Former park advisory commissioner Gwen Nystuen and former planning commissioner Eric Lipson of the Library Green Conservancy spoke during public commentary. They advocated for integrated planning of public space in the Library Block, which includes Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site. (Photos by the writer.)

An existing lease to the University of Michigan expires on Aug. 31, 2014. PAC recommended that the city renew the lease for two years, with an additional two-year option for renewal beyond that. Annual revenue will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget.

The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

Three people spoke during public commentary regarding Fuller Park, though most of their focus was on the possibility of locating a train station at that site, which they opposed.

Responding to concerns raised during public commentary, commissioners discussed and ultimately amended the recommendation, adding a whereas clause that stated the “resolution does not commit PAC to support or oppose the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

The July 15 agenda also included two items related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The existing fee waiver, which had been in place for a year, expired on July 1. The feedback to the city council related to action at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting, which took place after a contentious debate over a resolution co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor, who also serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

On July 15, the commission also heard public commentary related to this area, as Library Green Conservancy members advocated for PAC to consider the entire block – both Liberty Plaza and Library Lane – when making recommendations to the council.

But because three PAC members were absent, chair Ingrid Ault suggested that the two items be put off until more commissioners could participate in a discussion. Absent on July 15 were PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl, Alan Jackson, and Bob Galardi, who also serves as chair of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board.

There was no formal vote to postpone, but it’s likely that the items will appear on PAC’s Aug. 19 agenda. That date falls after the Aug. 5 primary elections. Krapohl, a Democrat, is the only candidate running for Ward 4 city council. Christopher Taylor – a councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – is one of four Democrats running for mayor.

During the July 15 meeting, PAC also received a briefing on activities at Mack Pool, the city’s only indoor pool. Although the city had considered closing it just a few years ago, new programming has resulted in increased revenues for that facility.

Liberty Plaza

Two items appeared on the July 15 agenda related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The commission also heard public commentary related to this area.

Liberty Plaza: Fee Waiver – Background

By way of background on the fee waiver, a year ago the city council voted to waive fees for use of Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Divisions streets. The waiver was for a one-year trial period, through July 1, 2014.

Looking down the steps into Liberty Plaza, at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty.

The waiver had been recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting. It came in response to a situation that arose earlier that spring when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

The goal of the waiver was to attract additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza.” A key “whereas” clause of the 2013 council resolution stated: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Later in the year, on Nov. 18, 2013, the council approved ordinance revisions to allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses any park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance was revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.”

The July 15, 2014 PAC agenda did not include a staff recommendation or draft resolution related to the fee waiver. The meeting packet contained copies of the resolution approved by PAC in June 2013 and by the city council later that year.

Liberty Plaza: Council Resolution – Background

The July 15 PAC agenda also included a slot to discuss the city council resolution that had been passed at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting.

That council resolution had been brought forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – as well as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The original version would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Christopher Taylor at PAC’s July 15 meeting.

But after nearly an hour of debate, the council voted to refer the resolution to PAC instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broadened the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the proposed resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. The resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution came in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp.

Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations among councilmembers on June 16, 2014 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on the resolution on Liberty Plaza. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. The day after the council met, PAC’s regular monthly meeting, on June 17, was canceled.

PAC had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which were completed last year. The council accepted PAC’s recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: PAC’s April 15 Meeting

The last time members of PAC had a discussion about Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site was on April 15, 2014, when they discussed the council resolution that had been passed on April 7. That’s the resolution designating a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. [CTN video of PAC's April 15, 2014 meeting – the Library Lane park discussion beings at roughly the 1:42 minute mark]

The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow. The city council has designated 12,000 square feet of that lot, on the west side along the South Fifth Avenue, as a future park.

During PAC’s April 15 discussion, which lasted about 30 minutes, councilmember Mike Anglin – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC and who supports a Library Lane public space – told commissioners that the council didn’t give direction to PAC, but he thought that PAC should take initiative. PAC should start coming up with ideas about how a park at Library Lane should be designed, he said – who should be involved, how the meetings should be held, and how the process should be handled. He urged commissioners to watch the council’s April 14 deliberations, saying “that’s about the only way to truly understand what happened … because discussions take strange directions.”

It would be a real task to develop the city’s “first urban park,” he said. “The field, to me, is kind of open,” but there is direction to move forward. “There’s all sorts of … language going around and a lot of words being expressed, but there’s still a lot of room for discussion.” Anglin said he was confident that the community is intelligent enough to figure it out, though it might take a long time.

Another factor is that the council directed the city administrator to hire a broker for the possible sale of development rights on a portion of the Library Lane site.

Anglin told commissioners on April 15 that PAC should take the initiative, but there shouldn’t be a “stacked deck” with a pre-determined outcome. “If we do that, the process will die immediately – it’ll be dead on arrival.” A stacked deck is when the process is conducted “with all your cronies,” he said. Instead, it needs to be inclusive, with people that will likely disagree. He said he knew the library, for example, would come with some strong opinions.

David Santacroce, who was appointed to PAC in November 2013, told Anglin that he’d read the recommendation from PAC about downtown parks, and was confused about what’s expected of PAC now. “It seems like a re-do of the same work,” Santacroce said. “I don’t understand what’s supposed to be different about this public engagement and this downtown study that didn’t happen in the last go-around.” Was the council looking for more specifics about what kind of park should go there?

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said there’s a tendency to “remember what was said last.” Much of the recent discussion had been on the size of a park at Library Lane, and whether the city administrator should retain a broker, he said. But when PAC’s downtown park subcommittee had solicited feedback in 2013, they got over 1,600 survey responses and provided a lot of information, he noted. Smith thought it would be valuable to remind people about that, and to take another look at the public feedback from those surveys. There’s a lot of information about what residents would like to see in a downtown park. “We’ve got a pulse on that,” Smith said. [.pdf of downtown park survey results]

Anglin said he’s always felt that the major stakeholders are the library, the city, and maybe a developer. Some councilmembers think the developer should take care of and pay for a park. There are also “background people” who are privately saying that they would pay for a park, he said. “The game is not over yet.” So in that context, Anglin added, the community needs to have a discussion about “what do you want your town to be like in the downtown?”

Library Lane is a small two-way street that runs between South Fifth and Division, north of the downtown library – the brick building in the background. The street was built as part of the city-owned underground parking structure.

Anglin indicated that the Ann Arbor District Library might come up with a plan to build a new downtown library, which might include the Library Lane park area. The city made a major investment in that site, he said – maybe more than $56 million. The design of a park might include a couple of fountains, he said, or a band shell, a place to play chess, a rose garden and trees. He said that Argo Cascades “was never in the plan,” but that’s been a success. “If we build something and we’re not pleased with it, it can come out,” he added. The city has land and an opportunity for an urban park next to the library, where more people go than anyplace else in town, he said.

Graydon Krapohl said the question of a vision for the downtown is bigger than PAC’s role. Krapohl agreed that there’s already a lot of good information in the downtown park subcommittee’s report that was provided to council. It’s premature to have PAC develop ideas for a park without knowing what a developer might do or what kind of development might be there, he said. After a developer is involved, then PAC would have a role, he said. But it would be a waste of time and money to work on a design before that.

Krapohl thought that by setting the Library Lane’s park size at 12,000 square feet, it might have eliminated some potential interest in developing the property.

Krapohl also noted that the downtown park subcommittee worked for eight months to develop recommendations, which the full commission approved. He pointed out that Anglin was the only councilmember who didn’t vote to support that report at the council meeting. Anglin hadn’t provided any input or guidance to PAC about how the recommendations should have been shaped, Krapohl said.

Ingrid Ault said she’d been frustrated by the “blatant ignoring” of two key components in those recommendations – the point that funding needs to be identified, and if funding comes from the parks and recreation budget, what’s the impact on other programs? She also thought that council was ignoring placemaking principles that had been identified in the recommendations. “You’re asking us to design some kind of a park in an area that we know, based on best practices, won’t do well,” she said. “For me, that was really quite frustrating.”

Missy Stults agreed with Ault and Krapohl. She suggested returning to the downtown park subcommittee’s survey of residents, and draw out some of the main themes from respondents. But she agreed that PAC’s role right now shouldn’t extend beyond that.

Anglin responded, saying he’s well aware that the city doesn’t protect the citizens’ property “as much as we do the developers’ property.” The Library Lane site is the public’s property, and he wanted that discussion to occur. If it were already a park, then of course PAC would be involved in planning it, he said.

Regarding PAC’s recommendations for downtown parks, Anglin said he objected to the recommendation for development, because the community hadn’t said they wanted development there.

Santacroce then asked whether Anglin wanted additional input on whether there should be any development on the Library Lane site. Anglin indicated that he objected to the assumption that the lot would need to be developed, in order to recoup the city’s investment in the infrastructure there. He said that when the library ultimately builds a new downtown library, “it will be a spectacular work of art, if you will, and a community resource that we can all be proud of – as we are today.”

Anglin said he didn’t have all the answers, but he thought the answers could come from the community. To him, it wasn’t political – he just liked the concept of having a community commons.

Krapohl again said it sounded like a broader discussion that PAC could participate in, but that it wasn’t PAC’s role to lead. That broader question is what do residents want downtown to be. That discussion would in turn provide guidance regarding the Library Lane site. Does the community want part of the site developed so that the city can reap the return of tax revenue for years to come? Or should it be a large park, that will have to be paid for some way?

The broader discussion needs to include businesses, Krapohl said, as well as the DDA, neighborhood associations, PAC, the planning commission, the environmental commission and others.

Santacroce asked whether the council resolution already called for a building on the Library Lane site. If so, then “isn’t this issue out of the barn already?” One of the resolved clauses from the April 7 resolution states:

RESOLVED, That the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

Anglin replied that developers would have to know what they’re getting, and the council has carved out 12,000 square feet for a park. It might take a long time, he said. Anglin also noted that he and other councilmembers simply want to discuss this issue with the community.

Smith noted that at the April 7 meeting, the council passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a broker for possible sale of development rights on the portion of the Library Lane site that’s not designated for a park. He pointed out that a different resolution, which would have stopped this process, was not approved by the council.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, Smith noted that there was also extensive outreach regarding a vision for downtown as part of the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. There’s a tremendous amount of information in that effort, too, he said. More time needs to be spent evaluating the existing information that’s already available.

Smith noted that some people in the community would rather not see any private development on the Library Lane site. There are others who view this as an opportunity for collaboration and compatibility between the private and public sectors, he said. Smith pointed to results from the downtown park subcommittee survey, in which about 70% of the 1,600 respondents preferred a public/private approach to funding. Those responses shouldn’t be forgotten, he said.

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: July 15 Public Commentary

At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to address the issue of a park at the Library Lane site.

Gwen Nystuen, a former park commissioner, said she was there to talk about the Library Lane site. In June, the city council had asked PAC to develop a conceptual design integrating Liberty Plaza and Library Green – or whatever it will be called, she said. The intent was that the two parks should complement each other and become successful urban design parks. It will be challenging, but worth it, Nystuen said. There’s no question that Ann Arbor needs public open space downtown, and it has the ability to make the parks exciting and attractive, she said.

Former PAC member Gwen Nystuen and Ward 5 city councilmember Mike Anglin, who serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

Nystuen showed two drawings by the Library Green Conservancy, illustrating how walkways could be developed. The drawings were taken from a 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman report that looked at development of the entire block. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] Nystuen pointed out that there are park acquisition funds that could be used to buy easements to make these paths possible.

She noted that there are several properties in that block that might be redeveloped, including the downtown library and credit union site. That means it’s important to plan for the pedestrian connections, she said. The downtown citizens advisory council has supported creating pathways to walk through the block from as many directions as possible. PAC’s own recommendations, she noted, state that “Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.”

Eric Lipson introduced himself as a 35-year resident of Ann Arbor and former city planning commissioner. He’s also a member of the Library Green Conservancy, which has been advocating for a public park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure. And he’s a member of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor, which is helping to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park. He’s happy and excited that PAC is looking at ways to design and improve Liberty Plaza. But it makes obvious sense to plan not just for Liberty Plaza, but also for the entire block – bounded by Fifth and Division, and William and Liberty. There are some areas with barriers to pedestrian flow at Liberty Plaza, such as steps, which discourage the plaza’s use by the general public and encourage use “by those seeking to take advantage of the privacy of the sunken cul-de-sacs,” he said.

Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy passes out materials before PAC’s July 15 meeting. In the background is Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

Effective approaches to planning of public open space look at ways to connect activity centers, like the Diag does. The vision of connected public spaces on the Library Lot has been endorsed many times, Lipson noted – by the 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman study, the 2005 Calthorpe, the survey done by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for its Connecting William Street project, and PAC’s own survey of public preferences for downtown parks. Lipson noted that last spring, mayor John Hieftje proposed a clearly defined pedestrian path that would connect Liberty Plaza with public open space on the Library Lot, and then continue on to the former Y lot and the city-owned lot at the corner of Main and William, next to Palio restaurant. “This makes all the sense in the world,” Lipson said.

Liberty Plaza is the logical collection point and gateway from Liberty Street to the library, credit union, bus station, and on to Main Street. Bringing walkways from Division and Liberty up to grade, along with improved lighting and signage, would go a long way to creating a constant pedestrian flow, improve handicapped access and deter illicit behavior, he said. Preserving mature trees will make their shade a welcome place to gather on hot days. A water feature would be wonderful – perhaps using water currently collected and stored under the Library Lane lot.

Connecting Liberty Plaza to the proposed Library Lot plaza will create numerous opportunities for activating both corners of that block and all of the “activity-generators” between and beyond that area. It’s an exciting opportunity for PAC to have a major impact on the vitality of the downtown, Lipson concluded. He hoped commissioners would take full advantage of it.

Liberty Plaza: Commission Discussion

When PAC reached the two Liberty Plaza items on its July 15 agenda – the fee waiver and the city council’s referral of the resolution on Liberty Plaza – chair Ingrid Ault suggested that the conversation should be postponed. She said that key PAC members were absent, who could offer insight: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

PAC chair Ingrid Ault and Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation.

Ault noted that Galardi is chair of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board. She pointed out that Krapohl is PAC’s vice chair and had participated in the downtown park subcommittee, though he wasn’t an official subcommittee member. And Jackson had been instrumental in that subcommittee’s work, she said. Ault thought it would be prudent to wait until those members were at the table, before having this discussion.

No one objected.

Ault asked PAC’s city council representatives – Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin – whether this would be an issue for the council. Both Taylor and Anglin indicated that it would not be a problem to wait.

There was no discussion of the specific meeting at which these issues would be re-introduced. The previous fee waiver for Liberty Plaza expired on July 1, 2014.

By way of additional background, the next scheduled meeting for PAC, on Aug. 19, will fall two weeks after the Aug. 5 primary election. Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, is the only candidate running for Ward 4 city council. Christopher Taylor is one of four Democrats running for mayor.

In addition, PAC chair Ingrid Ault is expected to resign her post later this year, as she is moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She has been commuting there from her residence in Ann Arbor.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Fuller Park

A resolution to recommend the possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park appeared on PAC’s July 15 agenda.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith said.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours during which UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

Fuller Park: Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary about Fuller Park.

From left: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler and George Gaston.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She was there to talk about Fuller Park and the potential location of a new train station. In looking at the lease agreement, there seems to be an assumption that the train station could go on the south side of Fuller Road, on a portion of Fuller Park. The city is going through an environmental review of potential sites, and the Sierra Club is concerned that the appropriate procedures are followed, she said. In particular, that means taking into account the Dept. of Transportation’s Section 4(F) requirements when one of the proposed sites involves city parkland. There’s a hope that PAC would be looking closely at the criteria that are being used to evaluate sites in that review process, she said.

When it comes to Fuller Park, the assessment should be looking at the impact on the park in its entirety, Shiffler stressed, not simply the portion of the site where a station might be located. If you look at projections of 10 Amtrak runs per day, plus an unknown number of commuter passengers – which could reach up to 500,000 a year – then the traffic impact along the Fuller Road corridor would be increased a lot, she said. It should be very clear what the impact might be on Fuller Pool and the rest of the park, such as the impact on air quality from idling trains and buses. She noted that a station could impact the Border-to-Border trail, which is intended to run through a portion of the park, as well as the entire Huron River valley.

Rita Mitchell said she’d been following the issues related to Fuller Park for a long time – since 2009, when there was proposal to build a large parking structure there. There’s been a parking lot of the site for more than 20 years, “but it was a park beforehand,” she noted, and it was one of the earliest parks in Ann Arbor along the river. It has history that some people haven’t seen, because they’re newcomers to Ann Arbor.

