Pollack, who currently serves as vice provost, will replace Phil Hanlon, who was named president of Dartmouth College late last year and will begin his tenure there in July of 2013. [.pdf of memo recommending Pollack for provost] Her term runs from May 6, 2013 through June 30, 2015.

West now serves as associate dean for academic affairs at the law school. His five-year term as dean runs from Sept. 1, 2013 through August 31, 2018. [.pdf of memo recommending West as law school dean]

This brief was filed from the Anderson Room at the Michigan Union, where this month’s regents meeting was held.

Regents also approved continued use of the Wolfson reserves – unspent endowment income accumulated from prior years – as recommended by the law faculty for emergency and housing loans to the faculty.

This brief was filed from the Fairlane Center at UM’s Dearborn campus, where regents are holding their May meeting.

Hutchins Hall, located at the northeast corner of South State and Monroe streets, is the main classroom and administrative building for the UM law school. The Cook Legal Research Library is part of the Law Quad.

This project adds to other recent changes in the law schools’ campus on South State Street, between South University and Monroe streets. Renovations are already underway for The Charles T. Munger Residences in the Lawyers’ Club and the John P. Cook Building. A schematic design for that $39 million project had been approved at the regents Dec. 15, 2011 meeting, with the initial authorization given in March 2011. The project is also scheduled for completion in the summer of 2013.

This brief was filed from the Michigan Union’s Rogel ballroom, where the board held its April meeting.

Occupy UM protesters walking toward the Fleming administration building prior to the Dec. 15 regents meeting, where they protested against the high cost of public education. Flyers taped to The Cube repeated the same theme. (Photos by the writer.)

As UM president Mary Sue Coleman began her opening remarks to start Thursday’s meeting, about two dozen “Occupy UM” protesters, who’d been sitting in the boardroom, stood up and shouted, “Mic check!” For the next five minutes, in a call-and-response delivery, protesters outlined their grievances against the university’s leadership – primarily, that once-affordable public education has been turned into an expensive commodity. [A video of the protest is posted on YouTube.]

When the group finished, they left the boardroom chanting “Instruction, not construction!” Neither the regents nor Coleman responded to them or alluded to the protest during the rest of the meeting.

Another group of students gave a decidedly different performance just minutes later. The a cappella group Amazin’ Blue sang five holiday songs, prompting board chair Denise Ilitch to don a blue Santa’s hat – embroidered with “Michigan” – and sing along.

The meeting included two issues related to the Ann Arbor community and parking. During public commentary, Chip Smith of the Near Westside Neighborhood Association highlighted problems with a UM parking lot that’s surrounded by homes on the Old West Side. And in a staff memo accompanying a resolution to issue bonds for capital projects, Fuller Road Station was on the list in the category of projects that would require final approval by regents prior to being funded with bond proceeds. The regents had approved the controversial project – a joint UM/city of Ann Arbor parking structure, bus depot and possible train station – in January 2010, but a formal agreement between the city and university has not yet been finalized.

Other items on the Dec. 15 agenda included: (1) presentations by three UM faculty who were named MacArthur Fellows this year; (2) approval of the Michigan Investment in New Technology Startups (MINTS) initiative; and (3) approval of several renovation projects, including work on the Law School’s historic Charles T. Munger Residences in the Lawyers’ Club and the John P. Cook Building.

Occupy UM “Mic Check”

Occupy UM is one of several local groups formed since the Occupy Wall Street movement started earlier this year. [Other groups include Occupy Ann Arbor and Occupy For All – described on its website as a "merry band of roving peaceniks based in Ann Arbor."]

This Occupy UM protester read a statement to the regents that was repeated in unison by other protesters in the boardroom.

Before the regents meeting, Occupy UM held a rally at The Cube, located in the plaza next to the Fleming administration building, where the regents meet. After the rally, Occupy UM supporters entered Fleming and took seats throughout the boardroom before the start of the meeting.

The agenda begins with remarks from UM president Mary Sue Coleman, and as soon as she began speaking the protesters stood and shouted “Mic check!” – which launched the start of a technique used by Occupy protesters nationwide to propagate a message to a crowd without the aid of a microphone.

The five-minute call-and-response recitation – shouted by a leader in short phrases, and repeated in unison by the other two dozen or so protesters – sharply criticized the regents and university leaders for a range of actions and inactions that have resulted in a cost of education that’s inaccessible for many. They referred to the meeting’s agenda, saying it reflected the values of funding start-up businesses and construction projects rather than accessible education.

An excerpt:

There was once affordable public education. / Today / there is only an expensive commodity. / You sell this commodity to wealthy students. / To the rest of us you offer / a more ominous exchange: / an education / for a lifetime of student debt.

…

You endeavor to attract the richest and whitest / not the best and brightest. / You support construction not instruction. / We have another vision. / Job security and intellectual freedom / for faculty and staff; / a student body without student debt; / and a community that shatters race and class divisions / instead of reproducing them./

This university claims to be / an institution of inclusion and equality. / Our vision works for the future / when this may be true. / Your vision ensures / a public forever divided. / We reject your vision! [.pdf of full Occupy UM statement]

When they finished, the protesters continued chanting “Instruction, not construction!” as they left the room. Their chants could be heard as Coleman resumed her opening remarks, which highlighted the Dec. 18 winter commencement on Sunday, where New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson would give the keynote speech. Coleman also noted several faculty achievements, and gave well wishes for students during finals and for the UM football team at the Sugar Bowl. The meeting continued without any mention of the protesters by regents or UM executives.

However, the following day – Friday, Dec. 16 – a letter from Coleman to President Barack Obama was released, addressing the same issue of affordable education. The letter was tied to Obama’s recent meeting with university presidents at the White House, which Coleman did not attend. From the letter:

By bringing together higher education leaders to discuss college affordability, you have elevated a thorny issue that demands a national conversation because of its impact on all sectors of society. The cost of attending college is one of the most serious matters facing a country that seeks to strengthen its global competitiveness. How we resolve this dilemma requires collaboration, sacrifice and hard choices.

…

Higher education is a public good currently lacking public support. There is no stronger trigger for rising costs at public universities and colleges than declining state support. The University of Michigan and our state’s 14 other public institutions have been ground zero for funding cuts. The state’s significant disinvestment in higher education has been challenging: a 15 percent cut in the last year alone, and a reduction of more than 30 percent over the last decade.

We have worked extremely hard to mitigate the impact of these cuts on students and families. We must and will do more, but also offer recommendations that may benefit all of higher education.

Recommendations in the letter included: urging states to reinvest in public colleges and universities, asking the business community to lobby for increased government funding of higher education, increasing private support, and cutting costs.

Student, Faculty Awards

Provost Phil Hanlon gave a presentation about the various awards and other honors that UM’s faculty have received, as well as introducing and congratulating Alex Carney, a UM senior who recently was named a Marshall Scholar – one of only 36 students in the U.S. awarded the scholarship to study in Oxford and Cambridge. Carney – a mathematician, violinist and cross-country runner – received a round of applause.

Tiya Miles, chair of UM’s department of Afroamerican and African studies and a 2011 MacArthur Fellow.

After cataloguing the range of honors for UM faculty – including Guggenheim Fellowships, the Carnegie Foundation’s U.S. professors of the year, and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, among others – Hanlon introduced three faculty members who had been named MacArthur Fellows this year: Tiya Miles, Melanie Sanford, and Yukiko Yamashita.

Each of the three professors spoke to the regents, describing their work and the support they’ve received at UM. Miles, chair of UM’s department of Afroamerican and African studies, talked about the interdisciplinary nature of her research, working in the program in American culture, the department of Afroamerican and African studies, the department of history, and the Native American studies program. She recalled a challenge several years ago when she was pregnant with twins and needed to take medical leave. A book she’d been working on wasn’t completed, and she said she could imagine a scenario in which she’d be left to fail. But she had wonderful department chairs, Miles said, and senior women faculty who reached out to her. Thanks to that support, her book was eventually published and received awards, and her daughters are now eight years old.

Sanford, an Arthur F. Thurnau professor of chemistry, described her work as developing new ways to make common chemicals in a more environmentally friendly fashion, with less waste. The research has potential to impact a range of industries, from pharmaceuticals to beauty products. She said she couldn’t do the work without the amazing undergraduate and graduate students that UM attracts. “That is really the strength of this university,” Sanford said. She also praised UM’s efforts to recruit and retain women in traditionally underrepresented fields, like chemistry. There’s tremendous diversity in the chemistry department, she said, making it a dynamic and exciting place to work, with fantastic research being conducted.

