March 3, 2014: Ann Arbor Council Preview
The council’s first regular meeting in March will include several items of business leftover from previous meetings, including one resolution on affordable housing, an ordinance on outdoor smoking, and several matters related to public art.
Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the March 3, 2014 meeting agenda.
New to the agenda are several items related to non-motorized issues, most prominently a funding request to support the activity of an already-established task force on pedestrian safety and access.
The council will also be asked to fund requests related to city parks and other city facilities like city hall and the airport. Eighteen new vehicles will also be added to the city’s fleet, contingent on council action on March 3.
The council will also consider a resolution that urges full funding of the state of Michigan’s fire protection grant program – for cities like Ann Arbor that host state-owned facilities like the University of Michigan.
In somewhat more detail, one public art issue, embodied in two different resolutions, was postponed from the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, when councilmembers could not agree on an approach to transferring money out of the public art fund back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn. The specific point dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art – after the council eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year.
Updated March 1, 2014: The first resolution has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. The second resolution incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. [public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]
That disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until the March 3 meeting.
Also postponed from Feb. 18 is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. The resolution would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.
Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.
New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014.
Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive, and a stretch along Scio Church Road. The council will also be asked to pay for the construction of a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge – as part of a road reconstruction project that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.
Another new item is a resolution that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had announced at the council’s Feb. 18 meeting that he’d be bringing forward. It would waive the attorney-client privilege on a staff memo about laws governing the assessment of homes. The resolution indicates that the memo addresses the effect that reducing the assessment for one year would have on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year, based on action by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal.
In other action, the council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase from Signature Ford of 18 new vehicles – most of them for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393.
City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground.
The city hall (Larcom Building) is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures. An amendment to an agreement with MDOT for an already-completed fence project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport also appears on the agenda, and will cost the city $425.
After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.
Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.
Also on the agenda is a resolution that would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren, and state representatives Jeff Irwin and Adam Zemke to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state institutions. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.
This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.
Public Art
At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, two resolutions on the transfer of public art money back to its funds of origin were postponed. Councilmembers seemed to agree that a substantial sum – at least $800,000 that had accumulated under the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism – should be transferred back to its funds of origin. The issue actually dividing the council was not so much the transfer of money but rather a plan to fund the new approach to public art that the council put in place when the Percent for Art funding mechanism was eliminated last year.
The resolution proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called for establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and FY 2016. The resolution by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) did not include a budget provision for public art administration.
Updated March 1, 2014: The resolution ordered first on the agenda (Briere’s) has been altered for consideration on March 3 so that it focuses exclusively on the public art program transition issue. This resolution was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and is co-sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5)
The resolution ordered second on the agenda (Lumm’s) incorporates changes to reflect the council’s deliberations on Feb. 18: It transfers a total of $943,005 of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin, an amount that defunds the art project at Argo Cascades, but keeps funding for the Coleman Jewett memorial and for a project called Canoe Imagine Art. The defunding of the art project at Argo Cascades was originally a feature of Briere’s resolution that was not shared by Lumm’s. In addition to Lumm, the second item on the agenda is cosponsored by Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).
[public art resolution (1) for consideration on March 3, 2014] [public art resolution (2) for consideration on March 3, 2014]
The former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, with council approval. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.
Possibly a part of the council’s discussion on March 3 will be a review of what a council committee recommended in advance of the council’s decision to eliminate the Percent for Art program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That recommendation was attached to the council’s agenda as a report/communication about a year ago, for the council’s March 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations]
The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who have declared their intention to participate in the Democratic mayoral primary race: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).
The time frame that some councilmembers have talked about for funding the new approach to public art – before judging whether it has succeeded – is as long as three years. That appears to be based on one of the committee’s recommendations:
Recommendation: The staff should review the successful implementation of any changes in the ordinance after 36 months. This timing is based on the task force’s awareness that capital improvements may take longer than two years to move from inception to completion.
That finding also included a recommendation on administrative support:
Recommendation: a professionally trained public art administrator can provide this level of support, but needs to be employed more than 50% of the time. The Public Art Task Force agrees that the program would benefit from the services of a trained administrator, either as a contract employee or a direct hire.
