fine. Rebecca Head said her understanding is that the colors have changed significantly over the years – the original color was teal, she said, and now it’s turquoise. Van Tine noted that exposure to the sun plays a big role in changing colors and fading.

Nancy Kaplan reported that Doug Kelbaugh – an architect and professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning – had also spoken at the March 13 forum and had been in favor of keeping the teal porcelain panels. Prue Rosenthal disputed Kaplan’s characterization of Kelbaugh’s remarks, saying it wasn’t about keeping those specific panels. Rather, she said, he objected to the possibility that a new sign would cover part of the panels.

The Chronicle attended the March 13 forum. Here’s what Kelbaugh had to say:

I think this design has a lot of very nice nuances and subtle details that really do enhance the entrance. Speaking to this question of respecting and honoring Alden Dow’s initial intentions and his design, I think people are right to say that this horizontal band is important. I think it’s a distinguishing feature. So I actually don’t think it’s a good idea to put the sign on it, to be honest with you. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s possible to replace the enamel panels in a color that would exactly match. It’s a very tricky technology and I think that to get it to match, particularly as it’s weathered so long, would be difficult. So I think maybe the whole band would have to be done, either in an enamel or some other sympathetic material. So I agree with that.

I too was worried … about the translucent panel blocking and making the ramp up a little too hidden from public view, and I’m wondering if that could be solved simply by making it transparent rather than translucent. Above eye level it could be translucent with a sign, and it could either bleed slowly into transparency or at a line. I think it’s possible to have the original glass pylon in a way that doesn’t interrupt the horizontal band, that is a nice feature without making it a security risk at all.

I think the bench is beautifully designed and the ramp to the south is very elegant as well. I’m wondering if the little triangular piece of grass sticking out … is going to get trampled to death. A lot of people are going to want to turn that corner to go down Library Lane. I would consider pulling that back, which makes the ramp more accessible to everybody, not just people who are physically challenged. I think it’s going to be tough to maintain. I think all of these issues could be addressed and I applaud the library for going ahead.

As for an entrance on the north side, it would be wonderful. I think that awaits a bigger renovation. This is pretty cosmetic. There probably should ultimately be an entrance on the north, but I think at this point it would be premature. It’s quite possible that the future will hold opportunities to make a really good entrance on the north, rather than a sort of compromise one.

At the March 17 AADL board meeting, Kaplan wondered if InForm had revised its design based on suggestions made at the March 13 public forum, especially regarding rails and signs in Braille. Would the board be seeing another iteration?

Margaret Leary responded, saying that the facilities committee had discussed the major items from that forum. The committee has asked AADL director Josie Parker to talk with the architects about three things in particular: (1) the addition of a second handrail; (2) signs; and (3) the front bench. The architects haven’t been specifically been asked to do anything yet, Leary said.

Van Tine said he’s aware of some of the issues but there aren’t any new designs yet. “What we’ve done so far is very conceptual,” he added. “There’s nothing written in stone.” Everything is very flexible at this point.

Murphy asked about maintaining access during construction. Would the current front entrance remain open? Van Tine replied that they’d likely close off half of the entrance, but the other half would remain open.

In terms of process, Leary said that InForm will develop a new plan after talking with Parker, and that plan will be reviewed by the facilities committee before coming to the board for approval.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

EPIC-MRA Survey Results

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA, gave a presentation to the board about results from a recent survey conducted for the library.

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA.

By way of background, at its Jan. 20, 2014 meeting, the board had approved a budget adjustment of $25,000 for a satisfaction survey of 500-600 library district residents, to be conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA.

The library previously did a survey in early 2012, in part to gauge public support for financing a new downtown library. The board later put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to fund a new downtown building, but it failed to receive a majority of votes.

In general, the new survey measured the public’s recognition of AADL’s products and services, the regard for AADL as a public institution in the region, and the avenues by which people obtain information about the library. Results will help inform the library’s next long-term strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs through 2015.

In presenting the summary on March 17, Porn described it as “a great news poll, in terms of results, and I think you all should be very, very proud.” There are a couple areas of concern, he added, “but they’re not the kinds of things that can’t be overcome.” [.pdf of 2014 survey results] [.pdf of 2014 results compared to 2012]

The 500-sample survey was conducted between Feb. 9-15. The process involved randomly selecting commercially listed telephone numbers as well as cell phone numbers, stratified so that each area of the district in terms of population was reflected in the sample. It’s a plus-or-minus 4.4 error rate, with a 95% confidence level. Participants were adult residents of the Ann Arbor Public Schools district, which has the same boundaries as AADL. Porn noted that the survey didn’t screen for registered voters. Of all respondents, 63% were residents of Ann Arbor, 20% were residents of Pittsfield Township, and 17% were residents of all other parts of the district.

Key survey findings include:

• Since 2012, the positive job rating for AADL providing library services increased by 7 points – from 81% in 2012 to 88% in 2014. That’s a significant increase, Porn said.
• There was a 17 point increase in the percentage of households that use AADL facilities/programs – from 61% in 2012 to 78% in 2014.
• Only 3 in 10 respondents knew that AADL is “an independent governmental body” funded by its own separate tax assessment. This is one area of concern, Porn noted, but it’s certainly something that’s solvable.
• Only 2 in 10 households had no members who use any AADL facilities or services.
• Nearly half of households with no members who used AADL said the top reason for not using it was “having the Internet at home” or “getting everything they need online.”
• Top AADL services used were: book loans (35%); DVD-video (13%); and Internet access (6%).
• Less that 3 in 10 knew that AADL subscribes to databases and online services like Brainfuse Homework Help, Ancestry.com and Reference USA Business Databases.
• More than 6 in 10 were aware of the events, exhibits and classes described to them. Among those who were aware, 3 in 4 said one or more household members attended such events or activities, and 58% offered the highest satisfaction rating.
• The best ways respondents said to communicate with them is e-mail, the AADL website, direct mail and newspapers.
• 12% said the “library” is a local government service that provides the most value for taxes paid, with “school-education” (20%) and “police-public safety” (13%) scoring higher.
• With the growth of computers and the Internet, 52% said libraries are about the same importance as before, 35% said libraries are more important, with 13% saying less important.

Porn’s presentation, which lasted about 45 minutes, reviewed these and other results in more detail, including a demographic breakdown of responses. [.pdf of EPIC-MRA presentation]

When respondents were asked about the level of taxes for all government services – a standard question in all surveys, Porn said – 29% said that taxes were too high, while 57% said taxes were “about right” and 6% indicated taxes were “too low.” He said that when “too high” responses are over 30%, it indicates that taxpayers are less persuadable for a tax increase. Taxpayers are most receptive when responses are in the teens or low-20s, he said. Tax proposals are very difficult to pass when percentages of “too high” responses are in the 40% range or higher.

Barbara Murphy said she was “flabbergasted” by the number of respondents who said taxes were about right or too low. “That’s not who comments in the newspaper,” she said.

Porn then showed responses about the level of taxes specifically for AADL. Of respondents, 16% indicated that taxes were too high for AADL, compared to 67% who said taxes were about right and 11% who said taxes for AADL were too low. “People see value clearly from the taxes they pay for their library,” he said.

Porn showed demographic breakdown for respondents who said that taxes for AADL were too high. Highlights included: 26% were age 50 or older with no college education; 35% said they didn’t use libraries or used libraries other than AADL; 37% thought taxes were too high in general for local government/schools; 22% thought AADL was part of city government, used the library few times a year, or have incomes over $100,000.

“You can target these groups and provide educational information that may help them feel less negative toward taxes,” Porn said. He added that those weren’t really negative numbers.

EPIC-MRA chart of recent survey results for a question about AADL taxes.

Porn reviewed how respondents thought AADL was funded: 30% knew that AADL was an independent governmental body with its own separate property tax assessment. But 23% thought AADL was a division of Ann Arbor city government and paid for from tax revenue received by the city, and 12% thought it was part of the Ann Arbor public schools and funded from tax dollars allocated to the local school operating budget.

“The problem that you run into because of this uncertainty is that when you do have a situation in the future … when you’re looking at renewing taxes or increasing taxes for services, if people feel that you’re competing with other levels of government and not an entity unto yourself, that can cause them to think that a vote for the library is taking something away from these other people that they inaccurately believe are a source of your funding,” Porn said. “That is probably the one thing in the survey that you need to address – and I think it can be addressed with branding and information that your communications folks can put together.”

By way of background, in 1994, Proposal A changed the state law so that public school systems could no longer operate public libraries using the school millage. When that happened, the Ann Arbor Public Schools and city of Ann Arbor moved to form the Ann Arbor District Library as a separate entity. In 1995, voters approved the establishment of the AADL with an independent governing board. At the same time, voters authorized a 2.0 mill tax in perpetuity to operate the library system – the millage does not require renewal. Due to the state’s Headlee Amendment, that 2.0 mills has been rolled back over the years to about 1.92 mills, which is now the maximum amount that AADL can levy each year. However, the library currently levies only a portion of that amount – 1.55 mills. The millage rate is authorized each year as part of the library’s budget cycle. The AADL did seek a separate 30-year millage in 2012 as part of a bond proposal to build a new downtown library. A majority of voters rejected that initiative.

Ed Surovell wondered if there was any correlation between home ownership and the understanding about how AADL is funded. Porn replied that the survey didn’t ask whether respondents were renters or homeowners. Porn said he’d be in favor of asking that question in future surveys.

Margaret Leary noted that last fall, the city of Ann Arbor had paid for a survey by an outside agency that does surveys nationwide for municipalities. It provided comparative information to other cities. [National Citizens Survey was conducted for the city in the fall of 2013 by mailing a questionnaire to a random sample of 3,000 city residents, 778 of whom completed surveys. .pdf of draft Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey report and .pdf of responses, benchmarks, methodology and questionnaire]

Porn described that type of survey as, to a large extent, a “cookie cutter survey that does not give a great deal of customization.” Leary said she understood that, but in exchange you get comparative data.

Leary asked how Porn would compare the accuracy and validity of surveys like the National Citizens Survey and the EPIC-MRA survey to a SurveyMonkey survey with self-selected respondents that didn’t monitor how many times any individual could respond, and that didn’t let the entire community know about it.

Porn replied that self-selection leads to the same phenomenon as people who write to their legislators – people who are passionate about a particular issue, either for or against it.

Leary asked a more pointed question: Can you make public policy based on a SurveyMonkey survey? Porn indicated that it was not a good idea to do that.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Bike Share Agreement

On the March 17 agenda was a resolution authorizing the library director to enter into a bike share program license agreement with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition. [.pdf of bike share agreement]

The CEC is managing a new bike share program called ArborBike, which is launching this spring. It would include a bike station on AADL’s downtown library property on South Fifth Avenue, as well as locations at other sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. There will be about 14 bikes at the downtown AADL station on the north side of its property.

The AADL board had been briefed on the program at their Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, and received an update about the agreement on Feb. 17, 2014. The library has been waiting for the University of Michigan to finalize its agreement with the CEC, before moving forward with an agreement that would require board approval.

Margaret Leary, chair of the board’s facilities committee, reported that the committee had met earlier in the day and supported the agreement. The library’s attorney has reviewed the agreement and has stated that it is fair and protects the library from liability issues, she said. The agreement also has adequate provisions for the library to get out of it if necessary, Leary noted. The bike share program seems like a good use of the downtown facility, she concluded. She added that the library’s own bike racks might be moved, but won’t be eliminated.

Rebecca Head said she’s thrilled that this is happening. UM has already signed an agreement, she noted, “and when the university feels that liability issues are taken care of, I think the Ann Arbor District Library can also feel like the liability issues have been taken care of.”

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the bike share agreement.

Committee Reports

The board has seven committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, executive, and strategic plan. Because membership on each committee consists of only three trustees, which is less than a quorum of the board, the meetings are not required to be open to the public under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The board has the option of making its committee meetings open to the public, but has chosen not to do so.

On March 17, three committee reports were given – facilities, strategic plan, and communications. The facilities and communications reports are included in other sections of this article.

Committee Reports: Strategic Plan

Nancy Kaplan, chair of the strategic plan committee, reported that the committee met on Feb. 25. Other committee members are Rebecca Head and Barbara Murphy. They discussed the history of AADL’s strategic initiatives, and the process of developing an updated strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs through 2015.

She quoted from the introduction to the 2004-2010 strategic plan, which describes it as “a guide that helps inform decisions and focus energy. It does not supercede current policies or any laws governing district library practices. It is a flexible, living document that will be visible and updated annually.”

With that in mind, Kaplan said, the committee decided to keep the current strategic initiatives. Each initiative includes goals and projects, so those will be updated with input from staff and a citizens survey, she said. The committee’s next meeting is on April 21. The committee’s charge is to finish its work by December, she noted, “and we plan to do that.”

Library Stats

Each month, the board is provided with library statistics in five categories: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available.

AADL collections data: February 2014.

AADL users data: February 2014.

AADL visits data: February 2014.

AADL usage data: February 2014.

AADL participation data: February 2014.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the February 2014 financial statements. [.pdf of financial report]

Through Feb. 28, the library has received 97.6% of its budgeted tax receipts. The library had $11.9 million in unrestricted cash at the end of February, with a fund balance of $8.44 million.

Three line items – purchased services, software, and copier expenses – are over budget, but are expected to come back in line by the end of AADL’s fiscal year on June 30, according to Nieman.

Nieman also noted that during February, the library received $40,000 from the nonprofit Friends of the AADL, which raises money primarily by operating a used bookshop in the basement of the downtown library.

Board discussion was brief. Margaret Leary said she wanted to underscore the generosity of FAADL. Every year, the group gives the library at least $100,000 in total, she noted. Rebecca Head agreed, saying that the board is very appreciative. Jan Barney Newman praised FAADL’s work at marketing and operating the bookshop.

Zach Steindler.

Public Commentary

Only one person spoke during public commentary on March 17. Zach Steindler told the board he was a resident of Ann Arbor, and he thanked the library for providing such excellent service.

He said he was a small business owner, and he knows that their work is often a very thankless job. [Steindler is co-founder of Olark.com.]

Steindler said he uses AADL about 4-5 times a month. “I might not be the most frequent user, but I think it’s pretty great,” he said.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell.

Next regular meeting: Monday, April 21, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

On March 17, the council had passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, where an underground parking structure is located. The council also engaged in a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park. That resolution also passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The planning commission resolution gives advice to the council about how to handle the sale of development rights. [.pdf of Library Lane advice resolution, as amended during March 18 meeting] The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The resolution was brought forward by planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendations that the commission gave to council regarding the use of the former Y lot, at the commission’s Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

In introducing the resolution on March 18, Bona noted that it’s similar to the resolution regarding the former Y lot. One major difference is the recommendation to seek an “iconic design” for the Library Lane site, because it is more centrally located.

Wendy Woods wondered about the recommendation to use an RFP/RFQ process, pointing out that the council has already given direction to use a brokerage service – as the city did with the former Y lot. Commissioners thought that their efforts to influence the outcome of land use would be similar in either instance – the RFP/RFQ process or seeking proposals via a broker.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

In separate action on March 18, commissioners also passed a resolution with recommendations on uses for the Edwards Brothers site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. [.pdf of Edwards Brothers resolution]

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

The council’s meeting actually featured three items related to the future of the Library Lane deck surface: (1) a resolution reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park; (2) a resolution that moved toward hiring a brokerage service for selling development rights to the surface; and (3) a resolution that waived attorney-client privilege on a memo from the city’s outside bond counsel.

On the third item, the council voted to approve the waiver of an attorney-client privileged memo on the use of Build America Bonds that financed the parking deck.

The council vote on the urban park resolution was ultimately 7-3 with mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent. That came after a significant amendment to the resolution that gave flexibility to the square footage to be reserved instead of fixing it at 12,000 square feet. The key resolved clause, as adopted by the council, read:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

The council’s vote came after public commentary from several speakers in support of the resolution. In addition, Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker was asked to the podium to comment and she read aloud a resolution that the library board had passed earlier that evening, opposing the council’s resolution.

A report on council deliberations, which lasted over 2.5 hours, is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

The resolution on reserving a portion of the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for a publicly-owned urban park had been postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Library Lane park proposal as presented to the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25.

The proposal had been presented to the city’s park advisory commission, the week before the March 3 council meeting. For a detailed report of the PAC meeting of Feb. 25, 2014, see Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

One of the central points of friction over how to proceed is the question of who will own the area on which the publicly accessible space – a park or plaza – is placed.

The original resolution contemplated a publicly-owned facility that is designated as a park in the city’s park planning documents. That would have made it subject to a charter requirement on its sale – which would require a public referendum. The resolution as amended did not include that stipulation in its “resolved” clauses.

Councilmembers who are open to the possibility that the publicly accessible facility could be privately owned are concerned about the cost of maintenance of a publicly-owned facility. The city’s costs for maintaining Liberty Plaza – an urban park located northeast of the proposed Library Lane public park – are about $13,000 a year. That doesn’t include the amount that First Martin Corp. expends for trash removal and other upkeep of Liberty Plaza. [urban park cost estimates]

Revisions to the resolution were undertaken between the council’s March 3 and March 17 meetings. The version considered on March 17 indicated that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. That square footage was then revised at the meeting to “between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet.” The revised resolution also eliminated an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deleted any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution considered March 17 council meeting]

An additional point of friction involves how much of the site would be left for development if the northwest corner of the site were devoted to a public plaza/park. Related to that issue is whether the existing northern border of the site – which currently features the sides and backs of buildings – can adequately support a public plaza/park. The fact that the site does not currently enjoy other surrounding buildings that turn toward it is part of the reason advocates for a park are now asking that the Ann Arbor District Library, located to the south of the site, relocate its entrance from Fifth Avenue to the north side of its building. However, at the library board’s March 17 meeting, trustees on the board’s facilities committee reiterated reasons why they were not recommending to relocate the entrance.

In terms of the color-shaded map produced by city staff, the focus of controversy is the light orange area, which was designed to support “medium density building.” Based on staff responses to councilmember questions, the density imagined for that orange rectangle could be transferred to the planned high-density (red) portion of the site. The maximum height in the D1 zoning area is 180 feet, and the parking structure was designed to accommodate the structural load of an 18-story building.

City staff diagram illustrating the building possibilities for the top of the underground Library Lane parking structure.