After Sanford’s remarks, regent Andy Richner asked how to make a plastic cup out of corn. “That’s easy,” Sanford quipped, and quickly described how to do it. She said her lab is working on ways to do this kind of thing more efficiently, with less energy.

Yamashita spoke next, saying that she’s a stem cell biologist but “that’s not as controversial as it sounds.” That is, her work uses adult – not embryonic – stem cells. The research is very, very basic, Yamashita said, using fruit flies. But it lays the foundation to find cures for degenerative diseases, for example, or cancer. She described basic research as like a baby: You don’t get rid of a baby because it can’t yet walk or talk. The university is very supportive of her work, Yamashita said. There are great mentors, she said, who know just the right amount of leash to use on junior faculty – not too much, nor too little.

Start-Up Tech Investment

A new initiative – the Michigan Investment in New Technology Startups (MINTS) was on the agenda for approval by regents at the Dec. 15 meeting. Plans for the initiative had been announced in early October by UM president Mary Sue Coleman in her annual address to campus.

Managed by UM’s investment office as well as the technology transfer office, the program involves investing in start-up companies formed using UM technology. It’s estimated that over 10 years, the program will invest about $25 million from the university’s long-term portfolio. According to a staff memo, the investments would be part of the portfolio’s venture capital sub-portfolio. A limit of up to $500,000 would be made in any single round of financing.

In addition to approval for the overall program, regents also were asked to approve guidelines for MINTS. [.pdf of MINTS guidelines]

Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, praised Erik Lundberg, the university’s chief investment officer, and Ken Nisbet, executive director of UM’s tech transfer office, for their work in putting together this program. Slottow described it as a breakthrough type of funding that doesn’t exist at any other university. With regental approval, the university will begin investing “as soon as we can,” Slottow said.

Outcome: Regents unanimously approved the MINTS initiative and guidelines.

Building & Renovation Projects

Regents were asked to approve several items related to building and renovation projects on the Ann Arbor campus, including renovations of the law school residences, an overhaul of the University Hospital’s Trauma Burn Unit, and issuance of bids for an addition to the G.G. Brown building on north campus.

Building & Renovation Projects: Law School Residences

Regents were asked to approve the schematic design for a renovation of the Law School’s historic Charles T. Munger Residences in the Lawyers’ Club and the John P. Cook Building. The residences house about 260 students and were built in the early 1920s.

Lee Becker of Hartman-Cox Architects describes the schematic design for the UM Law School residences.

Regents had previously authorized the overall project at their March 2011 meeting. That meeting had included  a unanimous vote to name The Lawyers Club dormitory in honor of Charles T. Munger, who gave the university $20 million toward renovations of the building. The March 2011 meeting also included a vote to approve a $39 million renovation of The Lawyers Club and the John P. Cook buildings – part of a larger expansion and renovation effort at UM’s law school.

Washington, D.C.-based Hartman-Cox Architects, working with SmithGroup, is handling the project’s design. Lee Becker of Hartman-Cox attended the Dec. 15 meeting and showed regents examples of the renovation work they’ve planned. Most of the work will be interior changes to the residences – such as opening up connections between the townhouse-style dorms so that hallways will run through all the units. One of the main goals is to build better community among the law school students, he said.

Becker noted that the renovations will allow the university to skip roughly $30 million in maintenance it would otherwise need to perform in the dorms. Other work will include removing the fireplaces, adding air conditioning, installing elevators, replacing the roof, restoring masonry and refurbishing leaded glass windows.

Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, mentioned that the renovations would bring the buildings up to the same energy efficiency standards as other UM facilities. Examples of specific changes addressing energy efficiency include low-flow fixtures to conserve water, insulation, energy-efficient light fixtures and thermostat setback controls in each room.

Regent Libby Maynard asked where the students will live during the renovations, which will take about 18 months and be finished in mid-2013. Hank Baier, UM’s associate vice president for facilities and operations, reported that the university is leasing space in several apartment complexes that are close to central campus.

Regent Andy Richner noted that he had lived there when he went to law school, and he supported the project. Mary Sue Coleman said she couldn’t be more pleased with the new design, calling it one of the most precious buildings in the country.

 Outcome: Regents voted to approved the renovations at the Law School dorms.

Building & Renovation Projects: Trauma Burn Unit

A $3.33 million renovation for the University Hospital’s Trauma Burn Unit was on the agenda for approval. Renovations of the roughly 6,600-square-foot facility include improved lighting for care within the patient rooms, improved treatment rooms, creation of a dedicated physical therapy and occupational therapy room, and creation of a faculty on-call room.

Project and Design Management LLC, an architectural firm based in Ferndale, will design the project. According to a staff memo, a phased construction schedule is planned to minimize disruption to operations and patient care, with construction to be completed in the fall of 2012.

Outcome: Regents approved the trauma burn unit renovations.

Building & Renovation Projects: G.G. Brown

On the agenda was an item that would authorize university staff to issue bids and award construction contracts for a $46 million addition to the  G.G. Brown Memorial Laboratories Mechanical Engineering building on UM’s north campus.

A schematic design for the 62,500-square-foot addition was approved by regents a year ago, at the board’s Dec. 17, 2010 meeting. Construction is expected to be complete by mid-2014. The addition will house research labs, and faculty and graduate student offices for emerging research areas, including bio-systems, energy systems, and nano-systems.

Outcome: The board voted to authorize the issuance of bids and the awarding of construction contracts for the G.G. Brown addition.

In addition, as an item of information, regents were presented with UM’s annual capital outlay request to the state for fiscal 2013. For the Ann Arbor campus, that request included funding for renovations of the existing G.G. Brown building – a separate project from the planned addition. At previous meetings, Tim Slottow – UM’s chief financial officer – has said that UM expects to receive $30 million in funding for the renovation as part of the state capital outlay bill. At the Dec. 15 meeting, he didn’t specify any anticipated dollar amount, but said he hopes the state will help with this project and two others at UM’s Flint and Dearborn campuses.

Long-Term Bonds

Regents were asked to authorize the issuance of up to $280 million in general revenue bonds to fund a variety of capital projects. Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, briefly introduced the item, saying that UM needs to refinance some of its existing $200 million in commercial paper and provide longer-term financing for authorized capital projects.

A staff memo included a list of projects that require financing:

• Alice Crocker Lloyd Hall renovation
• Crisler Arena expansion and renovation
• C.S. Mott Children’s and Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospitals, and related projects
• Institute for Social Research addition
• Vera B. Baits Houses II renewal
• Seven projects for the UM Hospitals and Health Centers: (1) Simpson Circle parking structure improvements; (2) University Hospital accelerator replacement; (3) University Hospital computed tomography angiography; (4) University Hospital kitchen renovations for room service protocol; (5) University Hospital medical procedure unit expansion; (6) University Hospital radiation oncology simulator replacement; and (7) University Hospital Trauma Burn Unit renovations.

In a separate category, three projects were listed as requiring final approval by regents prior to being funded with bond proceeds:

• Fuller Road Station
• UM  Hospitals and Health Centers – A. Alfred Taubman Health Care Center internal medicine renovations
• UM Hospitals and Health Centers – A. Alfred Taubman Health Care Center Levels 1 and 2 backfill renovations

Regents had approved the Fuller Road Station project at their January 2010 meeting, when they had also authorized appointing an architect. From the staff memo provided to the regents at that 2010 meeting:

The first phase of the development of this major intermodal transportation complex is the Fuller Road Station project which includes site preparation and construction of an intermodal facility that includes: four covered bus loading/unloading zones and waiting areas; a covered area for bike hoops and lockers; parking for 1,000 vehicles (78 percent for university and 22 percent for city use); improvements to Fuller Road immediately adjacent to the site for vehicle access; and upgrades to the multi-use path along Fuller Road.

The university will manage the construction of the Fuller Road Station project. That includes building the facility on city property, following city code review and inspection, and collaborating with the city for their approval of design. This project is unique since we would be constructing the facility on city-owned property and following city building codes. We will also need approval for the lease on city-owned land since it would be for a period of greater than ten years. We will seek approval of the lease at a later date, but prior to seeking bids or awarding construction contracts for the project. A parking structure operation and maintenance agreement will be developed concurrently with design of the project. The City of Ann Arbor will manage the site preparation at an estimated cost of $3,000,000. In addition, at the City’s expense, they will undertake an environmental assessment of the property. Although there will be a temporary loss of some leased parking spaces during construction, there will be an increase of approximately 780 university parking spaces as a result of this project.