The disagreement over funding of the newly created program is also related to another public art item on the March 3, 2014 agenda – a six-month contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator. The item first appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda, but the council postponed that vote until Feb. 3, when it was subsequently defeated. On Feb. 18 it was then brought back for reconsideration, but immediately postponed until March 3. The amount at issue to fund the contract is $18,500.
Affordable Housing
Also postponed from the Feb. 18 meeting is an item that would direct the city administrator to prepare for the council’s approval a budget resolution regarding affordable housing. It would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to support the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan to renovate its properties. That allocation would be contingent on the closing of the sale of the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann, as the net proceeds of that sale are to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.
The item was postponed on Feb. 18 only after the council’s two liaisons to the housing and human services board – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – had aired out conflicting perspectives on the importance of having the item on the agenda. Briere had placed the item on the Feb. 18 agenda. Lumm argued that the agenda placement had come late on Friday and that it was not necessary – for the housing commission’s purposes – to vote on the issue until March 3.
Politics between the city council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are also a part of the mix, as the housing commission has made a $600,000 request of the DDA as well. DDA board members seem keen to see the city pledge its support to the housing commission before committing DDA funds. And some city councilmembers appear to want to secure the DDA’s commitment before voting to support the housing commission’s renovations with affordable housing trust fund dollars.
Outdoor Smoking
Postponed from the Feb. 3 meeting was the first reading of an ordinance that would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the new proposed local law, appeared before the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 25 meeting to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.
Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be 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.
An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.
Non-Motorized Issues
New items on the March 3 agenda include a funding proposal for the pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council late last year, with members appointed in late January. The $122,250 item includes a $77,500 contract for facilitation services from Project Innovations. That’s the same firm contracted for similar work in connection with the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation – which is expected to conclude in the summer of 2014.
Other issues on the March 3 agenda with a non-motorized connection are three stretches of sidewalk. In the context of sanitary sewer design work that Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is being hired to do, two sidewalks are included: a stretch along Barton Drive; and a stretch along Scio Church Road.
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. did design work for another project for which the council will be asked to authorize funding. The firm prepared the construction drawings, contract specifications and an opinion of probable construction costs for the roadway and non-motorized improvements for a stretch of sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road near the I-94 bridge. That’s part of a road reconstruction project the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is handling.
Non-Motorized: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force
A pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.
A key resolved clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”
The council will be asked on March 3 to consider a resolution to appropriate $122,250 to support the task force’s work, which includes delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015. The funds are sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other resolved clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”
The funding will in part be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.
According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.
Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.
The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council considered an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of the law at its Dec. 2, 2013 – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.
That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.
Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Barton Drive, Scio Church
As part of the same contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. is also being tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners.
At its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive.
Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.
At its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. And on Nov. 7, 2013 the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work.
Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.
The contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. – which includes $50,629 for the design of the two stretches of sidewalk – would draw on that previously authorized funding.
Non-Motorized: Sidewalks – Ann Arbor-Saline
The council will also be asked at its March 3 meeting to approve a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. The work is part of a more general road reconstruction project being handled by MDOT under an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County road commission, MDOT and Pittsfield Township.
Additional Vehicles
The council will be asked on March 3 to approve the purchase of 18 new vehicles from Signature Ford in Perry, Michigan. Most of the new vehicles are for use by the Ann Arbor police department. Total cost of the purchase is $457,393 and includes:
- one 2014 Ford F-150 four-wheel-drive pickup at $26,407.
- one 2014 Ford Escape four-wheel-drive at $24,050.
- four 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Sedans at $24,601 each.
- nine 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility at $26,298 each.
- two 2014 Ford Police Interceptors: Utility with rear-auxiliary air-conditioning for use as K-9 units at $26,846.
- one 2014 Ford F-150 two-wheel-drive pickup at $18,158.
The staff memo notes that the police vehicles to be purchased will replace vehicles that will have reached either the 80,000-mile or the six-year limit specified in the city’s labor contracts with the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association and the Ann Arbor Police Supervisors.
The memo further notes that the new sedans have less shoulder room than Crown Victorias. So the AAPD is finding it difficult to install the increased amount of equipment needed in police vehicles, while still maintaining adequate room for officers. That’s why more of the SUV pursuit-rate vehicles are being incorporated into the police department’s fleet.