Related to the urban park item was a  resolution also approved at the March 17 meeting – to obtain brokerage services and to list the surface of the Library Lane deck for sale. It was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The approach being taken would be similar to the path that the city council took to sell the former Y lot. For that parcel, the council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a real estate broker to test the market for development rights. The council took the initial step with that property, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor, close to a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

A rider agreement – to ensure against non-development and to sketch out the amount of open space and density – was part of the approach the city took to the former Y lot deal with hotelier Dennis Dahlmann.

The issue of open space figures prominently in Kunselman’s resolution. At the March 17 meeting, the council amended out the phrase “highest and best use” from the resolution. A key “whereas” clause and two of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;

Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

The phrase “public space” sometimes is meant to include publicly-accessible, but privately-owned space. Kunselman responded to an emailed query about his intended interpretation of “public space” by writing: “It’s meant to give the broadest interpretation so as to solicit the widest range of interest by prospective purchasers.”

Also related to the council’s brokerage service resolution, the Ann Arbor planning commission agenda for March 18, 2014 includes a resolution giving advice to the council about how to handle the sale the parking deck surface. The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The planning commission resolution is being brought forward by commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendation that the commission gave to council regarding the sale of the former Y lot.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The resolved clause states:

That the AADL Board asks the Council to reject the Resolution until the entire site at 319 South Fifth Avenue receives a complete review by experts in zoning, land use, economic development, and others who can determine the highest and best use of the property; ensure the safety and security of AADL patrons; and consult with the owners and occupants of surrounding properties, downtown business owners, and other stakeholders Council may identify.

In introducing the resolution, Rebecca Head – who chairs the board’s communications committee – reported that the committee had met with some city councilmembers and the mayor to discuss this issue. The committee, which includes Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal, then drafted a resolution about the Library Lane site that she was bringing forward.

Head noted that the library hasn’t objected to the concept of open space at the Library Lane site, as part of overall development of that city-owned property. But the AADL board resolution states that the council resolution “does not allocate the City resources needed to create a successful park, such as physical maintenance, programming, and monitoring unsafe behavior; and…the City has not been able to allocate resources for those purposes to the nearby Liberty Plaza park, Wheeler park, Sculpture plaza on North 4th Ave., or the Kerrytown plaza….”

Several trustees weighed in to support the AADL board resolution. Barbara Murphy said she was conflicted, because she supports having a park or plaza on the Library Lane site at some point. But the council resolution seemed to be putting the cart before the horse, she said. She pointed out that the AADL board resolution is not advocating for tall buildings.

In dissenting, Kaplan described the long history of efforts to put some kind of a public park or plaza on the Library Lane site. She didn’t want to cut off that process. Kaplan also raised the point that the library board would be asking the council to reject a resolution without knowing the exact content of the resolution – because the council could amend the resolution during its deliberations.

In fact, the council did amend its resolution during a lengthy and sometimes heated debate. [.pdf of resolution at the start of the March 17 council meeting] Sabra Briere (Ward 1) brought forward an amendment to the first resolved clause, describing the site as a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time. The original resolution, developed by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had designated 12,000 square feet as the size, running across the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue.

The council’s discussion included remarks by AADL director Josie Parker, who attended the council meeting and was called upon by mayor and other councilmembers to comment. She cited security concerns, and pointed out that the police are already called to the downtown library every three days or so. “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful,” Parker told the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) characterized the AADL board’s position as “fear mongering.”

After about 2.5 hours of discussion, the council voted 7-3 to pass the resolution as amended. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent.

A report on deliberations at the council meeting is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

This brief was filed from the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The Ann Arbor city council’s March 17, 2014 meeting features an agenda with one significant item held over from the March 3 meeting: a resolution that reserves a portion of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

But related to that item is a new resolution that directs the city administrator to move toward listing for sale the development rights for the top of the parking structure. The urban park designation was postponed from the March 3, 2014 meeting in part to synch up its timing with this resolution, which is being brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

An additional related item is a resolution that would waive the attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, the city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane structure have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.

That’s one of two separate resolutions on the waiver of attorney-client privilege. The other one, postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting, would waive privilege on a city attorney memo dated Feb. 25, 2014 on the topic of how appeals to property assessments work. The memo apparently helps explain “… the effect of a reduction of the assessment for one year by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year.” The council’s agenda also includes an attachment of a report sent to the state tax commission, explaining how the city has complied with various deficiencies in documentation identified previously by the commission.

The council will be considering two items related to energy issues. First, the council will consider a resolution that directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan.

The second energy-related item is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution. The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.”

After approving the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles on March 3 and several pieces of basic equipment at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be considering three resolutions that involve additional vehicles and equipment: two forklifts for the city’s materials recovery facility, a Chevrolet Impala for use by police detectives, and a lease for golf carts from Pifer Inc.

The 15th District Court, which is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor, is featured in two agenda items. The council will be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, which is housed at the Justice Center – the police/courts building immediately adjoining city hall at the northeast corner of Huron and Fifth.

A second item related to the court is an introduction of Shryl Samborn as the new administrator of the 15th District Court. Samborn is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring. His last day of work is March 28.

At its March 17 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the temporary relocation of Precinct 1-7 from Pierpont Commons, 2101 Bonisteel, to Northwood Community Center (family housing). That relocation will be in effect for the May 6 vote on the transit millage and for the Aug. 5 primary elections.

Among the items attached to the March 17 agenda as reports or communications is one from the city administrator noting that for the April 5 Hash Bash event on the University of Michigan campus, all sidewalk occupancy permits and peddler’s licenses in the immediately surrounding area will be suspended. The possibility of such suspension – which the city administrator’s memo indicates is motivated by a desire to relieve congestion – is part of the terms and conditions of such licenses. They’ve been suspended for Hash Bash for at least the last six years, according to the memo.

Also among the attachments are the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those reports have been the subject of back-and-forth between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and The Ann Arbor Observer over a report in The Observer’s December edition. A follow-up to an initial correction by The Observer is anticipated in the April edition – establishing that Kunselman’s contention had been correct: The DDA annual reports had not been filed with the governing body as required.

The consent agenda also includes approval of street closings for seven upcoming events: a soap box derby, SpringFest, Cinco de Mayo, Burns Park Run, Dexter-Ann Arbor Run, Washington Street Live and the Mayor’s Green Fair.

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

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Top of Library Lane

The council’s March 17 meeting features three items related to the future development of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor: (1) a resolution reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park; (2) a resolution that moves toward hiring a brokerage service for selling development rights to the surface; and (3) a resolution that waives attorney-client privilege on a memo from the city’s outside bond counsel.

Top of Library Lane: Urban Park

A significant item was postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting: a resolution that reserves a portion of the surface of the Library Lane parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

Library Lane park proposal as presented to the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25.

The proposal was also presented to the city’s park advisory commission, the week before the March 3 council meeting. For a detailed report of the Feb. 25 PAC meeting, see Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

One of the central points of friction over how to proceed is the question of who will own the space on which the publicly accessible land – a park or plaza – is located.

The proposal put forward to PAC by Will Hathaway, of the Library Green Conservancy, and incorporated into the resolution to be considered by the council envisions a publicly-owned facility that is designated as a park in the city’s park planning documents. That would make it subject to a charter requirement on its sale – which would require a public referendum.

Councilmembers who are open to the possibility that the publicly accessible facility could be privately owned are concerned about the cost of maintenance. The city’s costs for maintaining Liberty Plaza – an urban park located northeast of the proposed Library Lane public park – are about $13,000 a year. That doesn’t include the amount that First Martin Corp. expends for trash removal and other upkeep of Liberty Plaza. [Urban park cost estimates]

Revisions to the resolution were undertaken since the council meeting on March 3. The now revised resolution – “version 3” in the city’s Legistar system – indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. The revised resolution also eliminates an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution for March 17 council meeting]

The memo accompanying the revised resolution describes the changes as follows:

1. Square Footage and Boundaries. The first resolved clause is modified to reflect the information we received from City staff regarding the dimensions of the area. A site plan from staff showed the accurate square footage of the area to be designated as urban park as approximately 12,000 square feet.
2. Encouragement of Creative Public Programming. The second resolved clause text is now clearer that the various City government offices and the DDA are being asked to give thought to how they can encourage other groups to reserve the space on the Library Lane structure and put on creative public events.
3. Integration of Park Design with Adjacent Development. The third resolved clause is an acknowledgement that the two spaces should be designed to complement each other and that the City will play a leadership role in making that integration occur.
4. Activation of the Public Park through Integration with the Block. The fourth resolved clause acknowledges the necessity for the City to work with all the neighboring property owners on the Library Block in order to achieve the pedestrian connectivity that will result in vital, attractive public spaces. The text has been modified to clarify that reorientation need not entail major redevelopment.
5. Process for Creation of the Public Park and Development of the Remaining Library Lane Site. The resolved clauses that spelled out specific next steps have been removed from the resolution. The assumption now is that these respective City government bodies will move forward autonomously to accomplish these tasks.

An additional point of friction involves how much of the site would be left for development if the northwest corner of the site is devoted to a public plaza/park. Related to that issue is whether the existing northern border of the site – which currently features the sides and backs of buildings – can adequately support a public plaza/park. The fact that the site does not currently enjoy other surrounding buildings that face toward it is part of the reason advocates for a park are now asking that the Ann Arbor District Library, located to the south of the site, relocate its entrance from Fifth Avenue to the north side of its building.

In terms of the color-shaded map produced by city staff, the focus of controversy is the light orange area, which was designed to support “medium density building.” Based on staff responses to councilmember questions, the density imagined for that orange rectangle could be transferred to the planned high-density (red) portion of the site. The maximum height in the D1 zoning area is 180 feet, and the parking structure was designed to accommodate the structural load of an 18-story building.

City staff diagram illustrating the building possibilities for the top of the underground Library Lane parking structure.

Top of Library Lane: Brokerage Services

Related to the urban park item is a new resolution with the title: “Resolution to Direct City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and to Retain Real Estate Brokerage Services.” That’s the address of the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The urban park designation was postponed from the March 3, 2014 meeting in part to synch up its timing with this resolution, which is being brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

This approach would be similar to the path the city council took to sell the former Y lot. For that parcel, the council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a real estate broker to test the market for development rights. The council took the initial step with that property, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor, close to a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The council gave final approval to the sale – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – on Nov. 28, 2013. That sale is now set to close on April 2, according to city administrator Steve Powers, who responded on March 12 to an emailed query from The Chronicle.

A rider agreement – to ensure against non-development and to sketch out the amount of open space and density – was part of the approach the city took to the former Y lot deal with Dahlmann.

The issue of open space figures prominently in Kunselman’s resolution. A key “whereas” clause and three of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That City Council deems the highest and best use for the property located at 319 South Fifth (Library Lane) to be mixed-use consisting of commercial, residential, and public use.
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;
Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

Also related to the council’s agenda item about hiring a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, the Ann Arbor planning commission agenda for March 18, 2014 now includes a resolution giving advice to the council about how to handle that sale. The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The resolution is being brought forward by planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendation that the commission gave to council regarding the sale of the former Y lot.

Top of Library Lane: Bond Counsel

An item also related to the future development of the area above the Library Lane structure is a resolution that would waive the attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane project have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo apparently analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.

In broad strokes, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 – also known as the stimulus act – created the Build America Bonds program. BAB authorized state and local governments to issue taxable bonds to finance any capital expenditures for which they otherwise could issue tax-exempt governmental bonds. The bonds have a limitation related to how the facilities financed through such bonds can be used. Glossing over details, only up to 10% of a facility financed through BAB can be dedicated to private use.

Related to the private use question are monthly parking permits. All other things being equal, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under an arrangement with the city – does not contract with businesses for monthly parking permits in public parking structures. Instead, the DDA contracts with individuals on a first-come-first-serve basis.

For the Library Lane structure, the DDA offered introductory pricing of its monthly permits to encourage the structure’s initial use. Construction was completed in the summer of 2012. And the nature of that introductory pricing scheme could prompt questions about whether some of those permits might properly count as “private use” of the structure. A $95 introductory rate (which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures) was offered to employees of “new to downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014.

Two years ago, Barracuda Networks was moving to downtown Ann Arbor, and therefore qualified as a “new to downtown” business. So its employees thus qualified for the discounted monthly parking permits.

In a July 13, 2012 email to Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, DDA executive director Susan Pollay wrote in part:

I met with the two key individuals directing the Ann Arbor Barracuda office and told them point blank, that that there will be parking for Barracuda employees now when they move to downtown, and as they grow their employee ranks over the next few years.

To the extent that Barracuda employees (or employees of other downtown businesses) have privileged access or enjoy an economic advantage (like reduced rates), then it’s possible the private use test could be met for those spaces.

Four years ago, Wayne State University professor of law Noah Hall, writing on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (GLELC), sent the city of Ann Arbor a letter on the BAB private-use issue. [For more detail, see his letter: April 14, 2010 letter from Noah Hall] GLELC was a party to a lawsuit filed over the Library Lane parking structure, which eventually was settled.

The document for which the council might vote to waive attorney-client privilege on March 17 appears to be one of the items denied in a response to a request made by The Chronicle under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The item not provided to The Chronicle was a file attached to an email sent by CFO Tom Crawford on Aug. 13, 2012 to councilmembers – named “BHO 1-# 1607254-v8-Ann_Arbor _ -_Memo_re_Permitted_Parking_Arrangements.docx.” The request for that document was denied based on the statutory exemption allowed for items protected under attorney-client privilege.

However, members of the city council’s audit committee have placed a resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda to waive attorney-client privilege on the document in question. [For additional background, see: "Column: Rocking Back on the Library Lot."]

Tax Assessment

The outside bond counsel’s memo on the use of Build America Bonds is not the only item on the March 17 agenda involving the waiver of attorney-client privilege. The other one, postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting, would waive privilege on a city attorney memo dated Feb. 25, 2014 on the topic of how appeals to property assessments work.

The memo apparently helps explain “… the effect of a reduction of the assessment for one year by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year.”

The memo may help explain how one section of Michigan’s General Property Tax Act is properly interpreted and applied:

211.30c Reduced amount as basis for calculating assessed value or taxable value in succeeding year; applicability of section.
Sec. 30c. (1) If a taxpayer has the assessed value or taxable value reduced on his or her property as a result of a protest to the board of review under section 30, the assessor shall use that reduced amount as the basis for calculating the assessment in the immediately succeeding year. However, the taxable value of that property in a tax year immediately succeeding a transfer of ownership of that property is that property’s state equalized valuation in the year following the transfer as calculated under this section.

In Chart 1 below, a homeowner purchased the property in 2006 for $227,000. It was assessed at market value of $281,600, or $140,800 state equalized value. On appeal to the board of review in 2007, the assessed value was reduced to $113,500. In 2008, the 2007 assessed value does not appear to have been used as the basis for calculating the assessment.

Chart 1: Taxable and assessed value for a Ward 4 property as evaluated by the city (reds) and the board of review on appeal (blues). The property changed hands in 2006. An appeal to the board of review was granted in 2007, but the city assessor appears not to have used the reduced amount in calculating the assessment in 2008.

Also related to the issue of tax assessment, the March 17 agenda includes an attachment of a report sent to the state tax commission by city assessor David Petrak, explaining how the city has complied with various deficiencies in documentation identified previously by the commission. Among the notes in the letter was an issue that’s become a routine point of council meeting public commentary for Ann Arbor resident Ed Vielmetti – the timely filing of meeting minutes by various boards and commissions. From Petrak’s report to the tax commission:

Concern #2: Board of Review prepared minutes were not filed with the local unit clerk
Response: On February 18th 2014 the Board of Review minutes were officially filed with and recorded by The City Clerk. Staff will insure all future minutes are similarly recorded in a timely fashion.

Energy

The council will be considering two items related to energy issues: (1) a resolution directing the drafting of an energy disclosure ordinance; and (2) a resolution calling for a staff position to be filled.

Energy: Resolution on Development of Energy Disclosure for Commercial Buildings

The council will consider a resolution that directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. Such an ordinance would require owners of commercial buildings to disclose data on energy consumption by their buildings. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which was approved by the city council at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. Baseline for the reductions are 2000 levels.

The resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda originated with the city’s energy commission. The staff memo compares the idea of a disclosure requirement for energy usage by commercial buildings to a miles-per-gallon rating for vehicles or nutritional facts labeling for food products. According to the memo, awareness of energy consumption has been shown to encourage building owners to have energy audits done on their buildings. Those audits can then lead to energy efficiency upgrades that result in cost savings to the building owners and reduced emissions.

An estimate for the potential energy cost savings that would result from an energy benchmarking ordinance in Ann Arbor – prepared by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) – is between $2 million and $2.5 million, annually. According to the staff memo, similar ordinances in place in other cities typically employed a phased approach, often with municipal buildings as well as the largest private buildings (by square footage) complying in the initial year(s), and medium-sized and/or smaller buildings participating in later years.

The energy commission is recommending that an ordinance be developed with a phased approach, with the phases based on building categories and sizes. One possibility is to start with all qualifying municipal buildings in the first six months, commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet in 12 to 18 months, multifamily and commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet in 24 to 36 months, and all commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet in 36 to 48 months. The goal would be to have reported energy consumption information for 80% of the commercial square feet in the city within five years of adoption.

Energy: Resolution on Energy Office Staff

The second energy-related item on the March 17 council agenda is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution.

The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.” Among the specific efforts cited in the resolution are the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program.

At its March 4, 2014 meeting, the city’s planning commission passed a resolution in support of the hiring. Planning commissioners were briefed on the issue by Wayne Appleyard, chair of the energy commission. Resolutions of support were also passed by the city’s energy and environmental commissions.

Wheels

After approving the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles on March 3 and several pieces of basic equipment at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be considering three resolutions that involve additional vehicles and equipment: two forklifts for the city’s materials recovery facility, a Chevrolet Impala for use by police detectives, and a lease for golf carts from Pifer Inc.

Wheels: Forklifts

The council will be asked to approve the purchase of two Clark C30 forklifts for use at the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for a total of $55,268.

The forklifts to be purchased would replace two that are currently being rented at a cost of $12,000 a year. The city is calculating that the purchase cost will be covered by savings in rental costs in 2.3 years.

Wheels: Detective

On the council’s March 17 agenda is the approval of the purchase of a police detective vehicle – a Chevrolet Impala – from Berger Chevrolet in Oakland County for $26,750. The car will replace a vehicle that in the next year will have reached an 80,000-mile limit specified in the city’s labor contract.

