Redacted version of Library Lot RFP No. 743  from Aug. 14, 2009 produced by the city of Ann Arbor in response to a recent FOIA request. The un-redacted document had been disseminated on the a2gov.org website from Aug. 14, 2009 until sometime around March 20, 2014.

Allegedly, that document contains information that – if it were disclosed – would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of someone’s privacy. Never mind the fact that the context of the document itself makes clear that the information in question is clearly and deliberately intended to be publicly available.

To erase any possible doubt about that, I resorted to an advanced investigative technique: I asked the guy. And it turns out that current Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member John Splitt had been content to have jsplitt@comcast.net publicly disclosed as his email contact information in the document – the same as elsewhere on the Internet.

The document in question is RFP No. 743 – issued in 2009 by the city for development of the Library Lot. Why did it even occur to anyone at the city to delete RFP No. 743 from a2gov.org?

It’s actually The Chronicle’s “fault.” The city had redacted Splitt’s email address in some records it provided to The Chronicle – in response to a request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The RFP was not a part of that records request. So we pointed out to the city that Splitt’s email address was being disclosed on the city’s own website on an ongoing basis – in RFP No. 743. On that basis, we reasoned that the city couldn’t possibly think it was invading Splitt’s privacy by disclosing his email address as part of a records request made under the FOIA. We wanted the city to stop gratuitously redacting Splitt’s email address out of public records.

Instead of conceding that there was no privacy basis for the redaction, the city now ventures that the inclusion of Splitt’s email address in the RFP had been “inadvertent.” And the entire document (RFP No. 743) has now been deleted from the city’s website. If you ask the city for the document under Michigan’s FOIA, as we subsequently did, it will be provided – but with Splitt’s email address redacted.

Meanwhile, a different digital file containing Splitt’s email address – a document we didn’t tell the city about – continues to be disseminated to the entire planet by the city of Ann Arbor. If we thought there was any merit to the city’s position that Splitt’s privacy were being invaded, we’d help the city out and just say where that other file is located.

I can’t imagine a more foolish state of affairs. But it’s hard to say who’s more foolish.

We are apparently fools to be spending our time trying to get the city to reform its FOIA policies – by trying to convince the city at least to stop making gratuitous redactions. But a year now after we provided extensive commentary to the city administrator on the draft of a possible new FOIA policy, we’ve seen no action. So we’re willing to push the issue – at the risk of appearing foolish – by insisting  that the city stop redacting information that is already public.

And surely the city administrator and the city council must feel foolish in defending the following position: Disclosing Splitt’s email address as part of a records request under the FOIA is an invasion of his privacy, but disclosing it through the city’s website is not an invasion of his privacy.

Screenshot of Tweet sent by the city of Ann Arbor’s official Twitter account on Feb. 27, 2014: “A2Gov website is a communication tool, not a document archive system.” That’s an unfortunate policy choice, but one that supports the wholesale deletion of a public document – in the interest of defending a foolish position.

In connection with requests made under the FOIA, the only actors in the drama who don’t have to publicly play the fool are the staff in the city attorney’s office.

When a city attorney writes the words justifying the initial redactions, it is not an attorney’s signature that appears below those words. The signature belongs to the city clerk. And when a city attorney writes the words justifying the denial of the appeal of a redaction, it is not an attorney’s signature that appears below those words. The signature belongs to the city administrator.

In my experience, city administrator Steve Powers and the city clerk Jackie Beaudry are not foolish; if fact, they’re common-sense, rational folk. And for the majority of city councilmembers, I can point to at least some evidence from personal experience that they are capable of common-sense, rational thought.

So I think the city administration and the city council should stop letting city attorneys make them appear foolish when it comes to the FOIA. A useful first step would be for the council to direct its city attorney to provide responses – suitable for a public audience – to all of the questions raised by The Chronicle in its March 4, 2013 commentary on a new draft FOIA policy.

The fundamental principle for which we advocated in that commentary was one based on a presumption against redaction and for disclosure. (That’s the opposite of the city’s policy.) If that kind of policy were in place now, it would never have occurred to anyone to try to redact John Splitt’s email address. We would not have complained. And the city would not have deleted RFP No. 743 from its website.

In case the city of Ann Arbor is so stubborn that it really does not want to restore the document to the city’s website – reasoning that a2gov.org is “a communication tool, not a document archive system” – here’s the unredacted RFP: [.pdf of RFP No. 743]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The council rejected a letter of intent (LOI) that had been presented in draft form at a March 14, 2011 work session, which would have called for the city to work with Valiant Partners over a four-month period to draft a development agreement for construction of a conference center and hotel at the South Fifth Avenue site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is currently constructing a roughly 640-space underground parking garage on the parcel.