The estimated cost of the project is $46,550,000. Costs will be shared between the University of Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor in proportion to the number of parking spaces available to each (78 percent and 22 percent respectively). Total university funding, not to exceed $36,309,000 (78 percent), will be provided from Parking resources. The construction cash flow may be provided, all or in part, by increasing the commercial paper issuance under the commercial paper program, secured by a pledge of General Revenues, and authorized by the Board of Regents. The parking structure consulting firm of Walker Parking Consultants will design the project. Design is scheduled to begin immediately, and we will return with a construction schedule when we seek approval of schematic design.

At that January 2010 meeting, James D’Amour – a member of the executive committee for the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club – spoke out against the project, objecting to it being built on city-owned property that had been designated as parkland. He and other community members have been vocal in their objections to the structure, primarily at public meetings of the Ann Arbor city council and the Ann Arbor park advisory commission – most recently at PAC’s November 2011 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "More Concerns Aired on Fuller Road Station"] Regents have not discussed the project at their board meetings since the January 2010 vote.

Outcome: Without discussion, regents authorized the issuance of general revenue bonds. 

Annual Lease Report

As an item of information, regents were provided with an annual report on leases held by the university that exceed 50,000 square feet. Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, noted that there was very little change from the 2010 report, made at the regents’ Dec. 17, 2010 meeting.

There are currently five leases for space over 50,000 square feet:

• 222,775 square feet at the Domino’s Farms complex, used by various UM Health System departments.
• 125,815 square feet at the KMS Building on South State Street, used by UMHS and leased from Kosmos Associates.
• 65,693 square feet at 325 East Eisenhower Parkway leased from Burlington Property LLC for use by Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spine Rehabilitation and the Dental School.
• 63,920 square feet at 2301 Commonwealth Boulevard, for use by UMHS and leased from First Properties Associates.
• 51,534 square feet at 1051 North Canton Center Road in Canton, leased from Saltz Center for the UMHS Canton Health Center.

Appointment of UMHS Development Officer

As a supplemental agenda item, regents were asked to approve the appointment of Brian Lally to a newly created position: associate vice president for medical development and alumni relations for the UM Health System. Jerry May, UM’s vice president for development, told the regents that the university had been doing a search to fill this new position for more than a year, with the goal of dramatically increasing fundraising for UMHS. Lally will report jointly to May and Ora Pescovitz, UM’s executive vice president for medical affairs.

Lally most recently has served as vice president of development and alumni relations for Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Dartmouth Medical School.

Outcome: Regents unanimously approved Lally’s appointment.

Conflict-of-Interest Items

At each monthly meeting, regents are asked to authorize items that require disclosure under the state’s Conflict of Interest statute. The law requires that regents vote on potential conflict-of-interest disclosures related to university staff, faculty or students.

The items often involve technology licensing agreements or leases. This month, the eight separate items included four research agreements, one subcontract agreement, one licensing agreement, one licensing option agreement, and one business transaction. Companies involved are: ONL Therapeutics; Emerging Micro Systems Inc.; CytoPherx Inc.; CSquared Innovations; Arbor Ultrasound Technologies; ISSYS Inc.; and Red Poppy Floral Design.

Outcome: Without comment, regents unanimously authorized the conflict-of-interest disclosures.

Student Government Report

In his regular report to the board, DeAndree Watson – president of the Michigan Student Assembly – explained the reasoning behind the organization’s upcoming name change. As of Jan. 1, the MSA will be called the Central Student Government. In 2010, students had voted to change the constitution of their student government, creating three separate branches that mirrored the federal system: executive, legislative and judicial. The legislative branch is known as the Assembly, and the overall government name was changed to distinguish itself from that branch. The name will also serve to distinguish the central student government, which represents students campuswide, with the various student governments for each school or college within UM.

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman asked Watson if he’d considered possible confusion with Central Michigan University. Watson replied that he had been part of the group that had rewritten the constitution, and that had settled on the new name. The word “Central” had been meant to signify a “central voice” for all students, he said. The only concern they’d heard about it was from one student who felt it might disenfranchise students on UM’s north campus. The official name will be the University of Michigan Central Student Government, he said.

Misc. Communications

Stephen Forrest, UM’s vice president for research, told regents that the university’s formal policies and procedures had been completed for the return of Native American human remains and associated materials in UM’s collections under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, David Lampe – executive director of research communications – reported that the 75-page document formally specifies details of all of the policies and procedures that UM has adopted to handle the requirements of the act. It has been submitted to UM’s Office of the General Counsel for final approval – it will eventually be posted online.

Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Chip Smith introduced himself as a UM alum and donor, and a representative of the Near Westside Neighborhood Association. The association consists of 24 historic homes – all built in 1930 or earlier – that border a UM parking lot off of Krause Street, known as Lot W11, between West Washington and West Liberty. [.jpg of map showing location of the NWNA and the lot] The neighborhood group was recently formed in response to construction at the lot, which has caused issues related to noise, lighting and stormwater runoff, among other things.

Chip Smith spoke to regents about problems in a UM parking lot off of Krause Street affecting neighboring homes. He represents the recently formed Near Westside Neighborhood Association.

Smith thanked Jim Kosteva – UM’s community  relations director – for his help, and provided a handout to regents that included a Nov. 23 letter that the association had sent Kosteva about Lot W11 issues.

A packet of materials distributed to regents by Smith listed several issues related to the parking lot, including the impact of construction activities, traffic, vandalism, and a lack of communication with neighbors. One of the handouts stated that “UM Lot W11 has been a bad neighbor for 20+ years.”

During his remarks, Smith focused on two main concerns: (1) implementing best management practices for stormwater control, and (2) lighting at the lot, which is outdated and intrusive for surrounding homes.

He praised UM’s sustainability initiative, and asked regents and the administration to hold the project group’s feet to the fire in terms of implementing stormwater best management practices that the university has adopted. [Among the sustainability goals outlined by Coleman in September was this one related to stormwater: "Protect the Huron River through best-in-class stormwater control strategies and by applying 40 percent fewer chemicals to campus landscapes, and ensure that at least 30 percent of stormwater runoff does not flow into the Huron River."]

Referring to construction on the lot that’s planned in 2012, Smith said the main issue is lighting. It’s unclear whether the current lights – which Smith said are extremely bright – will be replaced, but he asked that UM staff work with representatives of the neighborhood to find an acceptable solution.

In addition to these specific issues, the problem is the way in which the residents are treated, Smith said. Of the 24 houses surrounding the lot, 21 are owner-occupied. “This is our neighborhood,” he said, adding that he looked forward to working with UM to minimize the impact of future construction. He thanked regents for the opportunity to address the board.

After Smith’s remarks, regent Larry Deitch called the presentation “refreshing” – presumably because the tone had not been combative, as is often the case with remarks made during public commentary. Regent Andrea Fischer Newman said it would be helpful if Smith could bring a map. [A map of the lot, as well as photos of that location and other UM parking lots, were part of a packet of materials distributed to regents at the start of Smith's remarks.]

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow, Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Olivia (Libby) Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Kathy White.

Absent: Martin Taylor.

Next board meeting: Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 at 3 p.m. at the Fleming administration building on UM’s central campus. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the University of Michigan board of regents. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

A Santa sock worn by regent Libby Maynard at the final board meeting of 2011 was a subtle reflection of the holiday season.

Students from the Amazin’ Blue a cappella group sang Christmas carols at the Dec. 15 regents meeting.

Board chair Denise Ilitch wore a UM Santa’s hat during the performance by Amazin’ Blue. The front of the hat was embroidered with “Michigan.”

Regents had previously authorized the overall project at their March 2011 meeting. That meeting had included  a unanimous vote to name The Lawyers Club dormitory in honor of Charles T. Munger, who gave the university $20 million toward renovations of the building. The March 2011 meeting also included a vote to approve a $39 million renovation of The Lawyers Club and the John P. Cook buildings – part of a larger expansion and renovation effort at UM’s law school.

Hartman-Cox Architects, working with SmithGroup, is handling the project’s design. Construction is expected to be finished in mid-2013.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the Fleming administration building on the UM campus in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Looking east down Monroe Street, across State Street. This section of Monroe Street is flanked by two University of Michigan law school buildings: Hutchins Hall to the north, and South Hall. (Photos by the writer. )

Following State Street north up the hill towards downtown will lead you to the intersection with Monroe Street. Turn right on Monroe, and you’ll wind up at Dominick’s, a local watering hole, majestic in its own right.

