David Erik Nelson

I didn’t initially intend to write an overtly political column this month. I actually had something nice all framed out, about how to talk politics civilly with friends and family. Then Matty Moroun took to hammering me daily with his pro-Prop 6/Prop 5 craziness, and I just went totally bat-shit insane.

Here’s the skinny, in case you’re bailing on me here: A billionaire is hijacking our state constitution in order to lock-in his near monopoly on commercial access to the nation of Canada. This is a for-real super-villain-style power play. Odds are you are on the verge of inadvertently helping this one-tenth-of-1-percenter screw us all for generations to come.

Your action on Nov. 6: Vote NO on Proposals 5 and 6.

If you can’t stomach another political jeremiad this ballot season, I respect where you’re coming from. But please give me 12 minutes to convince you that no sane Michigander who doesn’t already own a bridge to Canada would ever want Prop 6 to pass. 

Background

Detroit-Windsor is one of the busiest trade corridors in the U.S. Something like a quarter of all merchandise trade between the U.S. and Canada goes over the Ambassador Bridge – and that’s just a slice of total U.S.-Canada commercial traffic, 60–70% of which rolls through Detroit. If you’re taking freight through Detroit, then the Ambassador Bridge is essentially the only way to get to Canada. The tunnel accommodates only passenger vehicles; no commercial traffic will fit.

There’s a ferry that can carry commercial traffic, but offers pretty low throughput and is largely used for hazardous loads that can’t go across the bridge. If you’re hauling freight, your only real option is an 83-year-old bridge owned by an 85-year-old man. The bridge’s age isn’t a problem – bridges are built to last – but it’s an already overburdened bottleneck built for early-20th century volumes of international trade, and it’s seeing more traffic each year [1].

Our neighbors to the north want a new bridge so badly that they are picking up the entire tab to build one – a project called the New International Trade Crossing (or NITC). Detroit-native Manuel “Matty” Moroun – who privately owns and operates the existing Ambassador Bridge connecting Detroit and Windsor – would prefer to maintain his near-monopoly on commercial trucking between the U.S. and Canada via Detroit (which includes the lion’s share of North America’s international commercial trucking).

That’s the issue. On their respective sides of the bridge are a nation of 35 million very nice bilingual people with gravy on their french-fries and their 10 million peninsular pals who could really use some work. In the middle, opposing both, is a chubby Monty Burns who is such a dick and so actively antagonistic to the state, his nominal business partner for decades, that he was actually jailed for it. This is a white billionaire – one of the richest one-percenters in the United States – who was actually put behind actual bars for being a belligerent asshole.

Proposal 6: A Crazy Amendment With Crazy Claims

This belligerent asshole so badly wants to keep his monopoly on his bottleneck that he dumped millions into getting Proposal 6 on the ballot: An amendment to our state constitution mandating that voters approve any bridges or tunnels that might compete with him [2]. He, of course, gets to keep his private bridge – you know, like a troll in a fairy tale.

Moroun has gone on to spend an estimated additional $14 million on a TV/YouTube/Hulu/radio/direct mail ad campaign to convince you to vote to amend our constitution to protect his kinda-crappy, overburdened river crossing. His basic claims are:

1. The NITC bridge will cost Michigan taxpayers lots of money.
2. The NITC bridge will be made by foreigners using foreign steel.
3. Besides, we really ought to spend our tax dollars on stuff that matters, like teachers, police, and firefighters.

Responding to these claims are the state of Michigan and Canada. Unfortunately, Michigan’s government is legally barred from spending taxpayer dollars (i.e., basically any of the money it has at its disposal) on any sort of political advertising. Foreign nationals – like Canada – are federally banned from meddling in U.S. elections. Prop 6 has boiled down to a political debate where only one party has the de facto legal right to speak, and it’s a corporate political action committee. Corporations really are people! More so than We the People, in this case. [3]

Canada Is Paying For The NITC – For Reals!

Moroun’s shenanigans have been driving poor old Canada nuts. At the beginning of summer it was announced that Canada would pick up the entire $2.1 billion cost of building the NITC bridge (which includes Michigan’s theoretical $550 million share for a toll plaza on our side, among other features). As quoted in the Freep, Canadian Consul General Roy Norton has bent over backwards to address the spurious “concerns” trolled by Moroun’s “The People Should Decide” Ballot Committee PAC:

We [Canada – a totally separate country with its own economy and currency that you guys constantly make fun of, but who are really good natured about it, eh?] will pay for the interchange on the U.S. side, we will backstop the private-sector builder of the bridge. If there are cost overruns, ultimately, they are on us. If tolls are insufficient, that too will be on us. The State of Michigan pays nothing for this project and faces no liability.

The NITC bridge project by itself – just the part where we join forces with Canada and build a damned bridge – will create 11,000 construction jobs over the course of its four years. As an added bonus, getting in on this deal will allow us to capture an additional, unrelated $2.2 billion in federal money that we can use anywhere in the state (like, for example, to fix up our own damned bridges here in Ann Arbor). And those are just the immediate benefits of the project. Long-term, a better international crossing will expand trade passing through southeast Michigan, raising our revenue base and spurring economic growth for everyone. None of this will require any Michigan tax dollars.

Newer Moroun ads (including one that came in my mail last week) imply that this project will use Chinese steel (and possibly Chinese workers, Christ knows why). Quoth Canada (in the person of Norton): “For that lie, and it is a lie, … frankly they should be ashamed of themselves.” How badly do you have to fib to get a Canadian to call you out? [4]

The mailer I received today – while drafting this very column – claims that we’re wasting money on a bridge “instead of investing in things we do need: better schools, more police officers, more firefighters.”

On the one hand, we do need to invest in those things [5]. But the thing is:

 Canada is paying for this bridge.

Canada likes us fine, they think we’re good people, but they aren’t putting up money for teachers, schools, cops, or firefighters; they are putting up money for a bridge. Our options are: (1) Money for a bridge (and all the jobs and economic growth, short and long term, that bridge creates); or (2) No money and no bridge. We aren’t investing in anything here; we are simply accepting a gift.

Prop 5 Hogties The People

Moroun also wants to cripple our ability to collect taxes in the form of Proposal 5, which would amend our state constitution so that new taxes could not be levied without 2/3 majority support by the state House and state Senate, or support by a majority of the voters statewide during a November election. With Prop 5 in place, just a baker’s dozen of legislators will be able to prevent increases in funding for just about anything.

For Moroun, this makes sense: Remember, he’s been actively antagonistic to the state – his nominal business partner – for years. Robbing us of the revenue we need to pursue him for breach of contract, civil contempt, and assorted other fuckery is sort of a rational choice – if you are a super-villain. Next thing you know he’s gonna blow up the moon – or dump a coupla million bucks into amending our state constitution so that he has a monopoly on blowing up the moon, or who knows what.