The city’s non-police vehicles are subjected to a two-step process to determine replacement. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the first step scores a vehicle’s age, miles/hours of use, type of service, reliability, maintenance and repair cost. The second step is review of the vehicle repair history and general condition.
One non-police vehicle to be replaced through the purchase is a truck that has been in service for 7.6 years and has over 4,800 total hours of operation, averaging 0.23 repair work orders per month. The total cost of repairs has exceeded 60% of its purchase price.
City Assets
Several items related to upkeep and improvement of city assets appear on the city council’s March 3 agenda.
City Assets: Parks
City parks factor into three agenda items: (1) a resolution to establish an urban park on part of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure; (2) a paving contract for the replacement of basketball and tennis courts at Clinton Park; and (3) a grant application to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to support a universal access playground at Gallup Park. The Rotary Club has already pledged $250,000 toward such a playground, which is expected to cost about $500,000.
City Assets: Parks – Library Lane Surface?
A resolution that proposes to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure appears on the city council’s March 3 agenda. 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.
Library Lane park proposal.
The presentation to PAC by Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, included 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]
Hathaway reported at that meeting that he’s been working with city councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4). Sponsors of the resolution on the March 3 agenda are Eaton, 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.
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.
City Assets: Parks – Clinton, Gallup
At its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended approving a $133,843 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The council will be asked to act on the contract at its March 3 meeting.
Clinton Park is located in the southeast part of the city, on Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth Road.
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.
Another item on the March 3 council agenda relates to a proposed “universal access” playground at Gallup Park. At its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting, the park advisory commission recommended applying for the grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Grants Management (MDNRGM) to help fund the project. Representatives of Rotary Club attended that PAC meeting to convey the group’s $250,000 pledge. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told park commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said.
The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.
The council will be asked to authorize the grant application at its March 3 meeting.
City Assets: Larcom Building
The city hall (Larcom Building) at 301 E. Huron is featured in two agenda items – to pay $160,923 for a secondary chiller unit and $28,469 for new light fixtures.
The $160,923 contract for installation of a secondary chiller would go to CSM Mechanical LLC. The existing chiller for city hall is described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as old, requiring extensive maintenance. Repair is difficult because parts are becoming harder to find. It’s the only unit for the building, so if it goes down, the building has no cooled air. The unit also doesn’t handle well the rapid change in temperatures in spring and fall.
So the city’s strategy will be to install a secondary chiller – leaving the old chiller still in service. The new chiller unit will have about two-thirds the capacity of the old one. If the older unit breaks down during the peak summer season, the new unit will at least be able to provide some cooling air. The long-term plan is to replace the old chiller unit with a second smaller capacity chiller.
The purchase of $28,469 worth of light fixtures for city hall would be from McNaughton McKay Electric Company of Ann Arbor. The new fixtures will replace the original fixtures – which are being removed as part of an asbestos abatement project. The purchase covers the light fixtures for the third and fourth floors. They will match those installed in the basement and first floor during the recent renovation of city hall.
City Assets: Airport
A $17,000 amendment on a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for a fence and gate project at the Ann Arbor municipal airport appears on the council’s March 3 agenda. Of that, the city’s portion is $425. The remainder is covered by federal and state funds. The actual project was completed in October 2013.
Water Main Issues
After authorizing significant equipment purchases to support water main repair activity at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be asked to approve two additional items on March 3 related to water main repair. One item is a $44,702 emergency purchase order to buy more aggregate material used for backfilling water main repairs. A second item authorizes an emergency purchase order for repairing and making a new connection for the water main at 1214 S. University. In both cases, the emergency purchase orders were authorized by the city administrator, and the work was done.
The emergency purchase order with Ellsworth Industries for $44,702 was submitted and approved on Feb. 14. The city had an existing contract with Ellsworth Industries to supply the aggregate material. The staff memo cites the extreme cold during the 2013-2014 winter as causing “a greater than average number, scope and magnitude of water main breaks city-wide.”
The emergency purchase order with E.T. MacKenzie was for a water main repair not to exceed $30,000 – on South University at the location of Pinball Pete’s. Here’s a timeline of the events of early February released by Oxford Property Management. [.pdf of Oxford Property Management timeline Feb. 6 through Feb. 12, 2014]
The city opted to use E.T. MacKenzie for the work – which included making a new connection to a different main – because the owner’s contractor was already on site.
