In a post on her director’s blog, Josie Parker stated: ”The last phase of the work is scheduled for next week, and we anticipate another closure for the installation of the new jack. That work is scheduled to occur on Wednesday, August 27.”

On Aug. 13, the library announced that its downtown building would be closed indefinitely starting the following day. The elevator has been out of commission since this spring, after leaks had developed in the hydraulic piston, causing it to fail a weight test. At their July 21, 2014 meeting, trustees authorized a $93,598 contract with Schindler Elevator Corp. to repair the elevator. A week after the July 21 meeting, the board called a special meeting for July 29 to address additional issues related to the elevator. The four board members present at that meeting voted to authorize an additional $75,000 for elevator work.

The plan at that time was to attempt to keep the downtown library open as much as possible during the work, with the caveat that it was still unclear exactly what would be required to make the repair. However, the work required drilling concrete casings, which explosed the work area in such a way that made it impossible for the library to remain open.

The AADL is also undertaking a major renovation to the front entrance of the downtown library. On July 21, AADL trustees authorized authorized a $425,523 construction budget for that project, which has been in the works for several months. The budget covers new doors, a redesigned facade, and heated sidewalks, among other changes. The construction manager is O’Neal Construction of Ann Arbor.

Image from preliminary drawings by the Carl Walker design team for renovated southwest elevator and stair tower for the Fourth & William parking structure.

The board voted to establish a project budget of $5 million for renovations, which are prompted by a need to replace an aging elevator and stair tower at the southwest corner of the structure. The amount would be covered by issuing bonds, but approval of that step would come later, and would require approval of the city council – because the bonds used by the DDA have historically been issued by the city.

The Fourth & William structure, at 994 spaces, is one of the largest in Ann Arbor’s parking system – but has elevators that are more than 30 years old. [A recent trip from the ground floor to floor 7 was timed by The Chronicle at 45 seconds. The comparable trip at the newer Washington & Fourth parking structure took about 17 seconds.]

In addition to replacing the elevator and stairway tower, the DDA is considering some work on the south and east sides, using some surfaces that are more reflective and perhaps installing some awnings. The resolution also describes the possibility of expanding the pedestrian lobby area, updating parking equipment, adding electrical capacity and additional electric vehicle charging units, and building out some of the first floor area for active uses. The stairway and elevator towers would be glass-enclosed.

The stair tower and elevator portion of the project was estimated to cost on the order of $3 million. The first, very preliminary drawings were provided to the DDA’s operations committee at its Feb. 26 meeting. That preliminary work was authorized by the DDA board at its Jan. 8, 2014 meeting.

By way of background, at that Jan. 8 meeting, the DDA authorized up to $40,000 for Carl Walker Inc. to develop architectural renderings for renovations to the southwest stair tower and elevators of the Fourth & William parking structure.

The DDA was presented with two options for the renovations, based on either a two-phase or a three-phase approach. In both scenarios, the goal is to keep the parking structure open for business during construction.

The two-phase approach would last about a year – from August 2014 through July 2015. The three-phase approach would take five months longer – through about December 2015.

Chronicle chart of potential timeline for renovations to the southwest elevator at the Fourth & William parking structure, based on Carl Walker Inc. estimates.

The resolution passed by the DDA board on May 7 authorizes the DDA’s executive director to oversee issuance of bid documents and to sign a contract with Carl Walker Inc. to prepare construction drawings for the project. Those construction drawings are to be limited initially to the stair tower and elevator replacement project. The selection of a contractor for the work would need separate approval by the DDA board.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

AATA board member Roger Kerson at the board's Aug. 24, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

At the board meeting, CEO Michael Ford announced that McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator, will be co-chairing a panel of financial and funding experts who will review various funding options for a possible expanded, countywide transportation system.

The board voted to release a funding report to the panel – the third volume of its transit master plan (TMP). [.pdf of Part 1 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options] [.pdf of Part 2 of Vol. 3 Transit Master Plan Funding Options]. The first two volumes were released previously.

The report describes a range of funding options, which would likely be used in some combination of strategies: fare revenues, advertising, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking taxes, stakeholder contributions, fuel taxes and vehicle license fees.

In anticipation that the panel could recommend funding options that would require voter approval, the board also approved the selection of CJI Research Corp. as the vendor for survey work over the next three years. That survey work can include on-board surveys of bus riders as well as telephone surveys of Washtenaw County voters.

At the Aug. 24 meeting, the board also approved implementation of a new website, which will provide greater flexibility for AATA staff who aren’t computer programmers to push information to the public. The new site is also intended to make it easier for the public to track the real-time locations of their bus.

The board also changed its pricing policy for the go!pass, a bus pass offered to downtown Ann Arbor employees that allows them to board AATA buses on an unlimited basis without paying a fare. The cost of the fares has historically been paid by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority using public parking system revenues, plus a nominal fee per card paid by downtown employers. The revised policy breaks with AATA’s past practice of charging costs for go!pass rides based on its cheapest full-fare alternative. Those costs per ride will now be lower, based on the DDA’s ability to pay and the AATA’s estimate of what employers would be willing to pay.

In other business, the board approved a revision to its contract with the Select Ride company, which provides AATA’s on-demand paratransit service (A-Ride) for those who are not able to ride the fixed-route regularly-scheduled bus system. The upward adjustment was driven by a recent increase in maximum taxicab fares implemented by the city of Ann Arbor.

The board also approved a master agreement that will apply to all of its contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and adjusted its capital plan to accommodate changes in three projects: the Blake Transit Center, the bus storage facility, and the bus maintenance facility.

Transit Master Plan Funding Report

The board was asked to authorize the release of “Volume 3: Funding Options Report” of its transit master plan (TMP). The TMP is part of the AATA’s effort to fulfill a countywide transportation mission.

The resolution specified that Volume 3 of the TMP was authorized for release to “a panel of financial and public funding experts to review, refine, and adjust the document.” The first two volumes were released to the public earlier this year. [.pdf of draft "Volume 1: A Transit Vision for Washtenaw County"] [.pdf of draft "Volume 2: Transit Master Plan Implementation Strategy"]

During the Aug. 24 meeting, CEO Michael Ford announced that co-chairing the panel will be Albert Berriz, CEO of McKinley Inc., and Bob Guenzel, retired Washtenaw County administrator.

Funding recommendations made by the panel of experts are to be forwarded to a fully constituted but unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) for further consideration and action. The transition of transportation service from the AATA to an authority formed under Act 196 of 1986 is the most likely scenario under which transit funding would be established on a countywide basis.

At its July 19, 2011 meeting, the board authorized the board chair to appoint three of its members to the U196 board, and authorized the AATA’s CEO to use AATA resources in support of the U196.