Now, in contrast to Prop 6, rational folks could, in abstract, disagree about Prop 5. The capacity to levy taxes – how that power is exercised and how those funds are invested – is central to a functional state. But this particular proposed amendment is opposed by nearly everyone other than Moroun himself, on both sides of the aisle.

It’s endorsed by fewer than 20 individuals (mostly legislators or legislative hopefuls), and opposed by more than 60 groups and individuals, ranging from such radical leftists as the American Federation of Teachers, Michigan Catholic Conference, League of Women Voters of Michigan, and Sierra Club of Michigan, to such rabid socialist tax-and-spendocrats as the Michigan Bankers Association, Business Leaders for Michigan, and our own Republican Governor.

That’s because this particular tax proposal does little, apart from exposing us to harm as individuals by hamstringing our capacity to function as a group. And it’s only on the ballot because an elderly billionaire put it there; we should reject such a brazen maneuver just on general principles, folks.

How Government Protects The Little Guy

This brings us to the core folly of these ballot initiative constitutional amendments. They are presented to us as a balancing feature, a way for us “Little Guys” to check the power of those Fat Cats in Lansing. Heck, Moroun is doing all his pro-Prop 6 advertising under the name “The People Should Decide.” That sounds super-duper patriotic and democratic as heck. But by short-circuiting the political process, ballot initiative amendments all too easily become avenues by which the empowered seek to prevent progress and abuse Average Janes and Joes.

Consider the filibuster. You were no doubt taught in civics class that the filibuster is the bulwark of the embattled Average Joe – quite likely after watching the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” But, at the federal level, the damned filibuster has more often been a drag on change than a protector of the weak. Filibusters have been used to obstruct countless pieces of civil rights legislation. Segregationist (and Democrat) Strom Thurmond personally rattled on for 24 hours and 18 minutes in order to bog down the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Filibusters have blocked bills aimed at preventing lynchings and workplace discrimination. Filibusters have kept pork projects in defense budgets. Most often, filibusters delay or prevent the completion of regular business – routine job nominations, budget adjustments, land transfers between different government entities – that only effect minuscule, monied interests. In 2009 Matthew Yglesias wrote a tidy piece on filibuster reform, and much of what he says goes for Prop 5 supermajority requirements, too.

In sum: A three-branch government with a bicameral legislature using simple majorities already makes governance cumbersome enough to protect average citizens from those who are more powerful. Mechanisms like the filibuster (or, really, any super-majority requirement – which is what the filibuster essentially creates) shift power into the hands of self-interested parties who know how to game the system. We don’t really need extra mechanisms like filibusters or ballot initiatives to empower the people.

Closer to home, look at what we the people managed to accomplish with a ballot initiative in 2004: Fifty-nine percent of the Michigan voters who showed up to the polls in 2004 chose to amend our state constitution to forever assure us that it’s fundamentally OK to discriminate against homosexuals here in Michigan. What the hell were the Fat Cats in Lansing up to that we needed the Michigan Marriage Amendment (MMA) to protect us? I’ve lived in Michigan my entire life, and recall no period during which homosexuals overwhelmed their fellow Michiganders with demands for wedding showers, shared healthcare benefits, or options for filing their income tax jointly.

In point of fact, some of those Fat Cats had very successfully prevented attempts by small, influential interest groups to legislate this bigotry. That’s why those bigots spent $1,930,431 gulling 2,698,077 voters (which is about 26% of the state’s population) into making it impossible for same-sex couples to live as equals in this state.

Meanwhile, 1,904,319 Michiganders – myself included – called bullshit on this amendment. In essence, a plurality of just 793,758 – less than eight percent of the state’s population – got to make the call on marriage equity in Michigan. How is that “letting the people decide”? It seems a lot more like letting a very small number of very hateful people spend a ton of money in order to force their misguided religious practice on a very large number of indifferent people.

Like the MMA in 2004, Moroun’s Prop 6 this year isn’t his first attempt to get his odious business done; he’s failed on several occasions to sway lawmakers to do his dirty work (just like the MMA bigots failed on countless occasions to get their anti-equality laws passed). Our lawmakers were successful in protecting us from this insanity, until such time as a monied interest took an end run around them with a ballot initiative.

Thank God there’s a mechanism to keep those Fat Cats in Lansing from protecting civil rights, negotiating openly with Canada, making decisions about road construction, or doing anything that might question the troll’s absolute right to rule our river crossings!

Cynicism, Political Discourse, And You

All of this aside, in and of itself, Prop 6 is sort of insane. Consider the basic premise: Why the hell should voters decide where and when bridges are built? What do I know about bridge construction? What do you know about international trade agreements? Why are we micromanaging our government?

What Moroun is preying upon is our knee-jerk “common sense” conviction that government – which is the subset of ourselves that we charge with the job of keeping the house tidy so the rest of us can earn a living – is essentially incompetent. More so than mudslinging in political ads or lies during debates, it’s this core cynicism – a cynicism we each individually carry in our hearts and reproduce over and over again with pithily captioned pictures posted to Facebook, and re-shared links to spurious infographics, and caps-locked screeds – that’s poisoning us as a nation.

Listen, I love you, so I feel like can say this: Cynicism is the mechanical thing that dumb people do to seem wise. It’s a display of our most fundamental weakness: the ardent desire to be right.

Knee-jerk anti-governmentalism is the equivalent of thinking you’re precognizant because you can look at the succulent, exquisitely prepared dinner that’s been set before you, turn to your host and confidently claim: “In the next several hours, this luxurious banquet will be rendered into fecal matter by the action of our digestive systems.” That doesn’t make you a reliable forecaster of human events; it just makes you a boor. I don’t think any post-adolescent needs constant reminders of the basics: people lie, humans are fallible, puppies become stinky old dogs, and everyone dies. We do need to remind each other that we can and should live our lives, wash that dog, help each other recover from our failures, and correct the liars.

Of course cynics are usually right: Humans really are predictably weak and petty. But being proud that you hammer on that – making it central to your understanding of collective human endeavors like government – that’s the deepest folly, and guarantees that cynics will continue to be right when they wager on the worst in us.

That Matty Moroun may well sweep this one by relying on our cynicism – that he feels it’s a worthwhile $14 million bet – says a lot about us, none of it flattering.

Let’s Save Ourselves: Talk, Email, Tweet, Share, Vote

Obviously, we should VOTE NO ON PROP 6; it’s totally whack. More importantly, tell your fellow citizens about how screwed-up Prop 6 is. There’s literally no money for the People to push back against the Troll; we need to do the talking and emailing and forwarding and Facebooking. Moroun is successfully stealing our new bridge with his ads. Set your family and friends straight now. Please. VOTE NO ON PROP 6. (I also think Prop 5 is bad governance, and you may agree. Tell folks about that, too. We should VOTE NO ON PROP 5.)