Mitchell said that part of Fuller Park could be returned a recreation area, or a place that could mirror the kinds of things that happen now in Gallup Park, which is often very crowded. As someone who’s a member of Protect Ann Arbor Parks, Mitchell asked PAC to consider the issues of protecting parkland, and to avoid the potential of turning it into a transportation center. If it could happen there, what would stop it from happening in any park?

Mitchell said it was disturbing to see an early termination clause in the lease agreement with UM. She hoped that PAC would study it carefully, possibly put it on the table for a while, and acknowledge that the public has not weighed in on a transportation center at that location. The environmental assessment for a train station is still going on, she noted, so it’s disturbing to see a transportation center referenced in a document that would be signed by the city.

George Gaston noted that he lived by Island Park, one of the oldest parks in the city. He came to speak in defense of Fuller Park, one of the chain of parks along the river assembled by Eli Gallup during his 38-year term as parks superintendent for the city. When Gallup assembled these properties, Gaston said, there were houses, farms, businesses and factories – it was not open, vacant land. There was a conscious effort to open up the riverside for public use, and “we would like to see it maintained for public use,” he said. The surface parking lot at Fuller Park (Lot A) was never intended to be permanent, Gaston said. At the time when the lease was first signed, PAC had considered it a temporary measure to provide parking as part of a swap while the UM Cancer Center was being built. Twenty years later, it’s still there.

If the city is intent on renewing this lease, Gaston said, he asked whether PAC has reviewed the figures involved. There’s another parking lot at Riverside Park that the university leases from the city, and there’s a great disparity between what UM pays there compared to the Fuller Park lot, he said. The city needs to decide whether it should be subsidizing parking for the university or should the city be getting full value from the lease. The university charges its departments as well as individuals for the parking permits, he noted. It’s still parkland, would be nice to be used for the Border-to-Border trail. There isn’t enough parking for the parks now, Gaston concluded.

Fuller Park: Commission Discussion

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, responded to some of the issues raised during public commentary. He said that he and other staff are very concerned about making sure that whatever happens with the train station is done in an open and transparent way. That’s why Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and the consultant on this project addressed PAC earlier this year to give an update, Smith said. He and park planner Amy Kuras are involved in that process, to evaluate the potential sites for a station. That work is ongoing, and any recommendations will be brought to PAC for review.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager.

Smith pointed out that the PAC meeting packet had included both a proposed new lease as well as a copy of the 2012 lease agreement. [.pdf of proposed 2014 lease] [.pdf of 2012 lease]

Smith noted that the 2012 lease, which was the same one that had been in place since 2009, had a section on page 3 that was titled “Early Termination/Potential Rail Station and Local Connector.” It specifically addressed the project that was called the Fuller Road Station.

The reality, Smith said, is that this agreement isn’t about the train station. It’s a lease agreement between two parties for the use of a parking lot, while recognizing what’s going on in the community, he added. “It is possible, if the public decides and council decides, that this could become something else. And as such, it seems both kind of a courtesy and a standard business practice to let the people who you’re going into a lease with know that there may be a change,” he said, and to clarify how it would be addressed.

So this is nothing new, Smith concluded. The change between the 2014 lease and the prior lease is the title of that section, which is now titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use.” That section states:

City reserves the right to terminate this Lease for use of all or a portion of the site to facilitate public transportation with 12 months advance written notification to University. Termination under this provision will be automatically effective on the date specified in the notice and City shall have no further obligation to University under this Lease except that if the 12-month notice period occurs so as to cross annual payment periods (i.e. for example: notice period June- May/annual payment period September-August), University shall be entitled to a rebate of that portion of the annual payment applicable to the months after the termination date.

Upon initiating formal planning for construction of a new commuter rail station, relocating the Ann Arbor Amtrak intercity passenger station or developing a local connector service contemplating use of a part, or all, of Lot A, City shall notify University of such planning considerations. Notification shall be in writing and will include information regarding University input in City’s planning process. City will work cooperatively with University while considering enhancing transportation service to this location. The planning process will assure both parties’ interests are included in all considerations. It is recognized that provision of high capacity public mass transportation service to this site is intended to increase access and mobility resulting in a decrease in the need for surface parking by University. Notwithstanding the above, it is understood by the parties that participation by University in the planning process does not negate or otherwise impact City’s right to terminate this Lease for the reason stated.

Karen Levin asked why there needs to be any mention of “transportation use.” Why can’t the lease simply mention the early termination option? “It seems like that’s what there’s a concern about,” she said. Why is there a need to be so specific? Early termination could result from something else, she noted.

Smith replied that the section is included as a recognition of what’s going on in the community, a conversation that’s essentially running parallel with the lease and that includes the same property.

Levin was concerned that the section makes it appear that PAC is indirectly endorsing a train station at that location.

Karen Levin.

David Santacroce said that if he were in the university’s position, he wouldn’t want to sign a lease “where you could willy-nilly cancel it for any reason.” So having a specific reason gives the university some comfort in the negotiation process, he said.

Smith noted that the section prior to that includes standard default/termination language, allowing either party to terminate under certain conditions.

The section titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use” in the 2014 proposed lease is actually somewhat shorter and less specific than the 2012 version, he noted.

Missy Stults told Smith that she picked up from public commentary the sense that the use of Fuller Park land as a parking lot was intended to be temporary. She asked him to talk about that history, and whether there’s been any discussion about reverting it to parkland.

Smith replied that the lot on the south side of Fuller Road, Lot A, has been a parking lot leased to the university for 21 years. The other lots have been leased since 2009. In terms of needs for additional parkland space at that location, “it’s not something I’ve had a strong call for,” he said. It wasn’t clear how all of the space would be used for the Border-to-Border trail, for example. During the summer months in the evenings, most of the parking is used for park activities – including the pool and soccer fields. So “I would certainly be hesitant to remove parking for park use,” Smith said.

Levin again expressed concern about the language in the agreement. She thought the lease made it appear that the train station would be located there, and she hoped there was a way to indicate that it was only a possibility.

Smith noted that the language has been in the lease for about six years, and it hasn’t caused a “great deal of heartache.” But if it would make commissioners feel more comfortable, he said, he could contact the university and see if it’s important that the language remain. If it’s removed, he added, he didn’t think it changed things very much. The environmental assessment for a train station’s potential new location will continue, he noted. The lease “doesn’t have the strength to determine that this is the site for a station. This doesn’t do that at all.”

Christopher Taylor weighed in, saying that “the obligations that the language creates are predicated upon, or rather spring from when the thing occurs.” As a consequence, the agreement has to talk about the thing occurring, he said, in order to describe what happens after it occurs. Taylor said it’s like the heading could be “If A Large Number of Things Fall Into Place Such That A Station Is Proposed And Planned At This Location,” then the following things would happen. He said the lease lists what would need to happen if all those things occur, but “it doesn’t push it, I don’t think.” It doesn’t predispose the city or university to do certain things, Taylor continued, “it’s just a contingency.”

Missy Stults.

Mike Anglin asked whether commissioners would be amenable to stating that the passage of this recommendation in no way supports a decision to move forward with the train station. It would indicate that this isn’t an endorsement of a train station location, he said, but simply addressing the needs that the park system has for this revenue. PAC is not endorsing any railroad station in parkland, he said – “period.” Nor is PAC not endorsing, he noted.

Santacroce said he didn’t read the lease as an endorsement. But at some point, PAC might decide that it does want to endorse a train station at that location. To include language stating that it’s not an endorsement or a refusal to endorse “all feels to me a little bit wrought.” The proposed agreement struck him as just good planning for the future. He understood the concerns, but thought that the debate over the train station “is a whole different subject, and this doesn’t speak to it at all – other than giving the city an option, at some point.”

Anglin pointed out that the lease requires council approval. He urged that some caveat be included, in order to secure that approval.

Stults clarified with Smith that the city attorney’s office had already reviewed the lease. She wondered if adding the word “if” would provide some assurance, inserted into this sentence: “If upon initiating formal planning for construction of a new commuter rail station …” She asked the two attorneys who serve on PAC – Santacroce and Taylor – what they thought.

Santacroce indicated that it was awkward, because “clearly some legal minds already thought about the construction of this,” and he was hesitant to change it.

Taylor said he already read the language as constituting a “condition precedent upon initiating formal planning when that thing occurs.” He added: “That thing is not going to occur without a large, full, transparent conversation – if ever.” If he were drafting the lease, he would have no problem inserting “if” into the agreement. However, “I don’t know that it’s our role to wordsmith it,” he added.

Taylor indicated that if PAC passed the recommendation, it would be important for him and Anglin to communicate to the council that the recommendation “is entirely silent as to whether or not a station at this location is wise or foolish.”

Smith pointed out that the “if” is implied in the first paragraph of that section: “City reserves the right to terminate this Lease for use of all or a portion of the site to facilitate public transportation with 12 months advance written notification to University.” He also described the kind of input that he and Kuras were providing for the environmental assessment, noting that they’ll continue to be involved in that effort.

David Santacroce.

Santacroce noted that PAC is being asked to do is to recommend that the city sign the lease. Ultimately, the council will decide. And as long as it’s communicated clearly that PAC isn’t taking a position on the use of the park for a train station, he was comfortable with this resolution.

Anglin then pointed out that all parkland is considered public land, and “subject to transportation use.”

Levin again suggested adding something to the resolution to address the concern that had been raised during public commentary. Smith said he understood her position, but he wondered whether it would be “cleaner” for councilmembers to simply share PAC’s conversation about this issue with the rest of council – rather than adding a resolved clause that doesn’t have anything to do with the business at hand. He noted that it wouldn’t be an issue if the current agreement didn’t expire until next year. The expiration just happened to coincide with the environmental assessment for a train station location.

Stults wondered if PAC ever communicated to council by attaching a memo or cover letter with its resolution. Smith replied: “You may do whatever you want when it comes to communicating with council.” He thought council would welcome feedback on this, with the resolution or additional communication.

Santacroce suggested adding a resolved clause: “Whereas by this resolution, PAC takes no position on any potential use of this land at this time.” This is about appearances, he said, and although he doesn’t read it that way, some people could interpret the termination language as a threat. He’s hesitant to change the lease itself, because of the logistics involved – it would have to go back to the city attorney’s office and the UM general counsel’s office. “They’ll be spending money, we’ll be spending money – it just seems like a waste of effort that could go elsewhere.”

Anglin characterized it as a controversial issue. If he were drafting the lease, he’d strike all language out of the agreement that mentioned the possible transportation or any future use. There’s been a community conversation and it’s down to two sites, he said, “so it’s getting near decision time.” He didn’t think PAC’s job was to reflect “on what is going on out there. It’s not affecting this lease in any shape or form – unless there’s some legal things going on” regarding land use or other constraints. He thought the dialogue would still be going on for at least two more years.

Anglin said the city had a lot of other parking agreements with UM, and those don’t mention anything like this. “Rather than confuse it and muddy some waters in pro or con, it’s best to just pull back and say we’re just leasing it,” he said. It was just a suggestion, he added, but he thought there would be some councilmembers who’d share that opinion.

Smith replied that you could see it both ways. One could argue that it’s more transparent to mention the possible transportation use as part of the lease agreement, he said, compared to leaving it out. “It’s obviously perceived otherwise by some, too,” he added.

Santacroce thought it made simple business sense to leave the section in the lease, even if the possibility of putting a transportation center there is remote. He didn’t want to get involved in a discussion about whether it should be located there, but it would be foolhardy for the city not to include that option.

Taylor then proposed adding a whereas clause to the resolution: “Whereas this resolution does not commit PAC to support or reject the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

Other commissioners indicated support for adding that clause to their resolution.

As the discussion wrapped up, Smith also responded to another concern raised during public commentary – about the amount being charged for the Fuller Park lots, compared to parking at Riverside Park. At Riverside, a handful of spaces are leased to the university off of Canal Street. Those spots do bring in more per spot, he noted. The university rents those spots as “Blue” parking permits. The spots at Fuller Park are “Yellow” permits. The university issues those Yellow permits for $153 per year. There are roughly 450 spots at Fuller, but the university doesn’t have access to those lots at all times, he noted. [.pdf of UM parking permit fees]

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended approval of the lease renewal. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Mack Pool

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools, made a presentation to PAC about the past season at Mack indoor pool, and a look ahead at things to come. [.pdf of Hurn's presentation]

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools.

By way of background, in April 2009 former city administrator Roger Fraser had proposed either closing Mack Pool or turning it over to the Ann Arbor Public Schools, as a way to help balance the city’s budget in the face of declining revenues. Supporters of the pool mobilized to come up with ideas for cutting expenses and increasing pool revenues. Ultimately, the city council voted for a budget that included keeping the pool. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force Floats Ways to Save Mack Pool“; “More Options for Ann Arbor’s Mack Pool“; and “Ann Arbor Budget: Formal Commencement.”

At PAC’s July 15 meeting, Hurn began by describing the features of the pool, which is located inside the AAPS school Ann Arbor Open. The pool is shared, and used by the school in the morning and by the public in the very early mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends.

It’s the city’s only indoor pool – a six-lane, 25 yard pool with an attached 30-foot by 45-foot toddler area. It employs 15-18 seasonal workers. Last season, there were over 67,000 visits to the pool.

In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the pool was budgeted for revenue of $119,000 but brought in more than that – $159,000. That was due to new programming and different ways of using the pool space and time, Hurn said. The new program also resulted in higher-than-budgeted expenses, she noted – about $29,000 over budget. Now that the new programs have been started, the intent is to help those grow to increase the revenue while keeping expenses stable.

The staff is trying to create as many new opportunities for using the pool as possible, Hurn explained. Having more people exposed to swimming means the community is healthier, and that there’s support for keeping Mack Pool open.

Programs include:

• Group swim lessons, with 299 participants in 2013-14 compared to 246 the previous year. The staff is looking at offering more classes at different skill levels.
• Private, one-on-one swim lessons, with 237 participants in 2013-14 compared to 110 a year ago.
• Masters swim sessions, with 384 registered pass holders and 383 drop-in swimmers. The previous year, there were 283 pass holders.
• A youth swim team – the Mack Manta Rays – was a new addition in the 2013-14 season, and was very successful, Hurn said. There were 183 registered swimmers over two sessions. They compete against teams in Chelsea, Dexter, Ypsilanti and other municipalities.
• Water aerobics had 63 participants, and is another program that the staff hopes to grow.
• Log rolling was new in the 2013-14 season, and was a huge hit, Hurn said. An initial demonstration by representatives of Keylog Rolling resulted in Hurn buying one of the logs and using it for special events, for workshops and private parties. Hurn hopes to someday form a competitive team.

In addition to these programs, Mack Pool also offers special events, including monthly “Splash Days” and four “Dive-In” movie nights, when families can bring their flotation devices to watch a children’s film. The most popular one was “Frozen,” Hurn said. It’s something that’s being carried over to the city’s outdoor pools as well.

Hurn also described training that’s provided to pool staff, including re-certification courses for CPR and lifeguarding. They also offer Red Cross lifeguard certification courses to the public now, too.

Regarding maintenance, Hurn reported that a large roof repair project is being completed this summer. A new pool cover was purchased to help reducing heating costs. That made a big difference, she said, especially coupled with thermal curtains that were hung during the winter. The pool pump was also rebuilt.

Looking ahead, Hurn described efforts to grow the use of Mack Pool, including more evening group swim lessons, more private lessons, and a wider variety of party packages

Mack Pool: Commission Discussion

Paige Morrison asked about the expansion of private parties, and wondered how many hours per week the pool would be available for that.

PAC member Paige Morrison.

Gayle Hurn said that most people are looking to book parties on the weekends. The pool closes to the public at 6 p.m., so a private dive-in movie party could be scheduled after that. She noted that private birthday parties are also booked during the pool’s general swim time on Saturdays, and use only a portion of the pool.

Ingrid Ault thanked Hurn for her work and enthusiasm, and pledged to learn how to log roll.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, praised Hurn for her work. It’s her first year in that position, and has brought energy and enthusiasm as reflected in new programming. Smith also complimented deputy parks & recreation manager Jeff Straw, who supervises Hurn. Smith noted that Straw gives the staff latitude to try new ideas, even ones that seem a little “out there.”

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, provided several updates. He noted that the city’s fiscal year ended on June 30, 2014. Typically a detailed year-end financial report would be provided at the July meeting, but Bob Galardi – chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee – couldn’t attend the July 15 meeting.

As a quick preview, Smith said, the parks and recreation unit exceeded its revenue budget for the year. The budget had called for $3.729 million in revenues, but actual revenues were about $3.81 million for the year. Revenues were up for the canoe liveries and Mack Pool.