Immediately following the Aug. 24 meeting, the AATA made the funding report available in digital form: [.pdf of Part 1 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report] [.pdf of Part 2 of the Vol. 3 Funding Report]

In reporting out from the AATA planning and development committee’s regular monthly meeting, Rich Robben – the committee’s chair – said the committee had expected to vote on the release of the TMP funding report, but it was not finalized at the time of the meeting. Committee members had received it by email and recommended via email that the report come forward to the full board.

During board comment on the funding report, board chair Jesse Bernstein said the third volume of the TMP was the most difficult section to write. He said the AATA staff had made a heroic effort. The report would be helpful in understanding where the AATA is and where it wants to go, he said.

The report describes funding options, he continued, which will need to be developed in conjunction with a service delivery model. He described the collection of people on the funding task force, which will study the report and make recommendations based on it, as an “excellent group of folks.”

Among the funding options described in the report are: fare revenues, advertising, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking taxes, stakeholder contributions, fuel taxes and vehicle license fees.

Charles Griffith called the report valuable, because it lays out how transit funding works generally. He allowed that at certain points, his eyes glazed over trying to get through it, but he did find it illuminating for at least thinking about how to fund different elements of the transit master plan. He said he looked forward to the feedback the board received on the report.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the release of the funding report.

Voter/Rider Survey Vendor

Before the board for its consideration was authorization of a three-year contract with CJI Research Corp. to conduct survey research. The contract has two additional one-year options.

Of the three respondents to the AATA’s request for proposals (RFP), the one from CJI was the top-rated proposal with respect to the criteria: price, experience, and technical approach. CJI was the firm that conducted the AATA’s most recent on-board and telephone surveys in 2009.

CJI has experience with polling for ballot initiatives. That experience is significant, because at some point it’s expected that a proposal will be put before voters across Washtenaw County that would levy a transit tax, if approved. The draft fiscal year 2012 budget for AATA includes $75,000 for an on-board survey of riders and a telephone survey of Washtenaw County voters.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the selection of CJI as the vendor for the survey work.

New Website

A resolution on the agenda called for approving the use of $140,000 in federal funds to implement the redesign of AATA’s website. The bid for the redesign had already been awarded to the Michigan firm Artemis Solutions Group Inc.

Among the improvements desired by the AATA is a way for staff – who do not have programming skills – to update the website. AATA also wants its new website to be a tool that staff can use to broadcast information to AATA riders via email, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Among the enhanced information the AATA wants available on its website is real-time bus location information that includes a way for third-party developers to create and distribute smart phone applications using AATA’s real-time data.

AATA board member Anya Dale had some questions about the new website.

The new website will also allow the AATA to provide a “performance scorecard” to display metrics that include finances, operations, ridership, environmental impact, maintenance and safety performance. The website is supposed to allow AATA to comply with section 508 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards, and provide translation into multiple languages.

During board deliberations, Anya Dale asked if anything would be changed to the way that routes and schedules are looked up. She noted that when she first started riding the bus, she found some parts difficult to navigate. Board chair Jesse Bernstein asked John Gilkey of Artemis Solutions if he could provide a presentation and if so, how long that might last. Gilkey said his last presentation had lasted 45 minutes. Bernstein wondered if it might not be possible to get a five-minute version.

After some back and forth, board members seemed content not to receive a presentation at the board meeting, but they wanted to see a demonstration of some of the working functionality before the new website goes live. Roger Kerson, in particular, was keen to establish that some kind of usability testing would be done before launch. He asked specifically if the budget included a usability study. Gilkey said it was not planned – Artemis had done data collection and collected input in advance of design.

John Gilkey, of Artemis Solutions, was prepared to give a presentation on the AATA's new website that his company will implement. The board blanched at the 45-minute estimated time it would take, and decided to forgo the presentation for that meeting.

Kerson responded to Gilkey saying that he felt strongly that usability testing should be included and that it needn’t be expensive. Gilkey then said that Artemis does a lot of usability testing and would be testing out the implementation with users – he’d understood Kerson’s original question to be whether Artemis would be undertaking a full-blown scientific study, using something like Michigan State University’s usability lab.

Kerson noted that users “always find stuff we don’t find.” Kerson stressed that he’d like to see what’s included in the new website, before AATA rolls it out, so that they can find what the bugs are. Bernstein asked Mary Stasiak, AATA’s community relations manager, to keep the board posted as progress is made on the implementation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the implementation of the new website.

Go!pass Rides

The board was asked to vote on a change to the price AATA charges for rides taken under the go!pass program. The go!pass can be purchased by downtown Ann Arbor employers for their employees at a cost of $5 per pass annually.

AATA board member Rich Robben. In the background is Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program.

The change authorized by the board might go unnoticed for holders of the passes, who do not pay fares to board the bus. But the change will include an increase from $5 to $10 for the annual fee paid by employers per pass. That’s an increase that will be implemented by the getDowntown program, which administers the go!pass. However, in the action the board was asked to approve on Aug. 24, the AATA was actually in effect lowering the price per go!pass ride.

Here’s why. Holders of the go!pass card can board the bus without paying a fare, and there are no limits on the number of rides that can be taken with the card. The number of those rides is counted as they’re swiped at the fare box. [Before the fare boxes were converted to swipe-able technology, drivers recorded such rides with a button press].

The cost of such rides is funded in small part by the $5/card fee paid by employers, but in largest part by revenues from the city’s public parking system provided through the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA authorized three years worth of funding for the go!pass program. For the second two fiscal years of that funding, approval amounted to $438,565 (FY 2012) and $475,571 (FY 2013).

The number of rides taken using the go!pass has increased each year for the last decade, but has jumped significantly during the last year. In the past, the AATA has priced go!pass rides in a way that matches the revenue per go!pass ride to the amount that bus riders would pay if they paid the full fare under a regular 30-day pass – the cheapest full-fare option. So, as go!pass ridership has increased, the total amount charged to getDowntown by the AATA for the rides has also increased.

In the past, the DDA has increased its level of support to match what the AATA has charged. As the DDA is under increasing financial pressure due to the new public parking system management contract recently signed with the city of Ann Arbor, as well as a possible need to return excess tax increment finance (TIF) revenues that have been collected, it’s not anticipated that the DDA will be able to increase the amount it contributes to the go!pass program.

Given the levels of funding now pledged by the DDA, the price that employers would need to be charged per go!pass per year would be $26 – if the same policy is maintained of charging for go!pass rides so that their cost matches what the cheapest full-fare option would be.

In recent presentations to the DDA, Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, has recommended an increase from $5 to $10, not to $26. The advisory board of getDowntown has approved the increase to $10.