But don’t take my word on any of this. We have great resources for getting an unbiased perspective on the ballot initiatives. Here are three I’ve found really handy this election season:

• Citizen’s Research Council of Michigan
• Ballotpedia
• Michigan Truth Squad

Notes.

[1] I’d argue that the truck ferry is only economically viable because the Ambassador Bridge is so screwed up, but that’s open to discussion. Reasonable minds differ.

[2] A recent study estimates that such special votes would cost $10.5 million each. As a bonus, the amendment itself is so poorly worded that it might accidentally require voter approval for the construction of any bridge or tunnel in Michigan.

[3] Want a really fine-grained analysis of just one of Moroun’s manipulative ads? Check out this breakdown from the non-partisan Michigan Truth Squad.

[4] To address Moroun’s “concern” directly: Will this project possibly use “foreign” steel? Yeah; that steel will be from Canada. Steel is one of Canada’s most important industries, and its production is largely clustered in Ontario, near their shared border with Michigan – you know, where they want to build this bridge. Since they’re picking up the tab, howzabout we let them buy whatever damn steel they want; they’re giving us the bridge, after all. Did I mention the free bridge? The 11,000 jobs?

[5] Which is why I’m voting YES on Prop 2; that’s a separate issue, but still important.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our publication of local columnists like David Erik Nelson. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already washing a stinky old dog, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to wash one, too!

Transportation: Connector Study

Before council was a study for a proposed north-south connector along the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors. Four different entities are partnering on the feasibility study: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the city of Ann Arbor. The study proposal has been in the works since at least the fall of 2008. Discussion over the months among the various partners has centered around total cost and the share to be paid by each partner.

The initial proposal, based on a cost estimate by city staff of $250,000, had the AATA paying $100,000 and the other three partners equal $50,000 shares.When the $250,000 estimate proved dramatically low upon sending the proposal out to bid, a revised proposal with a total cost of $640,000 called for the four partners to share equally in $160,000 shares. The DDA’s discussions of the issue reflected the view that the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor and the AATA were essentially all the same source – Ann Arbor taxpayers – so should not be considered separate partners in the financial equation. Further, the primary beneficiary was seen to be UM, for connecting its north campus area with its central campus.

The proposal before council on Monday night specified the following financial arrangement: city of Ann Arbor, $80,000; AATA, $320,000; UM, $160,000; DDA, $80,000.

At council’s Monday meeting, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the DDA board, suggested a postponement until the DDA had a chance to vote on the new proposal.

Outcome: Postponed.

Transportation: Plan Update

Before council was a resolution to adopt the city’s transportation plan update.

Jim Mogensen: At the public hearing on the transportation plan update, Mogensen noted that he was the only member to weigh in at the planning commission’s public hearing on the transportation plan update. He said that wasn’t too surprising, but also said that transportation is a big issue in Ann Arbor. Every controversy in Ann Arbor has something to do with the word “park,” he said: parking structure, parking meters, Parke-Davis. [Parke-Davis was acquired by Warner-Lambert in 1970, which in turn was bought by Pfizer in 2000.] Mogensen said that the transportation plan update was basically saying that the population in Ann Arbor wasn’t going to increase, but there were a number of employment generators which were going to need ways to bring workers into the city. The plan talks about connectors from Canton, and Chelsea and Ypsilanti Township. Somebody has to pay for it, he said. As an example, he asked council to look at their DS-7 agenda item, which had to do with the funding strategy for a north-south connector study. He noted that the University of Michigan is among the entities involved [UM, AATA, DDA, city of Ann Arbor], adding that UM doesn’t “contribute,” but rather “invests in an outcome.” He pointed out that when UM invested in the M-Ride program [sponsoring fares for UM affiliates so that they board buses simply by displaying their M-Cards] it became harder and harder for other people to use the bus. For the route that he uses along Plymouth, Mogensen said, he can’t use the bus unless he modifies his travel schedule around the heavier commuting times. The people who are going to pay for the enhanced transit, he said, would not be the people in the townships or the outlying areas, but rather the taxpayers in the urban areas.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge said he supported the city’s planning for integrated county regional transportation plan, providing connectors to townships within the county and throughout the region. He noted, however, that despite the fact that transportation planning has been going on for decades, there’s been a dearth of issues on the ballot. No amount of money will create a system, he said, unless there’s a coordinated region-wide plan. To do that, he said, we needed an elected transportation authority, not an appointed one. [The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board is appointed by the mayor of the city of Ann Arbor.]

LuAnne Bullington: She identified herself as a Ward 3 resident and a member of the local advisory committee of the AATA. Bullington spoke to the issue of gaps in the sidewalk system. Ann Arbor has great bike paths, she said, but where we’re falling down is in sidewalk gaps. Where Ferdon crosses into Burns Park, she said there are whole blocks without a sidewalk. Students at Pattengill Elementary School and Tappen Middle School can’t walk to school, she said, even though they’re in the heart of the city. She said she would like to see part of the plan update include a non-motorized plan. She noted that it’s not easy for a wheelchair to cross a grassy stretch where there’s no sidewalks. She suggested that when Stephen Rapundalo’s (Ward 2) basement flooded, the city installed sump pumps for people, and that we might take a similar approach to sidewalks.

Council Deliberations on the Transportation Plan Update: Council deliberations centered around the revisions suggested by planning commission and the comments on the plan by the city’s environmental commission. The planning commission’s recommendation, which included their amendments, was attached to the council agenda. The environmental commission’s report, however, was not. Councilmember Margie Teall indicated that the environmental commission’s commentary should have been included as an H-Item (in the city clerk’s report of communications) so she had emailed it to councilmembers.

[Editorial Aside: There's no internet access provided to the public in council chambers. Access to the internet in chambers can be achieved by using a wireless card (a USB device that affords access via a cell phone carrier like AT&T or Verizon). There's a single power outlet for any members of the media or public who'd like to use a laptop computer to document or follow council proceedings. The result is that access to the environmental commission's commentary, which council had before it and was discussing, was not easily accessible to members of the public and the media who attended the meeting.]

The planning commission’s commentary is here. The environmental commission’s commentary is here. At issue was whether the environmental commission’s commentary was reflected in the plan and what the implications were for sending the transportation plan update back to planning commission for incorporation of those comments.

There was a fair amount of discussion about possibly postponing the adoption of the plan, which ultimately did not lead to postponement.

Salient in transportation program manager Eli Cooper’s description of the transportation plan was the process by which SEMCOG – the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments – dis-aggregates regional estimates of growth in jobs and population. The initial estimates by SEMCOG showed little growth in jobs or population for the Ann Arbor area. Local municipalities have the opportunity to “appeal” SEMCOG’s analysis, which the city of Ann Arbor did. The successful case was made to SEMCOG that health care and higher education would be tremendous growth areas in the economy, areas that would have an impact on Ann Arbor jobs (through the University of Michigan). As a consequence, the SEMCOG projections from 2005 to 2035 show job growth of 18,000. Cooper said that a corresponding case made to SEMCOG for population growth was not successful.