The expenditure budget was $5.273 million, and actual expenditures were slightly lower – $5.186 million. He noted that more bills for the year will be arriving, so the final amount for expenditures could be higher. A more detailed update will be presented to PAC at its August meeting.

Smith also reported that the first meeting had been held for a subcommittee to discuss smoking in the parks. He thought the group would have something to report to PAC in August.

Responding to a query from Ingrid Ault, Smith said that on the weekends, University of Michigan is allowing the city to use its surface parking near the Kellogg Eye Center, near Argo Pond. There’ve been 80-100 cars parked there each weekend day. A shuttle comes by to take people to the canoe livery, or it’s within walking distance, he said. The arrangement has reduced complaints about parking in the neighborhood near Argo Pond. UM is not charging the city for the parking use, he said.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

At least 50 people attended the council meeting in support of the resolution, and four people spoke in support of the resolution during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012. But there is not currently an offer from a buyer for the development rights. Estimates of the sale price have ranged from $6-10 million.

The item had been postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting.

Voting for the policy at the June 2, 2014 meeting were Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Mike Anglin (Ward 5) was absent. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) voted against it.

Details on the council’s deliberations are provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

From left: Tina Rosselle, Becky Gajewski, Erika Pratt. All three are city staff who are involved in volunteer and outreach efforts for the parks & recreation unit. (Photos by the writer.)

But the council followed up at its April 7 meeting by considering a total of four resolutions on the Library Lane site – including the reconsideration of the two March 17 resolutions. At the end of the April 7 meeting, a portion of the site was still reserved for an urban park, and the city administrator was still directed to hire a broker to list the property for sale. A vote on how to use the proceeds of a possible sale was put off until June. For more details on the council’s April 7 actions, see Chronicle coverage: “Council Wrangles on Library Lot – Proceeds, Process.”

On March 17, the city council had passed two resolutions regarding the site: (1) reserving a portion of the west side, along South Fifth Avenue, as the site for an urban public park; and (2) directing the city administrator to hire a broker to explore the sale of development rights on that site. The council’s meeting, which adjourned at about 1 a.m., included debate that lasted more than 2.5 hours on the future of this city-owned property, located north of the downtown library.

The following day, at PAC’s March 18 meeting, commissioners were briefed by the two councilmembers who also serve on PAC as ex officio members: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Anglin, who had co-sponsored the park resolution along with Jack Eaton (Ward 4), told commissioners that he’d been comfortable with both resolutions, and that he had voted for both of them.

Anglin said he hoped PAC would now start working on guidelines for developing a portion of the site, and to make sure all stakeholders are well-represented. “Feelings were hurt last night,” he said, “and so now we’re in damage control, and we’re also in the idea of further discourse. And we need to do that.” There needs to be a real dialogue, including the library, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, PAC and others in the community, he said – all stakeholders need to help decide what to do as a town.

For his part, Taylor pointed out that the council’s urban park resolution doesn’t actually ask PAC to do anything. The “resolved” clauses make no mention of PAC. He said he didn’t know the rationale for that – whether it was an attempt to go around PAC, or whether there’s an expectation that PAC will be brought in. “There’s a measure of uncertainty there,” Taylor said, so PAC’s role is unclear.

Taylor also noted that there’s complete consensus on the idea that there will be public space on the Library Lane parcel, to which the public has full access. “There is not complete consensus on who owns that element of the parcel,” he added. “Nor, I think, is there complete consensus on who will maintain and provide security for that part of the parcel.”

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, noted that the commission had developed recommendations for downtown parks, adding that it was “very disappointing to feel that we weren’t listened to” as the council resolution was developed. If that had happened, she added, “we wouldn’t have hurt feelings.”

Though Anglin had supported the council’s March 17 actions, subsequently – at the council’s April 7 meeting – he co-sponsored another resolution that would have delayed hiring a broker until additional public process had been undertaken, including the possibility of reserving the entire site for a park. After a 40-minute debate and a recess to discuss a possible compromise, the council unanimously voted down that resolution – though it could be brought back for future consideration.

Anglin also supported another action on April 7, which passed, that increased the amount reserved for a park to 12,000 square feet, along the entire west side of the South Fifth Avenue parcel. Previously, the council had indicated a range for the space – between 6,500 and 12,000 square feet, with a northern boundary to be determined. A range, instead of 12,000 square feet, had been the result of an amendment made at the council table on March 17. During deliberations on April 7, Anglin said he hoped for an even larger park at the site.

PAC’s March 18 meeting agenda also included a resolution to recommend that the city apply for a grant to help renovate the Gallup Park pathway, which is part of the countywide Border-to-Border Trail. The grant application is to the federal transportation alternatives program (TAP), which is administered in this region by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and statewide by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). At its April 7 meeting, the city council authorized the grant application.

Also on March 18, Dave Borneman, parks and recreation deputy manager, gave an overview of volunteer efforts within the parks, recreation facilities and natural areas, and talked about how people in the community can participate. Ault encouraged others to volunteer, saying she’s taken part in the frog and toad survey for the past couple of years. “I’ve gone to places that I didn’t really know existed,” she said. “And I can tell you what a spring peeper and a leopard frog sound like.”

Park at Library Lane

PAC’s March 18 meeting occurred the day following a city council meeting when councilmembers took action that directly affected the parks system and PAC. The council had engaged in a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure for an urban public park. That resolution passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). The council also passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to explore selling development rights to the Library Lane surface.

Regarding a park at Library Lane, the council resolution’s key resolved clause from March 17 stated:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

Prior to the council’s action on this proposal, Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy had presented the plan to PAC at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

At PAC’s March 18 meeting, Ingrid Ault – who chairs the commission – reported that she and parks and recreation manager Colin Smith had attended the March 17 council session, which lasted until about 1 a.m. She noted that councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin, who serve as ex officio members of PAC, had also attended.

Park at Library Lane: Council Update

Ault asked Anglin, who had co-sponsored the March 17 council resolution, to provide an update on the council action. Anglin urged PAC members to watch the council discussion on video. [A link to Community Television Network's recording of that meeting is online. The Library Lane discussion begins at about the 43-minute mark. A report on council deliberations also is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.]

Mike Anglin, who serves on both city council and PAC.

Anglin said there had been “quite a bit of dialogue.” He reported that a group has been advocating for the city to designate the entire top of the underground parking structure as a park. [That group is the Library Green Conservancy.] “As in a democracy, we compromise,” Anglin said. “This is the compromise.”

About $56 million was spent on the underground parking garage, Anglin noted, “and we have to get something out of it.” So the council wanted to have the opportunity to define some of the surface space for a park, he said, as well as space for development.

“Unfortunately, things get convoluted and difficult,” Anglin said. “It’s like a difficult math problem. There’s probably many solutions but many different ways to get there.”

Anglin said that supporters have known for a long time that they had the six votes to pass this resolution. They wanted to both set some of the land aside for the public, as well as develop part of that site, he said. “This is the result of that compromise, I believe.” He said he was comfortable with the result, and that he voted both for designating a park and for moving forward with development [by hiring a broker].

Anglin said he hoped PAC would now start working on guidelines for developing a portion of the site, and that all stakeholders are well-represented. “Feelings were hurt last night,” he said, referring to the March 17 council meeting. “And so now we’re in damage control, and we’re also in the idea of further discourse. And we need to do that.” There needs to be a real dialogue, including the library, DDA, PAC and the community. All stakeholders need to help decide what to do as a town, he said.

The council resolution wasn’t directing PAC to do a specific task, Anglin said. Rather it was saying “here’s the land – what do you think?” he told commissioners. He suggested having activities on the site to get a response about how the site might be used. There had been a couple of attempts to do this last year, Anglin noted – someone put a temporary lawn there, he said, with food so that passers-by could stop. But it hadn’t been well-advertised, he added, and it wasn’t sponsored by the parks, “so it was very difficult for the community to get totally behind it.”

Anglin thought the March 17 council resolution had been a good compromise, with most interests addressed. “At least we know what we have to do now for further dialogue,” he said, adding that he was confident they could do this and overcome any problems they might have. Some people say that this proposal has bypassed PAC’s authority, he continued, adding that’s one way to look at it. But elected officials have the ability to act independently, Anglin said, “and that’s what a group did.”

Christopher Taylor, who serves on both city council and on PAC.

Christopher Taylor, who had voted against the March 17 resolution, also described the council’s action. He stressed that it wasn’t accurate to call the council’s resolution about brokerage services a “sale.” There’s been no decision made to develop the site, he said, and the resolution simply gave direction to retain a broker to explore development on the site.

Taylor pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library board had weighed in with what the board had described as an unprecedented action, he said. The AADL board voted to request that the council reject the resolution about designating part of the site as a public park. [The AADL board took that vote at its March 17, 2014 meeting – the same night as the council's meeting. AADL director Josie Parker attended the council meeting and read aloud the board's resolution.]

The council’s resolution about the public park had been amended during the March 17 meeting, Taylor noted. It originally designated the entire west side – 12,000 square feet – as a park. But the resolution that ultimately passed gave a span of between 6,500 to 12,000 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined. [That amendment was reversed at the council's April 7 meeting, supported by Anglin and opposed by Taylor. The area designated is now 12,000 square feet. Taylor called the council's action on April 7 "borderline contemptuous of the library's position.]

The request to designate the site as a park in the city’s parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan had been pulled out of the March 17 resolution, Taylor said. That means it would not yet be designated as a park in terms of the city’s master plan.

Taylor said that in his view, the amendments improved the March 17 resolution, but he still voted against it – citing the library board’s request and PAC’s “discomfort.” Ultimately, everyone wants the site to be active, useful and successful, he said, with open space somewhere on the site.

Taylor also pointed out that the resolution doesn’t ask PAC to do anything. The “resolved” clauses make no mention of PAC. He said he didn’t know the rationale for that – whether it’s an attempt to go around PAC, or whether there’s an expectation that PAC will be brought in. “There’s a measure of uncertainty there,” he said, so PAC’s role is unclear.

Ault reported that she had attended the council’s March 17 meeting and had spoken during public commentary to reiterate issues that had been discussed at PAC’s Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, following Hathaway’s presentation to PAC. She said she equated the council’s action to buying a wedding dress before you’ve gone out on a date. The council resolution was making decisions about a process that should be inclusive of both partners, she said – the council and PAC.

Park at Library Lane: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson said he wasn’t sure what PAC was supposed to do now. It wasn’t clear whether PAC should engage in any work to move this forward. He said he’s happy to help if that’s what council wants, and if councilmembers will listen to what PAC has to say.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that while the resolution doesn’t specifically direct PAC to do anything, it does refer to the city. He read one of the “resolved” clauses: “Resolved, that the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;…”

It’s fair to suggest that in this context, Smith said, “the city” would include PAC and parks staff, along with many others. Smith noted that PAC has already weighed in on the issue of what makes downtown parks successful, and he didn’t think those recommendations had changed substantially. [PAC had passed a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.] Those recommendations would be conveyed to any eventual developer of the site, Smith said.

Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, thought that any action on the site would be premature until there’s a developer and some kind of site plan, to ensure that any kind of park would fit with what a developer was doing. It will be months until that might happen, he said, and any plans to develop a park before then would be “very premature.”

David Santacroce clarified with Taylor that the council resolution would result in the development rights being listed for sale. Taylor said that it didn’t mean the city would “pull the trigger” on a sale, however. “And the level of commitment to actually getting the deal done is open and in flux,” he said. “I think it’s fairly characterized as exploratory.”

Karen Levin indicated that a park couldn’t be developed without funding from development of the site. Taylor agreed, saying that anyone who purchased rights to the site would come forward with a proposal for the open space/park side of the parcel. After such a proposal is received, he added, he’d expect PAC to weigh in about whether the proposed open space met the criteria laid out in PAC’s downtown park recommendations.

Taylor said there’s complete consensus on the idea that there will be public space on the parcel, to which the public has full access. “There is not complete consensus on who owns that element of the parcel,” he added. “Nor, I think, is there complete consensus on who will maintain and provide security for that part of the parcel.”

Responding to a query from Jackson, Taylor said the plan is for the city to explore selling condominium rights to the site, but that the city would continue to own the parcel. Smith gave the example of Liberty Square [the former Tally Hall] as a condominium arrangement, where one of the units is the city’s parking structure. Other units are office condominiums, and there are common spaces as well.

Anglin said that it’s difficult “because this is the first urban park that we have.” [His remark caused some commissioners to exchange puzzled looks, given that there are other downtown sites designated as parks – most notably the nearby Liberty Plaza.] He said you could consider the Ann Arbor farmers market as a park. But it’s not on top of something else that the city owns, he noted. Anglin said it’s a process that will require a lot of attention.

Anglin pointed to the resolution’s second resolved clause as giving direction:

Resolved, that the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

The idea is to start to get a feel for what this spot might be used as, Anglin said. Councilmembers made some suggestions, he said, but were leaving it up to PAC to decide what kinds of things might occur on the space. Anglin pointed out that Alan Haber has suggested that it would be a great site for an ice-skating rink. The hope, Anglin said, is that groups would come forward to use the space for concerts or other activities. That’s the kind of thing that the city is inviting, he said.

PAC member Missy Stults.

The downtown library has 600,000 visitors each year, Anglin noted. At the council’s March 17 meeting, he said, the discussion “got a little bogged down in the negative parts associated with the library, perhaps.” But 600,000 is a lot of people with a lot of different needs, he said. The goal is to make a nexus there between the public and the library as a community-supported entity. “I think the possibilities are tremendously powerful there,” Anglin said. He cited swing dancing as a possibility.

Anglin indicated that the city has been caught in the “negativity of Liberty Plaza.” He described generally the history of that public plaza at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division, noting that originally, there was a business that opened up directly onto the plaza. It failed, he said, and “became something else.” There’s a question of “where do we push our problems with people who are in the streets a lot,” Anglin said. That’s a concern for PAC, he said, because “Liberty Plaza is one of our parks.”

Now, a portion of the Library Lane site is also part of the parks system, Anglin contended, adding that it’s because the council has designated it as part of the parks system.

Smith replied that the council action reserved a portion of the site for a park. But at the start of the day on March 17, he said, the city had 158 parks, and that hasn’t changed. The parks system isn’t responsible for that site yet. If the city reaches an agreement with a developer and the land is added to the PROS plan, then it becomes a park.

Missy Stults said this process seemed unprecedented, in terms of collaboration between the planning commission and PAC. Smith replied that it would require a lot of collaboration among a lot of groups. The parks and planning staff already work very well together, he said, so that’s a good partnership.

Levin said it sounded like programming and activities on that site would start almost immediately. How would that happen? she asked. Smith noted that the resolution indicates the parks staff should work with other groups, including the library and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, to encourage the use of the site for public activities. So that will be a responsibility that the parks staff takes on, he said. At some point, representatives from these groups will have to discuss how that happens. It might require permit requirements to be modified, for example.

This effort will take staff time and resources, Smith noted, depending on the level of activity. It doesn’t take as much to handle sporadic event requests, he said, but to do actual programming takes time.

Santacroce noted that the programming mentioned in the council resolution refers to a transition period. He also highlighted the tension between the use of the word “park” in a legal sense as a park owned by the city, and in the lay sense as a public space of some sort. Since the site was not added to the PROS plan, he said, that indicates that the word “park” is being used in the lay sense, and that there’s still a decision to be made about whether it will be a city park or a public space.

From left: PAC member Graydon Krapohl and Mike Anglin, a city councilmember who also serves on PAC.

Smith pointed out that one reason why a reference to adding the site to the PROS plan was removed from the resolution is because the council can’t unilaterally add it. The PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan, and there’s an extensive process required for amending it – including the need for approval from the planning commission. The process would take months, Smith explained.

Krapohl said it goes back to the development of the site. An eventual site plan would determine how that portion of the property is used – whether it’s green space or an urban plaza. He noted that if someone wanted to reserve the space for programming, they could do that now through the process that exists.

Anglin replied that PAC could start thinking about the discussion of public versus private. The distinction is pretty clear, he said. A developer might agree to certain conditions about keeping a space for the public, but years could pass and “people could forget totally what that commitment was,” he said. Since the public owns the city’s parks, he added, that gives parks a great deal of protection and versatility of use. That’s been seen at Liberty Plaza, Anglin said, where people have offered social services to those in need. That had been a new concept that PAC had dealt with, he noted.