Wheels: Golf Carts

The council will be asked to approve an amendment to a two-year golf cart lease with Pifer Inc. The agreement would increase the original number of 65 leased carts by 34 carts, for a total of 99 carts. The city leases golf carts from Pifer for the Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses.

The lease amendment would be for two years, for an amount not to exceed $50,340 over the length of the lease amendment term. Funding for FY 2014 would come from the parks and recreation services general fund and would be in the proposed budget for FY 2015, according to a staff memo. In FY 2013, the city generated about $225,000 in revenue from golf cart rentals.

The council’s resolution also will approve the sale of 32 city-owned golf carts to Pifer for $50,340. The city’s park advisory commission recommended the action on golf carts at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

15th District Court

The 15th District Court, which is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor, is featured in two agenda items.

15th District Court: Weapons Screening

The council will be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, which is housed at the Justice Center – the police/courts facility immediately adjoining the Larcom city hall building at the northeast corner of Huron and Fifth.

The total amount of the contract reflects an amount of $26.24 per hour per court security officer. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s estimated that three officers would be assigned on a given day with hours staggered to match the ebb and flow of court business through a typical day.

15th District Court: New Administrator

A second item related to the 15th District Court is an introduction of Shryl Samborn as the new administrator. Samborn is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring after 12 years of service at the court. His last day of work for the court is March 28.

Samborn has worked in public service since 1998, starting with the Washtenaw County Clerk/Register of Deeds moving then to the 15th District Court in 2002. She began her work in the 15th District Court as secretary to judge Julie Creal, moving to be secretary for court administrator Keith Zeisloft in 2004. She became deputy court administrator in 2007. Her undergraduate degree is from Eastern Michigan University. She’ll be enrolling in the fall of 2014 as a graduate student in Michigan State University’s school of criminal justice judicial administration masters program.

Election Polling Places

At its March 17 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the temporary relocation of Precinct 1-7 from the University of Michigan’s Pierpont Commons, 2101 Bonisteel, to Northwood Community Center (family housing), which is the location for Precinct 2-1. That relocation will be in effect for the May 6 vote on the transit millage and for the Aug. 5 primary elections.

The relocation is needed because Pierpont Commons will be unavailable due to renovations being undertaken by the University of Michigan to that facility.

The council’s resolution is needed only on the relocation for Aug. 5 – when the two precincts will operate separately but at the same Northwood Community Center location. The city election commission has the authority to consolidate the two locations – which it did for the May 6 election at its Feb. 26 meeting.

Map of Precincts 1-7 and 2-1.

Attachments

The online agenda for March 17 includes myriad reports and communications as attachments.

Attachments: Hash Bash

Among the items attached to the agenda as reports or communications is one from the city administrator noting that for the April 5, 2014 Hash Bash event on the University of Michigan campus, all the sidewalk occupancy permits and peddler’s licenses in the immediately surrounding area will be suspended.

The possibility of such suspension – which the city administrator’s memo indicates is motivated by a desire to relieve congestion – is part of the terms and conditions of such licenses. They’ve been suspended for Hash Bash for at least the last six years, according to the memo. Hash Bash is a gathering that focuses on reform of marijuana laws.

Map of area where peddler and sidewalk occupancy permits have been suspended for the April 5, 2014 Hash Bash.

Attachments: DDA Annual Reports

Also among the attachments are the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those reports have been the subject of back-and-forth between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and The Ann Arbor Observer over a report in The Observer’s December edition. A follow-up to an initial correction by The Observer is anticipated in the April edition – establishing that Kunselman’s contention had been correct: Before 2011, the reports had not been filed with the governing body as required under state statute.

Street Closings

The March 17 agenda features a number of street closings for upcoming events. They appear on the consent agenda, which includes a group of items voted on “all in one go.” So unless a councilmember pulls out a consent agenda item for separate consideration, these items won’t be mentioned explicitly at the meeting.

• Saturday, March 29, 2014: Sixth Annual Box Cart Race/Soap Box Derby. The event is sponsored by Phi Delta Theta Fraternity and Ann Arbor Active Against ALS to honor the legacy of their fraternity brother, Lou Gehrig, and to raise money for ALS research. All proceeds from the event will be donated to ALS research. Streets to be closed: South University from Oxford to Walnut; Linden from South University to Geddes.
  

  Map of street closings for Sixth Annual Soap Box Derby.

• Thursday, April 10, 2014: SpringFest. The sponsor, the University of Michigan-MUSIC Matters organization, is presenting a day of festivities to be capped off with a MUSIC Matters concert. The festivities will feature an assortment of student groups from the innovation, arts, sustainability, music and social justice communities on campus. Speakers will begin the program at 1 p.m. with live music featuring students and other local Ann Arbor talent to begin at 2:30 p.m. Streets to be closed: North University Street between Thayer and Fletcher Streets.
  

  Map of street closings for SpringFest.

• Sunday, May 4, 2014: Burns Park Run. Streets to be closed: Several streets in the Burns Park neighborhood.
  

  Map of street closures associated with the Burns Park Run.

• Monday, May 5, 2014: Ann Arbor Cinco de Mayo Party. The event is sponsored by Tios Restaurant to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Streets to be closed: Liberty Street between Thompson and Division.
  

  Map of street closures associated with Cinco de Mayo.

• Saturday, June 1, 2014: Live on Washington. This is a youth-curated outdoor arts festival, featuring performances on a stage as well as more “interactive street art” like break dancing, puppetry, and mural art. It’s sponsored by the Neutral Zone. Streets to be closed: Washington Street between Fifth Avenue and Division.
  

  Map of street closures associated with Live on Washington.

• Sunday, June 1, 2014: Dexter-Ann Arbor Run. The Dexter-Ann Arbor race is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club. Streets to be closed: Several downtown streets and surface parking lots.
  

  Map of downtown street closings for Dexter-Ann Arbor Run.

• Friday, June 14, 2014: Mayor’s Green Fair.
  

  Map of street closings for Mayor’s Green Fair.

4:18 p.m. City staff responses to councilmember questions on the March 17 agenda items are now available: [responses to March 17, 2014 agenda questions]

4:58 p.m. Eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time, all of them except one at least in part to talk about the surface of the underground Library Lane parking structure. Those signed up to talk about the future of the surface are Will Hathaway, Thomas Partridge (among other topics), Barbara Bach, Eric Lipson, Peter Allen, Ingrid Ault and Alan Haber. Signed up to talk about synagogue vigils at Beth Israel Congregation is Henry Herskovitz.

6:58 p.m. Councilmembers are starting to arrive. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) are here. City attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorneys Abigail Elias and Mary Fales are here. The Hathaways have arrived, as has Peter Allen.

6:59 p.m. AADL director Josie Parker has arrived. Mayor John Hieftje is now here.

7:03 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has made appropriate sartorial choices for St. Patrick’s Day: green tie and green shirt. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has a green jacket. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is wearing a green sari. Eaton is wearing a green tie.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct except for Sally Petersen (Ward 2), who is spending her husband’s 50th birthday with him.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:11 p.m. Public comment on the urban forestry management plan will be accepted through March 28, 2014. Curbside composting will be resuming at the end of March. Meetings on the Arbor rail station will be starting.

7:13 p.m. Shryl L. Samborn: New 15th District Court administrator. Samborn is currently deputy court administrator. Keith Zeisloft is retiring from the court administrator position, with his last day to be on March 28. Samborn has been deputy administrator since 2007 and has worked for the court since 2002. [For more background, see 15th District Court: New Administrator above.]

7:15 p.m. Keith Zeisloft is making the introduction in judge Libby Hines’ place. He says that on March 28, Samborn is going to be sworn in as the new court administrator. He calls her his good friend. She’s “very capable,” he says. “Council, this is Shryl. Shryl, this is council!”

7:15 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time, all of them except one at least in part to talk about the surface of the underground Library Lane parking structure. Those signed up to talk about the future of the surface are Will Hathaway, Thomas Partridge (among other topics), Barbara Bach, Eric Lipson, Peter Allen, Ingrid Ault and Alan Haber. Signed up to talk about synagogue vigils at Beth Israel Congregation is Henry Herskovitz. Added to the list was Rita Mitchell.

7:18 p.m. Will Hathaway is speaking on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy. He calls the resolution a modest proposal and a compromise. His group has met with many people, including urban planning professionals, he says. He calls it the next step in the public process. He says some concerns that have been expressed have been addressed in the revisions that have been made to the resolution. He contrasts an approach where a developer is in charge of the design and building of the public open space, compared to one where the community is in charge. He says the action tonight won’t flip a switch to create a park. This resolution encourages the park advisory commission to continue its effort, he says.

7:22 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan legislature and the city council. He’s calling the council’s attention to the situation in Ukraine. He calls it a valiant struggle for an independent democracy. He calls the planned urban park in a poor location, saying it’s polluted and congested with traffic. He raises the specter of a driver losing control of their vehicle and crashing into the open space.

7:25 p.m. Barbara Bach says that once the boundaries for a park have been defined, the planning can begin. She’s looking forward to the Ann Arbor District Library’s participation in the planning for the space. She describes a possible puppet stage among other possibilities. PAC’s planning process can begin after the boundaries are defined, she says. She asks the council to vote yes on the urban park resolution.

7:31 p.m. Former planning commissioner Eric Lipson says he’s a member of the Library Green Conservancy. He’s reviewing some of the history of the planning process, which dates back to the early 1990s. When he served on the city planning commission, the community engaged in the Calthorpe planning process. The outcome of that process was a designation of the entire Library Lot as a community gathering space, he says. Later, PAC came up with a recommendation for the area, he says. There have been concerns about panhandlers, he says. This park won’t cure or exacerbate that problem, he says. “This is the place. It’s about time we acted.” As far as “eyes on the park” go, Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden might serve that function, he ventures.

7:32 p.m. Peter Allen is educating councilmembers about the virtues of leasing versus selling. He tells them that they should not be selling land, but rather using very long-term leases. He says the Library Lot is worth more than the former Y lot.

7:35 p.m. Ingrid Ault introduces herself as the chair of PAC. She reiterates that PAC had some concerns with the first resolution and the revisions to the resolution don’t address them. PAC is opposed to moving forward with the development of a park until it’s clear how it will be paid for without jeopardizing the maintenance of the city’s other 157 parks. She draws an analogy to buying a wedding dress before even going out on a date. She says the resolution will place unnecessary restrictions on the process.

7:38 p.m. Alan Haber says he wants to speak on Stephen Kunselman’s resolution to sell the property. He says that the space should be designated as a park so that we can see what kind of financial support might grow up from the Ann Arbor Community Foundation and other sources. That seems like a no-brainer, Haber says, but quips, “I’m getting old, I’ve got problems.” He says that there’s been no opportunity to develop a commons in Ann Arbor, to let the public see how that central area can be developed as a community space. There’s no need to sell the land, he says. He says he has a list of five people in Ann Arbor who could finance a park.

7:41 p.m. Henry Herskovitz says the regular demonstrations outside Beth Israel have been criticized. But he’s addressing various points of that criticism made by Reverend James Rhodenheiser, Rector, St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church last year.

7:44 p.m. Rita Mitchell speaks in favor of the urban park resolution. She thanks the councilmembers who sponsored the resolution. She’s addressing the concerns about cost of maintenance. She says that concern doesn’t recognize the potential for private-public partnerships. A public gathering space will draw people to local businesses, she says. Residents of new 14-story buildings will also benefit from having access to open space. It will be their version of a backyard, she says. The city already owns the property, so there’s no acquisition costs, she says. She describes an underground parking structure in Boston with a park on top that has the slogan: Park below, Park above.

7:45 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first opportunity on the agenda for councilmembers to share matters they deem important.

7:46 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says she’s going to bring forward a nomination for reappointments to the environmental commission: David Stead, Susan Hutton, and Kirk Westphal.

7:47 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is reading aloud a letter from a constituent in favor of the urban park resolution. The letter is apparently from Mary Hathaway.

7:50 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayor John Hieftje is reading aloud several nominations to boards and commissions. They’ll be voted on at a future meeting.

7:50 p.m. Approval of council minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting.

7:50 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Lease golf carts from Pifer Inc., authorize sale of 32 carts ($50,336) [For more background, see Wheels: Golf Carts above.]
• CA-2 Purchase police detective vehicle from Berger Chevrolet ($26,750) [For more background, see Wheels: Detective above.]
• CA-3 Accept minutes of board of insurance administration minutes for Feb. 27, 2014
• CA-4 Street Closing: Burns Park Run [For more background, see Street Closings above.]
• CA-5 Street Closing: Cinco de Mayo at Tios
• CA-6 Street Closing: Box Car Derby
• CA-7 Street Closing: Mayor’s Green Fair
• CA-8 Street Closing: Live on Washington
• CA-9 Street Closing: Dexter-Ann Arbor Run
• CA-10 Street Closing: Spring Fest
• CA-11 Temporary polling place change: Precinct 1-7 to Northwood Community Center (Family Housing) [For more background, see Election Polling Places above.]

7:51 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wants to pull out the item on the board of insurance minutes.

7:52 p.m. CA-3 Accept minutes of board of insurance administration minutes for Feb. 27, 2014. Lumm says that they’re looking at separating out the approvals by amount.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The consent agenda is now approved.

7:53 p.m. DC-1 Designating an urban public park location on the Library Lot site. This resolution was postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting. It would reserve a specific 12,000-square-foot portion of the top of the Library Lane parking structure as a public urban park. [For more background, see Top of Library Lane: Urban Public Park above.]

7:54 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) says that the “whereas” clauses go on for three pages. That reflects the long history of the issue. Our community has always given great support for parks, he notes. He points out that the parks millage was passed, but the library millage failed.

7:56 p.m. Eaton supports Hieftje’s idea of a string of parks that extend from Liberty Plaza to a greenway. He says this is a great place to start. The resolution doesn’t do a lot, he says. It draws some boundaries and sends the issue back to the park advisory commission (PAC). He imagines that PAC might return with basic options and ballpark cost estimates. He says that this resolution will refer the issue back to PAC for further consideration. He also says that having a new park will not affect homelessness. What we need to do is establish a day shelter and downtown foot patrols, he says.

7:58 p.m. Eaton says that a park designed with active uses is the key. During the development of the resolution, he’s met with various people and groups, including the library board. At some point the concerns amount to just not wanting a park downtown, he says. The sale of the eastern portion will require eight votes, he says. There won’t be eight votes without this resolution, he says. Having a private owner repudiates the whole idea of a public space, he says.

7:59 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) picks up where Eaton left off. For those who want a park, she notes, there are two visions: (1) a developer buys the land and it’s a privately held park for public use; or (2) a commons that is publicly held.

8:01 p.m. Kailasapathy says that you can’t attend a Democratic Party meeting without hearing people complain about Citizens United. She wonders if a private owner will allow anti-war demonstrations. Democracy can only survive when there are checks and balances on capitalism. A public space must be publicly owned, she says, not a private developer allowing us to use his space on his terms. On paper it seems like a free lunch, she says. But in effect it’s not going to be a public space.

8:03 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks Eaton for his leadership. She says the Connecting William Street study recommended 5,000 square feet. This resolution recommends 12,000 square feet, which she compares to about the same size as Liberty Plaza. There’s been consistent support for public space on this site of about this size, she says. She says there’s an overwhelming consensus that this should be public space. The best way to do that is through city control, she says.

8:04 p.m. Lumm doesn’t agree that if you support an urban park here, then you’re against development. “That’s nonsense,” she says.

8:06 p.m. Lumm hopes everyone will support this resolution. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that if 100 spoke, there would be 100 different opinions. We solve problems in our town, we don’t just create them, he says. It’s our time to say: This will be our future, this is what we want our town to be. He’s thanking Haber and Hathaway. He’s also thanking mayor John Hieftje, who had attended a picnic on top of the parking structure.

8:08 p.m. Anglin is now talking about the problem of homelessness. “We don’t want a dead zone in our town,” he says. There is a dead zone around city hall at night, he says. The library is one of the best in the state, he says. The library’s leadership will take us to a future we can be proud of, he says. He notes that the new bus station has been constructed downtown. The addition of a park will bring more families downtown, he says. He ventures that dances could be held.

8:10 p.m. Anglin says the city is blessed that people are willing to come forward to help. Anglin reiterates Eaton’s point about there being four votes on the current council that would block any sale of land without the stipulation that there will be a publicly-owned park.

8:13 p.m. Hieftje is now inviting Josie Parker, AADL director, to address the council. She thanks those who have made positive comments about the quality of the library. There’s a lot of fiction in the library, she quips, but it’s not a fiction that it takes a lot of effort to manage a public space. She calls the library building a park within walls. It’s not about a label, but rather behavior, she says. Teenagers or a lot of crying babies can tip the balance in a public space.

8:15 p.m. Some of the most obnoxious behavior at the public library, she says, is by people who are well-housed and well off. She’s reading aloud a library board resolution passed tonight, urging the city council to reject the council resolution on establishing an urban park on top of the Library Lane parking structure. [The resolution was passed by the AADL board on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Nancy Kaplan.]

8:18 p.m. Hieftje is now saying that there’s always been a plan for a park or public space or whatever you want to call it. He’s saying it could be privately owned and owned by the city, but maintained by the developer. There could be a development agreement stipulating that there would be political rallies there, just as in a public park. There are two ways to go, he says: developer-owned or city-owned.

8:19 p.m. Jim Chaconas, of Colliers International, is now being invited to the podium.

8:20 p.m. Hieftje asks what the impact of the real estate value would be if the frontage on the South Fifth Avenue were removed. Chaconas says it would be negative. You’d lose a couple million dollars of value, he says.

8:21 p.m. Eaton asks Chaconas to estimate the value of land: $6-7 million. Chaconas says that a park would be an asset to the building.

8:23 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t necessarily agree that the northwest portion needs to be retail. He’s describing the possibility of a building over that portion that would not block off access.

8:24 p.m. Kunselman and Chaconas are talking about how things have changed. Chaconas used to be in the beer business so he knows about restaurants, he says. He’s talking about creating a new “mid-town.” He calls Kunselman’s cantilevering idea a good one.

8:27 p.m. Lumm is now talking to Chaconas. She wants to know why it’s more difficult to build a building without constructing something on the northwest corner. The ability to go “street-to-street” had increased the Y lot deal by around $1 million, Chaconas says.