Street Closures
Street closures for two events are on the council’s March 3 agenda: Take Back the Night and the Monroe Street Fair.
Take Back the Night is a demonstration against sexual violence. This year’s event begins on April 2 at 7 p.m. in the ballroom of the Michigan Union. The keynote speaker is Samantha Soward. A march through the University of Michigan campus and the city of Ann Arbor follows. The route of the march goes south down State Street to Madison, taking Thompson, William, Fourth Avenue and Liberty back to State Street.
This year’s annual Monroe Street Fair takes places on Saturday, April 5. The section of Monroe Street to be closed is between Tappan and State streets.
Fire Protection
A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) could be analyzed as obliquely related to the council’s decision at a special session on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise a right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.
By way of background, that property will now be purchased by the University of Michigan, thus removing it from the tax rolls – because UM does not pay property taxes.
As a result, the city will lose about $50,000 per year in revenue, which is used to pay for basic services like police and fire protection. The university does not operate its own fire protection service.
The city’s station #5 is located on university property, for which the university does not charge rent, utilities, or maintenance costs. UM estimates the annual value of that arrangement to the city at about $230,000. In general, however, the Michigan legislature recognizes that municipalities hosting state-owned facilities face a burden of providing fire protection for such facilities – without receiving property tax revenues to pay for that fire protection.
So the legislature enacted a law to award fire protection grants from the state of Michigan – which are dependent on an allocation from the state legislature each year. The allocation is governed by Act 289 of 1977. [.pdf of Act 289 of 1977] The statute sets forth a formula for a state fire protection grant to all municipalities that are home to state-owned facilities – a formula that attempts to fairly determine the funding allocated for fire protection grants in any given year. The fire protection grant formula is defined for any municipality in terms of the relative value of the state-owned property in the municipality.
More precisely, the percentage in the grant formula is the estimated state equalized value (SEV) of state-owned facilities, divided by the sum of that estimated value and the actual SEV of the other property in the community. For example, in Ann Arbor, the total SEV of property on which property tax is paid is roughly $5 billion. The estimated value of state-owned facilities (primarily the University of Michigan) is around $1 billion. So the percentage used in the state fire protection formula for Ann Arbor is about 16% [1/(1 + 5)].
The percentage in the formula is different for each municipality. That percentage is then multiplied by the actual expenditures made by a municipality for fire protection in the prior fiscal year.
The formula can be described as equitable among municipalities – because the grant amount depends in part on the relative value of state-owned facilities in a given municipality. All other things being equal, a city with a greater number of state-owned facilities receives more fire protection grant money than one with a small number of state-owned facilities. The formula can also be described as equitable to the state of Michigan, because the formula calibrates the state’s investment in a municipality’s fire protection to the level of funding that a local municipality itself is willing to provide.
The roughly $14.8 million in a provisional budget request from the Ann Arbor fire department for FY 2015 would translate to a state grant of roughly $2.3 million.
But the state statute explicitly provides for the possibility that the legislature can choose not to allocate funds sufficient to cover the amount in the formula [emphasis added]:
141.956 Prorating amount appropriated to each municipality.
Sec. 6. If the amount appropriated in a fiscal year is not sufficient to make the payments required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated to each municipality.
Since 1996, the legislature has funded the grants at amounts as low as 23% of the formula to as high as 68%. For the five-year period from 2007 through 2011, the legislature funded the same dollar amount of about $10.9 million statewide, but that translated into diminishing percentages over the five-year span. In the last three years, the program has been only 40-55% funded.
State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Actual Dollars. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)
State of Michigan Fire Protection Grants: Percentage of Formula Funded. (Data from state of Michigan, chart by The Chronicle.)
The resolution on the Ann Arbor city council’s March 3 agenda would encourage Gov. Rick Snyder, state senator Rebekah Warren (D-District 18), and state representatives Jeff Irwin (D-District 53) and Adam Zemke (D-District 55) to explore creative ways to fund the state’s fire protection grant program for municipalities like Ann Arbor, which host state-owned facilities.