Regarding how people might be encouraged to use the Library Lane site, Anglin suggested putting a sign there to advertise it. “There are groups that would come in from Chelsea, with their fiddlers and things of that sort, who would love a venue,” Anglin said. “There are people at the university who do swing dance, who would love this venue.” The council resolution is asking the community, with its creativity, to move forward with this, he said.

Anglin cited music at Liberty Plaza, saying he thought someone paid to have groups perform there. Smith clarified that Bank of Ann Arbor sponsors the Sonic Lunch summer concert series at Liberty Plaza, though he wasn’t sure if the groups that perform there are paid. [They are paid.]

Anglin also mentioned the Water Hill Music Fest, saying that groups from that neighborhood might also like Library Lane as a performance space. There are choral groups in the schools that would love a venue, he added, and plenty of musicians and other talented people. “I could see skits being put on there,” Anglin said. “I could see it being a place where someone who really wants to do something for little children comes on a Saturday morning and puts something out there.” So lots of kids and their parents would show up on a Saturday morning to enjoy the outside show, he said.

That’s the concept, Anglin continued. The idea of a commons is to be a place where people gather, he said, “and their own energy creates the source of things.”

Smith said the parks staff could use some advice from PAC. The staff now have an assignment to encourage the creative use of this Library Lane space, he noted. He reminded commissioners that last year, the city – acting on PAC’s recommendation – had waived rental fees at Liberty Plaza, to try to activate that space in a similar way. If a band approaches the parks staff and is looking for a place to perform, “which place do I sell?” Smith asked. It’s a bit of a conundrum, he added, and “it is a little bit of a head scratcher for me at the moment.”

Ingrid Ault, chair of PAC.

Taylor pointed out that the Library Lane surface currently has parking spaces there, which are under the control of the DDA by virtue of a parking agreement with the city. “That’s got to interface in here somehow,” he said.

Santacroce worried about the competition between the two sites – Library Lane and Liberty Plaza. Would programming be moved from Liberty Plaza to Library Lane?

Santacroce also noted that the difference between a city-owned park and a public space that’s owned by a developer “is zero, if we choose it to be zero.” The only difference could be that the city wouldn’t pay to maintain the space, he said. The same kinds of activities and events that have been described could still take place.

Jackson wanted direction from parks staff about what PAC should do next, saying it’s probably something that will be discussed again at future meetings.

Ault wrapped up the discussion. One of the things that’s been troubling about this process, she said, is that “we are now in damage control.” There are hurt feelings, she said. There are groups that feel they weren’t listened to – “and this is one of them,” she added, referring to PAC. She requested that Anglin and Taylor communicate PAC’s desires to other councilmembers, “and that you consider talking to us when crafting these kinds of resolutions.” She noted that everyone, including PAC, has agreed that there will be open space on that site. If PAC had been involved, it could have been a resolution that everyone bought into, she said.

Ault noted that last year, the downtown park subcommittee – which she chaired – worked hard to do outreach before developing its recommendations. Regarding development of the council resolution, she said, “it was very disappointing to feel that we weren’t listened to in that process.” If that had happened, “we wouldn’t have hurt feelings.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Park at Library Lane: April 7 Council Action

The issue of the Library Lane site was again the focus of action by city council during its April 7, 2014 meeting, which adjourned at 1:30 a.m. The result is that a significant portion of the surface – 12,000 square feet – is reserved as an urban park, and the property will be listed for sale without any delay for a public process. A decision on how to use the net proceeds of a potential sale of the land will be put off at least until June.

Anglin supported the April 7 action to set the size of the Library Lane park at 12,000 square feet, extending across the entire western border of the property on South Fifth Avenue. Taylor opposed that increase. Anglin also was a co-sponsor – along with Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – of a resolution that would have delayed listing the development rights on the property until additional public process was taken, including a community discussion about possibly designating the entire Library Lane surface as a park. That resolution was debated but ultimately voted down unanimously – though it might be brought back for consideration in the future.

Ault spoke to councilmembers during public commentary on April 7, saying that significant public process had already been done on this issue and asking “When will the madness stop?” She said a “special interest group” can’t take no for an answer, and she asked the council to “end the hamster wheel ride tonight.” Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy contacted The Chronicle during the April 7 council meeting, saying that while some members of the conservancy were certainly in favor of the resolution to delay listing the property, the group has not taken a position on it.

More details on the council’s debate to increase the square footage of a park is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the April 7 meeting. The live updates also cover deliberations on reconsidering the resolution about listing the Library Lane site for sale, and on a move to delay hiring a broker.

Grant for Gallup Park Pathway

PAC’s March 18 agenda included a resolution to recommend that the city apply for a grant to help renovate the Gallup Park pathway, which is part of the countywide Border-to-Border trail. The grant application is to the federal transportation alternatives program (TAP), which is administered in this region by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and statewide by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT).

Aerial view showing location of trail improvements at Gallup Park. (Links to larger image.)

Funds would be used to renovate the path from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The project also entails renovations to the large loop that encircles that portion of the park, totaling about 2 miles of trail. The application amount hasn’t yet been determined, but will likely be for $400,000 to $500,000. The entire project budget is in the $600,000 range, with likely about $200,000 in matching funds to come from the city’s parks and recreation maintenance and capital improvements millage.

In describing the project, park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that it’s being undertaken in conjunction with a major “universal access” playground that’s being developed at Gallup, using a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor. For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: “Rotary to Fund Universal Access Playground.”

Kuras also noted that the University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens is putting in a grant application for a new non-motorized path along Dixboro Road from Plymouth to Geddes. That trail will connect very well to the Gallup Park pathway, she said. [The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission is also contributing to these trails. At its March 11, 2014 meeting, the WCPARC approved a $250,000 grant to Ann Arbor Township for trail in that area.]

The application will next be considered by the city council at its April 7 meeting. The deadline to apply for the current round of funding is April 21.

Grant for Gallup Park Pathway: Commission Discussion

Bob Galardi said he’s ridden along that trail often, and it’s in need of fixing up. When would the project begin, assume that the city gets it? he asked. Kuras indicated that the work would likely be done in 2015-2016.

Alan Jackson clarified with Kuras that there isn’t a specific plan that needs approval at this point – it’s just the grant application that PAC is addressing.

Outcome: PAC recommended that the city apply for the grant to build trail improvements. The city council subsequently authorized the application at its April 7 meeting.

Volunteerism in the Parks

Dave Borneman, parks and recreation deputy manager, oversees the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program and volunteer efforts for the entire parks & recreation department. He briefed commissioners on volunteerism in the parks.

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program.

Borneman began by introducing three other staff members: Tina Rosselle, NAP’s volunteer and outreach coordinator; Becky Gajewski, NAP stewardship specialist; and Erika Pratt, the city’s Give 365 volunteer and outreach coordinator.

Giving an historical overview, Borneman noted that volunteer programs began with NAP in 1993, starting with individual work days that led to a park stewardship program. Park stewards are dedicated long-term volunteers for the natural areas within specific parks, typically near where they live.

A few years later, the city’s Adopt-a-Park program was created, focusing not just on natural area issues, but on the broader needs of the city’s 158 parks. In turn, that led to several other programs, including a citizen pruner program, to help residents take care of trees within the parks; and Adopt-a-Median for traffic islands and medians within the city.

More recently, the Give 365 program was started to help formalize volunteers for a range of programs and activities, including volunteer opportunities at the city’s recreation facilities.

Borneman also noted that volunteers are used in taking inventories of salamanders, frogs and toads, mudpuppies, and breeding birds. Those activities will be happening this spring, he said, “to help us see what’s living in the parks.” Volunteers help with controlled burns, community outreach, office work, research projects, and photo monitoring, to get visual documentation of how the parks change over the years. Volunteers also help translate newsletters into different languages, including Japanese. “We’re trying to broaden our message to get to a lot of folks that we haven’t traditionally gotten to,” he said.

The largest number of NAP volunteer hours are logged working on control of invasive plant species, followed by trail work, Borneman reported.

NAP has been located at the Leslie Science & Nature Center for about 20 years, but is relocating to an office on Huron River Drive that will bring all staff – including the volunteer coordinators – under the same roof, Borneman said. The office will be located in a recently donated house near the South Pond Nature Area off of Huron River Drive. More details are in NAP’s spring newsletter, he said.

Borneman noted that there were lots of ways to connect with the NAP and parks volunteer programs, including Facebook and Twitter. He also described activities of Give 365, which is more focused on recreation facilities. Give 365 has Facebook and Twitter accounts too, as well as a presence on Pinterest.

Volunteerism in the Parks: Commission Discussion

Bob Galardi asked about plantings in traffic islands and medians. Is there any thought to putting in plants that attract honey bees? Borneman replied that plantings take into account several factors, including what types of plants will grow in a particular site. Some sites are “pretty inhospitable,” he noted.

PAC members Bob Galardi and Paige Morrison.

In those locations, the staff try to choose plants that will be colorful and not too tall. There is a growing movement to attract native pollinators, Borneman said, including honey bees and bumblebees.

Tina Rosselle, NAP’s volunteer and outreach coordinator, said planting native flora to attract bees is definitely something NAP is thinking about. But she indicated that planting such things in traffic islands might not be the best idea, since the bees or butterflies would have to fly across traffic.

Christopher Taylor said he was glad there was a focus on the height of plants in medians and traffic islands. Last year on Liberty, sunflowers were planted, he said. They looked beautiful, but got a little obstructive.

Alan Jackson wondered how NAP prioritizes its activities. He asked if there was a mission that guided the work. Yes, Borneman replied. With 158 parks and over 1,200 acres of natural areas, the staff can’t possible get out to all the sites – even with a corps of volunteers. Over the past 20 years, NAP has done a lot of inventory work, he said, to identify areas that are high-quality native forest remnants, for example, compared to sites that might have less quality native flora. That helped in doing a priority ranking of all the city’s parkland acreage. The staff schedules most of its work in those higher-priority sites, Borneman said. However, volunteer preferences also play a role, he added.

Ingrid Ault encouraged others in the community to volunteer, saying she’s taken part in the frog and toad survey for the past couple of years. “I’ve gone to places that I didn’t really know existed,” she said. “And I can tell you what a spring peeper and a leopard frog sound like.” It’s very rewarding, she said.

More information about volunteering is on NAP’s website.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The result of council action is that a significant portion of the surface is still reserved as an urban park, and the property will be listed for sale without any delay for a public process. A decision on how to use the net proceeds of a potential sale of the land will be put off at least until June.

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

Originally on the agenda were just two resolutions related to the Library Lane parking structure: (1) a resolution directing the city administrator to allocate half the net proceeds from a possible upcoming sale of development rights to support affordable housing; and (2) a delay in hiring a broker to list the property for sale, until an additional public process could be completed. The council had voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to list the property for sale.

But the council wound up re-debating that March 17 resolution on listing the property for sale, as well as a resolution from March 17 that designated a 6,500-12,000 square foot area on the western portion of the Library Lane site as an urban park. At the start of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added the reconsideration of those two March 17 resolutions to the agenda.

First up for the council was the March 17 resolution on reserving a portion of the surface for an urban park. Kunselman moved to amend that resolution to restore the original wording of the March 17 resolution, which had called for a 12,000 square foot portion of the surface to be reserved as an urban park. That amendment passed over dissent from councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje. An attempt to postpone the resolution then failed on a 5-6 vote, with Kunselman, Hieftje, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) voting no. The vote on the question – which specified the portion of the Library Lane site to be reserved for an urban park as 12,000 feet – passed on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

Next up was reconsideration of the March 17 resolution directing the city administrator to list the Library Lane property for sale. Kunselman made it clear that he was bringing back the resolution for reconsideration to highlight why he had wanted the property listed for sale: He wanted definitive answers on the question of how many of the Library Lane structure parking spaces could be dedicated for private use – while still meeting the restrictions of the Build America Bonds used to finance the structure. The vote on that reconsidered resolution was 7-4 with dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin.

When the council arrived at the resolution that would have delayed the listing of the property for sale until a public process could be completed, a roughly 40-minute debate ensued. After a brief recess to sort out some kind of compromise, the general consensus – shared even by the resolution’s sponsors (Eaton, Anglin and Briere) – was that it should be voted down and possibly brought back sometime in the future. The vote to reject the delaying resolution was 11-0.

On the item allocating 50% of the net proceeds from a potential sale of the Library Lane development rights, the council wound up postponing the question until the first meeting in June, which comes after the council approves the FY 2015 budget. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

More details on the debate to increase the square footage of a park is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the April 7 meeting. The live updates also cover deliberations on reconsidering the resolution about listing the Library Lane site for sale, and on a move to delay hiring a broker. The discussion about allocating net proceeds from a potential sale is also part of The Chronicle’s live updates.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron after the meeting concluded at around 1:30 a.m.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at this time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The pending sale of the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor – on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann has a closing date on April 2, 2014. The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7, 2014 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

The Chronicle has not yet reviewed the memo, which deals with private-use tests as applied to the Library Lane underground parking structure. The private-use limitations stem from the fact that the structure was financed with Build America Bonds. For additional background, see: “Column: Rocking Back on the Library Lot.”

On March 17, the council had passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, where an underground parking structure is located. The council also engaged in a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park. That resolution also passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The planning commission resolution gives advice to the council about how to handle the sale of development rights. [.pdf of Library Lane advice resolution, as amended during March 18 meeting] The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The resolution was brought forward by planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendations that the commission gave to council regarding the use of the former Y lot, at the commission’s Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

In introducing the resolution on March 18, Bona noted that it’s similar to the resolution regarding the former Y lot. One major difference is the recommendation to seek an “iconic design” for the Library Lane site, because it is more centrally located.

Wendy Woods wondered about the recommendation to use an RFP/RFQ process, pointing out that the council has already given direction to use a brokerage service – as the city did with the former Y lot. Commissioners thought that their efforts to influence the outcome of land use would be similar in either instance – the RFP/RFQ process or seeking proposals via a broker.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

In separate action on March 18, commissioners also passed a resolution with recommendations on uses for the Edwards Brothers site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. [.pdf of Edwards Brothers resolution]

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

The council’s meeting actually featured three items related to the future of the Library Lane deck surface: (1) a resolution reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park; (2) a resolution that moved toward hiring a brokerage service for selling development rights to the surface; and (3) a resolution that waived attorney-client privilege on a memo from the city’s outside bond counsel.

On the third item, the council voted to approve the waiver of an attorney-client privileged memo on the use of Build America Bonds that financed the parking deck.

The council vote on the urban park resolution was ultimately 7-3 with mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent. That came after a significant amendment to the resolution that gave flexibility to the square footage to be reserved instead of fixing it at 12,000 square feet. The key resolved clause, as adopted by the council, read:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

The council’s vote came after public commentary from several speakers in support of the resolution. In addition, Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker was asked to the podium to comment and she read aloud a resolution that the library board had passed earlier that evening, opposing the council’s resolution.

A report on council deliberations, which lasted over 2.5 hours, is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

The resolution on reserving a portion of the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for a publicly-owned urban park had been postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Library Lane park proposal as presented to the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25.

The proposal had been presented to the city’s park advisory commission, the week before the March 3 council meeting. For a detailed report of the PAC meeting of Feb. 25, 2014, see Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

One of the central points of friction over how to proceed is the question of who will own the area on which the publicly accessible space – a park or plaza – is placed.

The original resolution contemplated a publicly-owned facility that is designated as a park in the city’s park planning documents. That would have made it subject to a charter requirement on its sale – which would require a public referendum. The resolution as amended did not include that stipulation in its “resolved” clauses.

Councilmembers who are open to the possibility that the publicly accessible facility could be privately owned are concerned about the cost of maintenance of a publicly-owned facility. The city’s costs for maintaining Liberty Plaza – an urban park located northeast of the proposed Library Lane public park – are about $13,000 a year. That doesn’t include the amount that First Martin Corp. expends for trash removal and other upkeep of Liberty Plaza. [urban park cost estimates]

Revisions to the resolution were undertaken between the council’s March 3 and March 17 meetings. The version considered on March 17 indicated that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. That square footage was then revised at the meeting to “between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet.” The revised resolution also eliminated an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deleted any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution considered March 17 council meeting]

An additional point of friction involves how much of the site would be left for development if the northwest corner of the site were devoted to a public plaza/park. Related to that issue is whether the existing northern border of the site – which currently features the sides and backs of buildings – can adequately support a public plaza/park. The fact that the site does not currently enjoy other surrounding buildings that turn toward it is part of the reason advocates for a park are now asking that the Ann Arbor District Library, located to the south of the site, relocate its entrance from Fifth Avenue to the north side of its building. However, at the library board’s March 17 meeting, trustees on the board’s facilities committee reiterated reasons why they were not recommending to relocate the entrance.