One parking option for patrons of Dominick’s is that first block of Monroe Street east of State. And what better topic to discuss over a pitcher of beer, sitting at a Dominick’s picnic table, than Ann Arbor parking rates. How much should it cost to use an on-street parking space on Monroe in that one block between State and Oakland?

Here’s a different question: How much for the whole damn block? I don’t mean just the parking spaces. I mean the whole right-of-way.

That question is part of a current conversation among public officials from the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. The university is not interested in parking cars on that block. In fact, it’s the university’s desire that the thoroughfare be blocked to vehicular traffic. Permanently.

By tackling this topic, I’d like to achieve a two-fold purpose. First, I’d like to promote the daylighting of conversations now taking place out of public view. Second, I’d like to provide a rational way to approach calculating the value of city right-of-way, specifically in the general context of city-university relations.

Otherwise put, I’d like to sketch out a kind of Monroe Doctrine for Ann Arbor, which might in some ways mirror the message in the original Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in his address to Congress, on Dec. 2, 1823.

I’m not going to suggest including the part that talks about when “our rights are invaded or seriously menaced …”

Monroe Street: Place, Time Not Random Coincidence  

It’s not a random accident that the university would like to see that block of Monroe Street essentially absorbed into its campus. Two university law school buildings now stand on opposites sides of Monroe Street. On the north is Hutchins Hall, which dates from 1933. On the south is the newly-constructed South Hall, which opened just this fall.

On a scenario closing that block of Monroe Street to automobile traffic, only a pedestrian-type corridor would separate South Hall from Hutchins Hall. Arguably, the university’s law school campus would have better physical coherence with that layout.

The university’s desire with respect to Monroe Street is not news. In fact, The Chronicle reported on a meeting hosted by university officials for residents in late 2008, when the proposal was floated. The idea was that the city of Ann Arbor would grant permanent use of the right-of-way to the university for one block of Monroe Street. The presentation was given by Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, and Sue Gott, the university’s head of planning. At that point, the plans for South Hall were still on the drawing board.

Residents did not give the proposal a warm reception. One argument against the proposal was based on civil liberties, public access to the space, and the substitution of the university’s police force for the city’s police department as a means to discourage expression of dissent. Another argument was based on the idea that one of the distinctive and valuable qualities of UM’s Ann Arbor campus is the degree to which it is integrated with the rest of the city. That contrasts with Michigan State University’s campus in East Lansing, which is more isolated and sharply delineated from the city. Closing down Monroe Street and turning over control of the right-of-way to UM was seen as counter to that positive quality.

A few months later, the university’s Monroe Street proposal was pitched to the city’s planning commission at a working session of the commission in early 2009. Planning commissioners also expressed little enthusiasm for the Monroe Street closure. Their concerns included the loss of on-street parking spaces. At that point, the university seemed to be contemplating bringing a formal proposal to the planning commission later in 2009. But that strategy was apparently re-thought in light of the lukewarm reception at the two public meetings.

However, based on email correspondence obtained by The Chronicle through a Freedom of Information Act request, it’s clear that conversations between the city and the university about Monroe Street have continued since early 2009. Unlike the two public pitches by the university from that timeframe, recent conversations have taken place out of public view.

It’s understandable, even reasonable, that the university would see now as an opportune moment in history. The current city council configuration is still ripe, just as it was back in 2009, for pitching that elected body a concept that would directly benefit the university’s law school. Then as now, two University of Michigan law school alums serve on the city council: Tony Derezinski and Christopher Taylor.

It’s time to daylight that conversation.

Private Conversation

Even while the university was pitching its Monroe Street proposal at public meetings in late 2008 and early 2009, not surprisingly, private conversations were taking place.

The following email from UM law alum and city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) to then-city administrator Roger Fraser shows that UM law school dean, Evan Caminker, reached out to Taylor and then-councilmember Leigh Greden (an attorney, though not a UM law school graduate, who also represented Ward 3) on the Monroe Street issue.

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Fraser, Roger
Cc: Miller, Jayne; Dempkowski, Angela A; Greden, Leigh; Lloyd, Mark; Hieftje, John
Subject: Monroe St. Closure

Roger,

The Dean of the Law School (and Third Ward resident) has contacted Leigh and me to meet regarding the proposed closure of Monroe Street. We hope to schedule this meeting for next week. To prepare, I would be grateful if you and Staff could provide for us by 2-9 am:

1) A description of the state of conversations between City and University on the subject.

2) Any technical information you believe relevant, including potential/likely harms/costs to the City that would result from such a closure.

Also too if you have any questions, thoughts or advice on matters that I may not have considered, I am, as ever, all ears.

Many thanks,

Christopher

The non-public conversations between the university and the city have continued past the second public discussion in early 2009. Here’s an email exchange from the summer of 2010 involving UM law school alum and city councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and a UM project director in architectural and engineering services, Thomas Schlaff. It leads to setting up a meeting with UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva [emphasis added].

From: tderezinski@comcast.net [mailto:tderezinski@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:09 PM
To: Schlaff, Thomas
Cc: Caminker, Evan
Subject: Monroe Street

Dear Tom,

I attended a reception last night on the U Mall sponsored by the Law School, and engaged Dean Caminker in a conversation regarding the new building and the status of Monroe Street. In addition to being an alumn of the Law School, I also presently serve on the City Council. I was specifically interested in the timing regarding action of the proposal before the City to vacate a block of it, and also the relationship of that action to the timing, and expense, of construction of the whole project, and who I could talk to regarding these matters. He suggested you and Larry Bowman, and Jim Kosteva. I happened to see Jim at lunch today, and he was interested in doing so.

So I woulld like to get together with you, Jim and Larry some time, perhaps next week, for about an hour, and perhaps also at or near the site (Dominics?) [sic] to talk about it. Jim said he would be happy to facilitate it.

I will be gone from early tomorrow through Monday, but will be checking my email. I hope we can do so; perhaps you could also call Jim Kosteva re same.

Thanks!

Tony Derezinski

==========

From: Thomas Schlaff”
To: “tderezinski @comcast.net” Cc: “Evan Caminker”
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:26:49 PM
Subject: RE: Monroe Street

Tony,

Thanks for messaging, and would love to gather with you and Jim. I’ll call Jim and make sure we get a date soon to chat. Next week would be great.

Again, thank you for your note, and especially for your support for our very special Law School Project.

Tom

Thomas G. Schlaff, P.E. – Project Director
Architecture, Engineering & Construction
The University of Michigan

==========

From: “Alicia Boltach”
To: tschlaff@umich.edu, TDerezinski@a2gov.org
Cc: tderezinski@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:13:03 PM
Subject: Meeting w/Jim Kosteva

Tom and Tony,

Jim has requested to meet with both of you to discuss Monroe Street.

He has asked for the meeting to occur around the 4 p.m. hour and to
occur at Dominick’s. Please see below available dates and respond with your availability.

Thursday, July 1st: 4 p.m.
Friday, July 2nd: 4 p.m.
Tuesday, July 6th: 4 p.m.
Thursday, July 8th: 4 p.m.
Kind Regards,

Alicia

Alicia Boltach
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations
University of Michigan

More recently, this past summer the university was interested in talking to councilmembers about two topics: Monroe Street and football stadium security.

By way of background, as a security measure the university has been interested in seeing the block of Main Street between Stadium Boulevard and Pauline Street closed during home football games. According to the city, the closure of Main Street for the Sept. 10 game between Notre Dame and UM this year stemmed from security concerns related specifically to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and was a one-time event. However, UM’s interest is in closing down Main Street for that block as a matter of standard operating procedure for home football games.

Closure of Main Street is related to the general issue of logistics on home football game days, which is a topic that includes both security (fire and police) and traffic controls. Historically, the university has reimbursed the city’s costs for extra staffing of fire and police on game days, but has refused to reimburse the city for costs related to traffic controls.

This year, the city council passed a resolution directing its city administrator not to provide traffic management services on football game days unless the city’s costs were reimbursed. And the university agreed to reimburse those costs, but at a much lower level of service.