The action the AATA board was asked to take on Aug. 24 essentially sets the charge for go!pass rides at a flat rate – equal to the DDA’s current level of pledged support, plus an estimate that the total employer contribution (at $10/pass/year) would be $71,000 per year, based on the roughly 7,100 go!passes sold to employers so far this year. That is, the price charged for go!pass rides for the next two fiscal years will be $509,565 and $546,571, respectively – independently of the number of rides taken by go!pass holders.

The board’s action translates to a decision to accept a $16/pass/year shortfall in revenues from go!pass rides, compared to what the previous pricing policy has been, or a shortfall of roughly $113,600 (16*7,100).

In introducing the background of the go!pass issue for board members, Chris White, manager of service development for AATA, described how the proposed pricing change was really only an interim solution, for the next two years. Three years from now, he said, the DDA may not have funds to support the program at all.

Shore, who attended the board meeting, noted that in the last 10 years, fares have gone up, gas prices have gone up, and an increase from $5 to $10 per year per pass for the employer contribution seemed feasible. She noted that it’s a “universal pass,” which means that employers must purchase the passes for all their employees, whether employees use the passes or not. It’s not an option to purchase passes for just a subset of employees.

Shore said that very few employers she’d talked with had much of a problem with the increased $10 cost. She compared it to a health care benefit – some employees would use it more and some would use it less. She noted that there’s been a huge uptick in use of the pass and it was important to maintain that benefit to everyone.

Go!pass rides by month, charted year by year. (Links to higher resolution image.)

Charles Griffith wondered if the resolution was worded properly – was the board being asked to approve the increase from $5 to $10? White clarified that the board was being asked to approve the cost for the go!pass program as a whole. That would then be conveyed to the getDowntown advisory board, which sets the cost for employers. White described the situation as one where the AATA essentially sells the go!passes to the getDowntown program.

The proposal before the board would establish a fixed cost for each pass instead of linking the cost to the number of rides that are taken, White explained. White allowed that it’s a bit of a strange relationship, because the getDowntown program is currently part of the AATA – its two staff members are compensated as employees of the AATA. [Discussions are currently taking place about the future of the program, and whether the getDowntown program will become part of the DDA. For recent coverage, see "DDA Board Mulls Absorbing getDowntown Staff into DDA"]

Rich Robben noted that when board members had questioned the issue at the planning and development committee meeting, from the AATA’s perspective, if there’s a dramatic increase in ridership, then the AATA recovers less per ride. Historically, Robben said, the go!pass program has panned out nicely for the AATA.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change in price structure for the go!pass.

Amendment to Capital Plan

Before the board for its consideration was approval of a revision to AATA’s capital and categorical grant program to accommodate three projects: the Blake Transit Center (BTC) reconstruction in downtown Ann Arbor, the bus storage facility expansion, and the bus maintenance facility upgrade.

The scope of the BTC project has expanded, with a total estimated cost of $5.5 million. The estimate is based on a schematic design that is not yet complete. Already secured is $4.195 million in grant funds, which leaves a balance of $1.044 million.

At the Aug. 24 meeting, CEO Michael Ford said that AATA is looking to finalize design of a newly reconstructed Blake Transit Center in the next month. The AATA is still working with the city to obtain the use of a six-foot strip of land on the southwest edge of the AATA parcel, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The AATA is planning to issue construction bids in October or November 2011 with the hope that construction work can start in the spring of 2012.

The bus storage expansion was AATA’s final project approved for federal stimulus funds – $1.01 million in stimulus funds were allocated to the project. With a current cost estimate of $2.404 million, there is a balance of $1.394 million.

The bus maintenance facility upgrade includes the addition of a urea filling station. Already approved in grants for that work is $0.598 million. The total cost will be $1.244 million, leaving a balance of $0.647 million.

The board’s action on Aug. 24 revised the AATA’s capital and categorical grant program to provide a total of $2,676,678 for the three projects from the AATA’s federal formula funds.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the adjustment of its capital plan.

A-Ride Deal

The board was asked to consider an increase in AATA’s contract with Select Ride, to provide service for the AATA’s A-Ride – an on-demand program offered to those with disabilities preventing them from riding the regularly scheduled AATA fixed-route service. The increase in the contract authorized by the board is 2.9% – from $2,793,481 to $2,873,481.

The increase reflects the recent increases in taxicab rates, authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its May 16, 2011 meeting. The increase authorized by the council was from $2.25/mile to $2.50/mile, which had been requested by several taxicab companies in light of rising fuel prices.

The contract with Select Ride is structured so that the company is paid based upon the distance that passengers are transported, together with the fare structure for the taxicab rides. The contract increase reflects a compromise under which the AATA is shouldering only part of the increased cost due to the taxicab fare increase.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the change in the A-Ride deal.

MDOT Master Agreement

A resolution on the agenda called for authorizing standard terms and conditions for a five-year master agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The master agreement will facilitate future contracts with MDOT for state funding, as well as to pass through federal funding to the AATA. The standard terms and conditions are established as part of a master agreement so that they don’t have to be spelled out in every future contract individually.

The current five-year master agreement expires on Sept. 30, 2011. The board’s action authorized a new agreement that reflected only minor changes from the current one: third-party contracting procedures are updated, and reference to a regional program was eliminated because it no longer exists.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the five-year master agreement.

Commuter Rail Communications: WALLY

During his communications to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the last planning and development committee meeting had included discussion of the Washtenaw and Livingston Line (WALLY) project. AATA continues to look at the project and evaluate it, Ford said. He’d come back to the board in September on the issue, Ford told the board, but there would be additional discussion by the planning and development committee to focus on the status of the project, the money that’s been spent so far, investments in the WALLY corridor, and a description of the project’s major issues.

Ford said an “analysis paper” would be created to describe the WALLY project’s status and an action plan going forward, which would clarify the role of the state (via MDOT). Work would include talking to Livingston County and other community partners, as well at to Ann Arbor Railroad.

In reporting out from the planning and development committee, Rich Robben, chair of that committee, characterized the committee’s conversation about WALLY as “quite a discussion.”

In relevant part, the minutes of the planning and development committee meeting read as follows:

David Nacht stated that he was opposed to any further spending of funds at this time on architectural services for WALLY noting that these funds have been provided by AATA’s WALLY partners, and suggesting that at this point it is very unlikely that the project will go forward. He suggested that an offer be extended to the WALLY partners to return the funds, or ask for permission to spend the funds on other projects that will benefit transit. Michael Benham explained that the completion of station design would aid with qualifying for additional federal grant funds and added that the WALLY project was rated the top project by the State of Michigan to receive funding to improve signals and ongoing development of the project.

Committee members and staff engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding WALLY. It was suggested that absent the political will in Washtenaw and Livingston County, it is unlikely that trains will run. In contrast, it was noted that even if WALLY does not go forward, the tracks (which have already been improved) can still be used by freight cars.