In terms of the color-shaded map produced by city staff, the focus of controversy is the light orange area, which was designed to support “medium density building.” Based on staff responses to councilmember questions, the density imagined for that orange rectangle could be transferred to the planned high-density (red) portion of the site. The maximum height in the D1 zoning area is 180 feet, and the parking structure was designed to accommodate the structural load of an 18-story building.

City staff diagram illustrating the building possibilities for the top of the underground Library Lane parking structure.

Related to the urban park item was a  resolution also approved at the March 17 meeting – to obtain brokerage services and to list the surface of the Library Lane deck for sale. It was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The approach being taken would be similar to the path that the city council took to sell the former Y lot. For that parcel, the council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a real estate broker to test the market for development rights. The council took the initial step with that property, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor, close to a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

A rider agreement – to ensure against non-development and to sketch out the amount of open space and density – was part of the approach the city took to the former Y lot deal with hotelier Dennis Dahlmann.

The issue of open space figures prominently in Kunselman’s resolution. At the March 17 meeting, the council amended out the phrase “highest and best use” from the resolution. A key “whereas” clause and two of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;

Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

The phrase “public space” sometimes is meant to include publicly-accessible, but privately-owned space. Kunselman responded to an emailed query about his intended interpretation of “public space” by writing: “It’s meant to give the broadest interpretation so as to solicit the widest range of interest by prospective purchasers.”

Also related to the council’s brokerage service resolution, the Ann Arbor planning commission agenda for March 18, 2014 includes a resolution giving advice to the council about how to handle the sale the parking deck surface. The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The planning commission resolution is being brought forward by commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendation that the commission gave to council regarding the sale of the former Y lot.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The council voted over dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who is himself an attorney – to waive attorney-client privilege on the document, dated August 9, 2012. The memo apparently provides an analysis of the implications for use of the Library Lane parking structure, based on the Build America Bonds used to finance its construction. Facilities financed by such bonds carry with them private-use limitations.

The Chronicle has not yet been provided with a copy of the memo.

Taylor made a bid to amend the resolution so that it directed the city attorney to write a memo that included the information in the bond counsel’s memo. That was subsequently modified to direct the bond counsel to rewrite the memo for public consumption. But the amendment failed. It got support only from Taylor, mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The idea of giving direction to rewrite an existing memo had proven to be a successful strategy on a resolution passed earlier in the March 17 meeting. That original resolution would have waived privilege on a Feb. 25, 2014 city attorney memo that described how property assessment appeals work. Instead, the council amended that resolution to direct the city attorney to prepare a new memo for public consumption.

In broad strokes, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 – also known as the stimulus act – created the Build America Bonds program. BAB authorized state and local governments to issue taxable bonds to finance any capital expenditures for which they otherwise could issue tax-exempt governmental bonds. The bonds have a limitation related to how the facilities financed through such bonds can be used. Glossing over details, only up to 10% of a facility financed through BAB can be dedicated to private use.

Related to the private use question are monthly parking permits. All other things being equal, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under an arrangement with the city – does not contract with businesses for monthly parking permits in public parking structures. Instead, the DDA contracts with individuals on a first-come-first-serve basis.

For the Library Lane structure, the DDA offered introductory pricing of its monthly permits to encourage the structure’s initial use. Construction was completed in the summer of 2012.

The nature of that introductory pricing scheme could prompt questions about whether some of those permits might properly count as “private use” of the structure. A $95 introductory rate (which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures) was offered to employees of “new to downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014.

Two years ago, Barracuda Networks was moving to downtown Ann Arbor, and therefore qualified as a “new to downtown” business. So its employees thus qualified for the discounted monthly parking permits.

In a July 13, 2012 email to Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, DDA executive director Susan Pollay wrote in part:

I met with the two key individuals directing the Ann Arbor Barracuda office and told them point blank, that that there will be parking for Barracuda employees now when they move to downtown, and as they grow their employee ranks over the next few years.

To the extent that Barracuda employees (or employees of other downtown businesses) have privileged access or enjoy an economic advantage (like reduced rates), then it’s possible the private use test could be met for those spaces.

Four years ago, Wayne State University professor of law Noah Hall, writing on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (GLELC), sent the city of Ann Arbor a letter on the BAB private-use issue. [For more detail, see his letter: April 14, 2010 letter from Noah Hall] GLELC was a party to a lawsuit filed over the Library Lane parking structure, which eventually was settled.

The document for which the council voted to waive attorney-client privilege on March 17 appears to be one of the items denied in a response to a request made by The Chronicle under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The item not provided to The Chronicle was a file attached to an email sent by CFO Tom Crawford on August 13, 2012 to councilmembers – named “BHO 1-# 1607254-v8-Ann_Arbor _ -_Memo_re_Permitted_Parking_Arrangements.docx” The request for that document was denied based on the statutory exemption allowed for items protected under attorney-client privilege.

The resolution waiving attorney-client privilege on the Dykema memo was put forward by the city council’s audit committee. Members of that committee are Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Jack Eaton (Ward 4). [For additional background, see: "Column: Rocking Back on the Library Lot."]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The Ann Arbor city council’s March 17, 2014 meeting features an agenda with one significant item held over from the March 3 meeting: a resolution that reserves a portion of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

But related to that item is a new resolution that directs the city administrator to move toward listing for sale the development rights for the top of the parking structure. The urban park designation was postponed from the March 3, 2014 meeting in part to synch up its timing with this resolution, which is being brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

An additional related item is a resolution that would waive the attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, the city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane structure have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.

That’s one of two separate resolutions on the waiver of attorney-client privilege. The other one, postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting, would waive privilege on a city attorney memo dated Feb. 25, 2014 on the topic of how appeals to property assessments work. The memo apparently helps explain “… the effect of a reduction of the assessment for one year by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year.” The council’s agenda also includes an attachment of a report sent to the state tax commission, explaining how the city has complied with various deficiencies in documentation identified previously by the commission.

The council will be considering two items related to energy issues. First, the council will consider a resolution that directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan.

The second energy-related item is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution. The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.”

After approving the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles on March 3 and several pieces of basic equipment at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be considering three resolutions that involve additional vehicles and equipment: two forklifts for the city’s materials recovery facility, a Chevrolet Impala for use by police detectives, and a lease for golf carts from Pifer Inc.

The 15th District Court, which is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor, is featured in two agenda items. The council will be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, which is housed at the Justice Center – the police/courts building immediately adjoining city hall at the northeast corner of Huron and Fifth.

A second item related to the court is an introduction of Shryl Samborn as the new administrator of the 15th District Court. Samborn is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring. His last day of work is March 28.

At its March 17 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the temporary relocation of Precinct 1-7 from Pierpont Commons, 2101 Bonisteel, to Northwood Community Center (family housing). That relocation will be in effect for the May 6 vote on the transit millage and for the Aug. 5 primary elections.

Among the items attached to the March 17 agenda as reports or communications is one from the city administrator noting that for the April 5 Hash Bash event on the University of Michigan campus, all sidewalk occupancy permits and peddler’s licenses in the immediately surrounding area will be suspended. The possibility of such suspension – which the city administrator’s memo indicates is motivated by a desire to relieve congestion – is part of the terms and conditions of such licenses. They’ve been suspended for Hash Bash for at least the last six years, according to the memo.

Also among the attachments are the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those reports have been the subject of back-and-forth between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and The Ann Arbor Observer over a report in The Observer’s December edition. A follow-up to an initial correction by The Observer is anticipated in the April edition – establishing that Kunselman’s contention had been correct: The DDA annual reports had not been filed with the governing body as required.

The consent agenda also includes approval of street closings for seven upcoming events: a soap box derby, SpringFest, Cinco de Mayo, Burns Park Run, Dexter-Ann Arbor Run, Washington Street Live and the Mayor’s Green Fair.

This report includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Top of Library Lane

The council’s March 17 meeting features three items related to the future development of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor: (1) a resolution reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park; (2) a resolution that moves toward hiring a brokerage service for selling development rights to the surface; and (3) a resolution that waives attorney-client privilege on a memo from the city’s outside bond counsel.

Top of Library Lane: Urban Park

A significant item was postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting: a resolution that reserves a portion of the surface of the Library Lane parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

Library Lane park proposal as presented to the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25.

The proposal was also presented to the city’s park advisory commission, the week before the March 3 council meeting. For a detailed report of the Feb. 25 PAC meeting, see Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

One of the central points of friction over how to proceed is the question of who will own the space on which the publicly accessible land – a park or plaza – is located.

The proposal put forward to PAC by Will Hathaway, of the Library Green Conservancy, and incorporated into the resolution to be considered by the council envisions a publicly-owned facility that is designated as a park in the city’s park planning documents. That would make it subject to a charter requirement on its sale – which would require a public referendum.

Councilmembers who are open to the possibility that the publicly accessible facility could be privately owned are concerned about the cost of maintenance. The city’s costs for maintaining Liberty Plaza – an urban park located northeast of the proposed Library Lane public park – are about $13,000 a year. That doesn’t include the amount that First Martin Corp. expends for trash removal and other upkeep of Liberty Plaza. [Urban park cost estimates]

Revisions to the resolution were undertaken since the council meeting on March 3. The now revised resolution – “version 3” in the city’s Legistar system – indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. The revised resolution also eliminates an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution for March 17 council meeting]

The memo accompanying the revised resolution describes the changes as follows:

1. Square Footage and Boundaries. The first resolved clause is modified to reflect the information we received from City staff regarding the dimensions of the area. A site plan from staff showed the accurate square footage of the area to be designated as urban park as approximately 12,000 square feet.
2. Encouragement of Creative Public Programming. The second resolved clause text is now clearer that the various City government offices and the DDA are being asked to give thought to how they can encourage other groups to reserve the space on the Library Lane structure and put on creative public events.
3. Integration of Park Design with Adjacent Development. The third resolved clause is an acknowledgement that the two spaces should be designed to complement each other and that the City will play a leadership role in making that integration occur.
4. Activation of the Public Park through Integration with the Block. The fourth resolved clause acknowledges the necessity for the City to work with all the neighboring property owners on the Library Block in order to achieve the pedestrian connectivity that will result in vital, attractive public spaces. The text has been modified to clarify that reorientation need not entail major redevelopment.
5. Process for Creation of the Public Park and Development of the Remaining Library Lane Site. The resolved clauses that spelled out specific next steps have been removed from the resolution. The assumption now is that these respective City government bodies will move forward autonomously to accomplish these tasks.

An additional point of friction involves how much of the site would be left for development if the northwest corner of the site is devoted to a public plaza/park. Related to that issue is whether the existing northern border of the site – which currently features the sides and backs of buildings – can adequately support a public plaza/park. The fact that the site does not currently enjoy other surrounding buildings that face toward it is part of the reason advocates for a park are now asking that the Ann Arbor District Library, located to the south of the site, relocate its entrance from Fifth Avenue to the north side of its building.

In terms of the color-shaded map produced by city staff, the focus of controversy is the light orange area, which was designed to support “medium density building.” Based on staff responses to councilmember questions, the density imagined for that orange rectangle could be transferred to the planned high-density (red) portion of the site. The maximum height in the D1 zoning area is 180 feet, and the parking structure was designed to accommodate the structural load of an 18-story building.

City staff diagram illustrating the building possibilities for the top of the underground Library Lane parking structure.

Top of Library Lane: Brokerage Services

Related to the urban park item is a new resolution with the title: “Resolution to Direct City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and to Retain Real Estate Brokerage Services.” That’s the address of the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The urban park designation was postponed from the March 3, 2014 meeting in part to synch up its timing with this resolution, which is being brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

This approach would be similar to the path the city council took to sell the former Y lot. For that parcel, the council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a real estate broker to test the market for development rights. The council took the initial step with that property, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor, close to a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The council gave final approval to the sale – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – on Nov. 28, 2013. That sale is now set to close on April 2, according to city administrator Steve Powers, who responded on March 12 to an emailed query from The Chronicle.

A rider agreement – to ensure against non-development and to sketch out the amount of open space and density – was part of the approach the city took to the former Y lot deal with Dahlmann.

The issue of open space figures prominently in Kunselman’s resolution. A key “whereas” clause and three of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That City Council deems the highest and best use for the property located at 319 South Fifth (Library Lane) to be mixed-use consisting of commercial, residential, and public use.
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;
Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

Also related to the council’s agenda item about hiring a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, the Ann Arbor planning commission agenda for March 18, 2014 now includes a resolution giving advice to the council about how to handle that sale. The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The resolution is being brought forward by planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendation that the commission gave to council regarding the sale of the former Y lot.

Top of Library Lane: Bond Counsel

An item also related to the future development of the area above the Library Lane structure is a resolution that would waive the attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane project have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo apparently analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.

In broad strokes, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 – also known as the stimulus act – created the Build America Bonds program. BAB authorized state and local governments to issue taxable bonds to finance any capital expenditures for which they otherwise could issue tax-exempt governmental bonds. The bonds have a limitation related to how the facilities financed through such bonds can be used. Glossing over details, only up to 10% of a facility financed through BAB can be dedicated to private use.

Related to the private use question are monthly parking permits. All other things being equal, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under an arrangement with the city – does not contract with businesses for monthly parking permits in public parking structures. Instead, the DDA contracts with individuals on a first-come-first-serve basis.

For the Library Lane structure, the DDA offered introductory pricing of its monthly permits to encourage the structure’s initial use. Construction was completed in the summer of 2012. And the nature of that introductory pricing scheme could prompt questions about whether some of those permits might properly count as “private use” of the structure. A $95 introductory rate (which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures) was offered to employees of “new to downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014.

Two years ago, Barracuda Networks was moving to downtown Ann Arbor, and therefore qualified as a “new to downtown” business. So its employees thus qualified for the discounted monthly parking permits.

In a July 13, 2012 email to Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, DDA executive director Susan Pollay wrote in part:

I met with the two key individuals directing the Ann Arbor Barracuda office and told them point blank, that that there will be parking for Barracuda employees now when they move to downtown, and as they grow their employee ranks over the next few years.

To the extent that Barracuda employees (or employees of other downtown businesses) have privileged access or enjoy an economic advantage (like reduced rates), then it’s possible the private use test could be met for those spaces.

Four years ago, Wayne State University professor of law Noah Hall, writing on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (GLELC), sent the city of Ann Arbor a letter on the BAB private-use issue. [For more detail, see his letter: April 14, 2010 letter from Noah Hall] GLELC was a party to a lawsuit filed over the Library Lane parking structure, which eventually was settled.

The document for which the council might vote to waive attorney-client privilege on March 17 appears to be one of the items denied in a response to a request made by The Chronicle under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The item not provided to The Chronicle was a file attached to an email sent by CFO Tom Crawford on Aug. 13, 2012 to councilmembers – named “BHO 1-# 1607254-v8-Ann_Arbor _ -_Memo_re_Permitted_Parking_Arrangements.docx.” The request for that document was denied based on the statutory exemption allowed for items protected under attorney-client privilege.

However, members of the city council’s audit committee have placed a resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda to waive attorney-client privilege on the document in question. [For additional background, see: "Column: Rocking Back on the Library Lot."]

Tax Assessment

The outside bond counsel’s memo on the use of Build America Bonds is not the only item on the March 17 agenda involving the waiver of attorney-client privilege. The other one, postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting, would waive privilege on a city attorney memo dated Feb. 25, 2014 on the topic of how appeals to property assessments work.

The memo apparently helps explain “… the effect of a reduction of the assessment for one year by the Board of Review and/or the Michigan Tax Tribunal on the property tax assessment for the subsequent year.”

The memo may help explain how one section of Michigan’s General Property Tax Act is properly interpreted and applied:

211.30c Reduced amount as basis for calculating assessed value or taxable value in succeeding year; applicability of section.
Sec. 30c. (1) If a taxpayer has the assessed value or taxable value reduced on his or her property as a result of a protest to the board of review under section 30, the assessor shall use that reduced amount as the basis for calculating the assessment in the immediately succeeding year. However, the taxable value of that property in a tax year immediately succeeding a transfer of ownership of that property is that property’s state equalized valuation in the year following the transfer as calculated under this section.

In Chart 1 below, a homeowner purchased the property in 2006 for $227,000. It was assessed at market value of $281,600, or $140,800 state equalized value. On appeal to the board of review in 2007, the assessed value was reduced to $113,500. In 2008, the 2007 assessed value does not appear to have been used as the basis for calculating the assessment.

Chart 1: Taxable and assessed value for a Ward 4 property as evaluated by the city (reds) and the board of review on appeal (blues). The property changed hands in 2006. An appeal to the board of review was granted in 2007, but the city assessor appears not to have used the reduced amount in calculating the assessment in 2008.