8:30 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is now asking Chaconas how eyes-on-the-site can be achieved with only development on the high-density portion of the site. Chaconas is comparing relative square footage costs for retail, office and residential.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman weighs in for his cantilevered building, by saying that now, when it rains at Sonic Lunch, everybody runs. [Sonic Lunch is a weekly summer concert series held in Liberty Plaza and sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor.]

8:32 p.m. Chaconas says deed restrictions can be put in.

8:34 p.m. Anglin says he’s not interested in this kind of discussion right now. Anglin says he wants to focus on what the public is paying for and what the public wants. If the public says they want it, they’ll support it. Downtown can’t be just restaurants and Disney style entertainment.

8:35 p.m. Chaconas says a lot of Google, PRIME Research and Barracuda employees are living in the new student high rises.

8:38 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) now proposes an amendment to the first “resolved clause.” It describes a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time.

8:39 p.m. Briere doesn’t like the idea of putting a box around the park and telling PAC to fill the box.

8:40 p.m. Her approach gives PAC room to be creative, she says. And it gives the city administrator flexibility in talking to prospective purchasers. The value of the land is not just a financial value, but a community value, she says.

8:41 p.m. Briere says she has a personal desire to see a park, but she doesn’t see a park as an entertainment venue. She’d love to see a play park, a place with water for kids to splash in or a place for kids to climb.

8:43 p.m. We’re now discussing Briere’s amendment. Anglin asks about the indefiniteness of her proposal. Briere explains that this would be determined by PAC.

8:44 p.m. Anglin says he hopes that people understand that what’s happening is an effort at compromise. A lot of compromises have been made already, he says. Teall says she appreciates the effort at compromise, but says she won’t support the amendment or the resolution as a whole.

8:46 p.m. Hieftje says he has a question for Briere. The background to his question includes the DTE property down by the Huron River. Hieftje says that he thinks that land should be owned by DTE with the ability of the city to use the land. Hieftje says he’s reluctant to make this parcel a publicly-owned parcel. He wants to know if that part of the resolution is important to Briere. She replies that it’s important to those who proposed the resolution.

8:48 p.m. Briere expresses skepticism that privately-owned spaces can be truly public without making people feel like intruders. She stresses that it will not be a very big space that will serve well as a gathering space, or a commons or a place for parades.

8:50 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’ll support the amendment because it will improve the resolution. But he says that the resolution is flawed and continues to have flaws. He’ll address those when the resolution is voted on.

8:53 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is asking whether the requirement for a vote on the sale of parkland would apply to the air rights cantilevered over the top of a public park. Based on remarks from planning manager Wendy Rampson and assistant city attorney Mary Fales, the transaction would be more complex than a fee simple arrangement. Rampson indicates that a condominium agreement would be a suitable kind of arrangement.

8:54 p.m. Kunselman ventures that Tally Hall is an example of a condominium arrangement.

8:56 p.m. Anglin is now talking to Rampson about condominium arrangements. He’s making sure that the parcel could, in fact, be a park.

8:59 p.m. Fales says if there’s development over the parking structure, then you would have ownership of the parking structure. The development would be one unit of the condo, she says, and the parking structure and the park would be another unit of the condo. Kunselman is explaining that there could be common areas in a condo arrangement, jointly owned, and gives Tally Hall as an example.

9:00 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t want it to be called a park, saying that the council was getting caught up in vocabulary. He wants to call it public space with no limitation on politics or music.

9:03 p.m. Lumm is skeptical that the maintenance costs would be all that great. The estimate per square foot for maintenance of an urban park is $1.20-$1.50, she says, which would be about $15,000 for this space. Kunselman appreciates the effort to compromise. He says we can get what everybody wants. He wants the full frontage of Fifth Avenue for public open space, which is why he wants the cantilevered portion. He points out that part of the point of the Library Lane mid-block cut-through was to be able to close it off for events. “Size is important,” he says. The three-side requirement is described by Kunselman as “bunk,” giving Sculpture Plaza as a counter example, he says.

9:05 p.m. Kunselman says the council would get flak for not doing it right, but he says, “It’s going to be really horrible if we don’t do anything at all.”

9:06 p.m. Kunselman floats the idea of postponing. He ventures that it would be an advantage to have Petersen at the table [she's absent]. Eaton wants to know if Kunselman would want to postpone the urban park resolution as well as the listing for sale. Kunselman’s answer: Yes.

9:08 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment. It’s important to get the northern boundary right, he says.

9:11 p.m. Lumm says that obviously she is in favor of declaring 12,000 square feet of open space. But she’s not sure if Briere would support the resolution if the amendment passes. She says she’s trying to count noses. Warpehoski says he wants to see the part about the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan struck from the resolution, noting that the council doesn’t have the ability to unilaterally place a parcel in the PROS plan. With that part stricken and with the current amendment, he’d support the resolution.

9:12 p.m. Briere says she’ll remove the final sentence about establishing the space as a part of the PROS plan. Lumm, as the seconder of the amendment, agrees to accept that as “friendly.” Teall says she’s still concerned about the role of the Ann Arbor District Library.

9:13 p.m. Briere responds to Teall by saying that she doesn’t anticipate anyone at the library dealing with maintenance or programming of the space. She would never want to burden the library.

9:15 p.m. Teall says her concern is not that the library is being told to do anything. But the burden of having space next to the library that is unprogrammed will fall on the library regardless, she says.

9:18 p.m. Eaton is addressing the idea that a park would create a safety problem that does not already exist. When he sat down with the library board, they told him about someone who discovered a couple having sex in the underground parking structure stairwell. The idea that having a park will create a new problem is silly, Eaton says. Hieftje quips that in light of the problem Eaton described, perhaps a new downtown hotel was needed.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says that there’s politics involved, and fear mongering by the library board about the problems that could result from having a public park.

9:19 p.m. Teall says there’s not fear mongering but rather people who know their business [library board] and who know it well.

9:25 p.m. Hieftje highlights the vocabulary of the “resolved clause” that Briere wants to amend: “urban public park.” Briere is now talking about what she meant. She means it to be interchangeable. Hieftje says the resolution has some promise, but he’s reluctant to give up the whole Fifth Avenue frontage. It’s important for the building to feel like it has an entrance onto Fifth, he says.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The amendment passes with dissent from Kunselman, Teall, and Anglin.

9:25 p.m. Taylor now says he’ll vote against the resolution. The boundaries should be decided at the same time the rest of the location is designed. That would be critical to the success of the public space. He also gives significance to the library board’s resolution. PAC and the library board are against pre-answering the question, he says. If you have any sense of respect for those bodies, in his view there’s only one vote on this, and that’s no.

9:27 p.m. Taylor calls Kunselman’s description of the library board as “fear mongering” is a “shocking insult for which an apology is due.” The library board was weighing in in good faith based on knowledge and expertise, he says.

9:29 p.m. Lumm says it’s not collegial to suggest that adding 6,500 square feet to a public space shows disrespect to the library. The concerns Lumm heard were about the process, she said. So many experts have looked at this and analyzed this, Lumm says.

9:30 p.m. Lumm says if we don’t act now, we’ll likely see cars parked there years from now. Lumm is describing Centennial Park in Atlanta, which she visited when she attended a Final Four game years ago.

9:35 p.m. Warpehoski says the safety concerns had been described as “silly,” so he wants AADL director Josie Parker to come to the podium. He recalls her remark to him a year ago: “We’re all alone down there.” Parker says she doesn’t want to leave tonight appearing silly. The concerns about safety are not silly because the events that the library deals with are real. It’s important to consider what is reality now around that space, she says. She says the Ann Arbor police are called to the downtown library location every third day, and to Liberty Plaza every second day. There have been five heroin overdoses in the last three years, she says. It’s not about making a problem worse, she says, it’s just about acknowledging reality. Most of the issues are “drunk and disorderly.” Right now it’s almost every day, she says. “This is your downtown public library.” They have $250,000 in security costs – just for the downtown location.

9:36 p.m. Parker says, “I have to walk back down there from here, and I’m already worried about it.” You have heroin in your community and no one wants to talk about it. Heroin is being used in the public library, she says, and she doesn’t like talking about it in public.

9:38 p.m. Parker says, “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful.”

9:40 p.m. Lumm asks if the DDA is aware of the situation. She recalls the council resolution asking the DDA to consider funding three downtown beat cops. The DDA had decided not to do that. Parker says that it’s not about policing, but rather about order, maintenance and management. When a patron is so drunk they don’t wake up or can’t walk out, that’s when the police are called, Parker says. She can’t speak for the DDA.

9:43 p.m. Warpehoski thanks Parker. He says when he brings his kids to the downtown location, he still feels like it’s a safe space. It’s not just about an added 5,000 square feet. Having a safe library is important and having a safe space outside the library is also important, he says.

9:46 p.m. Warpehoski says that at the last council meeting, he tried to make a joke and it came off as hurtful and he’d apologized. He now says that he thinks the dismissive comments about the library board merit an apology. Kunselman responds: “I will not be apologizing.”

9:50 p.m. Kunselman says he finds it insulting that the library board passed a resolution telling the council not to pass the resolution. He repeats his contention that the library board was fear mongering. He’d called out the library board, he says, and “That’s what I did – that’s what I do.” He adds: “That’s what I get elected for, to stand up …” for the people who will be using the public space, and let them enjoy their cigarette. [That's a pointed reference to Warpehoski's in-the-works ordinance to regulate outdoor smoking in some areas of public parks.]

9:51 p.m. Briere says that she won’t try to control bad behavior. [The reference is presumably dual – bad behavior in public spaces and bad behavior at the council table.]

9:52 p.m. Briere reviews the content of the resolution. She says that a cooperative spirit at the council table sometimes requires not getting upset when you don’t like what you hear from the other side.

9:54 p.m. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is called to the podium to comment. Teall asks him if he has any ideas about programming for the public space. He pauses before answering. He talks about the process that the staff would go through.

9:55 p.m. Teall wants to strike the part of the resolution that makes a request of community services and parks staff.

9:57 p.m. Smith returns to the podium at Eaton’s request. Eaton asks about cost.

10:00 p.m. Hieftje says he has a basic problem with the resolution. He describes Liberty Plaza as a shadow that hangs over the issue of parks. He says that he thinks the problems associated with Liberty Plaza will migrate to the new space. He wonders why the effort described in the resolution to ask staff to program the Library Lane space in the interim could not be directed to Liberty Plaza.

10:01 p.m. Eaton says that Liberty Plaza is believed by many in the homeless community to be a place where they can gather and not be rousted. The responsibility of having a day shelter has been implicitly placed on the library and that’s not right, he says.

10:02 p.m. Eaton says if there’s a heroin epidemic in town, we probably need some more police officers. He says we need to add park space downtown as we add residents and we also need to address the social consequences of increased density.

10:07 p.m. Briere says the council is going off on a tangent. Requesting that parks staff work to program active uses might result in one event in a year. She describes a possibility of an event where the city’s fire trucks and other heavy equipment were driven to the top of the parking structure and kids were allowed to climb all over them. She ventures that the cost would not be that great. But she allows that the language of the resolution talks about “encouraging” and that is not very specific. It takes time to develop a new program, she says.

10:09 p.m. Hieftje wants to move toward voting on Teall’s amendment. Teall says she likes the sentiment, but doesn’t think it’s fair to staff. Warpehoski says that he doesn’t think staff will be trying to put on a book fair, but rather will work to set policies on use for the space.

10:11 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support Teall’s amendment to give staff maximum flexibility.

10:11 p.m. Outcome: Teall’s amendment fails with support only from Teall, Warpehoski, Taylor, Briere and Hieftje.

10:12 p.m. Anglin says that everyone agrees that this should continue to be a process.

10:16 p.m. Taylor says that we entrust our parks to PAC. Commissioners were unequivocal about their opposition to this resolution, he says. The library board had also communicated its opposition to the resolution. That’s how boards should communicate with each other, he says. The council has no problem asking the state legislature to vote on matters affecting the city. So it’s proper for the library board to convey its view to the council, he says. Taylor will vote against it.

10:20 p.m. Kunselman says the resolution has brought out a lot of feeling in the community. Kunselman says that he’d met with members of the library board last Friday and that they had not given him a heads up that they’d be passing a resolution on this. Kunselman says everyone has to come together to get something out of this. He floats the idea that he might bring forth a resolution calling on the library to move its building on top of the parking structure. “Most of the people we think of as having bad behavior also ride the bus,” he notes. He talks about taking a first step. If the resolution on the broker also passes, then a purchaser will have some idea of what to expect. “I didn’t pour the water for this effort, but I’m helping to carry it,” Kunselman says.

10:21 p.m. Kailasapathy calls the resolution a baby step. She says she feels developers rule supreme. She doesn’t want to leave the future of the public space to a developer. She’s voting for it.

10:24 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it. He rejects the idea that it’s the first step in the process. He recounts several other steps: PAC’s recommendation, Connecting William Street, the design of the parking structure itself. He can celebrate this step because it provides flexibility. It’s important that First Amendment rights be protected on that space. He points out that the Occupy Wall Street movement started in a privately owned public space.

10:27 p.m. Teall says it looks like it’s going to pass. She says that it’s been discussed many times. She’s concerned about moving forward at this pace at this point without a partner who will work and understand what the public would like to see there. She’s also concerned about programming the space. The cost also worries her, she says.

10:30 p.m. Briere now weighs in. She appreciates comments by Warpehoski and Teall. Everyone is working toward the same goal, she says. The question is what to do first. If the city is not clear about its expectations, the city can’t negotiate effectively, she says. It sets a minimum and a maximum. She doesn’t care as much as she should, she says, about the difference between public space, park and plaza. The resolution has been opened up a little bit more to give it flexibility for PAC, she says. A prospective developer should be talking with PAC and the council and trying to figure out the best way to work out how much land is available for public use so they can offer the best possible deal.

10:34 p.m. Briere says she’ll vote yes on this resolution, but is not sure if she’ll vote yes on the brokerage services issue. Teall points out that heroin use should not be equated with homelessness. Hieftje is now defending the city’s record on efforts to work on homelessness. He says that downtown does need more policing. He says if the three new police positions in the initial budget requests for FY 2015 are deployed in downtown, then that would have a positive impact. Hieftje rejects the idea that voting against this resolution means you’re against parks. He recounts his own efforts to expand the park system. He says he’ll vote against this resolution.

10:35 p.m. Hieftje said he’d hoped that the resolution could have been revised to the point where it won the support of PAC and the library board.

10:36 p.m. Hieftje says he’s concerned about the city’s ability to maintain this new space along with a new greenway.

10:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amended resolution on reserving an area for a public urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Dissenting on the 7-3 vote were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall. Petersen is absent.

10:39 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

10:53 p.m. We’re back.

10:57 p.m. The council is going to deal with its closed session now instead of later.

10:57 p.m. Eaton declares that he’s supposed to disclose that he has a potential conflict of interest in the matter to be discussed in closed session. It’s the Yu v. City of Ann Arbor case. Eaton explains that he had accepted a nominal sum from an attorney in the Yu v. City of Ann Arbor case to create an attorney-client privileged relationship. That relationship ended before Eaton took office, he explains.

11:04 p.m. Closed session.

11:04 p.m. The council has emerged from closed session.

11:05 p.m. Briere says, “We’ve got the whole meeting in front of us!”

11:05 p.m. DC-2 Waive attorney-client privilege for Feb. 25, 2014 city attorney memo on property assessment. This item was postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. It would waive privilege on a Feb. 25, 2014 memo from the city attorney explaining aspects of how tax assessment and appeals work. [For more background, see Tax Assessment above.]

11:06 p.m. Eaton explains that while campaigning he’d received questions on this issue. He reports that the city attorney, Stephen Postema, doesn’t have a problem with it. Briere has a question for Postema.

11:06 p.m. Briere says that in the past, the council has provided direction to craft an opinion that’s suitable for a public audience. Postema says that would be best practice. Briere asks Eaton if that would be all right with him. Eaton says that he sees no reason or purpose to it. There’s no risk to the city. Briere says her concern is for coherence.

11:11 p.m. Taylor agrees with Eaton’s concern about educating the public is appropriate. He says that directing the city attorney to provide a memo for public consumption would alter the nature of the advice the council would receive – if the city attorney had in the back of his mind that it might have privilege waived.

11:14 p.m. Anglin has some questions about what information will be attached.

11:14 p.m. Lumm doesn’t care how it’s done but wants to see the information provided to the public.

11:15 p.m. Eaton says he doesn’t see any purpose to it. He ventures that the outside bond counsel will not be going through the cosmetic procedure that the council is going through. He’ll opposed Taylor’s amendment.

11:17 p.m. Kunselman will support Taylor’s amendment. If there’s any information that’s different in the revised memo, the council can just come back and waive the privilege. If that makes the city staff comfortable, he’s willing to go along with that. Lumm reiterates her concern that the important thing is to get the information out, but understands Eaton’s point.

11:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city attorney to prepare an advice memo for public consumption.

11:18 p.m. DC-3 Charitable gaming license for Pearls & Ivy Foundation Inc. Passage of the resolution will allow the Pearls & Ivy Foundation Inc. to hold a poker event at the Heidelberg, located at 215 N. Main Street.

11:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the charitable gaming license.

11:18 p.m. DC-4 Direct development of a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. The resolution would direct the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. [For more background, see Energy: Resolution on Development of Energy Disclosure for Commercial Buildings above.]

11:18 p.m. Hieftje says the motivation is explained very well in the memo accompanying the resolution.

11:20 p.m. When companies were forced to report how much pollution was being put into the air and water, they started reducing how much pollution they produced, Hieftje says. He draws an analogy to this resolution.

11:23 p.m. Briere recalls the city’s sustainability guidelines. She says she likes looking at her monthly utility bills and comparing her energy use to her neighbors’. She likes the firm date and the fact that it’s a direction to the energy commission.

11:25 p.m. Lumm is reading aloud a prepared statement of opposition based on the amount of staff time it might require. She is concerned that those who would be impacted had not been contacted. She says that the premise is that building owners are not already aware of their energy costs. She can’t tell if she’d ultimately vote to support to support a resolution if it were developed.

11:26 p.m. Anglin says it’s a good way to proceed, but ventures that the private sector is well aware of its energy use. Anglin is more concerned about the fact that the city needs four more foresters. He ventures that someone would need to be hired to do this – which is the next resolution.