The RFP review committee, which was charged with evaluating the proposals, had selected the Valiant Partners conference center and hotel proposal as the preferred one out of six responses to the city’s RFP. The name “Valiant” is an allusion to the University of Michigan fight song, which includes the line, “Hail to the victors, valiant.” The partners include prominent UM alums Fritz Seyferth and Bruce Zenkel. [Previous Chronicle coverage "Column: Library Lot – from Bottom to Top"]

Added on Friday, April 1 to the Ann Arbor city council’s April 4 agenda, the resolution to end the Library Lot RFP process was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1). Voting against the resolution were Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

A vote on a final draft of the LOI – which was scheduled for the council’s April 19 meeting, along with a public hearing – will not take place.

Just after voting to reject Valiant’s proposal, the council considered a resolution to establish a process under which the Ann Arbor DDA would facilitate the development of downtown city-owned surface parking lots, which would now presumably include the top of the underground parking structure. That so-called parcel-by-parcel plan – somewhat of a misnomer, because it envisions the master planning of districts of the downtown, not individual parcels – has been considered by the city council at two previous meetings, but postponed.

When this brief was filed, the council had not yet finished deliberations on the DDA-led development plan.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 100 N. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The basketball hoop on the south end of the court in Ann Arbor's newly renovated West Park. (Photo by the writer.)

Here’s a highlight reel of how events unfolded on Tuesday. Play opened with a disputed call, and one of the fans nearly got tossed out of the venue. There was a guy with a red sweater, reminiscent of those favored by Bob Knight when he coached the Indiana University squad, even though he was not the guy in danger of getting tossed. He was actually prepared to do the tossing.

Early on, the coach told the team about the “four corners” – which some older sports fans might recognize as a stalling style of basketball made popular by legendary University of North Carolina coach Dean Smith. And the team managed to hold the ball for one final shot, which it made. The cheerleaders cheered. The victors were valiant … hail, hail, etcetera.

The venue? It was the fourth floor meeting room of city hall. And the five-person team was the committee charged with evaluating proposals for use of the city-owned Library Lot. That’s the parcel atop the Fifth Avenue parking structure currently under construction.

Who says local civic affairs isn’t at least as interesting as NCAA basketball? Well, actually, most readers would say that, I’m guessing.

But here’s something I think we can all agree on: Fans at basketball games get to cheer or boo as loud as they like … within certain parameters. The parallel principle for public meetings, like the one on Tuesday, is that members of the public should be allowed to address the group during its meeting.

The city of Ann Arbor’s stated written policy on this is actually quite clear: Even entities that are not public bodies under the Open Meetings Act should, to the best of their abilities, conform with the spirit of the OMA – which includes a provision for public participation at meetings.

The Dispute with the Ref

The “fan” who risked getting tossed from the meeting room was local attorney Tom Wieder. [A "telestrator-annotated" version of the opening paragraphs is appended at the conclusion of this column. For regular news coverage of the meeting, see "Work Session Called on Conference Center"] When committee chair Stephen Rapundalo started the meeting on Tuesday, Wieder indicated he wanted to address the committee, saying that the city’s policy allows it.

Rapundalo replied that the RFP review committee was an “advisory committee” and it would not be entertaining public commentary. However, the committee did welcome public input, Rapundalo stressed, and he encouraged people to communicate in writing to the committee, or to city councilmembers, or the city administrator.

Wieder challenged Rapundalo to demonstrate that the committee had actually chosen not to entertain public commentary. When Rapundalo said the committee had been using rules that did not include a provision for public commentary, Wieder wanted to know if there was a written copy of the rules and whether the committee had voted on using those rules. Rapundalo finally said, “Mr. Wieder, I’m trying to run a meeting.” City administrator Roger Fraser admonished Wieder, saying that if he wanted to be disruptive, the committee could ask him to leave.

When Wieder said he was simply asking to be able to address the committee, committee member Margie Teall – who represents Ward 4 on the city council – told Wieder that he was not asking, but rather was insisting. Wieder allowed that, well, okay, he had been insisting. When Fraser pointed out that Rapundalo had made clear that no opportunity for public commentary would be given, Wieder replied: “I did hear what he said,” to which Fraser shot back, “You didn’t act as if you did.”

Wieder could lay claim to the last word in the exchange by replying, “No, I just didn’t accept it.” From that point on, Wieder sat back and listened.

What Play Are We Running?

In one sense, it was fine theater – Wieder appears comfortable in the role of the rabble-rouser. For all we know, he wanted to get tossed out of the meeting – for the same reason a basketball player or coach will sometimes deliberately bait the referee into calling a technical foul. It sometimes serves to fire up your team and to shift the momentum of a game.