Also related to the issue of tax assessment, the March 17 agenda includes an attachment of a report sent to the state tax commission by city assessor David Petrak, explaining how the city has complied with various deficiencies in documentation identified previously by the commission. Among the notes in the letter was an issue that’s become a routine point of council meeting public commentary for Ann Arbor resident Ed Vielmetti – the timely filing of meeting minutes by various boards and commissions. From Petrak’s report to the tax commission:

Concern #2: Board of Review prepared minutes were not filed with the local unit clerk
Response: On February 18th 2014 the Board of Review minutes were officially filed with and recorded by The City Clerk. Staff will insure all future minutes are similarly recorded in a timely fashion.

Energy

The council will be considering two items related to energy issues: (1) a resolution directing the drafting of an energy disclosure ordinance; and (2) a resolution calling for a staff position to be filled.

Energy: Resolution on Development of Energy Disclosure for Commercial Buildings

The council will consider a resolution that directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. Such an ordinance would require owners of commercial buildings to disclose data on energy consumption by their buildings. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which was approved by the city council at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. Baseline for the reductions are 2000 levels.

The resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda originated with the city’s energy commission. The staff memo compares the idea of a disclosure requirement for energy usage by commercial buildings to a miles-per-gallon rating for vehicles or nutritional facts labeling for food products. According to the memo, awareness of energy consumption has been shown to encourage building owners to have energy audits done on their buildings. Those audits can then lead to energy efficiency upgrades that result in cost savings to the building owners and reduced emissions.

An estimate for the potential energy cost savings that would result from an energy benchmarking ordinance in Ann Arbor – prepared by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) – is between $2 million and $2.5 million, annually. According to the staff memo, similar ordinances in place in other cities typically employed a phased approach, often with municipal buildings as well as the largest private buildings (by square footage) complying in the initial year(s), and medium-sized and/or smaller buildings participating in later years.

The energy commission is recommending that an ordinance be developed with a phased approach, with the phases based on building categories and sizes. One possibility is to start with all qualifying municipal buildings in the first six months, commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet in 12 to 18 months, multifamily and commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet in 24 to 36 months, and all commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet in 36 to 48 months. The goal would be to have reported energy consumption information for 80% of the commercial square feet in the city within five years of adoption.

Energy: Resolution on Energy Office Staff

The second energy-related item on the March 17 council agenda is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution.

The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.” Among the specific efforts cited in the resolution are the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program.

At its March 4, 2014 meeting, the city’s planning commission passed a resolution in support of the hiring. Planning commissioners were briefed on the issue by Wayne Appleyard, chair of the energy commission. Resolutions of support were also passed by the city’s energy and environmental commissions.

Wheels

After approving the purchase of 18 replacement vehicles on March 3 and several pieces of basic equipment at its Feb. 18 meeting, the council will be considering three resolutions that involve additional vehicles and equipment: two forklifts for the city’s materials recovery facility, a Chevrolet Impala for use by police detectives, and a lease for golf carts from Pifer Inc.

Wheels: Forklifts

The council will be asked to approve the purchase of two Clark C30 forklifts for use at the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for a total of $55,268.

The forklifts to be purchased would replace two that are currently being rented at a cost of $12,000 a year. The city is calculating that the purchase cost will be covered by savings in rental costs in 2.3 years.

Wheels: Detective

On the council’s March 17 agenda is the approval of the purchase of a police detective vehicle – a Chevrolet Impala – from Berger Chevrolet in Oakland County for $26,750. The car will replace a vehicle that in the next year will have reached an 80,000-mile limit specified in the city’s labor contract.

Wheels: Golf Carts

The council will be asked to approve an amendment to a two-year golf cart lease with Pifer Inc. The agreement would increase the original number of 65 leased carts by 34 carts, for a total of 99 carts. The city leases golf carts from Pifer for the Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses.

The lease amendment would be for two years, for an amount not to exceed $50,340 over the length of the lease amendment term. Funding for FY 2014 would come from the parks and recreation services general fund and would be in the proposed budget for FY 2015, according to a staff memo. In FY 2013, the city generated about $225,000 in revenue from golf cart rentals.

The council’s resolution also will approve the sale of 32 city-owned golf carts to Pifer for $50,340. The city’s park advisory commission recommended the action on golf carts at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

15th District Court

The 15th District Court, which is the responsibility of the city of Ann Arbor, is featured in two agenda items.

15th District Court: Weapons Screening

The council will be asked to approve a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, which is housed at the Justice Center – the police/courts facility immediately adjoining the Larcom city hall building at the northeast corner of Huron and Fifth.

The total amount of the contract reflects an amount of $26.24 per hour per court security officer. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s estimated that three officers would be assigned on a given day with hours staggered to match the ebb and flow of court business through a typical day.

15th District Court: New Administrator

A second item related to the 15th District Court is an introduction of Shryl Samborn as the new administrator. Samborn is currently deputy administrator. Current administrator Keith Zeisloft is retiring after 12 years of service at the court. His last day of work for the court is March 28.

Samborn has worked in public service since 1998, starting with the Washtenaw County Clerk/Register of Deeds moving then to the 15th District Court in 2002. She began her work in the 15th District Court as secretary to judge Julie Creal, moving to be secretary for court administrator Keith Zeisloft in 2004. She became deputy court administrator in 2007. Her undergraduate degree is from Eastern Michigan University. She’ll be enrolling in the fall of 2014 as a graduate student in Michigan State University’s school of criminal justice judicial administration masters program.

Election Polling Places

At its March 17 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the temporary relocation of Precinct 1-7 from the University of Michigan’s Pierpont Commons, 2101 Bonisteel, to Northwood Community Center (family housing), which is the location for Precinct 2-1. That relocation will be in effect for the May 6 vote on the transit millage and for the Aug. 5 primary elections.

The relocation is needed because Pierpont Commons will be unavailable due to renovations being undertaken by the University of Michigan to that facility.

The council’s resolution is needed only on the relocation for Aug. 5 – when the two precincts will operate separately but at the same Northwood Community Center location. The city election commission has the authority to consolidate the two locations – which it did for the May 6 election at its Feb. 26 meeting.

Map of Precincts 1-7 and 2-1.

Attachments

The online agenda for March 17 includes myriad reports and communications as attachments.

Attachments: Hash Bash

Among the items attached to the agenda as reports or communications is one from the city administrator noting that for the April 5, 2014 Hash Bash event on the University of Michigan campus, all the sidewalk occupancy permits and peddler’s licenses in the immediately surrounding area will be suspended.

The possibility of such suspension – which the city administrator’s memo indicates is motivated by a desire to relieve congestion – is part of the terms and conditions of such licenses. They’ve been suspended for Hash Bash for at least the last six years, according to the memo. Hash Bash is a gathering that focuses on reform of marijuana laws.

Map of area where peddler and sidewalk occupancy permits have been suspended for the April 5, 2014 Hash Bash.

Attachments: DDA Annual Reports

Also among the attachments are the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Those reports have been the subject of back-and-forth between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and The Ann Arbor Observer over a report in The Observer’s December edition. A follow-up to an initial correction by The Observer is anticipated in the April edition – establishing that Kunselman’s contention had been correct: Before 2011, the reports had not been filed with the governing body as required under state statute.

Street Closings

The March 17 agenda features a number of street closings for upcoming events. They appear on the consent agenda, which includes a group of items voted on “all in one go.” So unless a councilmember pulls out a consent agenda item for separate consideration, these items won’t be mentioned explicitly at the meeting.

• Saturday, March 29, 2014: Sixth Annual Box Cart Race/Soap Box Derby. The event is sponsored by Phi Delta Theta Fraternity and Ann Arbor Active Against ALS to honor the legacy of their fraternity brother, Lou Gehrig, and to raise money for ALS research. All proceeds from the event will be donated to ALS research. Streets to be closed: South University from Oxford to Walnut; Linden from South University to Geddes.
  

  Map of street closings for Sixth Annual Soap Box Derby.

• Thursday, April 10, 2014: SpringFest. The sponsor, the University of Michigan-MUSIC Matters organization, is presenting a day of festivities to be capped off with a MUSIC Matters concert. The festivities will feature an assortment of student groups from the innovation, arts, sustainability, music and social justice communities on campus. Speakers will begin the program at 1 p.m. with live music featuring students and other local Ann Arbor talent to begin at 2:30 p.m. Streets to be closed: North University Street between Thayer and Fletcher Streets.
  

  Map of street closings for SpringFest.

• Sunday, May 4, 2014: Burns Park Run. Streets to be closed: Several streets in the Burns Park neighborhood.
  

  Map of street closures associated with the Burns Park Run.

• Monday, May 5, 2014: Ann Arbor Cinco de Mayo Party. The event is sponsored by Tios Restaurant to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Streets to be closed: Liberty Street between Thompson and Division.
  

  Map of street closures associated with Cinco de Mayo.

• Saturday, June 1, 2014: Live on Washington. This is a youth-curated outdoor arts festival, featuring performances on a stage as well as more “interactive street art” like break dancing, puppetry, and mural art. It’s sponsored by the Neutral Zone. Streets to be closed: Washington Street between Fifth Avenue and Division.
  

  Map of street closures associated with Live on Washington.

• Sunday, June 1, 2014: Dexter-Ann Arbor Run. The Dexter-Ann Arbor race is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club. Streets to be closed: Several downtown streets and surface parking lots.
  

  Map of downtown street closings for Dexter-Ann Arbor Run.

• Friday, June 14, 2014: Mayor’s Green Fair.
  

  Map of street closings for Mayor’s Green Fair.

4:18 p.m. City staff responses to councilmember questions on the March 17 agenda items are now available: [responses to March 17, 2014 agenda questions]

4:58 p.m. Eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time, all of them except one at least in part to talk about the surface of the underground Library Lane parking structure. Those signed up to talk about the future of the surface are Will Hathaway, Thomas Partridge (among other topics), Barbara Bach, Eric Lipson, Peter Allen, Ingrid Ault and Alan Haber. Signed up to talk about synagogue vigils at Beth Israel Congregation is Henry Herskovitz.

6:58 p.m. Councilmembers are starting to arrive. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) are here. City attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorneys Abigail Elias and Mary Fales are here. The Hathaways have arrived, as has Peter Allen.

6:59 p.m. AADL director Josie Parker has arrived. Mayor John Hieftje is now here.

7:03 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has made appropriate sartorial choices for St. Patrick’s Day: green tie and green shirt. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has a green jacket. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is wearing a green sari. Eaton is wearing a green tie.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct except for Sally Petersen (Ward 2), who is spending her husband’s 50th birthday with him.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:11 p.m. Public comment on the urban forestry management plan will be accepted through March 28, 2014. Curbside composting will be resuming at the end of March. Meetings on the Arbor rail station will be starting.

7:13 p.m. Shryl L. Samborn: New 15th District Court administrator. Samborn is currently deputy court administrator. Keith Zeisloft is retiring from the court administrator position, with his last day to be on March 28. Samborn has been deputy administrator since 2007 and has worked for the court since 2002. [For more background, see 15th District Court: New Administrator above.]

7:15 p.m. Keith Zeisloft is making the introduction in judge Libby Hines’ place. He says that on March 28, Samborn is going to be sworn in as the new court administrator. He calls her his good friend. She’s “very capable,” he says. “Council, this is Shryl. Shryl, this is council!”

7:15 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time, all of them except one at least in part to talk about the surface of the underground Library Lane parking structure. Those signed up to talk about the future of the surface are Will Hathaway, Thomas Partridge (among other topics), Barbara Bach, Eric Lipson, Peter Allen, Ingrid Ault and Alan Haber. Signed up to talk about synagogue vigils at Beth Israel Congregation is Henry Herskovitz. Added to the list was Rita Mitchell.

7:18 p.m. Will Hathaway is speaking on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy. He calls the resolution a modest proposal and a compromise. His group has met with many people, including urban planning professionals, he says. He calls it the next step in the public process. He says some concerns that have been expressed have been addressed in the revisions that have been made to the resolution. He contrasts an approach where a developer is in charge of the design and building of the public open space, compared to one where the community is in charge. He says the action tonight won’t flip a switch to create a park. This resolution encourages the park advisory commission to continue its effort, he says.

7:22 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan legislature and the city council. He’s calling the council’s attention to the situation in Ukraine. He calls it a valiant struggle for an independent democracy. He calls the planned urban park in a poor location, saying it’s polluted and congested with traffic. He raises the specter of a driver losing control of their vehicle and crashing into the open space.

7:25 p.m. Barbara Bach says that once the boundaries for a park have been defined, the planning can begin. She’s looking forward to the Ann Arbor District Library’s participation in the planning for the space. She describes a possible puppet stage among other possibilities. PAC’s planning process can begin after the boundaries are defined, she says. She asks the council to vote yes on the urban park resolution.

7:31 p.m. Former planning commissioner Eric Lipson says he’s a member of the Library Green Conservancy. He’s reviewing some of the history of the planning process, which dates back to the early 1990s. When he served on the city planning commission, the community engaged in the Calthorpe planning process. The outcome of that process was a designation of the entire Library Lot as a community gathering space, he says. Later, PAC came up with a recommendation for the area, he says. There have been concerns about panhandlers, he says. This park won’t cure or exacerbate that problem, he says. “This is the place. It’s about time we acted.” As far as “eyes on the park” go, Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden might serve that function, he ventures.

7:32 p.m. Peter Allen is educating councilmembers about the virtues of leasing versus selling. He tells them that they should not be selling land, but rather using very long-term leases. He says the Library Lot is worth more than the former Y lot.

7:35 p.m. Ingrid Ault introduces herself as the chair of PAC. She reiterates that PAC had some concerns with the first resolution and the revisions to the resolution don’t address them. PAC is opposed to moving forward with the development of a park until it’s clear how it will be paid for without jeopardizing the maintenance of the city’s other 157 parks. She draws an analogy to buying a wedding dress before even going out on a date. She says the resolution will place unnecessary restrictions on the process.

7:38 p.m. Alan Haber says he wants to speak on Stephen Kunselman’s resolution to sell the property. He says that the space should be designated as a park so that we can see what kind of financial support might grow up from the Ann Arbor Community Foundation and other sources. That seems like a no-brainer, Haber says, but quips, “I’m getting old, I’ve got problems.” He says that there’s been no opportunity to develop a commons in Ann Arbor, to let the public see how that central area can be developed as a community space. There’s no need to sell the land, he says. He says he has a list of five people in Ann Arbor who could finance a park.

7:41 p.m. Henry Herskovitz says the regular demonstrations outside Beth Israel have been criticized. But he’s addressing various points of that criticism made by Reverend James Rhodenheiser, Rector, St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church last year.

7:44 p.m. Rita Mitchell speaks in favor of the urban park resolution. She thanks the councilmembers who sponsored the resolution. She’s addressing the concerns about cost of maintenance. She says that concern doesn’t recognize the potential for private-public partnerships. A public gathering space will draw people to local businesses, she says. Residents of new 14-story buildings will also benefit from having access to open space. It will be their version of a backyard, she says. The city already owns the property, so there’s no acquisition costs, she says. She describes an underground parking structure in Boston with a park on top that has the slogan: Park below, Park above.

7:45 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first opportunity on the agenda for councilmembers to share matters they deem important.

7:46 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says she’s going to bring forward a nomination for reappointments to the environmental commission: David Stead, Susan Hutton, and Kirk Westphal.

7:47 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is reading aloud a letter from a constituent in favor of the urban park resolution. The letter is apparently from Mary Hathaway.

7:50 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayor John Hieftje is reading aloud several nominations to boards and commissions. They’ll be voted on at a future meeting.

7:50 p.m. Approval of council minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting.

7:50 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Lease golf carts from Pifer Inc., authorize sale of 32 carts ($50,336) [For more background, see Wheels: Golf Carts above.]
• CA-2 Purchase police detective vehicle from Berger Chevrolet ($26,750) [For more background, see Wheels: Detective above.]
• CA-3 Accept minutes of board of insurance administration minutes for Feb. 27, 2014
• CA-4 Street Closing: Burns Park Run [For more background, see Street Closings above.]
• CA-5 Street Closing: Cinco de Mayo at Tios
• CA-6 Street Closing: Box Car Derby
• CA-7 Street Closing: Mayor’s Green Fair
• CA-8 Street Closing: Live on Washington
• CA-9 Street Closing: Dexter-Ann Arbor Run
• CA-10 Street Closing: Spring Fest
• CA-11 Temporary polling place change: Precinct 1-7 to Northwood Community Center (Family Housing) [For more background, see Election Polling Places above.]