Outcome: The transportation plan was adopted unanimously.

Transportation: East Stadium Bridge

Arnold Goetzke: Speaking during public commentary, Goetzke said that after he’d left the previous council meeting at which he spoke on the East Stadium bridge, he’d been provided with a study talking about why the bridge was needed and analyzing the no-bridge option. He said that the hypothetical costs for the no-bridge option were questionable. As one example, he cited $7.4 million of present net worth for adding a stoplight at Stadium Boulevard [calculated over the 75-year study period based on accidents at a signalized intersection]. He noted that there were potentially stoplights that could eliminated: Stimpson & State; Industrial & Stimpson; Stadium & Industrial. A fourth stoplight, at Granger & Packard, also had some potential to be eliminated if an at-grade crossing were established at Stadium & State, where there’s now a bridge. He concluded that the study had done a good job focusing on the negative. Another example he cited was the $14.8 million cost because of the extra fuel consumption while vehicles idled at the State & Stadium intersection. Motorists cut through the Burns Park area at Golden and Park, where there are two one-way streets, he said, which could be eliminated. There would be gas savings, he said, by not having to take a left onto Stimpson, and a left onto Industrial, and a left onto Stadium, when motorists get onto Stadium Boulevard from State Street. Goetzke mentioned a website he would be creating to lay out further details of the problems with the study and its conclusion against a no-bridge option.

Before council was a resolution to approve submission of an application under the State of Michigan Local Bridge Program. City engineer Michael Nearing was on hand Monday night to provide an update on the status of the bridge, which continues to be monitored. While the bridge has stabilized, he said, its poor condition [2 on a 100-point scale] could mean that it could require closure with very little notice.  The city is developing traffic rerouting plans for that eventuality, which will also have to be put into place when reconstruction begins.

Outcome: The resolution to ask for funding was approved.

Transportation and Planning: Airport Runway

Andrew McGill: Speaking during public commentary reserved time, McGill said he was there to ensure that council did not make a misinformed vote to extend the primary runway at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport. He was there, he said, representing several hundred well-organized citizens who were concerned about the safety of such an extension. McGill stated that he loved the airport and, in fact, learned to fly there. He said he did not believe that council said to themselves before the meeting, “How can I make some lousy decisions tonight.” [Later during council communications, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) would clarify that there would be no vote on the airport that night or anytime soon.] In that light, McGill said that he and his colleagues would begin appearing to make clear how council had been mislead by airport authorities. Based on material they’d obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, he continued, council would become conviced that the current proposal to extend the runway is dangerous, deficient and would have “precarious budgetary implications” because of the airport’s declining use. The environmental assessment began today [May 4, 2009], he said, and after the current budgetary issues are resolved they’d be hapy to meet with council. He noted that similar proposals have been rejected on four attempts over the last 30 years. Free federal dollars today, he warned, carried with them the unspoken pricetag of committment to operate the airport for 20 years, regardless of its worth.

Planning: R4C Moratorium

Tom Whitaker: Speaking during public commentary reserved time, Whitaker introduced himself as the president of Germantown Neighborhood Association. He began by stating: “Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance is a mess.” He identified R4C districts as a particular concern. He described his role and that of other members of the association as “citizen zoning administrators,” who had identified places in the ordinance where developers had exploited the code. There are missing definitions for “dormer,” “roof,” “kitchen” and “common facilities.” He also called attention to definitions that exist but contradict each other. As an example, he gave “required setback” versus “required open space.” He concluded by calling for a moratorium on construction in R4C zoning districts until the problems with the zoning ordinance could be addressed.

[Subsequent to Monday's council meeting, Whitaker has circulated an email identifying a missed point in the due process for the site plan review of a recent project brought "by right" under R4C zoning recommended by planning commission: City Place. The requirement identified by Whitaker that was missed involves the necessity of providing site plans in a location at city hall that is accessible to the public 24/7 for a full week in advance of a plan's review by planning commission or council. In the current configuration of the Larcom Building – changed due to construction – the table with the drawings for site plans is located just to the left of the Ann Street entrance.]

Thomas Partridge: Speaking during public commentary reserved time, Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat of Scio Township and member of the local advisory committee to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He addressed council on the subject on the need for a master plan for Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County to end discrimination in the area of housing, healthcare, transportation, and education. He contended there isn’t affordable public or private transportation, housing, healthcare, or education in the city or the region. Even though the county is blessed with two of the most prominent, prestigious universities in the state [University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University], he said that the region was behind the times in requesting funding to provide for tuition and living expenses on campus. He called on the council to carry out the Michigan Promise for an undergraduate or graduate degree or a profession degree for anyone who was willing to work for it. He called on council to move from the status quo to work on progressive reforms.

Resolution: New Liquor Code

For several months now, on most occasions when a liquor license award or transfer has come before council, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) has indicated that a complete overhaul of the city’s liquor code would be forthcoming. On Monday night it came forth.

The idea is to repeal the entire old chapter on liquor in the city code and replace it with a new one. Rapundalo described the key elements of the new code as providing for an annual review process, clarifying standards for application, and giving the liquor committee greater ability to track on- and off-premises violations.

Outcome: The new code passed unanimously on its first reading. All ordinance changes require two readings before council.

Present: Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Next Council Meeting: Monday, May 18, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Michael Nearing, an engineer with the city of Ann Arbor, wields a hammer. The hammer was used for two different purposes: "sounding" the concrete for structural integrity and clearing away de-laminated concrete so that it would not fall on cars below.

Since late February, the East Stadium Boulevard bridge over State Street has funneled vehicles across the span in just two of the available four lanes. The lane reduction is a strategy to protect the fifth – counting from the southern edge of the bridge – of the 16 beams in the structure. That fifth beam is “sagging” 7/8 of an inch lower than other beams in the bridge. So traffic is currently restricted to the northern lanes. [Previous Chronicle coverage of the bridge provides additional background.]

In her update to city council in early March, Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, indicated that the bridge was being closely monitored in order to verify the safety of the bridge. Here at The Chronicle, we wondered what “monitoring” entailed.

An emailed request to Homayoon Pirooz, project management manager with the city of Ann Arbor, resulted in The Chronicle spending part of a rainy Wednesday morning under a bridge with a handful of staff from the field services unit and two engineers: Michael Nearing, senior project manager for the city of Ann Arbor’s project management unit, and Jonathan Drummond, with Northwest Consultants Inc.