11:27 p.m. Hieftje says that the city, as municipal entity, makes up a small portion of the energy use in the city. So other sectors have to be engaged, he says.

11:30 p.m. Kunselman says he thinks that other model ordinances can be used. He doesn’t think it will be that time-consuming. He indicates he won’t necessarily support a hire of energy staff to accomplish this. Taylor says that it will be a benefit to the public. Lumm is reiterating the points she’s already made by reading aloud the staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items.

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct development of an energy disclosure ordinance on a 7-3 vote. Dissenting were Lumm, Eaton and Anglin.

11:32 p.m. DC-5 Recommend filling energy office staff position. The resolution would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution. [For more background, see Energy: Resolution on Energy Office Staff above.]

11:34 p.m. Briere is offering an amendment that directs the city administrator to develop a plan for realizing the goals of the climate action plan, but not direct a staff hire. Briere says that she feels it’s inappropriate to determine staffing issues. The council is a policy-making body and the level of staffing to effectuate that policy is the city administrator’s responsibility, she says.

11:35 p.m. Lumm wants city administrator Steve Powers’ reaction to the amended resolution.

11:38 p.m. Powers says he doesn’t know if this effort will require an additional staff member. That will depend on the result of the report that this resolution directs. Lumm wants to know if an additional staff member will be required. Powers reiterates that this depends on the finding.

11:40 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the FY 2015 budget will not include the FTE that the original resolution called for. Powers says that it still might. Kunselman says that the council could then remove it from the budget. Powers allows that’s right.

11:44 p.m. Lumm is not comfortable with this because it seems like a commitment to more spending. She doesn’t like the idea of handling this kind of thing outside the ordinary budget process. She’s not comfortable with the lack of clarity, so she’s not comfortable. Warpehoski says he wants the city administrator’s report so that he can make that decision based on what’s in it.

11:45 p.m. Warpehoski weighs in for it.

11:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-4 to direct the city administrator to present a plan to realize the goals of the sustainability plan. Dissenting were Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton and Anglin.

11:46 p.m. DC-6 Waive attorney-client privilege on Aug. 9, 2012 memo from the outside bond counsel. This resolution would waive attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane project have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo apparently analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.[For more background, see Top of Library Lane: Bound Counsel above.]

11:48 p.m. Kunselman is giving background on the memo. It came back up when the audit committee reviewed the DDA audit. It would help answer some questions the public have, he says. He doesn’t think the city administrator, or the city attorney or the chief financial officer has a problem waiving privilege on the document.

11:51 p.m. Taylor makes a similar amendment to the previous one on attorney-client privilege. He doesn’t want subsequent attorney-client privileged information to have uncertainty about whether privilege would eventually be waived.

11:52 p.m. Briere doesn’t want the city attorney to rewrite the bond counsel’s advice memo. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias says she thinks it would be appropriate to ask the city attorney to ask the outside bond counsel to prepare a memorandum.

11:57 p.m. The amendment is to direct the city attorney to ask outside bond counsel to prepare a memo that has the same information as the original memo.

11:57 p.m. Kailasapathy says she doesn’t see the point in having the document rewritten.

11:58 p.m. Kunselman says that the memo didn’t include some issue he wanted to be addressed. So if it’s going to be rewritten, there are things that he’d like to have included in the re-written memo.

12:01 a.m. Eaton says it’s a fiction that rewriting an opinion protects the city’s interests. An attorney whose advice changes based on whether that advice is made public is not an attorney you’d want to hire, he says. Taylor calls the gratuitous waiver of privilege unprofessional and doesn’t want the council to get a reputation for being unprofessional.

12:03 a.m. Lumm says it’s about transparency. She doesn’t see a legal reason not to make it public. Asking the bond counsel to rewrite something for no good reason.

12:03 a.m. Outcome: The amendment fails 4-6, with support only from Hieftje, Briere, Taylor and Teall.

12:06 a.m. Briere says that she voted for the amendment because she thinks the city attorney should be routinely directed to rewrite memos. She felt that the memo in question should never have been considered privileged in the first place.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to waive attorney-client privilege on the 2012 outside bond counsel memo, over dissent from Taylor, who does not insist on a roll-call vote.

12:06 a.m. DC-7 Banfield Bar & Grill liquor license: Withdraw objection and renew license. At its March 3, 2014 meeting the council voted to recommend withdrawal of Banfield Bar & Grill’s liquor license. That had been based on non-payment of taxes. No one appeared on Banfield’s behalf at a hearing on the matter. The taxes were subsequently paid. So this resolution withdraws the recommendation that the license not be renewed and instead recommends that it be renewed.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend the renewal of Banfield’s liquor license.

12:07 a.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

12:17 a.m. We’re back.

12:17 a.m. DC-8 Direct city administrator to list surface of Library Lane parking structure for sale; retain real estate brokerage services. This resolution would direct the city administrator to obtain real estate brokerage services for the sale of right to develop the city-owned property on top of the Library Lane parking structure. [For more background, see Top of Library Lane: Brokerage Services above.]

12:20 a.m. Kunselman reviews the item. He points out that this is not a sale of the property. We’ve done a lot of talking and we’ve got a lot of ideas, he says, but we don’t have any money. He hopes for everyone’s support.

12:21 a.m. Briere is interested in finding a civic use of the property. So she wasn’t sure that “highest and best use” should be the criterion.

12:23 a.m. Kailasapathy says highest is not necessarily best use. Hieftje responds by saying that “highest and best use” is a real estate term. It’s a term of art that means that we want to get a good return for the taxpayers.

12:25 a.m. Kunselman says he’s willing to strike the phrase “highest and best use.” That appears to be accepted on a friendly basis.

12:28 a.m. Warpehoski says that the highest price is not the most important thing. “Let’s give this a try,” he says.

12:30 a.m. Lumm says she’s comfortable supporting this, given the passage of the urban park resolution.

12:31 a.m. Lumm says she’s seen the planning commission’s resolution and she thinks it might be too prescriptive. Now is a good time to move forward, she says. [.pdf of planning commission's resolution]

12:39 a.m. Eaton says he’s supporting this resolution because he sees it as direction to the city administrator to explore what’s possible. Taylor says he’ll be supporting this, because he’s excited about what we might find out. He’s excited about seeing this area of the city activated. He says that the level of detail that Dennis Dahlmann had provided for the Y lot would also be expected, if not more, for this parcel. Warpehoski and Lumm get some clarity about the previous resolution. Hieftje calls 415 W. Washington a piece of city-owned blight. He wants to use this resolution tonight as a template for other properties like 415 W. Washington.

12:41 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-1 to direct the city administrator to list the Library Lot property for sale. Dissenting was Kailasapathy. Petersen was absent from the start of the meeting. Teall departed late in the meeting.

12:41 a.m. DS-1 Approve changes to bylaws of the Ann Arbor city planning commission. This item has been on the council’s agenda since last fall and repeatedly postponed as the planning commission considered additional changes to its bylaws. Three changes have been approved by the planning commission: (1) a change to the requirements on request for accommodations for people with a disability – from a day to two days in advance; (2) an outright prohibition against city councilmembers addressing the planning commission; and (3) a clarification that people can speak only once during a public hearing, even if that hearing is continued at a subsequent meeting. The planning commission adopted (2) and (3) at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting, having previously adopted (1) last summer at its July 16, 2013. Tonight the only change in front of the council is (1), because the city attorney’s office “has suggested the wording of one of the amendments should be clarified before moving forward,” according to a city staff memo.

12:42 a.m. Briere gives the background. Eaton asks what would happen if the council waited until the other bylaws changes were approved. Briere says it wouldn’t be a problem.

12:42 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the changes to the planning commission bylaws.

12:42 a.m. DS-2 Approve a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services in the Ann Arbor Justice Center for the 15th Judicial District Court ($160,000). The total amount of the contract reflects an amount of $26.24 per hour per court security officer. [For more background, see 15th District Court: Weapons Screening above.]

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

12:44 a.m. DS-3 Accept easement for stormwater drainage facilities at 3500 Fox Hunt Drive. This is a standard easement.

12:44 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement for stormwater facilities.

12:45 a.m. DS-4 Purchase of two Forklifts ($55,268) This resolution will authorized the purchase of two Clark C30 forklifts for use at the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for a total of $55,268. [For more background, see Wheels: Forklifts above.]

12:46 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of two forklifts.

12:50 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:54 a.m. Kai Petainen is addressing the council. He’s talking about Ann Arbor SPARK. He’s reading aloud from a dissatisfied participant in SPARK’s boot camp. Their marketing costs are increasing by 100%. He says that SPARK has just lost the pre-seed fund. He says he wants SPARK’s investment to go to local businesses.

Ed Vielmetti notes that the council is getting decade-old reports from the DDA attached to tonight’s agenda. He’s making a request that the city make its FOIA log a part of the city’s data catalog, making it not just a public document, but a published document.

12:56 a.m. Alan Haber expresses his total dissatisfaction with the passage of the resolution on the listing of the Library Lot for sale. He pounds the podium. None of the mayoral candidates on the council should be mayor, he says, because they should be people who speak for the people.

12:56 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the March 17, 2014 meeting agenda.

But related to that item is a new resolution that directs the city administrator to move toward listing for sale the development rights for the top of the parking structure. The urban park designation was postponed from the March 3, 2014 meeting in part to sync up its timing with this resolution, which is being brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

An additional related item is a resolution that would waive the attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, the city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane structure have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.

That’s one of two separate resolutions on the waiver of attorney-client privilege. The other one, postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting, would waive privilege on a city attorney memo dated Feb. 25, 2014 on the topic of how appeals to property assessments work. The memo apparently helps explain “… the effect of a reduction of the assessment for one year by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year.” The council’s agenda also includes an attachment of a report sent to the state tax commission, explaining how the city has complied with various deficiencies in documentation identified previously by the commission.

The council will be considering two items related to energy issues. First, the council will consider a resolution that directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan.

The second energy-related item is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution. The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.”

After approving the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles on March 3 and several pieces of basic equipment at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be considering three resolutions that involve additional vehicles and equipment: two forklifts for the city’s materials recovery facility, a Chevrolet Impala for use by police detectives, and a lease for golf carts from Pifer Inc.

The 15th District Court, which is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor, is featured in two agenda items. The council will be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, which is housed at the Justice Center – the police/courts building immediately adjoining city hall.

A second item related to the court is an introduction of Shryl Samborn as the new administrator of the 15th District Court. Samborn is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring. His last day of work is March 28.

At its March 17 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the temporary relocation of Precinct 1-7 from Pierpont Commons, 2101 Bonisteel, to Northwood Community Center (family housing). That relocation will be in effect for the May 6 vote on the transit millage and for the Aug. 5 primary elections.

Among the items attached to the March 17 agenda as reports or communications is one from the city administrator noting that for the April 5 Hash Bash event on the University of Michigan campus, all sidewalk occupancy permits and peddler’s licenses in the immediately surrounding area will be suspended. The possibility of such suspension – which the city administrator’s memo indicates is motivated by a desire to relieve congestion – is part of the terms and conditions of such licenses. They’ve been suspended for Hash Bash for at least the last six years, according to the memo.

Also among the attachments are the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those reports have been the subject of back-and-forth between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and The Ann Arbor Observer over a report in The Observer’s December edition. A follow-up to an initial correction by The Observer is anticipated in the April edition – establishing that Kunselman’s contention had been correct: The DDA annual reports had not been filed with the governing body as required.

The consent agenda also includes approval of street closings for seven upcoming events: a soap box derby, SpringFest, Cinco de Mayo, Burns Park Run, Dexter-Ann Arbor Run, Washington Street Live and the Mayor’s Green Fair.

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

Top of Library Lane

The council’s March 17 meeting features three items related to the future development of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor: (1) a resolution reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park; (2) a resolution that moves toward hiring a brokerage service for selling development rights to the surface; and (3) a resolution that waives attorney-client privilege on a memo from the city’s outside bond counsel.

Top of Library Lane: Urban Park

A significant item was postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting: a resolution that reserves a portion of the surface of the Library Lane parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

Library Lane park proposal as presented to PAC on Feb. 25.

The proposal was also presented to the city’s park advisory commission, the week before the March 3 council meeting. For a detailed report of the PAC meeting of Feb. 25, 2014, see Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

One of the central points of friction over how to proceed is the question of who will own the space on which the publicly accessible space – a park or plaza – is placed.

The proposal put forward to PAC by Will Hathaway, of the Library Green Conservancy, and incorporated into the resolution to be considered by the council envisions a publicly-owned facility that is designated as a park in the city’s park planning documents. That would make it subject to a charter requirement on its sale – which would require a public referendum.

Councilmembers who are open to the possibility that the publicly accessible facility could be privately owned are concerned about the cost of maintenance. The city’s costs for maintaining Library Liberty Plaza – an urban park located northeast of the proposed Library Lane public park – are about $13,000 a year. That doesn’t include the amount that First Martin Corp. expends for trash removal and other upkeep of Liberty Plaza. [Urban park cost estimates]

Revisions to the resolution were undertaken since the council meeting on March 3. The now revised resolution – “version 3” in the city’s Legistar system – indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. The revised resolution also eliminates an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution for March 17 council meeting]

The memo accompanying the revised resolution describes the changes as follows:

1. Square Footage and Boundaries. The first resolved clause is modified to reflect the information we received from City staff regarding the dimensions of the area. A site plan from staff showed the accurate square footage of the area to be designated as urban park as approximately 12,000 square feet.
2. Encouragement of Creative Public Programming. The second resolved clause text is now clearer that the various City government offices and the DDA are being asked to give thought to how they can encourage other groups to reserve the space on the Library Lane structure and put on creative public events.
3. Integration of Park Design with Adjacent Development. The third resolved clause is an acknowledgement that the two spaces should be designed to complement each other and that the City will play a leadership role in making that integration occur.
4. Activation of the Public Park through Integration with the Block. The fourth resolved clause acknowledges the necessity for the City to work with all the neighboring property owners on the Library Block in order to achieve the pedestrian connectivity that will result in vital, attractive public spaces. The text has been modified to clarify that reorientation need not entail major redevelopment.
5. Process for Creation of the Public Park and Development of the Remaining Library Lane Site. The resolved clauses that spelled out specific next steps have been removed from the resolution. The assumption now is that these respective City government bodies will move forward autonomously to accomplish these tasks.

An additional point of friction involves how much of the site would be left for development if the northwest corner of the site is devoted to a public plaza/park. Related to that issue is whether the existing northern border of the site – which currently features the sides and backs of buildings – can adequately support a public plaza/park. The fact that the site does not currently enjoy other surrounding buildings that turn toward it is part of the reason advocates for a park are now asking that the Ann Arbor District Library, located to the south of the site, relocate its entrance from Fifth Avenue to the north side of its building.

In terms of the color-shaded map produced by city staff, the focus of controversy is the light orange area, which was designed to support “medium density building.” Based on staff responses to councilmember questions, the density imagined for that orange rectangle could be transferred to the planned high-density (red) portion of the site. The maximum height in the D1 zoning area is 180 feet, and the parking structure was designed to accommodate the structural load of an 18-story building.

City staff diagram illustrating the building possibilities for the top of the underground Library Lane parking structure.

Top of Library Lane: Brokerage Services

Related to the urban park item is a new resolution with the title: “Resolution to Direct City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and to Retain Real Estate Brokerage Services.” That’s the address of the Library Lane underground parking structure. As of noon Friday, the online agenda item had only a title, but no content.

The urban park designation was postponed from the March 3, 2014 meeting in part to synch up its timing with this resolution, which is being brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

This approach would be similar to the path the city council took to sell the former Y lot. For that parcel, the council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a real estate broker to test the market for development rights . The council took the initial step with that property, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor, close to a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting. The council gave final approval to the sale – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – on Nov. 28, 2013. That sale is now set to close on April 2, according to city administrator Steve Powers, who responded on March 12 to an emailed query from The Chronicle.

A rider agreement – to ensure against non-development and to sketch out the amount of open space and density – was part of the approach the city took to the former Y lot deal with Dahlmann.

Top of Library Lane: Bond Counsel

An item also related to the future development of the area above the Library Lane structure is a resolution that would waive the attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane project have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo apparently analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.

In broad strokes, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 – also known as the stimulus act – created the Build America Bond program. BAB authorized state and local governments to issue taxable bonds to finance any capital expenditures for which they otherwise could issue tax-exempt governmental bonds. The bonds have a limitation related to how the facilities financed through such bonds can be used. Glossing over details, only up to 10% of a facility financed through BAB can be dedicated to private use.

All other things being equal, the Ann Arbor DDA does not contract with businesses for monthly permits. Instead, the DDA contracts with individuals on a first-come-first-serve basis.

For the Library Lane structure, the DDA offered introductory pricing of its monthly permits to encourage the structure’s initial use. And the nature of that introductory pricing scheme could prompt questions about whether some of those permits might properly count as “private use” of the structure. A $95 introductory rate (which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures) was offered to employees of “new to downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014.

Two years ago, Barracuda Networks was moving to downtown Ann Arbor, and therefore qualified as a “new to downtown” business. So its employees thus qualified for the discounted monthly parking permits.

In a July 13, 2012 email to Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, DDA executive director Susan Pollay wrote in part:

I met with the two key individuals directing the Ann Arbor Barracuda office and told them point blank, that that there will be parking for Barracuda employees now when they move to downtown, and as they grow their employee ranks over the next few years.

To the extent that Barracuda employees (or employees of other downtown businesses) have privileged access or enjoy an economic advantage (like reduced rates), then it’s possible the private use test could be met for those spaces.

Four years ago, Wayne State University professor of law Noah Hall, writing on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (GLELC), sent the city of Ann Arbor a letter on the BAB private use issue. [For more detail, see his letter: April 14, 2010 letter from Noah Hall] GLELC was a party to a lawsuit filed over the Library Lane parking structure, which eventually was settled.

The document for which the council might vote to waive attorney-client privilege on March 17 appears to be one of the items denied in a response to a request made by The Chronicle under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The item not provided to The Chronicle was a file attached to an email sent by CFO Tom Crawford on August 13, 2012 to councilmembers – named “BHO 1-# 1607254-v8-Ann_Arbor _ -_Memo_re_Permitted_Parking_Arrangements.docx” The request for that document was denied based on the statutory exemption allowed for items protected under attorney-client privilege.