7:51 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wants to pull out the item on the board of insurance minutes.

7:52 p.m. CA-3 Accept minutes of board of insurance administration minutes for Feb. 27, 2014. Lumm says that they’re looking at separating out the approvals by amount.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The consent agenda is now approved.

7:53 p.m. DC-1 Designating an urban public park location on the Library Lot site. This resolution was postponed from the council’s March 3 meeting. It would reserve a specific 12,000-square-foot portion of the top of the Library Lane parking structure as a public urban park. [For more background, see Top of Library Lane: Urban Public Park above.]

7:54 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) says that the “whereas” clauses go on for three pages. That reflects the long history of the issue. Our community has always given great support for parks, he notes. He points out that the parks millage was passed, but the library millage failed.

7:56 p.m. Eaton supports Hieftje’s idea of a string of parks that extend from Liberty Plaza to a greenway. He says this is a great place to start. The resolution doesn’t do a lot, he says. It draws some boundaries and sends the issue back to the park advisory commission (PAC). He imagines that PAC might return with basic options and ballpark cost estimates. He says that this resolution will refer the issue back to PAC for further consideration. He also says that having a new park will not affect homelessness. What we need to do is establish a day shelter and downtown foot patrols, he says.

7:58 p.m. Eaton says that a park designed with active uses is the key. During the development of the resolution, he’s met with various people and groups, including the library board. At some point the concerns amount to just not wanting a park downtown, he says. The sale of the eastern portion will require eight votes, he says. There won’t be eight votes without this resolution, he says. Having a private owner repudiates the whole idea of a public space, he says.

7:59 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) picks up where Eaton left off. For those who want a park, she notes, there are two visions: (1) a developer buys the land and it’s a privately held park for public use; or (2) a commons that is publicly held.

8:01 p.m. Kailasapathy says that you can’t attend a Democratic Party meeting without hearing people complain about Citizens United. She wonders if a private owner will allow anti-war demonstrations. Democracy can only survive when there are checks and balances on capitalism. A public space must be publicly owned, she says, not a private developer allowing us to use his space on his terms. On paper it seems like a free lunch, she says. But in effect it’s not going to be a public space.

8:03 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks Eaton for his leadership. She says the Connecting William Street study recommended 5,000 square feet. This resolution recommends 12,000 square feet, which she compares to about the same size as Liberty Plaza. There’s been consistent support for public space on this site of about this size, she says. She says there’s an overwhelming consensus that this should be public space. The best way to do that is through city control, she says.

8:04 p.m. Lumm doesn’t agree that if you support an urban park here, then you’re against development. “That’s nonsense,” she says.

8:06 p.m. Lumm hopes everyone will support this resolution. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that if 100 spoke, there would be 100 different opinions. We solve problems in our town, we don’t just create them, he says. It’s our time to say: This will be our future, this is what we want our town to be. He’s thanking Haber and Hathaway. He’s also thanking mayor John Hieftje, who had attended a picnic on top of the parking structure.

8:08 p.m. Anglin is now talking about the problem of homelessness. “We don’t want a dead zone in our town,” he says. There is a dead zone around city hall at night, he says. The library is one of the best in the state, he says. The library’s leadership will take us to a future we can be proud of, he says. He notes that the new bus station has been constructed downtown. The addition of a park will bring more families downtown, he says. He ventures that dances could be held.

8:10 p.m. Anglin says the city is blessed that people are willing to come forward to help. Anglin reiterates Eaton’s point about there being four votes on the current council that would block any sale of land without the stipulation that there will be a publicly-owned park.

8:13 p.m. Hieftje is now inviting Josie Parker, AADL director, to address the council. She thanks those who have made positive comments about the quality of the library. There’s a lot of fiction in the library, she quips, but it’s not a fiction that it takes a lot of effort to manage a public space. She calls the library building a park within walls. It’s not about a label, but rather behavior, she says. Teenagers or a lot of crying babies can tip the balance in a public space.

8:15 p.m. Some of the most obnoxious behavior at the public library, she says, is by people who are well-housed and well off. She’s reading aloud a library board resolution passed tonight, urging the city council to reject the council resolution on establishing an urban park on top of the Library Lane parking structure. [The resolution was passed by the AADL board on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Nancy Kaplan.]

8:18 p.m. Hieftje is now saying that there’s always been a plan for a park or public space or whatever you want to call it. He’s saying it could be privately owned and owned by the city, but maintained by the developer. There could be a development agreement stipulating that there would be political rallies there, just as in a public park. There are two ways to go, he says: developer-owned or city-owned.

8:19 p.m. Jim Chaconas, of Colliers International, is now being invited to the podium.

8:20 p.m. Hieftje asks what the impact of the real estate value would be if the frontage on the South Fifth Avenue were removed. Chaconas says it would be negative. You’d lose a couple million dollars of value, he says.

8:21 p.m. Eaton asks Chaconas to estimate the value of land: $6-7 million. Chaconas says that a park would be an asset to the building.

8:23 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t necessarily agree that the northwest portion needs to be retail. He’s describing the possibility of a building over that portion that would not block off access.

8:24 p.m. Kunselman and Chaconas are talking about how things have changed. Chaconas used to be in the beer business so he knows about restaurants, he says. He’s talking about creating a new “mid-town.” He calls Kunselman’s cantilevering idea a good one.

8:27 p.m. Lumm is now talking to Chaconas. She wants to know why it’s more difficult to build a building without constructing something on the northwest corner. The ability to go “street-to-street” had increased the Y lot deal by around $1 million, Chaconas says.

8:30 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is now asking Chaconas how eyes-on-the-site can be achieved with only development on the high-density portion of the site. Chaconas is comparing relative square footage costs for retail, office and residential.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman weighs in for his cantilevered building, by saying that now, when it rains at Sonic Lunch, everybody runs. [Sonic Lunch is a weekly summer concert series held in Liberty Plaza and sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor.]

8:32 p.m. Chaconas says deed restrictions can be put in.

8:34 p.m. Anglin says he’s not interested in this kind of discussion right now. Anglin says he wants to focus on what the public is paying for and what the public wants. If the public says they want it, they’ll support it. Downtown can’t be just restaurants and Disney style entertainment.

8:35 p.m. Chaconas says a lot of Google, PRIME Research and Barracuda employees are living in the new student high rises.

8:38 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) now proposes an amendment to the first “resolved clause.” It describes a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time.

8:39 p.m. Briere doesn’t like the idea of putting a box around the park and telling PAC to fill the box.

8:40 p.m. Her approach gives PAC room to be creative, she says. And it gives the city administrator flexibility in talking to prospective purchasers. The value of the land is not just a financial value, but a community value, she says.

8:41 p.m. Briere says she has a personal desire to see a park, but she doesn’t see a park as an entertainment venue. She’d love to see a play park, a place with water for kids to splash in or a place for kids to climb.

8:43 p.m. We’re now discussing Briere’s amendment. Anglin asks about the indefiniteness of her proposal. Briere explains that this would be determined by PAC.

8:44 p.m. Anglin says he hopes that people understand that what’s happening is an effort at compromise. A lot of compromises have been made already, he says. Teall says she appreciates the effort at compromise, but says she won’t support the amendment or the resolution as a whole.

8:46 p.m. Hieftje says he has a question for Briere. The background to his question includes the DTE property down by the Huron River. Hieftje says that he thinks that land should be owned by DTE with the ability of the city to use the land. Hieftje says he’s reluctant to make this parcel a publicly-owned parcel. He wants to know if that part of the resolution is important to Briere. She replies that it’s important to those who proposed the resolution.

8:48 p.m. Briere expresses skepticism that privately-owned spaces can be truly public without making people feel like intruders. She stresses that it will not be a very big space that will serve well as a gathering space, or a commons or a place for parades.

8:50 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’ll support the amendment because it will improve the resolution. But he says that the resolution is flawed and continues to have flaws. He’ll address those when the resolution is voted on.

8:53 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is asking whether the requirement for a vote on the sale of parkland would apply to the air rights cantilevered over the top of a public park. Based on remarks from planning manager Wendy Rampson and assistant city attorney Mary Fales, the transaction would be more complex than a fee simple arrangement. Rampson indicates that a condominium agreement would be a suitable kind of arrangement.

8:54 p.m. Kunselman ventures that Tally Hall is an example of a condominium arrangement.

8:56 p.m. Anglin is now talking to Rampson about condominium arrangements. He’s making sure that the parcel could, in fact, be a park.

8:59 p.m. Fales says if there’s development over the parking structure, then you would have ownership of the parking structure. The development would be one unit of the condo, she says, and the parking structure and the park would be another unit of the condo. Kunselman is explaining that there could be common areas in a condo arrangement, jointly owned, and gives Tally Hall as an example.

9:00 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t want it to be called a park, saying that the council was getting caught up in vocabulary. He wants to call it public space with no limitation on politics or music.

9:03 p.m. Lumm is skeptical that the maintenance costs would be all that great. The estimate per square foot for maintenance of an urban park is $1.20-$1.50, she says, which would be about $15,000 for this space. Kunselman appreciates the effort to compromise. He says we can get what everybody wants. He wants the full frontage of Fifth Avenue for public open space, which is why he wants the cantilevered portion. He points out that part of the point of the Library Lane mid-block cut-through was to be able to close it off for events. “Size is important,” he says. The three-side requirement is described by Kunselman as “bunk,” giving Sculpture Plaza as a counter example, he says.

9:05 p.m. Kunselman says the council would get flak for not doing it right, but he says, “It’s going to be really horrible if we don’t do anything at all.”

9:06 p.m. Kunselman floats the idea of postponing. He ventures that it would be an advantage to have Petersen at the table [she's absent]. Eaton wants to know if Kunselman would want to postpone the urban park resolution as well as the listing for sale. Kunselman’s answer: Yes.

9:08 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment. It’s important to get the northern boundary right, he says.

9:11 p.m. Lumm says that obviously she is in favor of declaring 12,000 square feet of open space. But she’s not sure if Briere would support the resolution if the amendment passes. She says she’s trying to count noses. Warpehoski says he wants to see the part about the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan struck from the resolution, noting that the council doesn’t have the ability to unilaterally place a parcel in the PROS plan. With that part stricken and with the current amendment, he’d support the resolution.

9:12 p.m. Briere says she’ll remove the final sentence about establishing the space as a part of the PROS plan. Lumm, as the seconder of the amendment, agrees to accept that as “friendly.” Teall says she’s still concerned about the role of the Ann Arbor District Library.

9:13 p.m. Briere responds to Teall by saying that she doesn’t anticipate anyone at the library dealing with maintenance or programming of the space. She would never want to burden the library.

9:15 p.m. Teall says her concern is not that the library is being told to do anything. But the burden of having space next to the library that is unprogrammed will fall on the library regardless, she says.

9:18 p.m. Eaton is addressing the idea that a park would create a safety problem that does not already exist. When he sat down with the library board, they told him about someone who discovered a couple having sex in the underground parking structure stairwell. The idea that having a park will create a new problem is silly, Eaton says. Hieftje quips that in light of the problem Eaton described, perhaps a new downtown hotel was needed.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says that there’s politics involved, and fear mongering by the library board about the problems that could result from having a public park.

9:19 p.m. Teall says there’s not fear mongering but rather people who know their business [library board] and who know it well.

9:25 p.m. Hieftje highlights the vocabulary of the “resolved clause” that Briere wants to amend: “urban public park.” Briere is now talking about what she meant. She means it to be interchangeable. Hieftje says the resolution has some promise, but he’s reluctant to give up the whole Fifth Avenue frontage. It’s important for the building to feel like it has an entrance onto Fifth, he says.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The amendment passes with dissent from Kunselman, Teall, and Anglin.

9:25 p.m. Taylor now says he’ll vote against the resolution. The boundaries should be decided at the same time the rest of the location is designed. That would be critical to the success of the public space. He also gives significance to the library board’s resolution. PAC and the library board are against pre-answering the question, he says. If you have any sense of respect for those bodies, in his view there’s only one vote on this, and that’s no.

9:27 p.m. Taylor calls Kunselman’s description of the library board as “fear mongering” is a “shocking insult for which an apology is due.” The library board was weighing in in good faith based on knowledge and expertise, he says.

9:29 p.m. Lumm says it’s not collegial to suggest that adding 6,500 square feet to a public space shows disrespect to the library. The concerns Lumm heard were about the process, she said. So many experts have looked at this and analyzed this, Lumm says.

9:30 p.m. Lumm says if we don’t act now, we’ll likely see cars parked there years from now. Lumm is describing Centennial Park in Atlanta, which she visited when she attended a Final Four game years ago.

9:35 p.m. Warpehoski says the safety concerns had been described as “silly,” so he wants AADL director Josie Parker to come to the podium. He recalls her remark to him a year ago: “We’re all alone down there.” Parker says she doesn’t want to leave tonight appearing silly. The concerns about safety are not silly because the events that the library deals with are real. It’s important to consider what is reality now around that space, she says. She says the Ann Arbor police are called to the downtown library location every third day, and to Liberty Plaza every second day. There have been five heroin overdoses in the last three years, she says. It’s not about making a problem worse, she says, it’s just about acknowledging reality. Most of the issues are “drunk and disorderly.” Right now it’s almost every day, she says. “This is your downtown public library.” They have $250,000 in security costs – just for the downtown location.

9:36 p.m. Parker says, “I have to walk back down there from here, and I’m already worried about it.” You have heroin in your community and no one wants to talk about it. Heroin is being used in the public library, she says, and she doesn’t like talking about it in public.

9:38 p.m. Parker says, “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful.”

9:40 p.m. Lumm asks if the DDA is aware of the situation. She recalls the council resolution asking the DDA to consider funding three downtown beat cops. The DDA had decided not to do that. Parker says that it’s not about policing, but rather about order, maintenance and management. When a patron is so drunk they don’t wake up or can’t walk out, that’s when the police are called, Parker says. She can’t speak for the DDA.

9:43 p.m. Warpehoski thanks Parker. He says when he brings his kids to the downtown location, he still feels like it’s a safe space. It’s not just about an added 5,000 square feet. Having a safe library is important and having a safe space outside the library is also important, he says.

9:46 p.m. Warpehoski says that at the last council meeting, he tried to make a joke and it came off as hurtful and he’d apologized. He now says that he thinks the dismissive comments about the library board merit an apology. Kunselman responds: “I will not be apologizing.”

9:50 p.m. Kunselman says he finds it insulting that the library board passed a resolution telling the council not to pass the resolution. He repeats his contention that the library board was fear mongering. He’d called out the library board, he says, and “That’s what I did – that’s what I do.” He adds: “That’s what I get elected for, to stand up …” for the people who will be using the public space, and let them enjoy their cigarette. [That's a pointed reference to Warpehoski's in-the-works ordinance to regulate outdoor smoking in some areas of public parks.]

9:51 p.m. Briere says that she won’t try to control bad behavior. [The reference is presumably dual – bad behavior in public spaces and bad behavior at the council table.]

9:52 p.m. Briere reviews the content of the resolution. She says that a cooperative spirit at the council table sometimes requires not getting upset when you don’t like what you hear from the other side.

9:54 p.m. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is called to the podium to comment. Teall asks him if he has any ideas about programming for the public space. He pauses before answering. He talks about the process that the staff would go through.

9:55 p.m. Teall wants to strike the part of the resolution that makes a request of community services and parks staff.

9:57 p.m. Smith returns to the podium at Eaton’s request. Eaton asks about cost.

10:00 p.m. Hieftje says he has a basic problem with the resolution. He describes Liberty Plaza as a shadow that hangs over the issue of parks. He says that he thinks the problems associated with Liberty Plaza will migrate to the new space. He wonders why the effort described in the resolution to ask staff to program the Library Lane space in the interim could not be directed to Liberty Plaza.

10:01 p.m. Eaton says that Liberty Plaza is believed by many in the homeless community to be a place where they can gather and not be rousted. The responsibility of having a day shelter has been implicitly placed on the library and that’s not right, he says.

10:02 p.m. Eaton says if there’s a heroin epidemic in town, we probably need some more police officers. He says we need to add park space downtown as we add residents and we also need to address the social consequences of increased density.

10:07 p.m. Briere says the council is going off on a tangent. Requesting that parks staff work to program active uses might result in one event in a year. She describes a possibility of an event where the city’s fire trucks and other heavy equipment were driven to the top of the parking structure and kids were allowed to climb all over them. She ventures that the cost would not be that great. But she allows that the language of the resolution talks about “encouraging” and that is not very specific. It takes time to develop a new program, she says.