The weekly monitoring entails regulating traffic under the bridge to allow for a truck with an elevated platform to park and lift the inspectors right up to the underside of the structure. Traffic control was done by a two-man crew, born and bred in Ann Arbor, one wearing a hardhat stickered with a UM winged helmet. They let cars through the one-lane gap on an alternating basis.

Nearing briefed us on the basics. The idea was to check the bridge weekly for additional displacement of the fifth beam to determine if the traffic re-routing had allowed the beam to stabilize at the 7/8-inch deflection, plus give the rest of the bridge a visual once-over. After 6-8 weeks, if the beam doesn’t show any further sagging, the plan is to reduce the frequency of the inspections to every other week.

Engineer's sketch of the lane configuration. Note also the box cross sections of the individual beams. (image links to higher resolution file)

Although the word “beam” is, to a layman, perhaps suggestive of a solid block of concrete, the beams have a hollow box as a cross section. Their strength derives from the steel strands in the bottom of the box. Such box beams are manufactured remotely and brought to a construction site fully cured. At the manufacturing facility, the steel strands are stretched under tremendous tension and the concrete is poured over them. When the concrete cures, the force of the pre-tensioned strands is applied to the concrete, which gives the beam its strength. Without tension the strands don’t add the same strength.

Thus Nearing said that the seven exposed pre-tensioned strands on the fifth beam were no longer contributing to the strength of that member. But on Wednesday morning, the fifth beam was holding steady at a 7/8-inch deflection. The measurement was taken at a point marked with a metal strip fastened into place along the beam to ensure the measurement was taken consistently at the same point from week to week. This week, at least, the beam hadn’t measurably sagged any lower. Still, Nearing and other field services staff took the opportunity to chip away bits of loose concrete from the area, so that they would not fall on their own – possibly onto the windshields of State Street traffic.

Traffic was stopped to allow a truck with a lift to raise city workers to where they could inspect the fifth-beam problem area. (image links to higher resolution file)

And it’s definitely the traffic under the bridge that Nearing said he was concerned about – as much as the traffic going over the bridge. In fact, Nearing did not assess a dramatic collapse across a whole lane’s width as very realistic possibility. He was more concerned about pieces of concrete falling onto State Street traffic.

Here’s why a whole-span collapse isn’t realistic. Even though the beams are tied together, Nearing emphasized that each beam was designed to bear the whole load of its section of the bridge. And given that the beams are not individually wide enough to allow a car to fall through, even the failure of a single beam would not result in cars falling through the air.

In addition to the fifth beam, the eighth beam had caught Nearing’s attention. He said it was starting to show signs of a longitudinal rust stain, very similar in appearance to how the fifth beam looked before the pre-tensioning strands started to expose themselves.

That eighth beam doesn’t figure in the current plan for a bridge repair scenario. That would entail replacement of just as many beams as necessary to get at the weakest one – the fifth one. And that would mean the five beams on the southern side of the bridge would be replaced. Nearing said that although a repair plan had been drawn up, whether it gets implemented depends on how soon funding is available [possibly via the second round of federal stimulus package money] for a complete reconstruction, including the adjacent bridge over the railroad tracks. If funding for complete reconstruction isn’t forthcoming in the next couple of years, the repair scenario (replacement of some limited number of beams) could be implemented.

Nearing walked us around to the top of the bridge and pointed out where it’s not just the box beams that are an issue for the bridge. The wingwalls are in poor shape (daylight is visible where there should be concrete), and the sidewalks are starting to slope downward where the embankment is gradually giving way. The crater-like asphalt surface of the bridge lets water through – wet spots on the underside of the bridge were visible on that rainy morning. And the drain holes in the beams are to some extent clogged by an artifact of their construction technique. Namely, the hollow areas inside the concrete boxes were created with cardboard forms when they were poured, and the cardboard, as it gets wet, falls apart and winds up clogging the holes that are meant to let the water out. Water inside the boxes, combined with freeze-thaw cycles, accelerates the deterioration of the bridge’s condition.

In the coming few weeks, there’ll be additional monitoring trips. We’re not planning to accompany Nearing on every one of them. But we’ll try to keep readers posted on any new developments.

Michael Nearing, left, engineer with the city of Ann Arbor, gives the underside of the East Stadium bridge a closeup inspection.

Jon Drummond, an engineer with Northwest Consultants, along with Michael Nearing, city engineer. (image links to higher resolution file)

The eighth beam, counting from the south, is starting to show the same longitudinal rust staining that the fifth beam did, before some of its pre-tensioning strands started to be exposed. (image links to higher resolution file)

The surrounding support structures also show signs of fatigue, like this sidewalk that has settled to tilt downward from right to left as the embankment weakens.

The chalk outlines were drawn during the Octoboer 2008 annual inspection to indicate the limits of where the de-lamination of the concrete were thought to be at that time.

Stadium Boulevard bridge at State Street: Seven pre-stressing strands exposed on beam 5. The strands run east-west – that is, in the direction of the bridge's span.

Even though it is not yet reflected on the agenda for Monday, it’s expected that Sue McCormick, public services director of the city of Ann Arbor, will brief council on the bridge at the start of its meeting.

Some of the handful of residents at caucus were there to inquire about the bridge (and city finances in general), while others were there to weigh in on the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning process, which the planning commission is literally in the midst of deliberating.

Also receiving some discussion was the Sunday editorial in the Ann Arbor News on the recent request by the city for the DDA to increase its revenues to ensure adequate reserves. A first-time caucus attendee was there to discuss a situation in the field services department of the city, which could be given little commentary by councilmembers present, in light of the fact that it involved a personnel matter.

Who was there representing city council? Ward 5 had a full complement with Carsten Hohnke and Mike Anglin both attending. Sabra Briere held the standard high for Ward 1. And Hieftje rounded out the council quartet.

Stadium Bridge at State Street

Some background: There are two nearly adjacent bridges on Stadium Boulevard (east-west) near State Street (north-south). One of the bridges spans State Street, while the other spans the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks (north-south). The specific bridge in question is the structure spanning State Street.

In late 2007 after a biannual inspection of the bridge, weight limits were reduced on the span. The limits were set as follows:

• 31 tons (reduced from 38 tons) for one-unit trucks (e.g., school or AATA buses)
• 39 tons (reduced from 48 tons) for two-unit trucks (e.g., a single-trailer semi)
• 44 tons (reduced from 54 tons) for three-unit trucks (e.g., a semi with two trailers)

Then in March 2008, a new round of weight reductions was triggered as the result of reports at the very end of 2007 (Dec. 29, 2007) of “medium-sized pieces of concrete” falling off one of the 16 pre-stressed concrete box beams supporting the roadway. Re-inspection by city staff and bridge engineering consultants in early January 2008 led to the short-term recommendation of a traffic control order further reducing weight limits:

• 19 tons for one-unit trucks (e.g., school or AATA buses)
• 24 tons for two-unit trucks (e.g., a single-trailer semi)
• 26 tons for three-unit trucks (e.g., a semi with two trailers)

In early February of this year (2009), the engineering consultant for the bridge, Northwest Consultants Inc., was called back to re-examine the bridge, after having conducted an inspection on Oct. 22, 2008. The reason for re-inspection was a concern by city of Ann Arbor engineering staff about one beam in particular, which appeared to be sagging. On re-inspection, NCI found that the fifth beam (counting from the south) was in fact sitting 7/8-inch lower than adjacent beams. Writing for NCI in a Feb. 12 memo, Jonathan Drummond gave this assessment:

At that time [October 2008] we did not observe any deflection of this beam relative to the adjacent beams. Thus, I am of the opinion that this is a relatively recent development.