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!
The Library Lot resolution is a good one. Let’s just do it. A downtown park in that location makes very good sense. It’s adjacent to well used pedestrian traffic and a perfect spot for rest and relaxation while in the downtown area.
This resolution is not about a park; it’s about stopping any further development of this site. It is the most recent of a series of attempts over the years to block any development of this site.
This resolution would waste our tax dollars (by creating and maintaining an elaborate park); throw away the chance for any return on investment that a tax-generating development would provide.
Council spent a long time considering whether to buy the Edwards Bros site to keep it on the tax rolls. This resolution proposes to remove even more valuable property from the tax rolls by making it a park. We need to know a)how much would developing and maintaining the park cost; and b)how much tax revenue will be permanently lost by rendering the remaining land unusable?
My concerns extend beyond such a deliberate waste of our tax dollars. In brief:
1. This resolution would result in a permanent loss of potential tax revenue and make it almost impossible to attract a developer.It may make the remaining space legally impossible to develop (no public street).
2. The concept is fundamentally flawed; the park should not be built before there is density to support it, i.e. pay for it.
3. Spending money on such a huge park is morally wrong given the need for indoor places for people who need shelter.
4. This is going too fast for such a serious and complex proposal. A minority is pushing it in spite of PAC’s careful thoughtful process, to say nothing of the long and careful public processes over the last six years, which all concluded there should be a 5000 sq ft public space, and D1 development on the rest.
Re (2) I hope that this is not an attempt to resurrect the Connecting William Street recommendations. Those were never even considered by Council, and not accepted by a fairly sizeable fraction of the community.
Development of a park on the Library Lot would not remove it from the tax rolls, as it is already public property. It is not a “huge” park. I don’t understand the comment about density. We already have a lot of people living downtown, and more to come. And the nod to the need for shelter is somewhat ironic, given the repeated concern expressed by the AADL board that a public park might attract “security problems”.
Re: (2). This resolution is about establishing the boundries for a park. It does not seek to block development. It is an acknowledgement of the Park Advisory Committee’s resolution recommending a park for this site. It is the next step in that process. It affirms the PAC recommendation that a park on this site be larger than the DDA’s recommendation of 5,000 sqare feet. It confirms the PAC’s role in providing a robust public process regarding design, features and activities. It affirms the PAC recommendation that the DDA and AADL be participants in the discussion of the design of the partk
In response to your numbered points:
(1) The resolution sets aside only a small part (about 20%) of the site for park and specifically calls for the sale and development of the remainder of the site.
(2) The resolution seeks a planning process that will proceed in conjunction with the sale of development rights for the remainder of the site.
(3) The resolution does not authorize any spending for the development of a park. It merely devotes a small amount of resources to develop options among which the Council can select based in part on cost. Additionally, this is NOT a huge park. It is just 10,000 square feet.
(4) This process not moving fast. The resolution accepts the process the PAC did so well and returns the issues of design, funding and implementation to the PAC for further public process. It is quite likely that at this time next year, the parking spaces will still be available on this site as we continue the process of designing and implementing a new downtown park.
Designating the boundries of the park will allow the City to move forward with the sale of development rights on the remainder of the property. Selling the development rights will require 8 votes on Council. Without this effort to define the boundries of the intended park, it would be next to impossible to get the support of 8 Council members to go forward on development. This resolution will remove a major impediment to sale of the development rights.
Unlike the failed Library bond issue, the use of this property for a downtown park has significant support in the community as described in the PAC survey results. There is no reason for further delay.
Re (2) The DDA, some members of the Planning Commission and of City Council, and Ms. Leary desire transformation of downtown Ann Arbor into a metropolis filled with 15-story buildings. The fact that these density-uber-alles proponents do not care what enterprises will occupy these buildings nor that they will detract from the city’s appearance is regrettable. Furthermore, these pundits do not understand how parks and even open land adds to the livability of the city.
A park next to the public library will be useful as well as attractive, balancing the Blake Center and future Dahlmann building on its border.
How much will it cost Ann Arbor taxpayers to establish an “urban park” at the Library parking lot? This “cool” concept seems to be a pretty lame idea that does seem have any reasonable basis for coming to be except for its “coolness.” What a way to run a city!