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, UM’s Kosteva clarified that the clearly contemporaneous conversations about football stadium security and Monroe Street, indicated in the email below, were just that: contemporaneous but separate conversations that were part of the same meeting:

From: Robyn Snyder [mailto:rasnyder@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11 :22 AM
To: Robyn Snyder
Subject: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Good morning,

Jim Kosteva the University of Michigan, Director of Community Relations would like to request a half hour of your time to discuss
the universities [sic] interest in Monroe Street-Stadium security. We understand how busy you are, but if you can, please take a moment to complete this doodle poll for your availability. This can take place someplace for a coffee, or in your office.

Link to poll: http://doodle.com/d2c7ehezvey9dgxr

Once a date and time has been established, I will email you with a confirmation.

If you are unable to access this poll, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your time.

Robyn Snyder
Administrative Assistant Intermediate
University of Michigan
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations

==========

From: Teall, Margie
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:12 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John; Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: FW: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Did all of Council receive this request?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:57 PM
To: Teall, Margie; Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Yes. Met with the gentleman today.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 10:24 AM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Teall, Margie; Hiefije, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

How did that go?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 2:59 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He said he’d give us everything we wanted. [Ed. note: Read on to see that Taylor is kidding.]

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:54 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

what do we want?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:55 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He didn’t say that.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 2:39 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

are you pulling my leg here?

Public Conversations Between Public Bodies

Conversations about handing over control of a city block’s worth of public right-of-way to another entity should obviously take place in the public sphere.

UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva typically prefers to describe the city-university relationship as like “a marriage where divorce and separation aren’t an option.” That’s the analogy he drew for a group of visitors from Chapel Hill, North Carolina exactly three years ago last Friday. A member of that group Twittered out Kosteva’s remarks, which The Chronicle has preserved forever in its New Media Watch archives.

@orangepolitics is Twittering live the remarks of A2 and UM luminaries. Highlights: “Jim Kosteva, UofM: ‘town-gown relations are like a marriage wher divorce is not an option.’ Then he hands the city councilwmn some flowers!” Councilwoman in question is Briere.

I disagree with Kosteva that this is an appropriate analogy – although sometimes it might seem to residents in student neighborhoods like the university has a habit of leaving its underwear lying around the living room.

It’s not an appropriate analogy, because marriages are between private individuals, and topics of conversation in the context of a marriage are inherently not required or expected to happen in public view. But that is exactly the expectation for conversations between two public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan: They need to happen in public view.

I don’t think a colorful analogy is required to understand what the university’s relationship is to the city. What’s most useful is the straightforward factual description: The city and the university are two public landowners, whose property and activities are often proximate to each other.

The city and the university should thus behave like two landowners. If one landowner wishes to have control of the other landowner’s property, then what typically happens is that some kind of negotiation takes place between the two parties, and some consideration is offered in exchange for control of that property. The amount of consideration offered is based on some sort of standard prevailing practice.

An example of that is the kind of discussion taking place now between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) in connection with a strip of city-owned land. The six-foot-wide strip is adjacent to the two downtown parcels occupied by the Blake Transit Center (BTC). As part of the planned reconstruction of the BTC, the AATA would like to align the parcel boundaries.

The city of Ann Arbor is not simply handing over the six-foot-wide strip to the AATA. Instead, it’s being appraised, and there’ll ultimately be a cash transaction based on that appraisal. The acquisition of the six-foot strip has been mentioned at several AATA board meetings during routine updates.

Some kind of compensation was pointedly not a part of the university’s proposal back in late 2009 and 2010, when the city was asked to cede control of its right-of-way for an entire block of Monroe Street.

But currently, the conversation between the city and the university about Monroe Street has reportedly evolved to include some kind of payment. The amount of the deal and its structure – a one-time payment or a series of payments in perpetuity – is still an open question.

That evolution reflects progress. A deal struck on its fair financial merits would help avoid the possibility that an agreement on Monroe Street was being played as a quid pro quo in connection with some other deal – like Fuller Road Station, for example, or payments for traffic controls on football game days.

At a budget retreat held in December 2010, former city administrator Roger Fraser cautioned councilmembers against playing a game of tit-for-tat on unrelated issues involving the city and the university. Fraser’s comments came in response to a councilmember suggestion that if the university continued to refuse reimbursement to the city for costs of traffic management on football game days, the city should be uncooperative in some other area – like Monroe Street.  Fraser cited the specific example of Fuller Road Station, where that tit-for-tat strategy could yield undesirable results. [Fuller Road Station is a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that's a joint city/UM project. Design is already underway, but a contract laying out financial terms and other aspects of the partnership hasn't been publicly announced.]

In Kosteva’s recent phone interview with The Chronicle, he also described how he did not think it was in the interest of the overall health of the city-university relationship to play one situation off against an unrelated one. He likened it to a negotiation between spouses in which one agreed to attend a concert with the other as a condition on the other coming along to visit an unpleasant relative.

The marriage analogy aside, Kosteva still arrives at essentially the same conclusion as Fraser, as reflected in Fraser’s comments at the budget retreat. Each situation should be handled on its own merits. I think that’s the right way to approach Monroe Street.

And that means two questions need answers. First, does the city even want to do a deal on Monroe Street? Second, what should the deal structure and dollar amount be? The answers to those questions should be worked out in public view. And now’s a good time to start.

I’d like to focus on the second of these questions, because it looks like that second question will need an answer fairly quickly for a different UM project.

Potential Precedent: Institute for Social Research Expansion

North of Jefferson Street, between Division and Thompson streets, UM is building an expansion to the Institute for Social Research.

The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research expansion is indicated in reddish brown, to the northwest of the existing building. The project will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

Constucting that project as currently planned will result in the elimination of two metered parking spaces on Thompson Street, which is partly balanced out by the addition of a parking space on Division Street.

So the ISR expansion will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

The city of Ann Arbor completed its review of the ISR project this summer and signed off on it.

Although the university’s projects are not subject to site plan approval by the planning commission and the city council, city staff from various departments do review the plans and provide comments. Those documents are available through the city’s eTrakit system. [Projects aren't linkable, but the ISR project can be found by searching for address, project name, or by project number: UM10-014]

Among the city’s review materials for the ISR expansion are two memos from Joe Morehouse, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority deputy director, to Connie Pulcipher, a city of Ann Arbor systems planner. [Morehouse Memo 1] [Morehouse Memo 2]

The memos from Morehouse address specifically the issue of the net parking loss associated with the ISR expansion. Morehouse cites a March 4, 2009 DDA resolution that addresses the value of on-street parking spaces. The resolution adopts the policy recommendations of the DDA board’s operations committee and encourages the city council to do the same. Those policy recommendations include the following:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 resolution]

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new space in a structure, either above ground or below ground.

So the March 4, 2009 resolution essentially calls on the city council to adopt a policy on the elimination of metered parking spaces – which it has not done over the last two and a half years. However, a new contract signed between the city and the DDA this year, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, gives some impetus for action on this issue and provides a role for the DDA to help determine what that policy will be for removal of on-street parking. [emphasis added]

2. Operational Powers and Responsibilities Within DDA Parking Area
…
e. The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

The ISR expansion involves just one parking space. One friction-free option for UM would be to simply pay the $45,000 that the DDA is recommending as the value attached to an on-street space. In the context of a $23 million project, $45,000 doesn’t seem like a lot.

However, that would likely define expectations for the dollar figure attached to any Monroe Street deal. And with 22 parking spaces at stake on Monroe Street, UM could be looking at more than $1 million as the starting point of a conversation about how much more should be paid to account for the additional right-of-way control beyond the elimination of the parking spaces. [Back in 2009, the number of spaces was described as 22; a recent count of meter heads on the block by The Chronicle gave nine twin-head meters, or 18 spaces, plus a loading zone area.]

Price of a Parking Space

Part of the challenge in determining a fair way to do a deal on Monroe Street is that there’s not really a robust market for Ann Arbor city streets. How would you establish the comparables?

Price: Community Benefit

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Kosteva did not argue for a specific dollar figure or a particular deal structure. But he did suggest some questions that the discussion should include.

One is the issue of “community benefit,” mentioned in the city-DDA parking contract. Kosteva is right in pointing out that this is somewhat vague.

Depending on how the council and the DDA wind up defining the phrase, it might turn out that elimination of parking spaces on Monroe Street meets the criteria of a “community benefit.” In that case, there’s no need to contemplate a parking space replacement cost methodology.

For example, it might be possible to construe “community benefit” in a way that translates any benefit enjoyed by the university, given its prominent role in the city’s economy, to a benefit enjoyed by the entire city. This would essentially formalize the idea that whatever is good for the university is also good for the city, and therefore a community benefit.