Drummond continues:

The 7/8 inch of additional deflection found on this beam is a significant problem which will require precautionary measures to be taken. Excessive deflection is one of the primary warnings of impending beam failure. Of additional concern is how fast this deflection has developed. If traffic continues to drive over this beam I would expect the deflection to continue to grow, eventually leading to beam failure. Therefore, my recommendation to you is that traffic be removed from over top of this beam.

Beginning Feb. 23, 2009, the lanes over the bridges were scheduled to be reconfigured to conduct traffic over the northern portion of the bridge, which is not supported by the deflecting fifth beam. The result of that reconfiguration now leaves two lanes open over the bridge, one in each direction.

It’s worth noting that in contrast to the previous traffic control orders (weight reductions), which did not target any particular part of the bridge, the reduction to two lanes addresses a weakness stemming from the fifth beam in particular.

At the Feb. 1, 2009 city council caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed her frustration that the Stadium bridge project had not been a part of the stimulus package wish list submitted by the city of Ann Arbor – because the design had not been done and was not “shovel ready.”

Here’s some background on the design process. During the fall of 2007, informational workshops had been held on a comprehensive project to address replacement of the span over State Street as well as the one over the railroad, including non-motorized improvements (i.e., sidewalks) extending along Stadium Boulevard to Main Street and south along Main to Scio Church road. Those workshops were held on Sept. 18, 2007 and Oct. 2, 2007 at Pioneer High School’s cafeteria.  They were well attended, especially by members of the Ann Arbor Golf and Outing Club, who were concerned that the proposed non-motorized improvements would have a negative impact on the course, which is nestled fairly tightly into the area on the southeast corner of the Stadium Boulevard and Main Street, across from Pioneer High School.

By early March 2008, the vision for the comprehensive renovation had met with a funding setback. The Michigan Department of Transportation awarded only $760,000 for the project, though the total cost was estimated at that time at around $35 million.

What happened to design work? In a Feb. 26, 2008 memo from Michael Nearing, senior project manager for the city of Ann Arbor’s project management unit, to Homayoon Pirooz, a manager in the same unit, indicates that the design work stalled for failure of Ward 4 councilmembers (Marcia Higgins and Margie Teall) to nominate a citizens advisory committee:

We have not [been] able to move forward on the preliminary design of the bridge over S. State Street or the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks because we are waiting for the 4th Ward City Council members to nominate and confirm a Citizens Advisory Committee to assist us with the public engagement process. It has been our experience with projects of this nature that it is important to consider and review all aspects of the proposed design with the citizens in order to make sure the project that we deliver meets community expectations.

In the short term, a replacement beam has been ordered, with repair work expected to cost around $500,000. The design work, which is now being done for the bridge, would cost around $1 million, Hieftje said at caucus.

Caucus Discussion: Initial conversation on the  Stadium Boulevard bridge among residents and councilmembers  focused on funding and priorities. What is it, asked one woman, that is taking budget money away from this project and does not allow us to proceed? Why is council distracted from priorities about infrastructure by other considerations, like the graffiti ordinance?

With respect to this first issue, Briere clarified that the reason that the project lacked funds was not that the city had decided to spend it on something else, but rather that the hoped-for state and federal support for the project had not materialized at the levels required to proceed. As for the second issue of priorities, Briere said that it wasn’t accurate to say the bridge replacement wasn’t a priority, noting that when she ran for council in 2007, the need to replace the bridge was on everyone’s list.

As a followup to the funding question, the question was asked: Why not simply issue a bond? Hohnke explained that normally the city would receive significant state and federal support, so the hope was to avoid having the city shoulder the entire financial burden (by issuing a bond). Added Hieftje: “I don’t know of a local government who would do it without state and federal assistance.”

Hieftje also offered the view that with recent developments regarding the beam, the project was more likely than before to be funded, noting that it was still not ranked as a “critical” bridge project. He said that money was being pursued in other ways, via federal earmarks through the offices of Mark Schauer (U.S. Congress 7th District) and John Dingell (U.S. Congress 15th District), saying that he’d had dinner with Dingell a week ago Friday, and that he felt it wouldn’t be surprising for the money for the project to be available very shortly.

Replying to Hieftje’s remark that the bridge was not ranked as “critical,” a resident pointed out that on a 0-100 scale of bridge safety, the Stadium bridge scored a 21, which was the same score the bridge in St. Paul had when it collapsed in August of 2007: “If it kills a couple of people, that’s a big deal.” Hieftje confirmed the bridge’s score of 21 on the 100-point scale, but stressed that the situation was being monitored closely by city engineering staff every few days, and that they would simply shut down the bridge if there was any doubt as to its safety.

Someone mooted the alternative of taking down both bridges to establish an at-grade crossing of Stadium Boulevard by the railroad and State Street. Briere said the way she thought about that possibility was this: The traffic when a train comes through would back up past Main Street. A non-starter.

The idea was floated of leveraging the University of Michigan’s interest in seeing the east-west connection remain free-flowing for football games. Hieftje’s attempt at humor (“At 8 in the morning of a 1 o’clock game, we’ll have to shut the bridge down.”) was met with silence and had to be labeled as a joke. Hiefte allowed that discussions with the university were “an angle that may well come up.” Write your regents, he suggested.

Responding to a question by The Chronicle about a mention by Hieftje of using the street millage to pay for the $500,000 repair, Hieftje said that if the street millage could not be used, then there was money in the general fund that could be tapped. The Chronicle’s question stemmed from the fact that while the street millage can be used to repair and maintain streets, this particular “street” is actually a bridge.

Queried by The Chronicle, Hieftje responded to Higgins’ expressed disappointment at caucus that a basic bridge had not already been designed by saying that for these types of projects, the investment in design work (in this case around $1 million) was not made until a funding source had been identified.

