Comments on: Work Session Called on Conference Center

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:25:44 +0000

Excerpts from the RFP for the consultant, under “Services Required:”

* Determine if the projects submitted to the City are economically viable and make financial sense in the Ann Arbor marketplace
* Determine if respondents are financially stable and have the capacity to complete their projects as proposed
* Help the City determine which project will provide the maximum financial return to the City
* Help the City determine which project will provide the greatest community benefits
* Help the City create a public process that encourages community input and involvement
* Provide information on the impact of similarly scaled projects in similarly sized communities

Note that most of these statements include the verb “determine” or “provide.” They don’t say “assume” or “take the proposers word for.”

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:08:37 +0000

@8: John, my take would be that financial feasibility has to do with whether money is available to complete the project while economic viability has to do with operational success after construction. If so, they’re not synonymous.

By: JOHN FLOYD

JOHN FLOYD — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:46:59 +0000

So what exactly does “Economic Viability” mean? How is it different from “Financial Feasibility?” I would have thought that they were synonyms. Perhaps this is some strange new use of the word “Viable”, with which I have not previously been familiar

Interesting that these things don’t work anywhere else. Wonder why Ann Arbor’s will the one exception?

By: Peter Zetlin

Peter Zetlin — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:10:41 +0000

However you feel about building a conference center and hotel, it's important to have a proper process. If you don't like the way this has been handled, it helps to email council members. You can email the council with one click at this link. The link is near the bottom of the page. [Editor's note: Chronicle reader cosmonıcan notes that he's experienced difficulty with the email link provided by the city of Ann Arbor on the page to which Peter Zetlin has linked. The following email link, we believe, should work: send email to Ann Arbor city council.]

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:27:30 +0000

This stinks on every level.

By: Alice Ralph

Alice Ralph — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:43:51 +0000

Point of fact that could have been included by changing one sentence thus–
“Alan Haber, who had worked with a group to advance a community commons proposal, attended Tuesday’s meeting as well as Alice Ralph, who authored and submitted the Community Commons proposal in response to the City’s Library Lot RFP.” [From the camera's point of view, I was obscured behind Susan Pollay.]
Having offered a proposal, I have followed related events closely. Naturally, I have strong feelings both about what has occurred and what has not. I reserve my feelings most of the time and focus alternatively on how to achieve a better process for this publicly-owned property as well as other public assets facing ‘dispostion’ in the future. Coverage of this meeting reveals a multi-faceted example of flawed not-so-public process. We should try to make it one of the last such examples.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:01:11 +0000

Disgusting.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:04:42 +0000

I hope that someone on City Council will invite Mr. Skelton to their work session so that they can hear some objective analysis (at no cost!) from a qualified expert in this field, instead of simply more nonsense and cheerleading from the unqualified Roxbury (which cost us $25,000).

Not only did Roxbury not fulfill the obligations of their own consulting contract by not providing any financial or economic analysis, but they did not even review the Valiant proposal that was submitted. Instead, they apparently worked with Valiant behind the scenes to modify their original proposal to address concerns already being raised. This is not fair to ANY of the proposers. Negotiations are supposed to happen AFTER selection of a proposal, not before.

I’ve never heard of a public RFP process that has been so flawed, so not in keeping with the specified process, and so obviously biased toward an outcome that may have been pre-determined as far back as 2008. The decision to develop the LOI was made at a near-secret meeting in November with only a few committee members present. Those present did not even have a chance to read the Roxbury report before voting and the public was never afforded the opportunity to review or comment to the committee on the Roxbury report or the LOI.

This whole affair amounts to a slap in the face to the citizens of this City.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:58:08 +0000

Thanks for this excellent coverage. I think that the motion the committee voted on, as restated by Susan Pollay, was that the city council consider the letter of intent “as amended”. No actual amendments were proposed, though as you report several questions were raised and especially Mr. Mahler’s points were acknowledged as needing to be addressed.

By: Joel Batterman

Joel Batterman — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:49:12 +0000

Let’s take a look at that letter from the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, regarding the legal implications of the use of underground parking.

“Proceeds from Build America Bonds ]which financed the garage] must be used for public and not private use. A bond is a private activity bond if it meets the (A) private business use test and (B) private security or payment test. These are known as the private business tests.”

“If the infrastructure built with the proceeds of the Build America Bonds (such as the parking spaces) are contracted to a private person or entity or if that private person or entity has a special entitlement or priority to use the spaces, rather than being solely available for use by the public, the private use test will be met. It does not matter if this arrangement is fashioned after the issuance of the bonds, or even after construction of the structure.”

“The second private use test is met if the payment of the principal (or the interest on the principal) of more than 10 percent of the proceeds of the issue is either:
(A) secured by any interest in
(i) property used or to be used for a private business use, or
(ii) payments in respect of such property, or
(B) to be derived from payments (whether or not to the issuer) in respect of property, or borrowed money, used or to be used for a private business use.”

“If a nongovernmental person engaged in a private trade or business makes a payment to the city, directly or indirectly, for use of parking spaces in the new structure, that would be a private payment for use under section 141.”