Michael Ford was requested to contact the Governor’s office and the head of the Michigan Department ofTransportation (MDOT) to ascertain whether the project is a priority of the current administration, and if so, will that support lead to the needed capital and operating support for WALLY. Michael Ford indicated that he recently met with Kirk Steudle (the Director of MDOT). They discussed the idea of identifying more incentives to develop and urge collaboration between communities.

Rich Robben suggested tabling the WALLY discussion with a caveat that the funding not be spent without specific authorization from the board. Mr. Robben requested the opportunity for more discussion on operating funds. Michael Ford requested confirmation (which he received) that the funds for WALLY will remain in the draft budget, but will not be spent without specific action from the Board.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the board entertained other various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Shorter-Term Service Improvements

In addition to the work on the transit master plan (TMP) and the governing body that would be the countywide authority, CEO Michael Ford mentioned shorter-term initiatives that the AATA is working on to enhance service: Ypsi-to-Ann Arbor service, van pool service, extension of A-Ride (paratransit) service to the East Ann Arbor Health Center, and airport service.

Ford reported that because the AATA had received more than one response to the request for proposals (RFP) it had issued for the airport service contract, the project would be delayed by six to eight weeks, but the AATA was still moving forward with that, he said. AATA is collaborating on funding issues with private and public partners, which includes talks with the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. He reported that AATA would be meeting with the Wayne County Airport Authority, as well as with Wayne County EDGE to discuss how the AATA might operate out of the airport.

The A-Ride service was extended on July 1 to the East Ann Arbor Health Center. Ford reported that training was held for employees on the details of the new service.

An RFP was issued for van pool service in late June, Ford reported, and a recommendation could be ready for the planning and development committee to review at its meeting in September.

In the area of improving the Ann Arbor-to-Ypsilanti workforce transportation service, Ford said that Night Ride would be expanded to Ypsilanti in the fall. AATA is also looking at doubling the number of weekday trips on Route #4, which would begin in January 2012. That’s already included in the 2012 budget, Ford said.

The AATA continues to work with community partners to support service, Ford said

Comm/Comm: Landscaping

Ford reported on the in-progress landscaping project at the AATA headquarters facility.

Landscaping work underway at the AATA headquarters facility on South Industrial Highway.

He noted that the ivy, dead trees and rocks were gone and they’d be replaced with low-maintenance plants. Accessible concrete ramps are also being installed.

Comm/Comm: CTN Viewership

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith told his board colleagues that board meeting online viewership on Community Television Nework was included in the board information packet. Counts reflect the number of views, not necessarily the number of unique IP addresses, and do not include views of the regular cable broadcast, which CTN does not track.

Sep. 16, 2010: 27
Oct. 21, 2010: 44
Nov. 18, 2010:  2
Dec. 16, 2010: 50
Jan. 20, 2011:  9
Mar. 17, 2011: 23
Apr. 21, 2011: 21
May  19, 2011: 12
Jun. 16, 2011:  9

-

Comm/Comm: Performance Update

Charles Griffith, chair of the board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, characterized the financial operating data as “in good shape.” He allowed that expenses have started to go up on a per-service-hour basis, but are still under the target amount. The AATA continues to see an uptick in ridership.

Ridership numbers on fixed-route service through July 2011. (Links to higher resolution image.)

It’s now possible to compare on an apples-to-apples basis, he said, because it’s been over a year since the last fare increase was implemented. Ridership in July 2011 was up 6.2%, he said, adding that they can only speculate why.

Griffith said it might be possible for the October 2011 on-board survey to help shed some light on that. He noted that ridership for the demand response component of the AATA’s service is down 3.5%, which is a continuation of the downward trend since the fare increase.

Comm/Comm: Information on Intermediate Stops

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Vivienne Armentrout told the board that she had a suggestion for a service improvement: The stops that are intermediate to those listed in the schedule are not listed anywhere that she could find.

That had caused her some confusion at times, Armentrout said, though overall she was delighted with her Route #13 service. The drivers are considerate and courteous, she reported. But sometimes she thinks there’s going to be a stop and then there’s not. She ventured that one reason it might not be possible to put those intermediate stops into the schedule is that it would take away some flexibility. But she wished for a list or some way that information could be accessed.

Comm/Comm: Wake Up, Washtenaw!

Larry Krieg spoke during both times available for public commentary. He called the board’s attention to several recent developments indicating the role of transit in growing the economies in the regions it serves. He noted that the American Society of Civil Engineers had released a study recently concluding that by 2021, the average American household will lose $7,000 in spending power, unless additional funds are spent on roads, bridges and transit.

He noted that the Michigan State Police had released a report stating that the direct cost of car crashes in 2009 was $4.9 billion, with indirect costs in pain and suffering of $4.0 billion. And Orlando, Florida has begun work on SunRail, a 39-mile commuter line, using existing rail right of way, despite initial objections from Florida Gov. Rick Scott. There’s no doubt that operation costs for SunRail will be fully covered by public and private sources in addition to farebox revenue, he said.

Larry Krieg of Wake Up, Washtenaw! addressed the board.

Transit has an important role to play in the economic development of the community, Krieg said. Now is no time to hang back. In the time allotted for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Krieg returned to the podium to describe some steps that his group – Wake Up, Washtenaw! – is taking to promote economic development through transit.

Krieg said he felt that opposition to investment in transit is generally based on a lack of information. There needs to be a strong voice for each transit project. So Wake Up, Washtenaw! proposes to continue support for Partners for Transit, a citizen group promoting the transit master plan. The group will also engage civic and business leaders in Washtenaw County and surrounding counties. He also suggested convening a roundtable discussion of transportation funding alternatives, that would involve business leaders, transit officials and the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). He suggested that the discussion should include alternative legal and financial structures that could bring public transit closer to being self-sustaining. Krieg concluded by inviting people to email him at wakeupwashtenaw at gmail dot com.

Comm/Comm: Paratransit, Human Rights

Thomas Partridge complained about the time for public commentary at AATA board meetings, which is limited to two minutes (at the start and the end of the meeting), calling it undemocratic censorship. He called on the board to give priority to monitoring the AATA’s paratransit service performance. He contended that he’d be victimized, even though he’d taken a limited number of taxi rides through the service. He contended that some of the taxicabs have more than 250,000 miles on them and don’t ride well or drive well and have non-functioning air conditioning. Partridge contended that the AATA board members are not performing their functions well, because they don’t take ride themselves and inspect buses themselves. They don’t know what’s going on in the streets, he said.