In what Briere described as “a provocative thought,” one resident suggested that the current reduction over the bridge to two lanes offered an opportunity to examine the actual impact of that scenario, if it were to be pursued long term. In light of increasing costs for asphalt and maintenance of structures like bridges, the idea was to explore rebuilding the bridge permanently as two lanes. Though seemingly intrigued by the notion, Briere noted that the Pauline-to-Main section of Stadium was due for reconstruction starting this season, and that it called for four lanes. So she wondered about the impact of reducing the width from four down to two lanes. The idea for a permanent reduction of the bridge to two lanes was articulated further to include a “road diet” for Stadium Boulevard, taking it down to three lanes.

On the subject of making the bridge permanently two lanes, one resident offered her perspective as a bus driver, saying that even with its four lane configuration, she wondered if she should hit the embankment or the next car.

[Editor's note: More photos of the Stadium Boulevard bridge are posted at the end of this article.]

A2D2

The Ann Arbor planning commission began deliberations at its last meeting on the A2D2 rezoning package for downtown Ann Arbor.  They did not finish before adjourning. (See previous Chronicle coverage of A2D2 for additional background.) In broad strokes, the new zoning for downtown would create a D-1 district for core downtown with a D-2 district acting as a transition to residential neighborhoods. There would be no height limits in D-1 generally. D-2, on the other hand, would include height limits.

The focus of the height-limit discussion to date has centered on the South University Avenue area, where the 601 S. Forest project provoked controversy when first proposed as a 20+ story building. In the end, the project height had been reduced to around 160 feet.

For the A2D2 rezoning, the South University area had been assigned a special version of D-1 – one that includes height limits. At its initial meeting on the A2D2 package last month, planning commission passed (with some dissent) an amendment that raised the initially proposed D-1 height limit for the South University area from 120 feet to 170 feet, with the idea that it would make 601 S. Forest conform to the new zoning.

At Sunday’s caucus, one resident complained that she’d missed that one meeting and was surprised that the height limit was being raised. Having participated in the public process on the rezoning project over a couple of years, she said that she wondered if it was even worth it.

Hieftje  encouraged her to continue to stay involved in the process and assured her that the whole A2D2 zoning package would “land in our laps” at city council. He said that on one occasion he had once been the only member of council to vote for height limits – something Hieftje frequently says when the topic of downtown development comes up. Now, he allowed, there might be others on council who would also support height limits.

Planning commission will resume its A2D2 deliberations  on Tuesday, March 3.

DDA-City Relationship

Planning commission also came up in the context of a conversational thread on the relationship of the city of Ann Arbor to the Downtown Development Authority. As far as being “a part of the city of Ann Arbor,” Hieftje said the DDA was “no different from planning commission except that they had their own funding stream” – the tax increment financing (TIF) district.

The conversation was prompted by a request from citizens at caucus for Hieftje to respond to Sunday’s Ann Arbor News editorial on the use of parking revenue collected by the DDA to shore up the city’s general fund. The concluding paragraph from that editorial reads:

The DDA doesn’t need further rate hikes because its costs are going up, or because it’s mismanaging its money, or anything like that. The DDA needs more money because the council keeps taking it, and it would be nice if the council came out and said so.

Previous Chronicle coverage on the issue can be found in our account of the most recent DDA operations committee meeting. In broad strokes, city council has recently asked the DDA to (i) open discussions on revising the current  parking agreement (projected to result in a $2 million transfer from the DDA to the city), and (ii) to put forward a plan to raise revenues to maintain adequate reserves in DDA fund balances.

Hieftje’s response was to say that he saw the editorial as demonstrating that the News’ memory of recent history is not as strong as it might be. He then traced back the past renegotiation of the parking agreement and the decision by the city to allow the DDA to collect revenues from metered parking.

The city went back to renegotiate that agreement in 2005, Hieftje said, because the city provides a disproportionate amount of city services to the DDA area – citing police calls at 2 a.m. as an example. The DDA is a creation of the city, continued Hieftje, and the city could end the DDA tomorrow night with 6 votes of council, if it wanted to. Hieftje then said he hadn’t read the editorial.

The Chronicle asked Hieftje what point specifically Hieftje thought qualified as the News not having an adequate memory of recent history – given that he had not read the piece. Hieftje replied that he’d been told about the editorial, and that to him the key fact that went missing was that the city had elected to allow the DDA to retain revenue from metered parking.

The Chronicle followed up by asking Hieftje if the city’s current initiative to open the parking agreement negotiations again represented a philosophical change from the tenet that parking should pay for itself, but also no more than itself.  We drew an analogy to the storm water fee, which is supposed to pay for the maintenance of the stormwater system, but is not supposed to generate gratuitous fund balances that can be used on non-stormwater projects. Hieftje said that already in 2005 (when the city negotiated for $10 million to be transferred from the DDA over the course of 10 years) there was a philosophy in place that would allow for parking revenue to fund non-parking needs. And that change in philosophy, Hieftje said, was driven by the fact that the DDA area uses a disproportionately greater amount of city services.

Providing some context on the question of parking revenues and parking system, Hohnke noted that  enabling legislation to create a DDA does not speak to parking, but only to TIF.

Residents urged Hieftje to write a letter to the editor in response to the News editorial. However, Briere clarified that by policy, the Ann Arbor News did not publish op-ed pieces by elected officials, because the paper felt that officials had an adequate forum to express their views in virtue of their elected office. At that, residents suggested that Hieftje use his time during the “communications” portion of council meetings to address the content of the editorial.

Exposed pre-stressing strands on the underside of the Stadium Boulevard bridge.

More exposed pre-stressing strands on the underside of the Stadium Boulevard bridge.

Current weight limits on the Stadium Boulevard bridge over State Street in Ann Arbor.

Sign indicating imminent lane reduction. That reduction to two lanes (one in each direction) is now in place.

Engineer's sketch of the needed lane configuration. (image links to higher resolution file)

Municipal Facility (Police-Courts)

Three members of the public appeared in order to express their opposition to the construction of the police-courts facility. On the council agenda for Monday is a resolution to approve the $35.87 million contract with Clark Construction, which carries a guaranteed maximum cost of $38,148,745. Construction would begin later this month and be completed in the spring of 2011.

The arguments against it from the public included an analysis of what the community would be sacrificing financially in other areas in order build the project. These members of the public also provided the view based on professional experience on the engineering side, that the “value engineering” process in which city staff are currently engaged always cuts cost to the client, but never cuts profit to the builder. One person compared the situation to a dysfunctional family where one of its members has expensive habits – drugs, alcohol and gambling. When that member is in a bind and has no money for heat in the wintertime, he said, a sob story gets told in order to get relatives to donate money to the cause. In this case, the sob story is that the city of Ann Arbor won’t have money for police and fire protection or trash collection, and the expensive habit is the police-courts facility.

Those members of the public found sympathetic ears in the form of councilmembers Sabra Briere and Mike Anglin, who have long been on record as opposing the project. As an aside, Anglin has already taken out petitions for his re-election and he circulated them Sunday night. On Sunday, Anglin expressed his disappointment that the project had come this far and said he was not in favor of proceeding: “You can’t predict the future, but you can act on the present.”