Speaking of other political lameness what is this about the Council issuing all these resolutions about topics that only tangentially affect the city and for which Council Members lack knowledgeable grounds to issue authoritative statements.
I think Jack is right. This resolution is a reasonable step to implement the earlier actions of Council and PAC. Yes, it does put a stake firmly through the heart of a possible large, ugly building on the Library Lot. Good!
Oh – just a couple of more points.
Ten thousand square feet sounds like a large amount of land, but it’s not. It is the equivalent of a square 100 feet on a side. Sabra and I own more property than that. A large number of single-family property owners do as well.
Also, the Connecting William Street recommendations are a legal nullity. The Planning Commission purported to approve them, but in so doing violated its own rules. See my comments on the Chronicle reportage for the gory details.
One of the great things about deciding to keep some land open, is that the decision to keep it open is not permanent: open land can always be built on, later, if that’s what the public wants.
Once land is built on, it’s generally gone at least until the building deteriorates beyond repair.
Should the day come when a Library Lane park prove to be an eyesore, public nuisance, or unbearable drain on city coffers, it can always be built on then.
In Ms. Leary’s comment #3, that it is wrong to spend money on a new park while The Homeless have no shelter, it is true that different people have different priorities for public spending. The city does many things with money other than house the homeless (remove snow, create bike lanes, place the Blue Light Special in front of city hall, etc.). It’s OK if you prefer these to building more shelter for the homeless, but I’m not sure it follows that a Library Lane Park is the one alternate priority that is immoral.
The city has, in recent years, done many things that seem to be supported merely by a vocal minority. A2D2 rezoning comes to mind, as does the decision to spend the money to place 18-story footings under the underground lot in the first place. Much about our political culture seems broken; Library Lane Park seems to be one of the few recent instances that it has worked.
Mr. Floyd touched on it briefly but for me it is worthy of a more significant mention. Some fairly large amount of money was spent to allow this parking garage to structurally carry a large building on top of it. Was that 1/50 of its $50 million dollar price tag? 2/50? 3/50? More? At this point we will never know, but it was a significant amount of money. It was way more money than is being argued about in the Percent for the Arts discussion.
I guess it was a calculated risk by some who felt sure that they could ‘invest’ those millions then and get the benefit from them later. It now seems like that is not playing out according to plan. As a matter of fact MORE money is now required to deal with structure.
From the story above – “Other aspects of the proposal include 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;”
By definition, a design process is inefficient. That’s OK because it is supposed to pave the way for a construction process that is efficient. Paper is a lot cheaper than bricks. This is a classic case of ready, fire, aim. There is a lot of taxpayers’ money in that hole.
Re [10]: “Some fairly large amount of money was spent to allow this parking garage to structurally carry a large building on top of it. Was that 1/50 of its $50 million dollar price tag? 2/50? 3/50? More? At this point we will never know, but it was a significant amount of money.”
I don’t think is quite that unknowable. Here’s the Ann Arbor DDA’s characterization from late last year:
The memo goes on to distinguish the engineer’s analysis of elements unneeded for a parking-structure ($15 million) from those elements analyzed from a financial-accounting perspective as supporting future development ($5.3 million).
In any case, yes, “a significant amount of money.”
Dave
Thank you for post 11. I was unaware that anyone was trying to do the accounting for that. It is certainly a difficult calculation as you have to compare one building, which is figured out, against another, which is not.
And if I had to pick which estimate makes more sense I would lean toward the engineer’s estimate, rather than the accountant’s.
Re: [12] accountants versus engineers
I don’t think it’s a matter of which estimate is right – that of the engineers or that of the accountants (and lawyers) – but rather what the purpose of the estimate is. I _think_ for the accountants, part of the purpose is to determine how many of Library Lane’s spaces can be dedicated to “private use.”
For example, if a hotelier purchased the “air rights” to build on top of the parking structure, we can imagine that the hotelier would want to make some kind of arrangement whereby some number of the parking spaces would have guaranteed availability to hotel guests. Those spaces would, I think, be considered “private use.” What else counts as private use? The IRS rules are subject to some interpretation, but the city does not appear to count the regular monthly parking permits that are sold in the Library Lane structure (662 in January 2014) as “private use.” That’s likely because they are supposed to be sold on something like a first-come-first serve basis to anyone in the general public.