But that goes against the principle that each specific situation should be evaluated unto itself. It hardly makes sense to say that a Monroe Street closure will benefit the community economically because of the additional jobs that the university’s new children’s hospital will bring to the city. On the other hand, if the university could demonstrate that the Monroe Street closure would allow the enrollment of X additional law students, or the hiring of Y additional faculty, that could be part of a case that closing down Monroe Street brings an economic benefit to the community.

It’s not crazy to insist on that kind of specific accounting to claim a community economic benefit. It’s exactly the standard that’s used in evaluating the merits of a tax abatement, for example.

Economic benefits aren’t the only kind of benefit. If UM were proposing to close down Monroe Street so that a small skatepark could be built there and used by Ann Arbor’s skateboarding community, then that might conceivably meet a reasonable definition of “community benefit.” It would provide an amenity for city residents that they currently don’t have. [This is by way of a hypothetical example. As far as I know, no one is interested in seeing that location become a skatepark.]

But to sum up, I don’t see any reasonable way of defining “community benefit” that would encompass the closure of one block of Monroe Street. Indeed, I would point to the same considerable community detriment noted by attendees at the December 2009 public meeting and Ann Arbor city planning commissioners three months later.

Price: Who’s Asking?

Another question identified by Kosteva in his phone interview with The Chronicle is this: Should all parties be treated the same way?

Without arguing either side, Kosteva suggested that as the city and the DDA work to develop a policy, it’s worth considering whether a large multimillion-dollar private company seeking to build a large headquarters in downtown Ann Arbor should be treated the same way by the policy that a nonprofit organization – like a church – would be treated.

I think that’s a fair question.

But I think it’s clear that any difference in treatment should be based not on who the party is, but rather on the earlier notion of community benefit. If the large multimillion-dollar private company can demonstrate that X jobs will be created as a result of a project that eliminates the on-street parking spaces, then that’s relevant to the discussion. In the same way, if a church can demonstrate that its project will draw Y additional worshipers from outside the city every Saturday morning, some percentage of whom will stay for lunch in Ann Arbor restaurants, then that potential economic benefit is relevant to the discussion.

But I can’t see any reason to treat different parties differently based purely on who they are.

Price: Value Based on Parking Revenue

But even if we treat all parties equally, that doesn’t mean that we have to treat all parking spaces equally.

That’s an additional consideration suggested by Kosteva that should be part of the conversational mix as the city and the DDA develop the policy. Specifically, Kosteva suggested that the revenues generated by a metered parking space could factor into an assessment of the relative value of a parking space, compared with other spaces in the parking system. Some spaces generate more revenue than others, based on where they’re located.

Note that this is not equivalent to suggesting that replacement of a specific meter’s revenue would be appropriate compensation for eliminating that parking space. Rather, it’s a suggestion more like the following: If Meter A generates twice as much revenue as Meter B, then even if the starting point of a replacement cost allocation for a parking space is $45,000, surely it matters whether Meter A or Meter B is proposed for elimination.

Leaving aside the question of the absolute revenue, if a meter is generating so little revenue that the city and DDA don’t perceive a need to actually construct a parking space to replace it, it doesn’t make complete sense to insist that a payment be made to pay for the cost of replacing it. It’s possible to conceive of some kind of “discount” for low-revenue meters, or perhaps a surcharge for particularly high-revenue meters.

That’s all very well and good. But how much revenue do Monroe Street parking meters generate, and how does that compare to the rest of the parking meters in Ann Arbor’s public parking system?

Systemwide, here’s the distribution revenue annually by percentiles: bottom third generates 0-$960; middle third generates $961-$1,963; upper third generates more than $1,963. [The DDA is currently engaged in designing a tiered pricing structure for downtown parking meters – based on demand for the spaces, where demand is measured by revenue generated. So keeping track of this information is part of the DDA's current work plan.]

Taking the average of annual revenues generated by six of the meters for the Monroe Street block (those for which The Chronicle was able to identify data) yields $1,643 per year. So it appears that the Monroe Street meters are firmly in the mid-range for parking meter revenue systemwide.

In that case, at least for the Monroe Street meters, it’s hard to see how any “discount” that might be developed for the cost replacement allocation formula would apply to the Monroe Street spaces.

So based on a count of 22 spaces and the DDA-recommended $45,000 figure, the parking replacement cost would be $990,000 – a one-time cost. [The DDA's recommendation does not contemplate any additional payments.]

Of course, what the university hopes to achieve goes beyond the parking spaces, and includes control of the entire right-of-way.

Price: Based on Right-of-Way Rental

Rental of the right-of-way is another way to think about the Monroe Street proposal. For construction projects (requiring, for example, a temporary lane closure) the city applies a standard rate for the rental of public right-of-way: 1.5 cents per square foot per day.

The aerial photo provided by the Washtenaw County online mapping system still shows the surface parking lot south of Monroe Street. South Hall now stands at that location. The rectangle is drawn based on the parcel boundaries displayed on Washtenaw County's mapping website. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Using 17,500 square feet as a figure for the amount of public right-of-way at stake (as measured using online mapping tools through the Washtenaw County website), that would work out to about $96,000 annually.

From the university’s point of view, it might be not be desirable to enter into an arrangement that’s based on an annual payment in perpetuity. And it’s possible to argue against the 1.5 cent rental rate on the grounds that right-of-way rental for construction purposes is not the same thing as permanent control of the right-of-way. Ordinarily, there’s some kind of discount for rental agreements where the tenant is willing to sign on to a longer lease.

But from the city’s point of view, a right-of-way rental at $96,000 annually needs to be the starting point for the negotiation. If there’s not a $96,000 annual payment to be made in perpetuity, and the deal is instead structured as a one-time payment, then that lump-sum should be based on something real, not just pulled out of thin air.

One possibility for a real number is the projected useful life of any new parking structure built by the DDA: 75 years. So one approach would be to say that after 75 years, the $96,000 annual payment from UM to the city would end. That would amount to a total of $7.2 million (75 × $96,000) paid over the course of 75 years. If UM wanted to negotiate a lump sum payment (to avoid writing a Monroe Street check every year), presumably the city should be willing to negotiate downward from $7.2 million.

Monroe Street Doctrine

To oversimplify it, the Monroe Doctrine, expressed by President James Monroe in 1823, said “hands off” the Western Hemisphere to future colonization by other countries:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

Translating that to city-university terms would amount to a declaration that any attempt by the university to expand the campus would be considered as dangerous to the city’s peace and safety.

That seems overwrought and probably would lead to endless frustration – the university is free to purchase land from people who want to sell it. [In fact, UM regents just last week approved the purchase of a parcel that's currently the site of an apartment building, at 716 Oakland Ave., just around the corner from Monroe Street.]

But to my eye, there’s an obvious part of that Monroe Doctrine excerpt that could be adopted as a doctrine to help guide city-university relations on the side of the city. It’s the part about candor.

So in closing, I’d  suggest something along the following lines:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan that we should consider any land transfers between these two parties only in the context of public meetings between public officials.

There are multiple mechanisms through which this conversation can occur publicly. Those might include communications from councilmembers during their council meetings, or full-on working sessions attended by councilmembers and university officials.

Whatever the mechanism, it’s time to put the Monroe Street conversation in public view.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Regents also approved continued use of the Wolfson reserves –unspent endowment income accumulated from prior years – as recommended by the law faculty for emergency and housing loans to the faculty.

This brief was filed from the regents meeting at the Fairlane Center on UM’s Dearborn campus. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

A Chronicle reader recognized that his grandmother had been the other servant. That reader contacted Bien. And Bien got permission to explore the family archives. This month’s column grew out of that research. Fair warning: There’s a bit of ground to cover first before you’ll learn the identity of that reader. But as always with Bien’s text, it’ll be worth the wait. Keep your eye on Mabel.

As 1900 began, 77-year-old York Township farmer Horace Parsons knew that his wife Maria was gravely ill.

His first wife Margaret had died half a century earlier, three years after their New Year’s Day wedding. Horace married his second wife Mary Ann on New Year’s Day, 1850. Just months later, his mother Rebecca died. The following year, Mary Ann died, possibly in childbirth, and Horace’s father Orrin died.

Horace had seen them all laid to rest in Saline’s Oakwood Cemetery.