Partridge also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary. He lamented the fact that public meetings have become “routine” for participants and for board members and employees. What the public needs to understand, he said, is that public transit is a primary human rights and civil rights issue. Support for transit should be garnered on this basis, he said. Partridge contended that transportation services are being rationed out on a discriminatory basis. Drivers and other personnel are stressed, and service is strained too far, he contended. Vehicles are assigned to drivers in a racist and discriminatory manner, he claimed.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein,  Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Absent: David Nacht, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 15, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Last Thursday, news of a breach in the earth-retention system of a downtown Ann Arbor construction site had reached all the way to Detroit’s Channel 4 News. Channel 4 sent a crew Friday evening to file a report. It was tagged on the Channel 4 website with the summary: “An Ann Arbor construction project is sinking, literally.” Chalk that up to the hyperbole of television news.

Top: View to the northeast along Fifth Avenue from Valiant Partners' concept for a conference center and hotel, proposed for the top of the Library Lot underground parking garage. Bottom: Breach in the earth retention system for the underground parking garage currently under construction on the Library Lot.

While the roughly 640-space underground parking garage, being built by Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority, is not sinking in any way, a conference center and hotel proposal for the top of the underground structure might be sinking.

At first glance, the 190,000-square-foot project proposed by Valiant Partners Inc. seems like it’s on a path to approval by the city council. In November 2010, an advisory committee – charged with evaluating responses to a city of Ann Arbor request for proposals issued in late 2009 – finally settled on the Valiant proposal as the best of the six the city had received.

That decision came with the aid of Roxbury Group, a consultant hired to help evaluate the proposals and to negotiate an agreement with a developer. At an early March meeting of the advisory committee, a Roxbury representative presented a draft letter of intent, which had been worked out by Valiant and Roxbury, to be signed by the city of Ann Arbor and Valiant. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the city council consider the letter of intent.

Then, on March 14, the city council held a work session on the proposed conference center. The council heard essentially the same presentation about the letter of intent that Roxbury had made to the advisory committee. The council is scheduled to consider the letter formally at its second meeting in April, which is now scheduled for Tuesday, April 19, to accommodate the first night of Passover. The letter of intent calls for a development agreement to be presented to the city council within four months of signing the letter of intent – which would mean sometime near the end of August 2011.

But I think it’s clear at this point that a development agreement between Valiant and the city of Ann Arbor to develop the Library Lot would not achieve the necessary eight-vote majority for an actual real estate deal. That’s why I think the city council might vote down the letter of intent – even if there are at least six councilmembers who would support going forward with the letter, which is all it would take for the letter’s approval.

I base that conclusion on remarks made by councilmembers at the March 14 work session, and regular politics as reflected in the council’s history – both recent and ancient. But before considering politics, let’s dig into some really ancient history – the kind measured in geological time – to gain some additional insight into why a pile of dirt spilled unintentionally into the underground parking garage construction pit.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach

On Thursday afternoon, March 24, a sinkhole appeared behind the Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar restaurants, on the north side of the underground garage construction site. Where did that dirt go? It had poured through a small breach in the earth-retention wall about 30-feet below grade.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach: Jerusalem Garden

When I visited Jerusalem Garden on Friday morning, owner Ali Ramlawi was preparing for regular business after the sinkhole had forced the evacuation of his restaurant the day before.

That morning, he seemed even a little more exasperated than he did in October 2010, when he’d addressed a meeting of the DDA board during the time reserved for public comment. On that occasion he’d ticked through a variety of concerns, including the underground parking garage, which he called the DDA’s “civil engineering project.” Ramlawi was also one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in August 2009 over the construction of the garage.

On Friday, Ramwali told me how one of his employees had driven over the spot where the sinkhole opened up, just 10 minutes before the earth gave way. He considered it just lucky that nobody got hurt.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach: Geology – It’s Sand, Man

So how exactly does dirt that far down pour through a gap that appears to be just a few feet wide?

To get a better idea of why that might happen, I talked to Kevin Foye. Foye is a Ph.D who works as a project engineer with CTI & Associates, a civil engineering firm in Wixom, Mich. How earth settles and moves is part of Foye’s specific area of expertise – he recently gave a lecture as part of the University of Michigan’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Seminar Series, called “Differential Settlement of Landfill Foundations Modeled Using Random Fields.”

As it happens, Foye had taken photos of the construction site a few weeks earlier, and was somewhat familiar with the site. He described how not all soil is the same – it’s some combination of sand, silt and clay. The Library Lot site in Ann Arbor, he continued, is a little different – it’s predominantly sand. So it’s going to be more apt to move through a slot like the one that opened up in the retention wall.

The make-up of the soil at the site as predominantly sand was also reported by then-library board member, and geologist, Carola Stearns in a presentation she gave to the board back in September 2010. She described the site as 55 feet of coarse, well-bedded, well-sorted sand and gravel – the product of glacial activity.

And at the end of the day Friday, I spoke with Pat Podges, the Christman Company’s construction manager on site; he also described how the dirt on the site would just run through your fingers when you pick up a handful.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach: Don’t Tear Down that Wall

On Friday, Podges also confirmed that the earth-retention system used at Ann Arbor’s Library Lot site is the same one the Christman Company had previously used in building an underground parking garage in Grand Rapids, as part of the Michigan Street Improvement project. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority awarded the pre-construction services contract to Christman back in August 2009, partly based on the strength of that experience.

Site of the breach in the earth-retention wall at the site of the Library Lot construction. The view is to the north.

The earth-retention system was also familiar to Foye, who described what he’d seen when he’d visited the site a few weeks ago. Visitors to downtown Ann Arbor last summer will likely remember seeing the tall drill operating on the site and the vertical pieces of steel that were then pounded into the holes – down to the silt layer that the water table sits on. Those vertical pieces of steel were subsequently encased in concrete.

Between each pair of steel-beam reinforced concrete columns, additional inner columns were poured – but not reinforced with steel beams. Podges described how for most of the steel-reinforced pairs, two additional columns were poured between them, but for some pairs, three additional columns were poured. The idea is that the columns between the steel beams interlock with each other, wedging against the steel beams.

This specific earth-retention system, called a “tangent wall” system, is used on the north face of the site, but not everywhere. Podges explained it’s used there because it’s better at preventing water from entering the pit than an alternative wood lagging system, which is used in some other locations. In the wood lagging system, heavy timbers span the vertical steel beams.

Chronicle readers might remember that outgoing DDA chair John Splitt received a memento of appreciation for his service, which was fashioned from a piece of timber left over from the wood lagging system.

A bucket is filled with gravel before getting hoisted over to back-fill the sinkhole.

In addition to the structural elements of the basic earth-retention wall, additional supporting elements include: (1) “whalers” – steel beams that are bolted horizontally across vertical members; and (2) “tie-backs,” which are essentially guy wires installed into the face of the wall.

To install tie-backs, Foye explained that a small-diameter hole is drilled from the face of the wall on the pit side, around 30-50 horizontal feet into the surrounding soil. That hole is filled with high-strength grout. A steel rod is inserted into the hole and bolted to a bearing plate on the face of the wall. That rod is then tensioned with a hydraulic jack to the pressure that’s been calculated to be appropriate for that specific location, then locked off at that specified pressure. Foye said in these kinds of applications, the pressure would be in the tens of thousands of pounds.