Anyway, there’s a legal limit to the number of spaces that could be allocated to the hypothetical hotel, and that limit is connected to financing of the structure through Build America Bonds. The bonds have a 10% limit on private use.
Based on some emailed exchanges produced by the city recently in response to a request made under the FOIA, the city calculates the percentage of Library Lane parking spaces that could be allocated for private use at 29%.
Where did the extra 19% come from? It came from the fact that not all the money used to finance the project was debt. Some was cash. And the cash portion is not subject to the 10% restriction. So the city maximized the impact of the DDA’s cash component. How was that maximized? In broad strokes, the city took advantage of the combination of the Fifth and Division streetscape project with the Library Lane parking deck project by allocating as much as possible of the DDA’s cash payment to the Library Lane project. Debt was first assigned to the Fifth and Division project. If the city had bonded separately for each of the projects, then the Fifth and Division project would have also had a separate cash component. But as a combined project, the Fifth and Division portion did not need a separate cash down payment.
By maximizing the cash component of the Library Lane project in this way, the city also maximized the percentage of the new deck that could be dedicated for “private use.” That’s because the portion of the deck paid for in cash is not subject to the private use restriction, according to the city. As a result, the city is calculating that 29% of the Library Lane deck spaces can be assigned for “private use.”
Dave
Re [accountants versus engineers]
My interest is specific. How much would it have cost to build that building if it were 100% done now (with just a park on top) versus how much did it cost to build it as it exists today (able to support 15 stories). The simple construction cost based on the two different designs is all I had in mind. Given that, I stand by the thought that it is more than a 10% difference.
Wow, Dave, this is hefty stuff. Thanks for chasing that down.
The DDA was heavily implicated in promoting the Valiant hotel/conference center proposal and much of this extra support was done in anticipation of that project. But I don’t think the financial manipulations have been revealed before.
Here [link] is a review of the parking issue for the Library Lot in the context of the Valiant proposal. It links to a letter cautioning about the limitation on private use from Noah Hall of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. The GLELC subsequently sued the city.
If “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, I hope that keeping this history alive will also help to prevent future adventures of this nature.
Thanks Dave for investigating the cost of the Library Lane project’s “infrastructure to support future development.” I know that there are City Council members who have sought more clarity on these costs.
DDA Director Susan Pollay responded with a 11/22/13 memorandum entitled “Questions Regarding Library Lane Parking Structure Design.” Some of the answers provided in the memo raised more questions, but here are some relevant pieces of information:
The DDA asked its engineers at Carl Walker Inc. “to estimate the costs for elements that were and were not directly attributable to the cost of constructing an underground parking structure.”
“The engineer’s estimate was that approximately 30% of the total project cost, or approximately $15 million, were elements unneeded by the parking structure.”
“Elements unneeded by the parking structure included:
• The oversized concrete foundation,
• New alley running between S. Fifth Ave. and Library Lane
• An extra large transformer
• Electrical capacity for an additional future oversized transformer,
• New, larger water mains on the 300 block of S. Division and S. Fifth,
• A new fire hydrant,
• Enhanced pedestrian improvements”
“The extra elements designed into the Library Lane site can serve the area around the site as well as a future development on top of the structure.”
So, to get back to the question raised in comments above, the actual cost of the extra infrastructure is estimated by the engineers to be $15 million, but, according to Susan Pollay, all of that infrastructure can serve future development off of the Library Lane site.
From this we can conclude that the only part of the extra infrastructure cost that is useful specifically to development on top of the Library Lane site is the marginal cost of the reinforced footings. By this I mean the difference between regular footings and the special, stronger footings that were put in to support the maximum D1 building height. We don’t know what that marginal difference is. Whatever, their added expense, these footings were 100% speculative because there was nothing planned to go on top. Just wishful thinking about what might go on top, some day, maybe.
When Council Member Eaton referred above to 20% of the site being taken up by the proposed urban public park designation, he is talking about 20% of what the DDA refers to as the “build-able” surface. This means that by designating the park as proposed, 80% of the Library Lane surface under which reinforced footings are located will remain available for the City to sell to a private developer. Whatever the marginal cost of the reinforced footings, 80% of that speculative “value” can still be realized at City Council’s discretion.