Mabel as a child. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Horace married his third wife Maria on May 14, 1860. Over their four decades together, Horace and Maria shared the hardships of 19th-century Michigan farm life. They lost one of their children. They survived lean years early in their marriage, selling off sheep, pigs, and farm machinery. Unlike some neighbors, they hung on to their mortgage, expanding the farm from 30 acres to 50 in 1870 and 66 a decade later.

That year Horace’s restored flock of sheep was up to nearly 80 head and 30 lambs, plus cows and pigs. He grew oats, beans, wheat, potatoes, and Indian corn, and tended 2 acres of apple trees. His and Maria’s place was the typical mixed-crop, mixed-livestock Washtenaw County farm of the era. The heterogeneity of their farm and those of their neighbors was insurance against the not uncommon disasters that regularly struck down one or another animal or crop.

Now his and Maria’s time together, he could see, was ending.

Horace hired a local girl to help. Mabel was a teenager, though neither the term nor the concept existed when she came on as a servant on Horace’s farm. Mabel was the oldest child of brickyard worker and general laborer Orson Pepper and his wife, homemaker Myrtie. The young mother had been a schoolgirl only shortly before Mabel’s birth in 1884.

Mabel lived in the Parsons’ farmhouse with Horace, Maria, and the couple’s two unmarried adult children, Charles and Minnie. In July of 1900, Maria died of what was determined to be heart disease. Just three years later, Horace died at age 80 of what was thought to be Bright’s disease, a kidney ailment.

By 1905, Mabel had five younger brothers: Bina, Glen, Carl, Thayer and Orville. The family moved to Ypsilanti, settling in a small frame house at 212 Normal St.

Orson and Glen got jobs as laborers, Bina was hired as a railroad worker, and Carl clerked in G. B. Dunlap’s Michigan Avenue grocery. In the fall of 1909, Carl married Alice Webster, a onetime house servant of Ypsilanti bank cashier and Peninsular paper mill secretary Daniel L. Quirk.

Mabel circa 1915. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

It may have been due to Alice and Carl’s connection that Mabel was hired by Quirk. By 1910, she worked as a domestic in the large Quirk mansion on North Huron.

Mabel was experienced and a good worker. Known for her cooking, she likely cooked for the Quirks. One dessert specialty of Mabel’s still fondly remembered by a living granddaughter  is “Blueberry Grunt,” a hot blueberry cobbler studded with dumplings and served with cream.

As with her hiring in the Quirk home, the next turn in Mabel’s life may also have come from family connections. Her brother Bina worked as a railroad teamster. Another railroad employee was called “Lon” – short for Alonzo. In the fall of 1915, Mabel married Lon in Potterville in Eaton County. The couple moved to Albion, where Lon worked as a railroad foreman.

Mabel and Lon’s respect for family tradition showed in their children’s names. Mabel’s first child, born in 1916, was named John Orson, a combination of the names of Mabel’s and Lon’s fathers. Mabel’s daughters’ names – Myrtie and Olive – honored Mabel’s and Lon’s mothers. Mabel’s son’s name – Hugh Alonzo –  commemorated the infant’s paternal great-grandfather and father. Mabel’s fifth and last child, Frieda, was born in 1924.

The family moved to Parma in Jackson County. Money was tight. While many of their neighbors owned the new technology, a radio set, they did not.

Mabel and Alonzo

In time came a move to a farm in nearby Springport that had belonged to Lon’s grandfather and father. The former teen servant now had a family and a home of her own. She also had a car, though according to one living descendant, “I never saw my grandmother drive and do not think she ever learned. Their old car had been around so long and she was so short and heavy that the seat springs on the passenger side were so crushed that she almost literally sat on the floor and could not see [through] the window.”

That’s the recollection via email of Mabel’s grandson, who as a boy visited the Springport farm with his father Hugh. Now a Saline area resident, Don still recalls those occasions.

“My vivid memories of overnight stays as a young boy there included sleeping on itchy flannel sheets in a very cold upstairs bedroom,” Don recalled, “and trying very hard to not have to go outside to the two-holer outhouse (complete with Sears catalog) until the light of dawn arrived.”

The onetime servant girl had become a beloved grandmother. “[She] was very short and very round,” wrote Don. “She was known as a good cook and did everything from scratch, including making her own butter, which always had a salty taste to preserve it longer.”

Mabel, John, Frieda and Lon. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

After family dinners, the playing cards came out. “The nightly ritual often included playing Canasta,” wrote Don. “My grandmother would fall asleep between her plays and my grandfather would yell ‘Mabel, wake up god dammit!’ to which she would inevitably reply ‘I was just resting my eyes’ as she scanned the table to try to figure out what cards had been played.”

Don described his grandfather Lon as a survivor “who had scratched out a living anyway he could. My father [Hugh] told me that Lon … would make money by taking his team of horses out after a big snow storm and offer to pull stranded cars from the ditches for a dollar, which was a lot of money then.” Sometimes they say that family traits skip a generation. It may be that Mabel and Lon’s lives of hard work made an impression on their grandson.

Don continued, “[Lon] taught me to play cribbage (I think I was about 11 or 12) by showing me how to count the points for one hand. After that, his ‘rule’ was that he got to take all the points I missed for himself.”

Don concluded, “It made me a quick learner.”

That quick learner excelled in school. He earned a master’s, a doctorate, and a UM law degree. He worked as an Army lawyer and later for local law firms.

Don went on to serve as city councilman and then mayor of Saline. He taught at Thomas Cooley Law School, Oakland University, the University of Maryland, and Eastern Michigan University, where he still teaches (he founded an EMU scholarship fund and served as an EMU regent for good measure). He published, among numerous professional articles and chapters in legal publications, a book on the use of forensic science in the courtroom.

He’s even been on NPR twice to discuss the “CSI Effect”. This theory posits that TV courtroom dramas’ emphasis on seemingly infallible forensic technology has influenced real-life jurors to more readily acquit if the same high-tech evidence doesn’t appear in a real court. (Don’s verdict: Nope.)

The silver napkin ring, a link to the family's past.The family posed it here with blueberries "to honor Mabel." (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The gentleman who remembers itchy sheets and farmhouse meals of long ago is today the chief circuit judge for Washtenaw County’s trial court, the Honorable Donald Shelton.

Just as Mabel honored her ancestors, Judge Shelton and his wife Marjorie remember theirs. One prized family possession is a silver napkin ring passed down from Mabel’s daughter Myrtie. In addition, Judge Shelton notes, the extended family still observes “an annual reunion, called the Culver Cousins Reunion after our progenitor Phineas Culver who migrated from upstate New York to Mooreville, Michigan [in York Township] through the [then-] newly available Erie Canal.”

“This year we will hold our 99th reunion.”

One only wishes Mabel could also attend, to share some Blueberry Grunt with her grandson and his family. She’d beam with pride.

Grateful thanks to the Sheltons for their invaluable help, without which this article would not have been possible, and for the use of their personal photographs.

Mystery Artifact

Last column, Dave and Murph correctly guessed that the article in question was a seamstress’ sewing clamp, formed into a decorative bird shape.

Mystery Artifact

You can view the object on the second floor of the Ypsilanti Historical Museum in the front sewing room.

This week we’re remaining on the second floor to take a peek at this odd object.

A bit over a yard tall, it’s something that just might have been used by one person mentioned in the article above.

What might it be? Good luck!

Munger is vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, a holding company led by investor Warren Buffett. Munger studied mathematics at UM in the 1940s and received an honorary doctorate of laws degree from the university in 2010. He previously provided funding for lighting upgrades at the law school’s Hutchins Hall and the William W. Cook Legal Research Library, including its reading room.

This brief was filed from the UM regents meeting, held this month at the Westin Book Cadillac hotel in downtown Detroit. A more detailed account of the meeting will follow: [link]

Yellow: new law school building to be constructed in place of surface parking. Blue: student commons to be renovated. Monroe Street is the road just north of the new law school building. (Click image for larger view.)

Glimpsing through the door of room 116 of Hutchins Hall at UM Law School on Tuesday evening, The Chronicle could see what seemed like a late-evening class in session. Not sure of the room number we wanted, it was with some caution that we nosed further into the room. Ah. The familiar faces of Tony Derezinski, newly elected Ann Arbor city council representative of Ward 2, and Dave DeVarti, until recently a DDA board member, confirmed we were in the right place. It was a meeting hosted by UM to discuss with interested neighbors UM’s interest in a permanent closure of a section of Monroe Street. Representatives from the UM were Sue Gott, university planner, and Jim Kosteva, director of community relations. The section in question is between Oakland on the east and State Street on the west.