When construction of the parking garage is complete, the retention wall elements will remain in place, even though they won’t actually be needed to hold back the earth, Podges told me. The floors of the deck, which are braced against each opposing wall, will provide adequate opposing force. The tensioned tie-backs nearer to the surface will likely be de-tensioned, Podges said, because if someone were excavating years from now and hit one of the rods, it would be best for it not to be under tension.

A construction worker prepares to release the load of gravel into the sinkhole. Note the safety tether attached to his harness. In the background is the Ann Arbor District Library building, to the south of the construction site.

It’s apparent, from looking at photos as well as at the site itself, that the element that failed was part of one of the inner columns in the tangent wall system. And it failed at a point just below a horizontal reinforcement (a “whaler”) that was bolted onto the face of the retention system. That whaler spans six of the steel-beam reinforced columns. Foye said that based on photos he’d seen, it appeared that for some reason, there was a loss of the interlock between the inner columns – it would take further investigation to figure out what was different on Thursday from all the days before, during the time the pit has been open.

Podges said that the analysis of why the breach occurred is being done by Soil and Materials Engineers Inc., the company that designed the retention system. But they’ve determined that the problem was isolated. They’ve checked all the motion monitors that are attached to various points of the earth-retention wall, as well as the surrounding buildings – and everything is still in the same place, Podges said. Visual inspection of the perimeter has revealed no obvious other problems.

By Friday morning, a Christman crew had begun filling in the sinkhole with coarse gravel. The night before, a concrete cap had been poured over bags of gravel that had been dropped in to plug the breach from the sinkhole side. Additional repairs will need to be undertaken to the pit side of the wall – they appeared to be partly underway on Saturday morning, when I passed by the construction area. A team of workers on a platform had been lowered by crane to the breach point.

According to a briefing email sent out early Sunday morning by Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, among other measures, ground-penetrating radar will also be used to check for any other voids that might have developed.

What Is the City Council Thinking?

The closest thing we have to ground-penetrating radar to detect any voids in the heads of city councilmembers is simply to pay attention to what they say, when they do their work in public view. And based on that kind of radar, I don’t detect any voids on the conference center issue – but it does look to me like there could be sufficiently solid opposition to doing a real estate deal, that the council could vote down the letter of intent before even getting to that point.

City Council: Work Session – Background

At the city council’s March 14 work session about the conference center proposal, the Roxbury Group’s David Di Rita walked the council through the draft letter of intent. He’d done the same thing for the RFP review committee at its March 8, 2011 meeting. Here’s how the 190,000-square-foot project breaks down, as described in the draft letter of intent:

(i) Core elements:

• 150 hotels units – 87,000 sq. ft.
• Conference center – 26,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant/Retail – 6,000 sq. ft.
• Public space/Plaza

(ii) Additional elements

• Office space – up to 48,000 sq. ft.
• Residential condos – up to 22,000 sq. ft.

That square footage breakdown is slightly different from Valiant’s original proposal, which included 12 condo units compared to the six in its revised proposal. More significantly, the size of the conference center in Valiant’s revised proposal is 6,000 square feet smaller than the 32,000-square-foot facility in the original proposal.

At the March 14 city council work session about the proposed Valiant conference center: (left to right) Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

The reduction in condo units and the size of the conference center is offset by the possible addition of up to 48,000 square feet of office space. [See page 27 of the .pdf for Roxbury Group's report, submitted in November 2010, for a breakdown of the contrast between Valiant's original and revised proposals.]

DDA board member Newcombe Clark has expressed some skepticism to The Chronicle that prevailing rental rates for office space in downtown Ann Arbor would be adequate to support new construction of office space. [Clark has worked in real estate, most recently with Jones Lang LaSalle, but is no longer with that firm.]

But it’s the revised configuration of the square footage that has allowed Valiant to eliminate from its proposal a request that the city of Ann Arbor issue bonds to fund the project’s construction. The use of public bonds as a financing tool has been described as a deal-breaker, even by the chair of the RFP review committee, Stephen Rapundalo, who represents Ward 2 on the city council. And Rapundalo is widely perceived as one of the strongest supporters of a conference center at the Library Lot location.

Remaining in the letter of intent, however, is a requirement that the city of Ann Arbor would own the conference center. Valiant has pitched this as a benefit to the city, but it carries with it potential for liability as well.

City Council: Work Session Views – Legal Ownership

It was the conference center ownership question that drew the specific attention of Sabra Briere (Ward 1) during the work session. She told the Roxbury Group’s David Di Rita that the whole proposal seemed to be predicated on a belief that the city of Ann Arbor wants to own a conference center. Di Rita responded in a way that suggested that the ownership question is not a closed issue and could be subject to further discussion.

Briere’s reply was fairly sharp. She told Di Rita that maybe there is stuff in the letter of intent that doesn’t need to be in there.

The city’s relationship to the conference center, as described in the draft letter of intent, is one of ownership. The city would have an agreement with the developer whereby the developer would manage the center. And just as long as the developer holds that management agreement, the city would not be liable for costs related to operation and maintenance.

The draft letter of intent also describes how the developer could itself use the money being paid to the city for development rights, to develop the conference center. That strategy only makes sense in a scenario where the city owns the center. It reduces to this: At least part of the compensation the city would get for allowing the developer to build the project – instead of a lease payment or property taxes – is ownership of the conference center.

But ownership does not translate directly to a financial benefit to the city, any more than ownership of additional parkland does. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) has frequently pointed out that continued acquisition of additional parkland, without an adequate revenue source for maintenance, has led Ann Arbor to a situation where it can maintain the parkland it has only with great difficulty. And the same principle applies to ownership of a conference center.

So far, Valiant has tried to make its financial offer more attractive to the city by eliminating the need for the city to issue bonds. It’s conceivable that the letter of intent the council considers on April 19 will continue that trend by eliminating the requirement that the city own the center, and that Valiant will find some other way to pay for that part of the deal.

But right now, we’re presented with a tale of a profitable project that even the teller of the tale apparently doesn’t believe. Frankly, I believe that a place where you can host a 1,200-person conference in downtown Ann Arbor without breaking a sweat would be a well-used and welcome facility. You could imagine some kind of center of intellectual inquiry – that’s not necessarily a university – sprouting up in concert with the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location. Indeed, Valiant representatives have talked a lot about their desire to partner with the library.

But I don’t think Valiant really trusts their own narrative. If they did, we would not see a proposal for the city to issue bonds, or for the city to own the conference center, or any other creative approach to financing. Instead, we’d see a straight-up offer to lease or purchase development rights for some dollar figure.