However, members of the city council’s audit committee have placed a resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda to waive attorney-client privilege on the document in question. [For additional background, see: "Column: Rocking Back on the Library Lot."]

Tax Assessment

The outside bond counsel’s memo on the use of Build America Bonds is not the only item on the March 17 agenda involving the waiver of attorney-client privilege. The other one, postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting, would waive privilege on a city attorney memo dated Feb. 25, 2014 on the topic of how appeals to property assessments work.

The memo apparently helps explain “… the effect of a reduction of the assessment for one year by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year.”

The memo may help explain how one section of Michigan’s General Property Tax Act is properly interpreted and applied:

211.30c Reduced amount as basis for calculating assessed value or taxable value in succeeding year; applicability of section. Sec. 30c. (1) If a taxpayer has the assessed value or taxable value reduced on his or her property as a result of a protest to the board of review under section 30, the assessor shall use that reduced amount as the basis for calculating the assessment in the immediately succeeding year. However, the taxable value of that property in a tax year immediately succeeding a transfer of ownership of that property is that property’s state equalized valuation in the year following the transfer as calculated under this section.

In Chart 1 below, a homeowner purchased the property in 2006 for $227,000. It was assessed at market value of $281,600, or $140,800 state equalized value. On appeal to the board of review in 2007, the assessed value was reduced to $113,500. In 2008, the 2007 assessed value does not appear to have been used as the basis for calculating the assessment.

Chart 1: Taxable and assessed value for a Ward 4 property as evaluated by the city (reds) and the board of review on appeal (blues). The property changed hands in 2006. An appeal to the board of review was granted in 2007, but the city assessor appears not to have used the reduced amount in calculating the assessment in 2008.

Also related to the issue of tax assessment, the March 17 agenda includes an attachment of a report sent to the state tax commission by city assessor David Petrak, explaining how the city has complied with various deficiencies in documentation identified previously by the commission. Among the notes in the letter was an issue that’s become a routine point of public commentary for Ann Arbor resident Ed Vielmetti – the timely filing of meeting minutes by various boards and commissions. From Petrak’s report to the tax commission:

Concern #2: Board of Review prepared minutes were not filed with the local unit clerk
Response: On February 18th 2014 the Board of Review minutes were officially filed with and recorded by The City Clerk. Staff will insure all future minutes are similarly recorded in a timely fashion.

Energy

The council will be considering two items related to energy issues: (1) a resolution directing the drafting of an ordinance; and (2) a resolution calling for a staff position to be filled.

Energy: Resolution on Development of Energy Disclosure for Commercial Buildings

The council will consider a resolution that directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. Such an ordinance would require owners of commercial buildings to disclose data on energy consumption by their buildings. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which was approved by the city council at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. Baseline for the reductions are 2000 levels.

The resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda originated with the city’s energy commission. The staff memo compares the idea of a disclosure requirement for energy usage by commercial buildings to a miles-per-gallon rating for vehicles or nutritional facts labeling for food products. According to the memo, awareness of energy consumption has been shown to encourage building owners to have energy audits done on their buildings. Those audits can then lead to energy efficiency upgrades that result in cost savings to the building owners and reduced emissions.

An estimate for the potential energy cost savings that would result from an energy benchmarking ordinance in Ann Arbor – prepared by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) – is between $2 million and $2.5 million, annually. According to the staff memo, similar ordinances in place in other cities typically employed a phased approach, often with municipal buildings as well as the largest private buildings (by square footage) complying in the initial year(s), and medium-sized and/or smaller buildings participating in later years.

The energy commission is recommending that an ordinance be developed with a phased approach, with the phases based on building categories and sizes. One possibility is to start with all qualifying municipal buildings in the first six months, commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet in 12 to 18 months, multifamily and commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet in 24 to 36 months, and all commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet in 36 to 48 months. The goal would be to have reported energy consumption information for 80% of the commercial square feet in the city within five years of adoption.

Energy: Resolution on Energy Office Staff

The second energy-related item on the March 17 city council agenda is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution.

The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.” Among the specific efforts cited in the resolution are the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program.

At its March 4, 2014 meeting, the city’s planning commission passed a resolution in support of the hiring. Planning commissioners were briefed on the issue by Wayne Appleyard, chair of the energy commission. Resolutions of support were also passed by the city’s energy and environmental commissions.

Wheels

After approving the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles on March 3 and several pieces of basic equipment at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be considering three resolutions that involve additional vehicles and equipment: two forklifts for the city’s materials recovery facility, a Chevrolet Impala for use by police detectives, and a lease for golf carts from Pifer Inc.

Wheels: Forklifts

The council will be asked to approve the purchase of two Clark C30 forklifts for use at the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for a total of $55,268.

The forklifts to be purchased would replace two that are currently being rented at a cost of $12,000 a year. The city is calculating that the purchase cost will be covered by savings in rental costs in 2.3 years.

Wheels: Detective

On the council’s March 17 agenda is the approval of the purchase of a police detective vehicle – a Chevrolet Impala – from Berger Chevrolet in Oakland County for $26,750. The car will replace a vehicle that in the next year will have reached an 80,000-mile limit specified in the city’s labor contract.

Wheels: Golf Carts

The council will be asked to approve an amendment to a two-year golf cart lease with Pifer Inc. The agreement would increase the original number of 65 leased carts by 34 carts, for a total of 99 carts. The city leases golf carts from Pifer for the Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses.

The lease amendment would be for two years, for an amount not to exceed $50,340 over the length of the lease amendment term. Funding for FY 2014 would come from the parks and recreation services general fund and would be in the proposed budget for FY 2015, according to a staff memo. In FY 2013, the city generated about $225,000 in revenue from golf cart rentals.

The council’s resolution also will approve the sale of 32 city-owned golf carts to Pifer for $50,340. The city’s park advisory commission recommended the action on golf carts at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

15th District Court

The 15th District Court, which is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor, is featured in two agenda items.

The council will be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, which is housed at the Justice Center – the police/courts facility immediately adjoining the Larcom city hall building at the corner of Huron and Fifth.

The total amount of the contract reflects an amount of $26.24 per hour per court security officer. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s estimated that three officers would be assigned on a given day with hours staggered to match the ebb and flow of court business through a typical day.

A second item related to the 15th District Court is an introduction of Shryl Samborn as the new administrator. Samborn is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring. His last day of work for the court is March 28.

Election Polling Places

At its March 17 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the temporary relocation of Precinct 1-7 from Pierpont Commons, 2101 Bonisteel, to Northwood Community Center (family housing), which is the location for Precinct 2-1. That relocation will be in effect for the May 6 vote on the transit millage and for the Aug. 5 primary elections.

The relocation is needed because Pierpont Commons will be unavailable due to renovations being undertaken by the University of Michigan to that facility.

The council’s resolution is needed only on the relocation for Aug. 5 – when the two precincts will operate separately but at the same Northwood Community Center location. The city election commission has the authority to consolidate the two locations – which it did for the May 6 election at its Feb. 26 meeting.

Map of Precincts 1-7 and 2-1.

Attachments

The online agenda for March 17 includes myriad reports and communications as attachments.

Attachments: Hash Bash

Among the items attached to the agenda as reports or communications is one from the city administrator noting that for the April 5, 2014 Hash Bash event on the University of Michigan campus, all the sidewalk occupancy permits and peddler’s licenses in the immediately surrounding area will be suspended.

The possibility of such suspension – which the city administrator’s memo indicates is motivated by a desire to relieve congestion – is part of the terms and conditions of such licenses. They’ve been suspended for Hash Bash for at least the last six years, according to the memo. Hash Bash is a gathering that focuses on reform of marijuana laws.

Map of area where peddler and sidewalk occupancy permits have been suspended for the April 5, 2014 Hash Bash.

Attachments: DDA Annual Reports

Also among the attachments are the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those reports have been the subject of back-and-forth between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and The Ann Arbor Observer over a report in The Observer’s December edition. A follow-up to an initial correction by The Observer is anticipated in the April edition – establishing that Kunselman’s contention had been correct: Before 2011, the reports had not been filed with the governing body as required under state statute.

Street Closings

The March 17 agenda features a number of street closings for upcoming events. They appear on the consent agenda, which includes a group of items voted on “all in one go.” So unless a councilmember pulls out a consent agenda item for separate consideration, these items won’t be mentioned explicitly at the meeting.

• Saturday, March 29, 2014: Sixth Annual Box Cart Race/Soap Box Derby. The event is sponsored by Phi Delta Theta Fraternity and Ann Arbor Active Against ALS to honor the legacy of their fraternity brother, Lou Gehrig, and to raise money for ALS research. All proceeds from the event will be donated to ALS research. Streets to be closed: South University from Oxford to Walnut; Linden from South University to Geddes.
  

  Map of street closings for Sixth Annual Soap Box Derby.

• Thursday, April 10, 2014: SpringFest. The sponsor, the University of Michigan-MUSIC Matters organization, is presenting a day of festivities to be capped off with a MUSIC Matters concert. The festivities will feature an assortment of student groups from the innovation, arts, sustainability, music and social justice communities on campus. Speakers will begin the program at 1 p.m. with live music featuring students and other local Ann Arbor talent to begin at 2:30 p.m. Streets to be closed: North University Street between Thayer and Fletcher Streets.
  

  Map of street closings for SpringFest.

• Sunday, May 4, 2014: Burns Park Run. Streets to be closed: Several streets in the Burns Park neighborhood.
  

  Map of street closures associated with the Burns Park Run.

• Tuesday, May 6, 2014: Ann Arbor Cinco de Mayo Party. The event is sponsored by Tios Restaurant to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Streets to be closed: Liberty Street between Thompson and Division.
  

  Map of street closures associated with Cinco de Mayo.

• Saturday, June 1, 2014: Live on Washington. This is a youth-curated outdoor arts festival, featuring performances on a stage as well as more “interactive street art” like break dancing, puppetry, and mural art. It’s sponsored by the Neutral Zone. Streets to be closed: Washington Street between Fifth Avenue and Division.
  

  Map of street closures associated with Live on Washington.

• Sunday, June 1, 2014: Dexter-Ann Arbor Run. The Dexter-Ann Arbor race is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club. Streets to be closed: Several downtown streets and surface parking lots.
  

  Map of downtown street closings for Dexter-Ann Arbor Run.

• Friday, June 14, 2013: Mayor’s Green Fair.
  

  Map of street closings for Mayor’s Green Fair.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

Will Hathaway gave a presentation about a proposal to build an urban park at the Library Lane site. He spoke on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, which is working with some city councilmembers on the proposal. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners were briefed by Will Hathaway on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, which has been advocating for a large section of the site to be designated as a park. He described a resolution that was later brought forward by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Hathaway highlighted aspects of the proposal that drew on recommendations made by PAC to the city council last fall. He said he wasn’t asking for PAC to take any specific action on this proposal, but asked for feedback. Several commissioners raised concerns, including some that focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

Subsequently, at the March 3 council meeting, PAC chair Ingrid Ault and former chair Julie Grand both spoke during public commentary and urged postponement of the resolution. Mayor John Hieftje, responding to the initiative, gave his own presentation on March 3 with a different vision for connected urban spaces downtown.

And Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told councilmembers that he wanted a postponement to have time to meet with Ann Arbor District Library board members about moving the library over to the surface of the Library Lane structure. He also plans to bring forward a resolution that would move towards hiring a broker to list development rights on the Library Lane surface for sale.

Ultimately, the council voted to postpone action until its March 17 meeting. At that meeting, it’s likely that Eaton will bring forward a revised resolution, a copy of which was provided to The Chronicle on March 13. The revised resolution indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. The revised resolution also eliminates an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution for March 17 council meeting]

In other action at PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting, commissioners heard three other presentations related to city parks. Councilmember Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) described a proposed ordinance that he’s brought to council regarding outdoor smoking in public places, including parks. Elements of the ordinance include authorizing the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking.

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator, gave a presentation to PAC about the urban and community forest management plan. The city recently released a draft and is seeking input. And Doug Kelly, Ann Arbor’s director of golf, gave an update on the city’s two golf courses at Huron Hills and Leslie Park.

In voting items, PAC recommended approval of an amendment to the city’s golf cart lease with Pifer Inc., and supported approval of contracts for work at Windemere and Clinton parks.

Commissioners also got a brief financial update for the current fiscal year, which runs through June 30, 2014. Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee, summarized the status this way: “Basically, we’re in great shape.”

Urban Park Proposal

Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, presented a proposal to PAC to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. He noted that the conservancy has been working with a group of city councilmembers on a resolution that would be brought forward at the council’s March 3 meeting. [.pdf of March 3 resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries presented to PAC]

Library Lane park proposal as presented to PAC on Feb. 25.

Ann Arbor used to have a town square, Hathaway said – it was the lawn of the old Washtenaw County courthouse, which served as a gathering place for events like speeches by presidential candidates. When that courthouse was torn down, the city lost its town square, he said, so there’s been a need since then.

In the late 1980s, city council formed a task force to make recommendations for developing what’s known as the “library block,” Hathaway said – an area bounded by Fifth Avenue, William, Division and Liberty streets. That effort culminated in the Luckenbach/Ziegelman report of 1991. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] The report includes a concept drawing for a town square-type park on South Fifth Avenue.

More recently, the city went through an initiative called the Calthorpe process, Hathaway said, which yielded another vision for a city plaza that spanned the entire library block, connecting to the existing Liberty Plaza park. [That process resulted in the rezoning effort called Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2).]

Then, during the city’s 2009 RFP (request for proposals) process for the top of the Library Lane site, two concepts for parks were proposed, he said: a town square concept, and the community commons concept. Neither of those two ideas for a park – nor for any other development – were ultimately deemed by the city to meet the criteria set forth in the RFP, he said.

Since 2009, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has completed the Library Lane underground parking structure. That project was finished in 2012, with over 700 spaces. Prior to that, the surface lot had about 200 spaces, Hathaway said. The DDA envisioned future development atop the underground structure, and included an area with reinforced footings for a tall building. The DDA plan called for a modest public plaza, he noted, which could be extended by closing the Library Lane street that runs between Fifth and Division. The DDA plan also envisioned that the Ann Arbor District Library entrance would be reoriented to face north, onto Library Lane. The current entrance faces west, onto Fifth Avenue.

Until the top was developed, the DDA’s default plan was to use the surface for parking, with about 40 spaces, Hathaway said. It was meant as a temporary placeholder.

Gwen Nystuen, a former Ann Arbor park advisory commission, is a member of the Library Green Conservancy. She was one of several conservancy members who attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting.

Hathaway described the Connecting William Street project, which the DDA oversaw at the direction of city council, as a way to find consensus for developing five city-owned lots in the downtown area, including the top of the Library Lane structure. After the CWS process found strong interest in public parks, he said, the council turned to PAC to make recommendations. PAC formed a downtown park subcommittee, which developed recommendations during an eight-month process.

Those recommendations, which also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure, were approved by PAC at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report] [The subcommittee's report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.]

Several findings from the subcommittee’s work stand out, Hathaway told commissioners. Public opinion strongly favors more urban parks, he noted, with 76% of respondents to an online survey stating that Ann Arbor would benefit from having more urban parks and open space. The first choice of locations was the Library Lane lot, he said.

PAC’s recommendations listed additional possible locations for downtown parks. The Library Green Conservancy pulled out PAC’s criteria that were specific to a park on the Library Lane site, he said, noting that the PAC recommendations were a thoughtful attempt to anticipate what factors would lead to the success of an urban park.

Hathaway then listed the specific PAC recommendations that the conservancy used to develop its proposal. PAC recommended that a park on the site should make use of the closure of Library Lane, and the size should be larger than the DDA’s recommended minimum of 5,000 square feet.

The draft proposal for council was to reserve about 10,000 square feet of the Library Lane site for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” It would be about the same size as Liberty Plaza, which Hathaway described as a “companion” park on the northeast corner of the library block, at Liberty and Division. [The revised resolution on city council's March 17 agenda now indicates dimensions of 12,000 square feet, with the southern boundary extending to the Library Lane curb.]

The Library Lane park could be expanded on occasion by closing the Library Lane street. Hathaway noted that this was also part of the recommendations in the DDA’s Connecting William Street report.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, and park commissioner Missy Stults tried to solve a computer glitch in the presentation by Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy.

PAC also had recommended that a park on that site should use the city’s investment in “development-ready infrastructure,” Hathaway noted, including reinforced footings and other elements. But he said much of the infrastructure could be used for development of adjacent sites too, not just on top of the underground parking structure. So “the value of it is not linked completely to what happens on site,” Hathaway said.

Hathaway also noted that PAC had recommended that development of the Library Lane site and adjacent parcels, with accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of the site, and that future improvements should work to create a highly visible connection between Library Lane and Liberty Plaza.

Some of the development of the library block is constrained by historic preservation, Hathaway said. Some historic buildings can be modified in certain ways, for example, but not removed. Historic buildings along South Fifth now house Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden restaurants. On Division, the historic buildings include the Kempf House Museum and the Noble house and its carriage house. Hathaway also reviewed the buildings in the block that could be renovated or replaced, as well as potential new paths that could be created to encourage pedestrian flow through the block.

Hathaway referred to other PAC recommendations as well, including: (1) any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities; and (2) the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

The council resolution anticipates additional public process, Hathaway said, with the library’s involvement being essential to the process, as well as involvement of other stakeholders on that block.

The original resolution also called for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asked PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the resolution described for PAC included:

• adding the designated portion of the Library Lane structure’s surface to the city’s parks & recreation open space (PROS) plan, and stating that it will remain a city-owned, public park;
• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The proposed resolution also specified certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

“There are lots of questions that still need to be asked and answered before the vision for a park becomes reality,” Hathaway said. “This is really I guess what we would characterize as Step One.”

He likened the process to the one that led to the Ann Arbor skatepark being built at Veterans Memorial Park. Designating the Library Lane site as a future park would allow the rest of the process to move forward, he said. It would also create clarity for adjacent development.

Hathaway described PAC’s leadership last year, with its downtown park subcommittee, as a key step in a long process. ”We look forward to working with you to create a new urban park for Ann Arbor,” Hathaway concluded.

Urban Park Proposal: Commission Discussion

Ingrid Ault began the discussion by saying it wasn’t clear to her what Hathaway was asking for from PAC. Hathaway replied that the conservancy wanted to touch base with PAC, but he didn’t have a request. As news of the conservancy’s efforts on this council resolution emerged, he said some park commissioners had been curious about it. He said he’d welcome feedback, because the resolution was still a draft.