The idea is that the area would become a pedestrian zone, but still accessible to emergency vehicles. It would serve to connect “physically and psychologically” the new law school building to be constructed on the south side of Monroe between State and Oakland and the buildings to the north of Monroe.

Having arrived after Gott’s presentation of the project details, The Chronicle pieced together those bits from the 7 or 8 citizens’ comments and questions, which were already well under way. DeVarti was recalling a demonstration some two years ago in connection with some event at the Ford School involving Alan Haber and some other left-thinking folks. DeVarti said that UM police had told the demonstrators they could not stand with their signs on the sidewalk on the UM side of State Street. The demonstrators had complied with the UM police request to leave, DeVarti said, adding that he himself would have been inclined to allow himself to be arrested on the basis that it was a public sidewalk.

Just when The Chronicle was beginning to question if we were actually in the right room, DeVarti connected the dots to the proposed street closure: What guarantees the continued right to freely express dissent in Monroe Street if control of the public right of way is turned over to UM? In the ensuing discussion, it became apparent that this was a key component of the UM proposal: the city of Ann Arbor would cede the public right of way to control by UM. Philosophically, DeVarti said he had a problem with substituting UM police – who have an “insulated process of accountability” via the UM Regents, who are elected in statewide elections for 8-year terms – for city of Ann Arbor police officers, who are overseen more directly via democratically-elected city council members.

Local attorney Jonathan Rose pressed the point of DeVarti’s demonstrators who were asked to leave. He asked both Kosteva and Gott: “Do you believe there’s a risk that this [ceding of the public ROW] will have a negative effect on the freedom to express dissent?” Gott wanted nothing to do with the topic. “I can’t speak to that,” she said. Kosteva, for his part, handled the question by suggesting that he and Rose disagreed about their perceptions of UM. Kosteva said that he saw the UM campus as a place that is open and conducive to dissent. He allowed that there were thresholds that couldn’t be crossed – for example, setting up booths, stands or tabletops without a permit. He also outlined a step-by-step protocol for managing disruption of speakers on campus.

But Kosteva eventually granted part of Rose’s point: that the overall ambiance resulting from a street closure so that the area became more clearly a part of campus could have an effect of making that area less conducive to the expression of dissent.

Rose then asked what other reason there might be for UM to want control of the public ROW other than to be able to curb expression of dissent, perhaps even against itself: “I haven’t heard a reason why it matters for traffic, safety, ambiance, whether UM controls it or the city of Ann Arbor controls it. Is there any reason?” Gott offered that if UM controlled it, then access for snow removal and care of plantings would be easier. DeVarti countered that there’s a requirement for property owners to keep sidewalks clear.

In addition to the philosophical, the meeting covered numerous nuts and bolts issues: transportation strategies, bump-ins, lane additions, parking management strategies. And Rose wrapped up the meeting by saying that he was “impressed in a positive way with the astuteness that parking has been analyzed: it should be optimal and not maximal.” But hammering home the philosophical point, he concluded: “This astuteness does not equate to turning over public right of way to the university. Come up with something else. Turning over the rights of who comes and goes to the administration of the University of Michigan is wrong.”

One of the nuts and bolts issues raised by one property owner in the area was possible compensation to the city of Ann Arbor for the land acquisition that the UM was proposing. Kosteva said that UM was not currently contemplating any quid pro quo and portrayed any such arrangement in a historical context where there had not been such arrangements. Kosteva stressed that there were extensive financial arrangements with the city – including compensation – for a variety of projects: the Forest parking structure, park and ride lots on Green Road and South State, re-surfacing of streets adjacent to campus. He mentioned the high-capacity transit connector, for which a study is currently being undertaken, as an example of a project where the city, the DDA, and AATA were partnering with equal financial contributions. Kosteva also pointed out that there are UM roads on north campus that it allows people to use as a public thoroughfare, but there is no accounting for that. Said Kosteva, “Some may and some may not keep a tally.”

To this the resident said that he loved the university and that no one could argue the massive benefit the institution brought to the community. But as a property owner, he said, he was increasingly concerned that as property taxes rose the financial burden on individual property owners grew, while the university, which does not pay property taxes, was free of the financial burden of taxation as well as the need to comply with any of the city codes.

Another nuts and bolts issue had to do with the impact on traffic from closing Monroe. Gott presented maps indicating various levels of traffic flow for intersections in the area, which were mostly in the A and B range. The measures of traffic flow are “service levels” in traffic engineering jargon, and are graded based on a scale roughly like grades in school. The three maps that Gott displayed  showed current and projected levels of service. It is the fact that Monroe is very lightly traveled by motor traffic that has convinced university planners it’s feasible to close it completely to traffic. DeVarti noted that one intersection (from The Chronicle’s seat, it appeared to be Oakland & Hill) showed improvement from D to C, instead of the slight worsening of service shown by other intersections “How do you explain that?” asked DeVarti. Other than to confirm that a change from D to C represented an improvement, Gott was not able to offer an explanation. DeVarti joked that maybe we should just put a letter B there, because that would be an even greater improvement.

To the question of whether there were any other properties coveted by the university for acquisition in a similar fashion, Kosteva and Gott said they did not know of any. But DeVarti pointed to Buffalo Street, which is the city-owned parking lot north of gate 9 of the Michigan Stadium. “The university wants that!” said DeVarti. There may be even more recent history, but The Chronicle found a resolution from the year 2000 which Ann Arbor’s city council passed on the matter:

RESOLVED, That the City reject the idea to vacate Buffalo Street, for the third time in six years;

RESOLVED, That the City develop a plan to maximize continuing income from the property through parking permits, special events parking, and/or leasing of the site to a private/public entity;

RESOLVED, That the City evaluate the site for affordable housing, and other uses that would help the City meet its goals and objectives;

RESOLVED, That the City not entertain the idea of vacating Buffalo Street to the University of Michigan until a final use of the property by the University is made public and the University and City provides for public review of the project and impact it may have on the surrounding neighborhoods;

A further nuts and bolts issue that DeVarti said needed to be better explained is the motivation for closing the street, especially in light of the fact that UM acknowledges that it does not require the closure for its space needs – the buildings could still be built in exactly the same way without the pedestrian area between them. “Does the dean not want to cross the street? Have students said in a survey that they don’t like to cross the dangerous Monroe Street?” joked DeVarti. Gott said that there was an interest in the physical and psychological connection and continuity of campus. The Chronicle found this idea expressed in a report from consulting firm Johnson, Johnson & Roylinc.

In addition, the vacation of Monroe Street between Oakland and State and East Madison Street between Packard and Thompson [Chronicle note: cf. discussion above of other streets possibly of interest to UM] would help to re-enforce the pedestrian orientation of the core of the campus without detracting from the ability of vehicles to move about the campus in an effective manner. The University should be prepared to work with the City toward the improvement of certain intersections which are essential to an effective circulation pattern in the Central Campus area. In particular, the State/Hill/Packard area and the Packard/Division area could benefit from simplification and improvements to existing traffic flow patterns. Finally, the sense of arrival and entrance at the campus boundaries needs to be strengthened visually so that visitors arriving on the campus will realize that they have in fact arrived at The University of Michigan Central Campus and then can proceed to their desired destination. Detailed information on campus destinations and circulation systems should be provided at these entry ways and at the point where visitors change mode of transportation from the vehicular to the pedestrian mode. In some cases where the entrance to the campus is primarily by pedestrians, such as the corners of State and North University and East University and South University, specific design approaches incorporating ideas such as low seat walls, special pavement patterns or even sculpture could be used to signify entrance to the campus itself.

The date on the report is 1987. DeVarti said that he thought that a key difference between the UM campus and the MSU campus in Lansing was the degree of integration with the surrounding community at UM. Integration, he said, was something that he’d heard time and again as something that was valued about the UM campus. He said that he thought the two values of coherence of campus and integration with the community were both important and it was a matter of balancing them.

The meeting resulted in a couple of specific suggestions that Gott and Kosteva said they would look into: (i) the suggestion for a bump-in on State Street at the end of Monroe for loading and unloading and student drop off, (ii) the suggestion to pursue at least a temporary arrangement for UM to use the Pfizer parking structure.

Editor’s note: Chronicle readers who see a clear connection between this story and the discussion of the Quickie Burger liquor license transfer get bonus points for reading previous Chronicle articles really closely.