10:09 p.m. Hieftje wants to move toward voting on Teall’s amendment. Teall says she likes the sentiment, but doesn’t think it’s fair to staff. Warpehoski says that he doesn’t think staff will be trying to put on a book fair, but rather will work to set policies on use for the space.

10:11 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support Teall’s amendment to give staff maximum flexibility.

10:11 p.m. Outcome: Teall’s amendment fails with support only from Teall, Warpehoski, Taylor, Briere and Hieftje.

10:12 p.m. Anglin says that everyone agrees that this should continue to be a process.

10:16 p.m. Taylor says that we entrust our parks to PAC. Commissioners were unequivocal about their opposition to this resolution, he says. The library board had also communicated its opposition to the resolution. That’s how boards should communicate with each other, he says. The council has no problem asking the state legislature to vote on matters affecting the city. So it’s proper for the library board to convey its view to the council, he says. Taylor will vote against it.

10:20 p.m. Kunselman says the resolution has brought out a lot of feeling in the community. Kunselman says that he’d met with members of the library board last Friday and that they had not given him a heads up that they’d be passing a resolution on this. Kunselman says everyone has to come together to get something out of this. He floats the idea that he might bring forth a resolution calling on the library to move its building on top of the parking structure. “Most of the people we think of as having bad behavior also ride the bus,” he notes. He talks about taking a first step. If the resolution on the broker also passes, then a purchaser will have some idea of what to expect. “I didn’t pour the water for this effort, but I’m helping to carry it,” Kunselman says.

10:21 p.m. Kailasapathy calls the resolution a baby step. She says she feels developers rule supreme. She doesn’t want to leave the future of the public space to a developer. She’s voting for it.

10:24 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it. He rejects the idea that it’s the first step in the process. He recounts several other steps: PAC’s recommendation, Connecting William Street, the design of the parking structure itself. He can celebrate this step because it provides flexibility. It’s important that First Amendment rights be protected on that space. He points out that the Occupy Wall Street movement started in a privately owned public space.

10:27 p.m. Teall says it looks like it’s going to pass. She says that it’s been discussed many times. She’s concerned about moving forward at this pace at this point without a partner who will work and understand what the public would like to see there. She’s also concerned about programming the space. The cost also worries her, she says.

10:30 p.m. Briere now weighs in. She appreciates comments by Warpehoski and Teall. Everyone is working toward the same goal, she says. The question is what to do first. If the city is not clear about its expectations, the city can’t negotiate effectively, she says. It sets a minimum and a maximum. She doesn’t care as much as she should, she says, about the difference between public space, park and plaza. The resolution has been opened up a little bit more to give it flexibility for PAC, she says. A prospective developer should be talking with PAC and the council and trying to figure out the best way to work out how much land is available for public use so they can offer the best possible deal.

10:34 p.m. Briere says she’ll vote yes on this resolution, but is not sure if she’ll vote yes on the brokerage services issue. Teall points out that heroin use should not be equated with homelessness. Hieftje is now defending the city’s record on efforts to work on homelessness. He says that downtown does need more policing. He says if the three new police positions in the initial budget requests for FY 2015 are deployed in downtown, then that would have a positive impact. Hieftje rejects the idea that voting against this resolution means you’re against parks. He recounts his own efforts to expand the park system. He says he’ll vote against this resolution.

10:35 p.m. Hieftje said he’d hoped that the resolution could have been revised to the point where it won the support of PAC and the library board.

10:36 p.m. Hieftje says he’s concerned about the city’s ability to maintain this new space along with a new greenway.

10:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amended resolution on reserving an area for a public urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Dissenting on the 7-3 vote were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall. Petersen is absent.

10:39 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

10:53 p.m. We’re back.

10:57 p.m. The council is going to deal with its closed session now instead of later.

10:57 p.m. Eaton declares that he’s supposed to disclose that he has a potential conflict of interest in the matter to be discussed in closed session. It’s the Yu v. City of Ann Arbor case. Eaton explains that he had accepted a nominal sum from an attorney in the Yu v. City of Ann Arbor case to create an attorney-client privileged relationship. That relationship ended before Eaton took office, he explains.

11:04 p.m. Closed session.

11:04 p.m. The council has emerged from closed session.

11:05 p.m. Briere says, “We’ve got the whole meeting in front of us!”

11:05 p.m. DC-2 Waive attorney-client privilege for Feb. 25, 2014 city attorney memo on property assessment. This item was postponed from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. It would waive privilege on a Feb. 25, 2014 memo from the city attorney explaining aspects of how tax assessment and appeals work. [For more background, see Tax Assessment above.]

11:06 p.m. Eaton explains that while campaigning he’d received questions on this issue. He reports that the city attorney, Stephen Postema, doesn’t have a problem with it. Briere has a question for Postema.

11:06 p.m. Briere says that in the past, the council has provided direction to craft an opinion that’s suitable for a public audience. Postema says that would be best practice. Briere asks Eaton if that would be all right with him. Eaton says that he sees no reason or purpose to it. There’s no risk to the city. Briere says her concern is for coherence.

11:11 p.m. Taylor agrees with Eaton’s concern about educating the public is appropriate. He says that directing the city attorney to provide a memo for public consumption would alter the nature of the advice the council would receive – if the city attorney had in the back of his mind that it might have privilege waived.

11:14 p.m. Anglin has some questions about what information will be attached.

11:14 p.m. Lumm doesn’t care how it’s done but wants to see the information provided to the public.

11:15 p.m. Eaton says he doesn’t see any purpose to it. He ventures that the outside bond counsel will not be going through the cosmetic procedure that the council is going through. He’ll opposed Taylor’s amendment.

11:17 p.m. Kunselman will support Taylor’s amendment. If there’s any information that’s different in the revised memo, the council can just come back and waive the privilege. If that makes the city staff comfortable, he’s willing to go along with that. Lumm reiterates her concern that the important thing is to get the information out, but understands Eaton’s point.

11:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city attorney to prepare an advice memo for public consumption.

11:18 p.m. DC-3 Charitable gaming license for Pearls & Ivy Foundation Inc. Passage of the resolution will allow the Pearls & Ivy Foundation Inc. to hold a poker event at the Heidelberg, located at 215 N. Main Street.

11:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the charitable gaming license.

11:18 p.m. DC-4 Direct development of a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. The resolution would direct the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. [For more background, see Energy: Resolution on Development of Energy Disclosure for Commercial Buildings above.]

11:18 p.m. Hieftje says the motivation is explained very well in the memo accompanying the resolution.

11:20 p.m. When companies were forced to report how much pollution was being put into the air and water, they started reducing how much pollution they produced, Hieftje says. He draws an analogy to this resolution.

11:23 p.m. Briere recalls the city’s sustainability guidelines. She says she likes looking at her monthly utility bills and comparing her energy use to her neighbors’. She likes the firm date and the fact that it’s a direction to the energy commission.

11:25 p.m. Lumm is reading aloud a prepared statement of opposition based on the amount of staff time it might require. She is concerned that those who would be impacted had not been contacted. She says that the premise is that building owners are not already aware of their energy costs. She can’t tell if she’d ultimately vote to support to support a resolution if it were developed.

11:26 p.m. Anglin says it’s a good way to proceed, but ventures that the private sector is well aware of its energy use. Anglin is more concerned about the fact that the city needs four more foresters. He ventures that someone would need to be hired to do this – which is the next resolution.

11:27 p.m. Hieftje says that the city, as municipal entity, makes up a small portion of the energy use in the city. So other sectors have to be engaged, he says.

11:30 p.m. Kunselman says he thinks that other model ordinances can be used. He doesn’t think it will be that time-consuming. He indicates he won’t necessarily support a hire of energy staff to accomplish this. Taylor says that it will be a benefit to the public. Lumm is reiterating the points she’s already made by reading aloud the staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items.

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct development of an energy disclosure ordinance on a 7-3 vote. Dissenting were Lumm, Eaton and Anglin.

11:32 p.m. DC-5 Recommend filling energy office staff position. The resolution would direct the city administrator to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution. [For more background, see Energy: Resolution on Energy Office Staff above.]

11:34 p.m. Briere is offering an amendment that directs the city administrator to develop a plan for realizing the goals of the climate action plan, but not direct a staff hire. Briere says that she feels it’s inappropriate to determine staffing issues. The council is a policy-making body and the level of staffing to effectuate that policy is the city administrator’s responsibility, she says.

11:35 p.m. Lumm wants city administrator Steve Powers’ reaction to the amended resolution.

11:38 p.m. Powers says he doesn’t know if this effort will require an additional staff member. That will depend on the result of the report that this resolution directs. Lumm wants to know if an additional staff member will be required. Powers reiterates that this depends on the finding.

11:40 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the FY 2015 budget will not include the FTE that the original resolution called for. Powers says that it still might. Kunselman says that the council could then remove it from the budget. Powers allows that’s right.

11:44 p.m. Lumm is not comfortable with this because it seems like a commitment to more spending. She doesn’t like the idea of handling this kind of thing outside the ordinary budget process. She’s not comfortable with the lack of clarity, so she’s not comfortable. Warpehoski says he wants the city administrator’s report so that he can make that decision based on what’s in it.

11:45 p.m. Warpehoski weighs in for it.

11:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-4 to direct the city administrator to present a plan to realize the goals of the sustainability plan. Dissenting were Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton and Anglin.

11:46 p.m. DC-6 Waive attorney-client privilege on Aug. 9, 2012 memo from the outside bond counsel. This resolution would waive attorney-client privilege on a document prepared by Dykema Gossett, city’s outside bond counsel. The Build America Bonds used to finance construction of the Library Lane project have private-use limitations on facilities constructed with financing from such bonds. The Dykema memo apparently analyzes those limitations with respect to Library Lane.[For more background, see Top of Library Lane: Bound Counsel above.]

11:48 p.m. Kunselman is giving background on the memo. It came back up when the audit committee reviewed the DDA audit. It would help answer some questions the public have, he says. He doesn’t think the city administrator, or the city attorney or the chief financial officer has a problem waiving privilege on the document.

11:51 p.m. Taylor makes a similar amendment to the previous one on attorney-client privilege. He doesn’t want subsequent attorney-client privileged information to have uncertainty about whether privilege would eventually be waived.

11:52 p.m. Briere doesn’t want the city attorney to rewrite the bond counsel’s advice memo. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias says she thinks it would be appropriate to ask the city attorney to ask the outside bond counsel to prepare a memorandum.

11:57 p.m. The amendment is to direct the city attorney to ask outside bond counsel to prepare a memo that has the same information as the original memo.

11:57 p.m. Kailasapathy says she doesn’t see the point in having the document rewritten.

11:58 p.m. Kunselman says that the memo didn’t include some issue he wanted to be addressed. So if it’s going to be rewritten, there are things that he’d like to have included in the re-written memo.

12:01 a.m. Eaton says it’s a fiction that rewriting an opinion protects the city’s interests. An attorney whose advice changes based on whether that advice is made public is not an attorney you’d want to hire, he says. Taylor calls the gratuitous waiver of privilege unprofessional and doesn’t want the council to get a reputation for being unprofessional.

12:03 a.m. Lumm says it’s about transparency. She doesn’t see a legal reason not to make it public. Asking the bond counsel to rewrite something for no good reason.

12:03 a.m. Outcome: The amendment fails 4-6, with support only from Hieftje, Briere, Taylor and Teall.

12:06 a.m. Briere says that she voted for the amendment because she thinks the city attorney should be routinely directed to rewrite memos. She felt that the memo in question should never have been considered privileged in the first place.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to waive attorney-client privilege on the 2012 outside bond counsel memo, over dissent from Taylor, who does not insist on a roll-call vote.

12:06 a.m. DC-7 Banfield Bar & Grill liquor license: Withdraw objection and renew license. At its March 3, 2014 meeting the council voted to recommend withdrawal of Banfield Bar & Grill’s liquor license. That had been based on non-payment of taxes. No one appeared on Banfield’s behalf at a hearing on the matter. The taxes were subsequently paid. So this resolution withdraws the recommendation that the license not be renewed and instead recommends that it be renewed.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend the renewal of Banfield’s liquor license.

12:07 a.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

12:17 a.m. We’re back.

12:17 a.m. DC-8 Direct city administrator to list surface of Library Lane parking structure for sale; retain real estate brokerage services. This resolution would direct the city administrator to obtain real estate brokerage services for the sale of right to develop the city-owned property on top of the Library Lane parking structure. [For more background, see Top of Library Lane: Brokerage Services above.]

12:20 a.m. Kunselman reviews the item. He points out that this is not a sale of the property. We’ve done a lot of talking and we’ve got a lot of ideas, he says, but we don’t have any money. He hopes for everyone’s support.

12:21 a.m. Briere is interested in finding a civic use of the property. So she wasn’t sure that “highest and best use” should be the criterion.

12:23 a.m. Kailasapathy says highest is not necessarily best use. Hieftje responds by saying that “highest and best use” is a real estate term. It’s a term of art that means that we want to get a good return for the taxpayers.

12:25 a.m. Kunselman says he’s willing to strike the phrase “highest and best use.” That appears to be accepted on a friendly basis.

12:28 a.m. Warpehoski says that the highest price is not the most important thing. “Let’s give this a try,” he says.

12:30 a.m. Lumm says she’s comfortable supporting this, given the passage of the urban park resolution.

12:31 a.m. Lumm says she’s seen the planning commission’s resolution and she thinks it might be too prescriptive. Now is a good time to move forward, she says. [.pdf of planning commission's resolution]

12:39 a.m. Eaton says he’s supporting this resolution because he sees it as direction to the city administrator to explore what’s possible. Taylor says he’ll be supporting this, because he’s excited about what we might find out. He’s excited about seeing this area of the city activated. He says that the level of detail that Dennis Dahlmann had provided for the Y lot would also be expected, if not more, for this parcel. Warpehoski and Lumm get some clarity about the previous resolution. Hieftje calls 415 W. Washington a piece of city-owned blight. He wants to use this resolution tonight as a template for other properties like 415 W. Washington.

12:41 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-1 to direct the city administrator to list the Library Lot property for sale. Dissenting was Kailasapathy. Petersen was absent from the start of the meeting. Teall departed late in the meeting.

12:41 a.m. DS-1 Approve changes to bylaws of the Ann Arbor city planning commission. This item has been on the council’s agenda since last fall and repeatedly postponed as the planning commission considered additional changes to its bylaws. Three changes have been approved by the planning commission: (1) a change to the requirements on request for accommodations for people with a disability – from a day to two days in advance; (2) an outright prohibition against city councilmembers addressing the planning commission; and (3) a clarification that people can speak only once during a public hearing, even if that hearing is continued at a subsequent meeting. The planning commission adopted (2) and (3) at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting, having previously adopted (1) last summer at its July 16, 2013. Tonight the only change in front of the council is (1), because the city attorney’s office “has suggested the wording of one of the amendments should be clarified before moving forward,” according to a city staff memo.

12:42 a.m. Briere gives the background. Eaton asks what would happen if the council waited until the other bylaws changes were approved. Briere says it wouldn’t be a problem.

12:42 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the changes to the planning commission bylaws.

12:42 a.m. DS-2 Approve a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening services in the Ann Arbor Justice Center for the 15th Judicial District Court ($160,000). The total amount of the contract reflects an amount of $26.24 per hour per court security officer. [For more background, see 15th District Court: Weapons Screening above.]

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

12:44 a.m. DS-3 Accept easement for stormwater drainage facilities at 3500 Fox Hunt Drive. This is a standard easement.

12:44 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement for stormwater facilities.

12:45 a.m. DS-4 Purchase of two Forklifts ($55,268) This resolution will authorized the purchase of two Clark C30 forklifts for use at the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF) for a total of $55,268. [For more background, see Wheels: Forklifts above.]

12:46 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of two forklifts.

12:50 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:54 a.m. Kai Petainen is addressing the council. He’s talking about Ann Arbor SPARK. He’s reading aloud from a dissatisfied participant in SPARK’s boot camp. Their marketing costs are increasing by 100%. He says that SPARK has just lost the pre-seed fund. He says he wants SPARK’s investment to go to local businesses.

Ed Vielmetti notes that the council is getting decade-old reports from the DDA attached to tonight’s agenda. He’s making a request that the city make its FOIA log a part of the city’s data catalog, making it not just a public document, but a published document.

12:56 a.m. Alan Haber expresses his total dissatisfaction with the passage of the resolution on the listing of the Library Lot for sale. He pounds the podium. None of the mayoral candidates on the council should be mayor, he says, because they should be people who speak for the people.

12:56 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.