Hathaway said they’d been working closely with councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who had shared an earlier draft with city staff. The draft that PAC was seeing reflected input from parks staff. Hathaway said they’d like to move forward as soon as possible, because designating the site for a park will allow other steps to occur.

Park advisory commissioner David Santacroce.

David Santacroce wondered if any thought was given to designating a range of space, but not a specific parcel. Santacroce said that if he owned a vacant parcel, the natural process would be to decide what gets built there, and then decide how open space could complement that. In the conservancy’s proposal, the fixed park space really dictates the rest of the development on that site, he said, and it feels a little “like cart, then horse.”

Hathaway replied that a portion of the site, in the southwest corner, is already designated for a plaza or open space – in all of the plans, including the DDA’s. So that already dictates where a plaza or public park could be located, he said. The DDA did not include reinforced footings in that area, because they knew that no building would be constructed there, he noted. “In some ways, we’re sort of working within the design that the DDA created with the Library Lane project.”

Over the past few years, the conservancy has considered a lot of different ways that a park could be designed, Hathaway said. And there are people in the conservancy who are very disappointed in the size of the proposal – they’d prefer to see the entire surface of the Library Lane site turned into a public park. The conservancy tried to figure out what was doable within the framework that the DDA created, he said, and within the reality of city council.

Graydon Krapohl asked whether the intent was to take this proposal directly to city council, without going through PAC, the DDA or the planning commission. “I’m a little troubled by the process,” he said. PAC’s report on downtown parks had been accepted by the council, Krapohl noted, but PAC hadn’t received any additional direction from council to examine the use of the Library Lane site as a city park, or to begin the public process for design and use. So presenting a resolution to council seems to circumvent the public process, he said. “In that regard, I would be very troubled as a citizen that a resolution would go forward without the public process having been fully done.”

Hathaway replied that this might not be the normal process, but “I would say that actually this has gone through an exhaustive process.” The DDA’s Connecting William Street process in 2012 was a chance to look at it and report to city council, Hathaway said. Then PAC’s downtown park subcommittee studied the issue and made recommendations last fall, which the council accepted. So this has gone through a lot of public process, Hathaway said, “probably more than a lot of other parks before they’re approved.”

The designation of the space isn’t the final word, Hathaway added. It’s really the first step.

Graydon Krapohl, vice chair of PAC.

Krapohl argued that the next step should be direction given by council, asking PAC to look at establishing a park. The public process so far hasn’t determined the exact dimensions or location of a park, he said. The proposed resolution makes certain assumptions “that may or may not be true,” Krapohl added. He noted that the conservancy doesn’t act in an official capacity for the city in any way.

That’s why the conservancy is working with members of city council, Hathaway replied. The resolution is doing exactly what Krapohl described, he added, by asking the council to give direction to PAC, and designating the Library Lane site for a park.

Krapohl described the resolution as being very specific, with very little leeway in terms of additional public input about the park’s location. It’s being done outside the typical public process, he said. It’s premature to take the resolution to council without it first being reviewed and endorsed by PAC and the planning commission. “I don’t think it serves the best public interest,” Krapohl said.

Hathaway replied, saying “I guess we just are looking at it in a different way.”

Alan Jackson said his concern related to activation of the space on multiple sides. The conservancy’s proposal takes the park up to the edge of the alley on the site’s north side, which might not be a great way to activate that side, he said. Jackson also said it was hard to deal in generalities, and that dealing with a more specific proposal would be more useful. The best time to consider a park on this site is when a developer has made a proposal for the site, Jackson said, and to have the park plan be built in concert with a development. Jackson was interested in a longer-term view, waiting until the site was being developed.

Hathaway said the resolution attempts to lay out exactly the kind of process that Jackson described. The resolution lays out several steps before the site would be used as a park, Hathaway said, and for now it would continue to be a surface parking lot. Some of the steps include having the city and DDA find a development for the site that would accomplish the goal of mixed-use development.

Park advisory commissioner Karen Levin.

Responding to Jackson’s concern about activating the north side of the site, Hathaway said the conservancy has thought about it but it’s not something they can control. There’s outdoor seating at Earthen Jar when the weather is warm, he noted. An awning could be put there, similar to the type of seating at Sculpture Plaza, he said, so an adjacent business could begin to activate that space.

Hathaway also pointed out that the library is talking about renovating its front entrance. He hoped the library would still be open to re-orienting the entrance to the building’s north side, rather than investing in the current entrance facing west. [At the library board's Feb. 17, 2014 meeting, the facilities committee indicated that they had reviewed and rejected the option of relocating the entrance to the north side. Hathaway attended a March 13 public forum at the downtown library regarding the front entrance, and advocated again for re-orienting it to the north.]

Mike Anglin noted that the city had decided to sell the nearby former Y lot, in a deal that was reached rather quickly, he said, to the satisfaction of many people. [Anglin was referring to an offer from hotelier Dennis Dahlmann. The council had approved a $5.25 million purchase agreement with Dahlmann for the city-owned land, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues. That approval came at the council's Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. However, the deal hasn't yet closed. The date set for closing, according to a March 12 communication from city administrator Steve Powers, is April 2.]

Anglin also mentioned that the library had previously put forward a plan to rebuild its downtown location, south of Library Lane. The plan hadn’t been public discussed enough, he said, so there was a lot of opposition. [The library had put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to pay for a new building, but it was rejected by a majority of voters.]

Now, Anglin continued, “I think what we’re seeing here is a little something different.” He said people argued over how much money was spent at the Library Lane site on infrastructure for future development. It had been a major investment, he said, “and surely the city is going to use it for something that should benefit the community.”

Anglin said he has supported using some of the Library Lane space as a park. He thought that designating this space for a park was following PAC’s recommendation. People want a downtown park, he said. More people would move downtown, Anglin added, but the city needs to provide amenities. He referenced four other city-owned downtown parcels that were part of the Connecting William Street study. Anglin thought that designating part of the Library Lane site as a park would actually enhance its appeal for developers.

There would be additional time to figure out what would actually go there, Anglin said. Should it be a big rose garden or a place where kids can swim or a walkway with “pretty lights”? There are lots of opportunities, he said. “So I do not find this process offensive.” Rather, he thought Hathaway “was stepping up as a private citizen.” The council hasn’t given direction, Anglin added, because councilmembers couldn’t agree.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that the one thing in the resolution that gives him pause as a staff person was this part of the second resolved clause: “The City Council requests that the PAC and Parks Department staff prepare preliminary recommendations for the design of the new urban park for consideration by City Council at its first meeting in October, 2014; …”

It’s not just the timeframe that’s a concern, Smith said. There’s agreement in general for a park on the Library Lane site, he noted. But the subcommittee report that PAC approved and that council accepted is at odds with the current resolution directing staff and PAC to design a park that wouldn’t be done in concert with any other development on the site. “And that’s where I feel we’re getting pulled in two different ways here,” he said. Staff will do what they’re directed to do, he added, “but that is not without some conflict in my mind right now.”

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, weighed in. She said the draft resolution was very long “and really difficult to read.” It was hard for her to understand what the resolution was trying to accomplish. If the resolution was supporting PAC’s recommendations, she said, then it should state that clearly. She didn’t think that there was supporting documentation for many of the statements in the resolution. Ault didn’t think anyone on PAC would be ready to make a statement about the resolution at that meeting.

Krapohl said it seems like the next step from council should be to create a task force, similar to what happened for the North Main/Huron River corridor project. Members could include representatives from the conservancy, from PAC, from the planning commission, staff and others, he said, to talk about what the process should be. It was important not to rush this through, he added.

Hathaway replied that a portion of the Library Lane site has been designated as a public plaza since the start of planning for the underground parking structure. The draft resolution was just recommending that the area be extended to the north, he said, at the discretion of city council. He thought it flowed from the work of PAC last year.

He realized the resolution was long, saying he modeled it after others that had come before council, especially some by Christopher Taylor. Taylor’s resolutions use the whereas clauses to “tell the story of how we arrived at the resolved clauses,” Hathaway noted.

The Library Lane park resolution has a lot of whereas clauses because there’s a lot of information that feeds into the resolved clauses, Hathaway explained. So the whereas clauses “are the legislative history of how we got to this point,” he said. The whereas clauses include references to other documents used “throughout this long process,” he added. “It does sort of add up to an understandable conclusion.”

Christopher Taylor, who serves on city council and is an ex officio member of PAC.

It’s a delicate balance, Hathaway said, to provide enough direction without micromanaging.

Ault replied that the resolution struck her as “a little micromanaged.” She again stated that the number of resolved clauses made it really hard for her to read.

Jackson said it wasn’t clear to him that this was the best way to proceed. He wanted to focus on moving the process forward, and he liked Krapohl’s suggestion about creating a task force.

Taylor appreciated that Hathaway had acknowledged the conservancy’s internal conflict regarding the amount of space. The resolution is a departure from the DDA plan, Taylor said, “but it is not a wholesale departure.” Taylor wanted to acknowledge that.

Taylor then noted that PAC’s recommendations had mentioned parks and open space, but the proposed resolution only talks about parks and seeks to move the identified parcel straight to the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan. That approach is “answering the question before it’s even asked,” Taylor said. If a parcel were incorporated into the PROS plan as parkland, then if the city wanted to sell the rights to develop the parcel, “that requires a plebiscite,” Taylor said.

In the end, Taylor contended, the public doesn’t care who owns the site, as long as the public can use it. Questions about who owns the site or manages it or pays for it – these questions are “up in the air,” he said. He suggested an RFP process that would seek development along with plans for open space, rather than “locking down” the site for a park. The creativity would not merely be in the design of a park, “but its integration as well,” Taylor said. Also, designating it as a park “presupposes who’s going to pay for it.”

Hathaway then indicated that the discussion might have reached its end “within the limits of your agenda.” Ault said she hoped PAC had provided some feedback that Hathaway could use.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Urban Park Proposal: Council’s March 3 Meeting

At the city council’s March 3, 2014 meeting, Jack Eaton (Ward 4) brought forward the urban park proposal that Hathaway had presented to PAC. Other sponsors of the resolution were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It was Eaton’s first resolution since being elected in November 2012.

Several people spoke about the issue of downtown parks during public commentary on March 3, including the current PAC chair, Ingrid Ault, and former PAC chair Julie Grand. They highlighted the PAC recommendations on downtown parks, and urged the council to postpone action on the resolution.

Sketch of possible park at the Library Lane site, presented by mayor John Hieftje during the city council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Also at the March 3 meeting, mayor John Hieftje presented his own vision for urban parks to counter Eaton’s proposal. Hieftje argued for considering several open spaces downtown, including the surface lot on the northeast corner of Main & William, next to Palio restaurant. [.pdf of slides presented by Hieftje on March 3] The concept included putting decorative pavement in the sidewalks to create something like a “yellow brick road” that would lead people from a re-imagined and re-done Liberty Plaza, down Library Lane to a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure, then further west to the proposed Allen Creek greenway. Going in the other direction, heading east, the walk would go all the way through – with marked special pavement – to the University of Michigan Diag, which Hieftje called the largest park in the downtown.

During deliberations on Eaton’s resolution later in the March 3 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wanted a postponement to have time to meet with some Ann Arbor District Library board members. He wanted to talk to the library board about moving the library over to the surface of the Library Lane structure. He didn’t think the city would break even on the building rights for the top of the parking structure, given the amount of investment for development that has already been made. So he thought that partnering with a public entity might make more sense.

Kunselman also said he wanted to list the Library Lane surface for sale. He planned to bring a resolution forward that would direct the city administrator to hire a broker to sell the rights to build on top of the parking structure.

Ultimately, councilmembers voted to postpone the Library Lane park resolution until their March 17 meeting.

A report on deliberations during the March 3 council meeting is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed from council chambers. A full report of the issue – including public commentary and Hieftje’s presentation – is included in the March 3, 2014 meeting report.

Urban Park Proposal: Revised Resolution for March 17 Council Meeting

The resolution that the city council will consider on March 17 will differ from the one considered on March 3. In an email to The Chronicle on March 13, Will Hathaway sent a revised resolution that has been placed on the March 17 agenda. [.pdf of revised resolution] The revised resolution is now a part of the council’s online agenda.

The revised resolution indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, based on additional information from city staff. The revised version also eliminates the October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC.

The number of resolved clauses has been decreased from seven to four. From the revised resolution:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of approximately 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north (see two related site plans). This portion of the surface of the Library Lane Structure shall be added to the PROS Plan and remain a City-owned, public park;

Resolved, that the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

Resolved, that the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

Resolved, That all development on the Library Lane site, whether public or private, will proceed in close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses including, but not limited to the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corporation, the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses fronting on Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street. Possible goals of this collaboration include:

• Reorientation of the physical design and uses of these adjacent properties so that they help to create pedestrian interaction with the public park on the Library Lane Structure,
• Creation of pedestrian walkways that connect the Library Lane Structure and public park to Liberty Plaza, Liberty Street and William Street;
• Discussion about incentives, such as premiums or subsidies, that the City or DDA might offer to encourage both physical reorientation and pedestrian access/easements through adjacent properties, and
• Consideration of possible joint development on the Library Lane Structure’s remaining build-able portion.

A memo from Jack Eaton to the council, dated March 11, 2014, summarizes the most significant changes between the original resolution and the revised version that’s on the March 17 agenda. [.pdf of Eaton's March 11 memo]

Outdoor Smoking Ordinance

Chuck Warpehoski, a city councilmember representing Ward 5, spoke to PAC on Feb. 25 about a proposed ordinance regarding outdoor smoking in public places. He said the proposal came about because of concerns he’d heard from the community. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

The proposed ordinance would set a $50 civil fine that could be imposed for smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited. Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

Chuck Warpehoski, a Ward 5 city councilmember, spoke to park advisory commissioners about a proposed ordinance to regulate outdoor smoking.

Warpehoski told PAC that he was speaking to the commission because the ordinance would allow the city administrator to designate parts of Ann Arbor parkland as smoke-free zones. Currently, people can smoke in public parks, playgrounds or natural areas.

Warpehoski reported that he’d spoken to board members of the People’s Food Co-op regarding concerns about smoking in Sculpture Plaza, a city park at the southeast corner of Fourth & Catherine. The co-op’s storefront faces the plaza, and there are concerns that smokers in the plaza are affecting business. Warpehoski said that one of his constituents had to relocate her office from the space above the co-op due to people smoking outside. He said he’s also heard concerns from people who wait for buses, and have to stand near smokers.

He told PAC he was interested in getting feedback before the city council voted on the ordinance.

Warpehoski pointed out that the PAC meeting packet also include materials developed by people at the University of Michigan who are involved in nationwide efforts to reduce smoking in public places. [.pdf of tobacco fact sheet] The material includes a list of over 900 municipalities across the country that have a blanket ban on smoking in parks, including several municipalities in Michigan. [.pdf of no-smoking municipalities]

He noted that the proposed ordinance for Ann Arbor “is not that aggressive.” Although it would allow for the city administrator to ban smoking in all parks, he said, the intent is to be more incremental and address specific areas, like the plaza in front of People’s Food Co-op. He noted that another councilmember, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), told him that when she participates in the annual clean-up of Plymouth Park, they always find cigarette butts in the playground. So this ordinance would give the city some ability to “rein that in,” he said.

Outdoor Smoking Ordinance: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl observed that the ordinance gives the city administrator a lot of authority to make decisions. He wondered if there were any guidelines, framework or process for determining where the smoking ban would be applied.

Chuck Warpehoski said he couldn’t imagine that the decision would be made without consulting PAC, but a process wasn’t written into the ordinance.

Alan Jackson asked if the ordinance would apply to e-cigarettes. He also wondered how the ban would be enforced, whether enforcement would be effective, and what the cost would be. Jackson joked that his concerns might be because he’d just watched the Ken Burns’ series on Prohibition. He observed that in the case of the People’s Food Co-op, someone could just smoke on the sidewalk instead of in the public plaza.

Warpehoski replied that the ordinance doesn’t address e-cigarettes, although there are concerns about toxicity from that product and it’s within the city’s regulatory authority to take that on.

Regarding enforcement, Warpehoski noted that the goal is not to write a lot of tickets and take in a lot of revenue from that. The language in the ordinance is being changed to allow ticketing only if someone refuses to move to a smoking area or refuses to extinguish the cigarette. “We’re not trying to be punitive in this,” he said. He envisions that it would be largely self-policing. No-smoking signs will deal with most of the problem, he said, without needing the threat of someone writing tickets.

The ordinance will give the administrator and staff a tool to address these problems, Warpehoski said.

David Santacroce referred to this section of the proposed ordinance:

6:2. Smoking Prohibited in Outdoor Public Places.
…
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) where no signs are posted is subject to being cited with a violation only if he or she ceases smoking immediately upon being requested or ordered to do so.

Warpehoski noted that there’s a missing word: It should be “…only if he or she doesn’t cease smoking immediately…” Santacroce said that wasn’t his question. He wanted to know who would be making the request, saying there was ambiguity on that issue. Does it refer to law enforcement, or someone from the parks staff? With the current language, Santacroce said, it could be a request from another citizen.

Santacroce also said he could see why it would be more palatable to take an incremental approach rather than a blanket ban. But it’s possible that the administrator could simply prohibit smoking in all parks as soon as the ordinance is enacted. Santacroce said he supported the ordinance, “but it seems like it’s a little bit of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Warpehoski said he had a hard time imagining a city administrator in this city immediately banning all smoking in all parks. “We love our process here, right?” Warpehoski said, so it’s hard to imagine that kind of sudden action happening without public engagement.

Krapohl picked up the question about enforcement. Would a police officer need to come whenever a smoking violation is reported?

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that tickets could be written by either police officers or community standards officers. It would be possible to provide other staff with the authority to write tickets as well, he said, but it would be important to provide appropriate training for that. “It’s not as straightforward as one might think,” Smith said. He added that he didn’t think it would be a high priority for the police department.

Santacroce, a law professor at the University of Michigan, noted that a violation of the ordinance would be a civil infraction, which he described as a misdemeanor. “So that stays on someone’s record for their life,” he said. [At the city council's March 3, 2014 meeting, councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who is an ex officio member of PAC, asked city attorney Stephen Postema if a violation of the ordinance would be a misdemeanor. Postema didn't answer the question with a direct yes or no, instead stating that a civil infraction is not a violation of the criminal code.]