What should that dollar figure be? Before the work session began, local developer Peter Allen told The Chronicle that a rule of thumb for land value would be 10-20% of the total value of the planned development. So if you’re planning to build a $54 million project, then $5.4 million would be a low-end ballpark number for the land value.

You might make a case that the city should accept a somewhat lower offer than Allen’s rule of thumb. An outline of that case might go something like this: (1) Look, this conference center of intellectual inquiry that we’re going to build is not going to be as profitable as, say, a project consisting of mostly residential units, and here’s why; (2) A conference center is going to have a greater positive economic impact to the downtown than just residential units would have, and here’s why; (3) You should be willing to accept a slightly lower direct financial return to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund, in exchange for a greater positive economic impact overall, and here’s what that impact looks like.

If Valiant were inclined to make that kind of offer, however, I think they’d already have done that – between November 2010 and March 2011, when they negotiated the draft letter of intent with the Roxbury Group. But a simple, straightforward lease or purchase of development rights did not emerge from that negotiation.

The letter of intent is to be considered by the council at its April 19 meeting. Among the revisions to be added to the final draft of a letter of intent is language that makes clear that the city of Ann Arbor will not bear any risk. It’s not yet clear what linguistic form those revisions would take.

Work Session: Work Session Views – Ownership of Advocacy

Near the conclusion of the March 14 work session, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who was chairing the session in mayor John Hieftje’s absence, floated a question about who would take responsibility for making revisions to the letter of intent. Here’s how she put it: “Who owns those revisions now?” City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that he felt revisions fell now into the category of “staff work” – the RFP committee’s work was done, he said.

Higgins question about “ownership” of a specific task – like revising a document – could just as well be asked about the entire conference center proposal. Up to now, the project seems to have been owned by Roger Fraser. He first introduced the council to the existence of Valiant’s proposal at the 2009 budget retreat.

Chronicle file photo from the January 2009 Ann Arbor city council budget retreat. City administrator Roger Fraser, left, talks with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They're looking at conceptual drawings for a possible conference center on top of the underground parking garage now being built at the Library Lot between Fifth and Division streets.

On that occasion, he’d announced the existence of a proposal for a conference center, and told councilmembers they could look at the conceptual drawings. But he would not disseminate the proposal publicly – at the request of the proposers.

Later, it was revealed he’d done that against the explicit advice of the council.

With Fraser’s departure at the end of April to become a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan, it’s not clear who might take ownership of Valiant’s proposal on the city’s side to make sure that an acceptable development agreement is struck, based on a letter of intent. Even if Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, might seem a logical candidate to champion the project through to completion, her remarks at the work session suggest she’s not necessarily publicly embracing that kind of role.

Pollay began the work session by telling the council that she was there as a city staffer. The RFP had been issued through the city’s community services area, and only a few months after the RFP was issued, the community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, left the city to take a different position. Because the project was of interest to her, Pollay said, she’d volunteered to help out as needed. But she stressed that the project is not a DDA project – she’s just assisting.

Before the March 14 work session: Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, and David Di Rita of The Roxbury Group, which acted as a consultant for the RFP review committee.

On the council itself, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) might be a logical choice to champion the project through to final approval. In fact, at least as far back as March 2009, Smith has pushed specifically for planning some kind of use on the top of the underground parking structure. On that occasion, she introduced a successful resolution at the DDA’s March 2009 board meeting that articulated the DDA’s readiness to support the planning process for the top of the structure.

But as recently as the March 21, 2011 city council meeting, Smith has demonstrated that she can be a fiscal hard-ass, who might give priority to the city’s near-term bottom line over long-term overall economic impact. At that meeting, she was the sole voice of dissent in voting against an amendment to a state grant application that prioritized support for a skatepark over improvements to the Gallup canoe livery. She had established during deliberations that the canoe livery improvements would necessarily add revenue, whereas the skatepark was a question mark.

With the current murky level of detail available, use of the top of the parking garage as additional surface parking might actually mean more for the city’s bottom line than striking a deal with Valiant. And at the March 14 work session, Smith described the conference center proposal as “one of the largest decisions that I will have had to make in my brief tenure here.”

So I don’t think Smith is likely to pursue the conference center with the single-minded bull-doggedness of purpose that would likely be required for its eventual approval. The project needs someone to champion it who is absolutely dedicated and practically blind to all other options, if it’s to win ultimate approval from the council, and I don’t think Smith is that person.

As chair of the RFP committee, Stephen Rapundalo would also be a logical candidate to take ownership of the project – even if the committee’s work is over. But to be successful, whoever takes ownership of the project will need to enjoy a certain amount of deference from the council as a whole. And based on deliberations at the March 7, 2011 council meeting, his fellow councilmembers aren’t willing to give Rapundalo that deference, even when he clearly has earned it.

On that occasion, the council voted, over his objections as chair of the council’s liquor license review committee, to allow the appointment of a single hearing officer for liquor license non-renewal hearings – Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – instead of appointing the entire committee as the hearing board. Any councilmember who voted with Derezinski on that – which was everyone except for Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – gave little weight to Rapundalo’s record of service on the council’s liquor committee since its very creation back in 2007. So I think the council is unlikely to show Rapundalo any deference when it comes to the conference center development agreement.

Work Session Views: Decision Time?

Historically, the Ann Arbor city council’s inclination has been, whenever possible, not to make a decision at all. The current status of the city’s Argo Dam is a good example of that. In early 2009, the city embarked on a public engagement process about the Argo Dam, which led the community to believe that the city council would be making a major policy decision that summer about leaving the dam in place or removing it.

But the council has never voted on the issue, which formally leaves the question open, though from a practical point of view, the dam is still in place. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) have remained vigilant in making sure that subsequent decisions made the council – like approving construction of a portage-free bypass around the dam – don’t necessarily preclude the dam’s eventual removal.

From the time of the Library Lot RFP issuance, councilmembers were eager to stress that the issuance of the RFP did not represent a decision to develop any of the proposals that might be submitted. After receiving proposals, it was again stressed that the city was under no obligation to accept any of them. And after identifying Valiant as the best of the six proposals received, the RFP review committee stressed that there was no obligation to do a deal with Valiant.

At the work session, councilmembers again appeared eager to downplay the significance of approving a letter of intent. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) characterized it as a “going steady” phase, with a prenuptial agreement to be possibly realized in the form of a development agreement. Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated she was satisfied with David Di Rita’s characterization of the letter of intent as an outline to get to a final deal, but not the deal itself.

But at the RFP committee meeting in early March, Eric Mahler indicated his skepticism that the letter of intent did not place an obligation on the city to see the negotiations through to the proposal of an actual real estate deal. Mahler, an attorney, represented the city’s planning commission on the committee.