But it was councilmember Marcia Higgins who led off councilmembers’ discussion of the municipal facility and seemed to express a certain weariness by rubbing her eyes. She said that she’d be pushing for a resolution from council to eliminate the new public meeting space and council chamber from the design: “I would like to suggest that we give Roger [Fraser, city administrator] direction that we don’t spend any more on design.” She stressed that council had never said that this additional space would be paid for out of the bond, and that this was why she was surprised to hear councilmember Leigh Greden (not present on Sunday) suggest at a previous council meeting that it could be – if the bids for the rest of the project came back low enough. The idea that the new space for council chamber and public meetings will not be built is consistent with the memo accompanying the agenda item for Monday’s meeting approving the construction agreement: “As the base project will require virtually the entire budget, we do not recommend further consideration of the New Community Meeting Room alternate.”

Briere said she would not vote for the building but would vote for the elimination of the construction of new council chambers, noting that she had not seen a contingency plan developed.

Stimulus Package and Other Major Construction Projects

The new municipal center project also came up in the discussion of the federal stimulus package wish list.  Briere noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s wish list included the new municipal center ($65 million), plus the waste water treatment facility renovations ($94 million), projects for which the city had budgeted and for which the council had been informed there was money to fund. She said that to ask for money for those projects would make Ann Arbor look greedy, and that she was dismayed by the list. After caucus, Briere clarified that she was not against asking the federal government for money, but that in choosing to list projects for which we’ve said we can pay for ourselves, we miss the opportunity to fund other projects.

During caucus discussion, Briere said that Mayor John Hieftje had given her a wish list of Ann Arbor environmental projects to convey to Michigan representatives on her trip to Washington, D.C. After caucus, she said that she’d managed to talk about the projects with Rep. John Dingell’s staff, Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s staff, as well as Lt. Gov. John Cherry.

One project that Higgins would have liked to have seen on the wish list was the replacement of the Stadium Boulevard bridges across State Street and the railroad tracks. She said that a very recent inspection of an exposed beam on the State Street bridge would necessitate a $0.5 million repair. This, after a plan to replace both bridges, incorporating non-motorized amenities, had been delayed due to lack of funding.  Higgins said she was frustrated that a “basic bridge” had never been designed as part of the city’s approach to the need to replace the State Street bridge. This means that it doesn’t appear on the stimulus wish list – which contains “shovel ready” status columns for 90, 120 and 180 days. Higgins said that Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, had told her it would take up to 8 months to design the bridge.

The Stadium bridge has had its weight-carrying capacity reduced over the years as part of a strategy to deal with the fact that it needs to be replaced, Higgins said, but now we needed to begin to face up to the possibility that lack of action would result in closing the bridge. Higgins said she was not happy with McCormick’s response to her query about contingency planning for emergency response, in the event the bridge is closed on the major east-west corridor. Higgins characterized the response as, “We’ll get to that.”

Higgins also indicated at caucus that there would be a motion to table the resolution for the Farmers Market renovation project indefinitely. Its budget had grown from less than $1 million to over $2 million.  She noted that it was important that people understood that the $600,000 that had been described as a “grant” was actually a low-interest loan. The money would go towards the cleaning of storm water retained at the site. At its last meeting, council voted to postpone the resolution.

Fiscal Policy: Capital Improvement Plan and the Budget

Higgins clarified her lone “no” votes at last council meeting on the capital improvement plan and a resolution authorizing the use of around $250,000 of storm water fund money for a tree inventory. She said that she had been working over the last five years or so to make the capital improvement plan a part of the budgeting process, because the CIP is such a huge driver of budget decisions. Now it’s a separate process.

Other matters that Higgins said she wanted to see included in the budgeting process involved fees – storm water rates, sewer rates, water rates. She said that she wanted any fees that were not for recreational activities (which required separate consideration mainly so that publicity materials could be prepared with the accurate amounts printed in them) to be a part of the budget process. Council will be considering a modified fee schedule for golf courses at Monday’s meeting. Briere concurred with the idea that it was important to understand the impact of fee increases on the budget.

Higgins also clarified her vote at the last council meeting against the use of around $250,000 out of the storm water fund to supplement a $25,000 grant to inventory city trees. She said that she would prefer to see that money spent directly on storm water, not on a tree inventory. Briere said that for $25,000, “we could hire Boy Scouts – I’m not kidding.”

Also related to fiscal policy was a question Higgins asked people to start thinking about: Should Act 51 money be tapped to fund street barricades for community events (non-exhaustive list: Rolling Sculpture, Dancing in the Streets, Oktoberfest, 4th of July Parade, Festifools, Taste of Ann Arbor, Art Fairs, Take Back the Night, Summer Festival). She said that state law had required new types of barriers, and that the overhead to transport them from the Wheeler Center had increased slightly, with the overall impact that the cost to community groups for barricading the public right of way had roughly doubled. Tapping Act 51 (transportation) funds was one possibility she saw to help defray those costs.

One Percent for Art? Really??

Higgins also called into question the need for construction projects to allocate a full 1% for public art, noting that around $1 million had already accumulated in the fund in the year since the program was adopted. She wondered if perhaps a half percent would be a more appropriate level.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor noted light-heartedly that “A Half-Percent For Art!” just doesn’t have quite the same ring. But on a more serious note he suggested that monies are being accumulated faster than they’re being allocated because a mechanism for distribution is still getting up and running.

Zoning: Area Height and Placement

Discussion among councilmembers at caucus actually began with consideration of a planned project on the agenda for the Wintermeyer Office Building at 2144 and 2178 South State. Briere reported that the existing setback is 37 feet, what is required by current code is 25 feet, and the developer is asking for 15 feet. The proposed setback would be consistent with the revised area, height, and placement standards on all non-downtown and non-residential properties that  came out of planning commission, but which were sent back by council for more public input. So Briere wondered if city planning staff were pushing developers to build to a new standard that had not yet been approved. Along the same lines, Higgins expressed her frustration that planning staff might be saying to developers that council would be approving the new standards and that they should go ahead and build based on them.

Taylor ventured that the new standards had been “vetted to some degree,” but Briere quickly objected that they hadn’t. Taylor rephrased by saying that the standards were not “fresh from the air.” He said that in a situation where the standards are in transition, it seemed reasonable that a developer might hew to the standard that might be approved, if it allowed him to achieve the innovation he had in mind for his project.

Because the project does not meet existing standards, said Higgins, it’s coming before council as a planned project, something that she said council had repeatedly asked planning staff not to do. Planned projects are similar to PUDs in that the city applies certain criteria to projects that do not conform to existing code. But Higgins said that planned projects offer much less flexibility in negotiation than PUDs.