Park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson.

Warpehoski replied that he’d work with the city’s legal staff to clear up any ambiguity. He said he hoped there would never be a citation written. But he wanted someone to have that ability, if a smoker is being obnoxious and refusing to move or put out the cigarette. Other municipalities aren’t writing a lot of tickets for this kind of thing, he added.

Jackson asked what officers in the Ann Arbor police department think about the proposal, “since they’re the ones who’re going to really bear the brunt of dealing with this.” Jackson also wondered if this ordinance was really about smoking, or was it “about not wanting homeless people around.” Ordinances of this type are often used to target certain populations, he said.

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, responded by saying she’s had many conversations with Lesley Perkins, the co-op’s general manager. The concern is about smoking, Ault said. The co-op has received many complaints, she added, noting that as a co-op customer she’s also experienced the situation.

Warpehoski said the co-op has been very welcoming to the people who stand outside and sell Groundcover News, a publication sold by homeless or low-income residents. The co-op puts an ad in the publication each month with a $1 off coupon, he noted. Vendors are allowed to use the co-op’s bathrooms, Warpehoski said. The co-op has been very hospitable, so he didn’t think the issue was about the homeless. It was about not wanting to have smoke outside the door.

Smith said he fundamentally agreed with the proposed ordinance. From a staff perspective, it needs to be applied equitably. It’s important to develop a standard approach to implementing the ordinance. Although the focus has been on Sculpture Plaza, Smith said he’d be more comfortable applying it to all parks in the downtown, for example, so that when the staff is questioned about why there’s a ban in certain places, they have a clear answer.

Smith also noted that there are over 150 parks in the city, and there are times and places when smoking is appropriate. When there are weddings at Cobblestone Farm, for example, “I’m quite sure cigars are lit up,” he said. It might not be bad if the city administrator were to ask for PAC’s recommendation about where to apply the ban, Smith said.

Warpehoski said he’d be comfortable adding a provision to the ordinance that includes getting advice or recommendations from PAC. Krapohl suggested adding a bullet point under the section that describes the city administrator’s authority, to include a public process that explains how decisions will be made.

Ault asked Warpehoski if he’d return to PAC to give an update as the ordinance approval process progresses. Christopher Taylor, a councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, suggested that either he or Anglin could give updates instead.

Warpehoski explained that the proposed ordinance was on the March 3 council agenda for first reading. If it was passed, it would come back to council for a second reading at a future meeting, when a public hearing would be held.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

At the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting, councilmembers voted to postpone action on the proposed ordinance until April 7. [.pdf of resolution considered on March 3] The March 3 resolution was a slightly different version than the one presented to PAC, but did not include Krapohl’s suggestion to outline a public process for decision-making.

The council vote to postpone came over dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Questions at the council table focused on how enforcement would be handled and where the ban would be in effect. During deliberations, Warpehoski expressed frustration that councilmembers hadn’t raised their questions and concerns sooner. He first introduced the resolution on Feb. 3.

Urban Forest

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator, gave a presentation to PAC on Feb. 25 about the urban and community forest management plan. After working on the plan for a couple of years, the city recently released a draft and is seeking input, she said. [.pdf of Gray's presentation] [.pdf of draft plan]

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator.

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property.

Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Gray described a range of benefits provided by the urban forest, estimating that the benefits in stormwater management, air quality, energy conservation and quality of life total $4.6 million annually. As an example, studies show that people tend to spend more money in shopping areas that have more trees, she said.

Over the last decade, the urban forest has faced two major challenges, Gray told PAC: the emerald ash borer, and budget reductions. The city lost over 10,000 ash trees, and had to focus its constrained resources on removing those trees. That resulted in deferred maintenance for other aspects of the urban forest, she said.

That deferred maintenance didn’t affect park trees, because the parks millage provided funding, she said. But for street trees, she reported a significant backlog issue. As of July 1, 2013 – the start of the city’s current fiscal year – there was a backlog of 1,412 street trees that needed removal; 3,110 trees that needed priority pruning; 38,471 trees that needed routine pruning; and 1,371 stump removals. Gray reported that the city removes about 550 trees each year, and plants about 1,000 trees annually. No routine pruning cycle or proactive maintenance occurs at this time, she said.

To address these challenges, the city began developing its first-ever urban and community forest management plan. Gray described the planning process and public outreach, using the consultant Smith Group JJR. The process included staff, a working group, an advisory committee, stakeholder groups and the general public, she said, as well as feedback from an online survey.

Based on that input, draft goals and recommendations were developed, Gray said. The overarching goal is ”the sustainable protection, preservation, maintenance and expansion of the urban and community forest.”

There are 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

Regarding recommendation #16, Gray said the idea is to create a resource committee devoted to urban and community forest issues on both public and private property. The proposal would include two representatives from PAC.

Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding.

In terms of next steps, Gray noted that the city is accepting public commentary on draft plan through March 28. The plan will be finalized in April, then reviewed by both the environmental and park advisory commissions at their April meetings. Each of those commissions will be asked to pass resolutions recommending that the city council adopt the plan, she said. It’s expected to be on the council’s agenda in June or July.

Urban Forest: Commission Discussion

Acknowledging that Ann Arbor is known as Tree Town, Alan Jackson noted that the city’s natural areas preservation staff sometimes promotes other types of ecosystems, like prairies. He asked how that fits in with the urban forest plan. Kerry Gray replied that trees aren’t always the best vegetation for a particular location, and the plan addresses that issue.

Christopher Taylor wondered whether the community priorities, as reflected in the urban forestry plan, are parallel with the professional judgment of staff. Absolutely, Gray replied.

Paige Morrison asked how the goals for canopy coverage had been developed. She was referring to the goals on this chart:

Chart of urban forest canopy goals.

Gray replied that the goals were developed through a process that involved the plan’s advisory committee. American Forests, a nonprofit conservation group, recommends that communities in the Midwest have 40% tree canopy cover. “But we couldn’t find the science behind how they arrived at this 40%,” she added. So the advisory committee and staff looked at where areas would be best suited for increased canopy cover.

Mike Anglin asked how many more employees would be needed to fulfill the goals in this plan, “in a perfect world.” He noted the importance of maintaining trees, and said that people who own property with trees generally spend $1,000 annually to maintain them. Gray replied that the draft plan does include staffing recommendations for about 12 qualified forestry staff members. Currently, the city employs eight staff in forestry. But she noted that the city’s forestry operations have always used contractors for much of the work, and that would continue.

Anglin also thanked Gray for how the city is handling the removal of silver maples. He called the trees a hazard. Residents had been complaining because trees were being removed from city streets, he noted, particularly silver maples. He described that situation as the impetus for developing the urban forest management plan. He thought Gray had handled the situation very well.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Golf Courses Update

Doug Kelly, Ann Arbor’s director of golf, attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting along with Scott Spooner, the city’s golf course maintenance superintendent, and Andrew Walton, recreational supervisor for the golf courses. They were on hand to give an update on the city’s two golf courses at Huron Hills and Leslie Park. The presentation was similar to one that PAC had received at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

Doug Kelly, Ann Arbor’s director of golf. In the background is Andrew Walton, recreational supervisor for the golf courses.

Kelly described Huron Hills as a shorter layout that’s about 5,000 yards long, compared to 6,200 to 7,500 yards for a typical course. That shorter length makes it very accessible for the entire golfing community, for people of all ages, abilities and economic backgrounds. It’s also very affordable, he said, where juniors and seniors can pay $9 for 9 holes or $14 for 18 holes. It was one of the first courses in the area to offer a parent-child rate, trying to get more families out. There are “wee tees” on the first seven holes – located on the east side of Huron Parkway, so that kids don’t have to cross the road.

During the winter months, Huron Hills also provides one of the area’s best sledding hills, he said.

Leslie Park is a very well-respected and busy course, Kelly said, attracting golfers from across southeast Michigan and beyond with its layout that is challenging, yet playable. Golf Digest magazine has rated it as the best municipal course in the state, he said. The course has also received national awards from Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America.

In total, both courses employ about 44 seasonal workers and three full-time staff. The courses are open seven days a week during the season, which some years runs from March until December. This year it’s more likely to start in April, he said. The hours are usually 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. There are over 280 acres between the two courses, and 170 of those are maintained. About 54,000 golfers use the courses each year, with revenue of about $1.2 million.

As background, in 2007, the city council and staff examined the golf courses closely, hired a consultant and made some decisions about the future of the courses. As a result of that evaluation, the city decided to invest in infrastructure and staff.

Those changes have led to an increase in the number of golf rounds at both courses. At Huron Hills, rounds grew from 13,913 in 2007 to 23,842 rounds in the 2012 season, then dipped to about 21,000 in 2013. Kelly attributed the 2013 decline to weather, including a “really terrible” spring and an early winter.

The same pattern is seen at Leslie Park. In 2007, 21,857 rounds were played, compared to 32,628 in 2012. The rounds dipped to 29,400 in 2013.

So rounds at Huron Hills and Leslie Park have increased 70% and 50% since 2007, respectively, during a period when rounds of golf in Michigan have been flat, Kelly said.

Correlating to the increased number of rounds, revenues have also increased during that period, Kelly reported. In fiscal year 2007, Huron Hill reported revenues of $242,577. Those increased 55% to $375,068 in fiscal 2012, then dipped to about $332,000 last year. At Leslie Park, revenues grew from $623,942 in FY 2007 to $929,071 in FY 2012 – an increase of 49%. Last year, revenues were about $801,000.

Spooner gave an update on a major Traver Creek reconstruction project, which ran through Leslie Park golf course. The $1.4 million project added about 6.5 acres of wetland habitat, and added about 1,000 feet to the length of the creek, which slows it down, he said. Native plant species were added, and creekbeds were regraded to be less vertical. The intent is to better manage stormwater and decrease flooding. The project lasted from October 2012 until May of 2013.

Scott Spooner, the city’s golf course maintenance superintendent. His blog is called Tree Town Turf Guy.

Leslie Park golf course has been certified by the Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program, which requires that the course exceed requirements of environmental laws, protect water resources and enhance the maintenance of turf grass and open spaces. The course also was designated as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary, part of a national program that focuses on enhancing the habitat for wildlife on golf courses. Huron Hills is currently working to get both of these certifications.

Spooner reported that an Eagle Scout named Isaac built a tower for the chimney swift on the 14th hole. The bird isn’t endangered, but it’s of special concern in Michigan, he said. The tower is a place for the birds to roost. He also showed slides of four mallard duck nesting tubes that were built with the help of elementary school children. He said the golf course also works with the Leslie Science & Nature Center. [Spooner keeps a blog called Tree Town Turf Guy that describes these and other projects.]

Kelly continued the presentation, noting that he, Spooner and Walton were all hired at about the same time, soon after the consultant’s report was completed about the golf courses. For the past five years, they’ve been working to implement recommendations in the report, he said, and they’ve had a lot of success.

Looking ahead, they’ll continue their efforts to focus on environmental best practices, Kelly said, as well as to improve course conditions. Kelly also wants to increase the focus on family and junior golf, and continue an emphasis on customer service.

Golf Courses Update: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson praised the stormwater improvements at Leslie Park golf course, saying it’s good to reduce environmental problems on the golf course rather than just add pesticides. He noted that the golf courses are used in the winter for other activities, and he wondered if there were any plans related to that.

During the golf presentation, a slide showing sledding at Huron Hills in 1939. At the left is Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair.

Doug Kelly replied that parking and accessibility are challenges for winter activities at Leslie Park, though the hill on hole 11 is one that’s used by people in the neighborhood, he said. At Huron Hills, it’s open and there’s plenty of parking. It’s continuously voted as one of the best sledding hills in the area, he noted. He showed some historical photos from 1939, when Huron Hills was a private club. There were built-in toboggan runs and a ski jump at the time.

Kelly said there’s a lot of potential at Huron Hills during the winter months. A lot of cross country skiers use the course as well, he added, and it’s been a great winter for that.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said he’s asked Kelly to develop a proposal for how Huron Hills could be used in the winter. Now that the golf courses are part of the general fund, rather than a separate enterprise fund, “we kind of look at them differently,” Smith said. The infrastructure is in place to provide more winter amenities, he noted. Smith joked that he didn’t envision another ski jump, though he said he’d relish trying to get such a project through the city attorney’s office.

Karen Levin said she thought there was cross country skiing at Leslie Park golf course, too. Kelly replied that some people do cross country ski there. The pedestrian gates are unlocked to allow access, he said, but it’s not something that the city promotes. Smith noted that the city stopped providing equipment for cross country skiing several years ago. It would be very expensive to buy the equipment again, he said, adding that not every winter is suitable for that sport.

Mike Anglin thanked Kelly and his staff for their work, saying that the community now accepts the golf courses as a tremendous resource. There were people who didn’t appreciate the courses in the past, he said. Anglin praised the growth in revenue, and the number of jobs that the courses provide for young people in the summer. “You should be very proud of what you’ve done with your team,” Anglin said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Golf Cart Lease

An amendment to a two-year golf cart lease with Pifer Inc. was on PAC’s Feb. 25 agenda. The agreement would increase the original number of 65 leased carts by 34 carts, for a total of 99 carts. The city leases golf carts from Pifer for the Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses.

Paige Morrison attended her first meeting as a park advisory commissioner on Feb. 25, after city council appointed her on Feb. 3 to replace Jennifer Geer. In the background are students who were attending the PAC meeting as part of a class assignment.

The lease amendment would be for two years, for an amount not to exceed $50,340 over the length of the lease amendment term. Funding for FY 2014 would come from the parks and recreation services general fund and would be in the proposed budget for FY 2015, according to a staff memo. In FY 2013, the city generated about $225,000 in revenue from golf cart rentals.

The resolution also recommended the sale of 32 city-owned golf carts to Pifer for $50,340.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that the city bought the carts five years ago for $975 apiece, and are re-selling them for $1,475 each.

He noted that the city has seen an increase in the use of carts at Huron Hills. It’s not only a good revenue-generator, he said, but it also provides an opportunity for a wider range of people to play the course, who aren’t able to walk it.

PAC had recommended the original lease a year ago, at its Feb. 26, 2013 meeting. The city council subsequently approved the agreement in March of 2013. The current amendment exercises the renewal option in that original deal, and establishes the qualities for new carts and trade-ins. The original terms remain in effect regarding sale price offered for acquiring the city’s old carts and the cost per new cart leased. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

During the brief discussion on Feb. 25, Alan Jackson asked about acquiring electric carts that would be rechargeable. The concern in the past was whether such carts would work over a long period, and whether there was adequate infrastructure. Smith replied that the city is planning to have a cart shed at Leslie Park for electric carts. That’s in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for fiscal 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. The amendment to the current lease would allow for a transition from the gas carts to electric carts, he said. Earlier versions of electric carts “struggled” with the hilly terrain of Leslie Park, Smith noted, but the carts have improved over the past decade and now perform well.

In response to a query from Jackson, Smith said that over the next year the staff will be looking for grants to help build the cart shed – perhaps by making the shed solar-powered.

Outcome: PAC unanimously passed the resolution regarding golf carts. The agreement will require approval from the city council.

Windemere Park

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, introduced this item by saying: “So, here it is.” The statement elicited laughs from commissioners, because the project has been in the works for about two years and had been someone controversial. The resolution was to recommend approval of a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park.

Mike Anglin.

On Jan. 28, 2014, PAC had approved a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Smith said that parks staff were happy with the number of responses they received. Nagle is the same firm that restored the tennis courts at Veterans Memorial Park in 2010, and the staff had been very happy with that work.

Ingrid Ault thanked park planner Amy Kuras, saying she knew that Kuras had worked hard on this project.

Alan Jackson observed that no one was attending the meeting to complain about this project, “so I consider that a tremendous accomplishment on the parks staff part.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the recommendation for selecting Nagle to do the work at Windemere Park. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Clinton Park

PAC was asked to recommended approving a $133,843.00 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The park is located on the west side of Stone School Road, south of Eisenhower Parkway.

Including a 10% construction contingency, the project’s total budget is $147,227.

Best Asphalt provided the lowest of five bids, according to a staff memo. The project will be funded with revenues from the park maintenance and capital improvement millage. Colin Smith, manager of parks & recreation, described it as a “straightforward rebuild.” He thought the residents in that area will be pleased to see the improvements.

There was no discussion among commissioners.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend approval of the contract. The council subsequently voted to approve the work at its March 3 meeting.

Financial Report

Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee, gave an update on the financial status of the city’s parks and recreation operations for the current fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. [.xls file of financial update]

Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

The results so far are in line with projections, Galardi said. Revenues will be affected by the weather, however. This spring, the golf courses won’t be opening as early as they have in recent years, he noted, so there will be a slight reduction in revenues.

In other highlights, Galardi pointed to Mack Pool, which is showing a forecasted $25,000 increase in revenues this year compared to what was projected in the budget. That’s because of actions that have been taken, like creating a swim team there, he said.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that almost 100 people have signed up for the Mack Pool swim team, which accounts for part of the revenue increase.

In general, Galardi said, the update is that parks and recreation is on target to meet its budget projections. “Basically we’re in great shape,” he concluded.

Smith added that overall expenses are also in line with budgeted amounts. Certain facilities will have higher-than-projected expenses, he said, but other facilities will have lower-than-projected expenses. The same is true for revenues, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Library Lane park proposal.

In arguing for postponement, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wanted time to bring forward a companion resolution that would involve putting the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure up for sale. He also indicated he wanted to discuss the issue with members of the Ann Arbor District Library board and explore the idea of building a new library building on top of the structure.

The resolution postponed by the council on March 3 includes a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

The proposal was also presented at the Feb. 25, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The commission was not asked to act on it.

Sponsors of the resolution that appeared on the March 3 city council agenda were Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

The resolution calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asks PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The resolution specifies certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting. The presentation to PAC was made by  Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from Anglin.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study.

On Feb. 25, several park commissioners raised concerns, some of which focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the council resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

Several people spoke about the issue during public commentary on March 3, including the current PAC chair, Ingrid Ault, and former PAC chair Julie Grand. They highlighted the PAC recommendations on downtown parks, and urged the council to postpone action on the resolution. A report on deliberations during the March 3 council meeting is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed from council chambers.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]