And at the council’s work session, the same concern about the contractual nature of the letter of intent was expressed by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who did little at the session to hide his overall displeasure with the whole proposal. He stated flatly that he felt the arrangement being proposed was “very squirrelly,” and offered up his assessment that when the city went fishing for development proposals, “we catch nothing but leeches that want to suck on the public dollar.”

Even if Kunselman’s colleagues on the council may have rolled their eyes at his rhetorical flourish, they likely took to heart his point about the contractual nature of the letter of intent. It’s not “just another step” in the process where the city can take any action, or no action, for any reason at all. This is, in fact, a decision point of some kind that requires a proposal to come before the council.

What kind of decision point does the letter of intent represent? I think it’s somewhat similar to appointing a study committee to make a recommendation on establishing a historic district in a particular area. The council has a recent record to show that appointing a committee does not necessarily result in establishing such a district. At its July 6, 2010 meeting, the council rejected a study committee’s recommendation that a historic district be established along Fourth and Fifth Avenues, just south of the Library Lot. I can imagine that some councilmembers might even draw upon that episode as an analogy: Just as appointing a committee did not obligate us to vote for a historic district, we are not obligated to approve the development agreement that emerges in four months time after the letter of intent is signed.

But I think that for any councilmembers who appeal to that analogy, there will be others who are persuaded by a different historical episode involving the non-appointment of a historic district study committee – at the council’s Oct. 20, 2008 meeting. The committee in question would have studied an existing district, the Old Fourth Ward, to consider removing one property from the district. Then representing Ward 3, Leigh Greden argued against even appointing a committee, independent of what recommendation the committee might eventually make. Here’s how The Chronicle reported Greden’s sentiments:

Councilmember Leigh Greden suggested that if a recommendation came back from the committee to remove the property, he still did not imagine he could vote for its removal – acknowledging that he’d perhaps made that conclusion too soon.

Put coarsely, if you’re going to vote no later, you might as well vote no now.

At the March 14 city council work session: Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

I think some councilmembers might follow that same logic in weighing their vote on the letter of intent between Valiant and the city of Ann Arbor – a letter that is supposed to lead to a development agreement. An additional factor playing into that logic is that the real estate deal associated with the development agreement will need eight votes for approval by the city council.

So even if the letter of intent might have sufficient votes for approval, the real estate deal already looks like it will fall short of the eight-vote requirement.

Based on their remarks at the work session, Briere and Kunselman are likely no votes, as is Mike Anglin (Ward 5). At the work session, Anglin recited a laundry list of criticism of the project, from insufficient public process to the project’s lack of viability.

Anglin’s Ward 5 colleague, Carsten Hohnke, expressed his view at a 2010 Democratic primary election forum that the conversation about what should go on top of the library should start fresh, with a clean slate:

Hohnke said he is not convinced that any of the proposals that had been submitted are good ones, and it’s important to remember that a request for proposals does not need to be acted on by the city. If none of them meet the satisfaction of the community, there’s no need to accept one, he stressed.

Hohnke continued that he would like to see a renewed effort of community conversation – starting from a blank slate, with no preconceptions. What is the best solution for this vital parcel right in the center of our community?

Hohnke’s contribution to the March 14 work session conversation hinted that he was still thinking along the lines of starting fresh. He asked Rapundalo to review for the council how the RFP committee had winnowed down the six proposals to the final two proposals, both of which called for some kind of hotel and conference center. Among the six proposals that did not make the final cut was one for a community commons put forward by Alan Haber and Alice Ralph – who both attended the work session. [Chronicle coverage from January 2010: "Hotel/Conference Center Ideas Go Forward"]

Mayor John Hieftje’s vote could be purely political. It was Hieftje’s penchant for using the privilege of voting last in any roll call vote, to cast such purely political votes, that finally led the council in 2006 to change its rules for roll calls. The start of a roll call vote now rotates among councilmembers.

With four likely votes against the letter of intent – Anglin, Briere, Kunselman, Hohnke – there’s sufficient safety in those numbers that Hieftje could join them. With potentially five votes against the letter of intent, it’s hard to see how Valiant or other councilmembers would want to invest time and energy in putting together a development agreement that’s not going to meet the eight-vote minimum.

Certainly in the past, the council has been reluctant to proceed with only thin majorities. In early 2005, DDA board members were told that there were at least six votes in support of the 3-Site Plan to develop city-owned downtown properties – all the plan needed to go forward. But then councilmembers Leigh Greden and Chris Easthope counseled against placing the 3-Site Plan on the council’s agenda, in order to generate additional support on the city council. By late in 2005, the public engagement process had actually seemed to diminish rather than increase council support, and the 3-Site Plan never made it to the council’s agenda.

Conclusion: Get the Dirt out of the Hole

Besides offering a rule of thumb for calculating land value, at the March 14 work session Peter Allen also told me he thinks the entire Library Lot block needs to be master planned, before trying to develop that individual parcel. For a course he teaches at the University of Michigan, Allen assigned his students in 2009 to complete an exercise like that. [Chronicle coverage: "Column: Visions for the Library Lot"]

Restarting the conversation about the Library Lot – as Hohnke suggested back during his 2010 Democratic primary campaign – is a process that would be consistent with Allen’s suggestion to master plan the whole block. That conversation could take place in the context of a proposal currently being worked out by the DDA and the city that would assign the DDA responsibility to facilitate the development of other uses for downtown city-owned surface parking lots. That proposal, however, is currently stalled.

I think any use of the space above the underground parking garage needs to be considered as a coherent part of the city’s thinking, not just with respect to that entire block, but also in connection with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s countywide transportation plan, the possible construction of a new downtown library – which has been put on hold, but might re-emerge – and even the current discussion of a corridor improvement authority along Washtenaw Avenue.

The sooner the city council votes down Valiant’s specific proposal for its conference center, the sooner we can settle into a process that might well produce a community consensus for a different kind of conference center – one that includes a real vision for the kind of inquiry and collaboration that might take place at the conferences such a center might host.

Valiant’s proposal is, I think, like the pile of dirt that poured through the breach in the retaining wall, piling at the bottom of the underground parking garage site. As a guy in a hardhat told me Thursday morning, the pile of dirt wasn’t hurting anything, but it was in the way. Valiant’s current proposal is like that pile of dirt, because it just needs to be cleaned out of the hole for now. If we need more dirt, there’s plenty more where that came from.

We shouldn’t adopt the attitude that if we let Valiant’s conference center proposal sink out of view, we’ll lose forever the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that a conference facility in downtown Ann Arbor might bring.

Why do I think that? It’s because I believe in second-hand learning. At the DDA’s January 2011 board meeting, management assistant Joan Lyke’s last one before her retirement, she addressed a few remarks to the board, summarizing what she’d learned working at the DDA.

On Lyke’s bulleted list was this: “If an idea is good, it will always resurface.”