The proposed urban public park will not block development (contrary to comment #2). Once the Park Advisory Commission has applied its creativity to designing it, and included the neighboring property owners in that process, the public park will add to the value of the adjacent development. Indeed, the urban public park on the Library Lot can be viewed as yet another element of “infrastructure to support future development.”
@6 Mr. Kuhlman
We may not yet know how much it costs to put in benches, planters, and some grass to make Library Lane Park, but we do seem to know how much the city blew on trying to force a convention center on us: $15,000,000. This is $3,000,000 more than the amount needed to buy the “unaffordable” Edwards Brothers site on State St. If you are looking for something to be upset about re: poor spending decisions by the Ann Arbor City Council, the $15,000,000 Convention Center footings-el-al strike me as a more worthy target of wrath than the tens of thousands it will take to make a park on top of the underground garage.
@16 Mr. Hathaway
Thanks for the well-made observation re: the 80%/20% split of the build-able area over the underground garage. With your observation in mind, I’m less clear about the arguments against a Library Lane park. Is someone willing to walk me through them again?
Foundations are specific. When this parking structure was being designed they did one of two things to allow for a building on top. They just beefed up a bunch of things generically based on a ‘simple box’ on top or they designed the foundation as best they could for the building they hoped to build, which had been rendered and offered to the public. That building that had been drawn was no ‘simple box’; it had a heroic overhang which would have required a very different foundation than a simple box. It’s easy to know which one they built for, you just need to see the design.
That said the 80% / 20% idea does not work out so nicely because buildings are not able to carry weigh everywhere, unless they are built like the Pyramids. Normally buildings are designed to carry weight on their perimeter walls and through certain fixed points within the middle of the building; leaving a great percentage of the building’s floor area unable to take building loads. And while this is not true of all buildings, I suspect it to be the case with an underground building where the soil and water also apply pressure to the perimeter walls. So there is no guarantee that when you isolate 20% of the base of this building that you are left with 80% of its structure. You could possibly have more than 80%, but if you go through that perimeter wall you probably have less. So unless you know the logic behind what is in the ground it is not really possibly to base that thought on the area.
Notice that the article says that they want “to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features [of the park], such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;” Why is it that this structure can hold up an 18 story building but not a park? Because its foundation is specific for the building, not the park.
Re: 12 “ABC”
You raise an interesting point about the intent behind the design. Everything that I have heard and read over the past several years regarding the Library Lane Parking Structure project implies that the infrastructure to support future development was based on what you refer to as a “simple box.” I understand that to mean that the extra capacity of the footings was meant to allow flexibility of design in whatever development occurred directly on site. The extra water/sewer/electrical capacity likewise could support whatever development occurred either on or off site.
If the design was to support a specific building on top, then that raises some big questions. How could the DDA and its contractors have known what specific building to design footings for when there was an RFP process that still had to run its course? Nobody at the DDA has made the argument that the footings can only support one design. They have said that a structural engineering study should be done to figure out what the surface can support. This seems sensible as long as it being done in good faith. I confess that this argument about whether the surface can support a park seems like an invented concern (is a performance stage that much heavier than a medium size building?).
As the DDA Director’s memorandum shows, the sum of money spent on the reinforced footings is a much less than the $15 million figure that is currently being offered for the total of all infrastructure to support future development. Even the earlier figure provided by the DDA of $5 million is probably an overstatement of what the footings cost. For some unexplained reason, the precise cost of the reinforced footings is apparently beyond the ability of the DDA or its engineers to calculate.
Whatever the total cost, the proposed, expanded park location would use only 20% of the surface supported by the footings. The larger part of the proposed park location is the civic plaza that the DDA has always intended and therefore it is not build-able.
The remaining build-able surface is 80% of what the DDA designed as flexible, build-able surface area. In a document provided to City Council for last night’s meeting the remaining 80% is labeled “High Density Building” and the 20% of build-able surface that is in the proposed park location is labeled “Medium Density Building.” So the footings left for sale to a developer can support the higher density building and they support 80% of the total build-able surface. It seems like whatever the reinforced footings cost, most of their utility is still available should City Council choose to make use of it.