But what exactly was Wieder talking about? Does Ann Arbor really have a policy on whether someone can address a meeting like one held by the Library Lot RFP review committee? Yes. The playbook Wieder was working from – as an email he sent to Rapundalo following the meeting makes clear – is a resolution passed by the city council in 1991:

R-642-11-91 RESOLUTION REGARDING OPEN MEETINGS FOR CITY COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TASK FORCES
Whereas, The City Council desires that all meetings of City boards, task forces, commissions and committees conform to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act;
RESOLVED, That all City boards, task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees hold their meetings open to the public to the best of their abilities in the spirit of Section 3 of the Open Meetings Act; and
RESOLVED, That closed meetings of such bodies be held only under situations where a closed meeting would be authorized in the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.

The idea of the resolution is this: Even entities to which the OMA would not technically apply are still expected to conform to the spirit of Section 3 of the OMA – to the best ability of that entity’s members. Section 3 includes a provision that allows a person to address a meeting of a public body.

It’s a council resolution The Chronicle has written about previously – in connection with the council’s apparent game plan of calling its ad hoc committees “work groups” in order to shield their work from the 1991 resolution. From an April 2010 Chronicle article:

On Friday, April 16, [2010] at 3 p.m. members of the DDA’s committee met with some city councilmembers in Roger Fraser’s office to discuss the deal. In barring The Chronicle from the Friday meeting, which we attempted to attend, Fraser rejected the applicability of the council resolution that requires the meetings of city sub-committees to comply with the Open Meetings Act, contending it was a “working group,” not a sub-committee.

That incident involved a committee charged with negotiating with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on a new contract for managing the city’s public parking system. In addition, currently the city council is also picking and rolling with a “work group” that it has put together to study the question of a city income tax – instead of simply referring the matter to its budget committee.

From The Chronicle’s report of a recent budget retreat:

At the Jan. 8, 2011 retreat, there was some back-and-forth about whether the work group looking at the income tax question – as well as the possibility of a Headlee override – should be called a “committee” or a “work group.” Implicit context for the distinction is that council committees are supposed to do their best to conduct their meetings openly in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act – based on a two-decades-old city council resolution. Work groups are not considered to have the same obligation.

View from the Head of Officials

In a dispute over rules, policy and legal matters, the view of the city attorney carries some weight. Does Ann Arbor’s city attorney acknowledge the current applicability of a two-decades-old city council resolution? Yes. Last year, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city attorney Stephen Postema during a council meeting whether a committee of the council could violate the Open Meetings Act.

In asking the question, Derezinski was in some sense running the alley-oop play – where one player lobs a ball above the basket to a teammate who can throw down an easy dunk. Derezinski served in the state legislature when the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act were passed, and is a retired attorney specializing in municipal law, so he likely knew the answer to the technical OMA question.

But Postema couldn’t deliver the simple answer that Derezinski seemed to expect, because of the city council’s 1991 resolution. From The Chronicle’s report of that May 17, 2010 meeting:

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked the city’s attorney, Stephen Postema, if a council committee could be subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Postema indicated to Derezinski that it was not the OMA, but rather a council resolution [from 1991] that was the “operative document.” [It requires city committees to adhere to the OMA to the best of their abilities.]

But what about “advisory committees”? In explaining to Wieder why he wouldn’t be allowed to address the meeting, Rapundalo stressed that the RFP review committee was an “advisory committee.” Did Postema say anything about advisory committees last May?

For that, we need to go to the tape. It’s at roughly the 1:51:00 mark where Postema states [emphasis added]: “… if it’s truly an advisory committee … under the attorney general’s opinion and others, an advisory committee would not be covered under the Open Meetings Act, but it would still be covered under the council resolution.”

It’s difficult to see how simply encouraging people to contact the committee, or their councilmembers, or the city administrator outside of the committee meeting could be analyzed as serving the spirit of the Open Meetings Act requirement that a person be allowed to address a meeting.

If civic affairs in this city had a challenge flag that could be thrown, the booth review would have shown that Wieder was right and should have been allowed to address the meeting. Ah, but challenge flags and video review are for football. And this, apparently, is basketball we’re talking about.

Playing Smart

Independent of the fact that the decision to refuse Wieder the opportunity to speak was inconsistent with the city’s policy on committee meetings, it just wasn’t smart.

Regardless of what you might think about the value of public participation in the abstract, there is a real practical benefit to not just allowing, but actually insisting that the public come and address meetings, particularly on controversial issues.

Thinking along purely adversarial lines, for proponents of the conference center proposal, Rapundalo squandered an opportunity to watch the other side scrimmage.

Thinking more cooperatively, refusing someone the opportunity to address a meeting leaves skill and expertise that exists in the community lying on the table. Certainly that skill and expertise – in the form of, say, critiques of the letter of intent – might eventually be brought to bear on the issue. Written communication after the fact could be used to improve whatever letter gets signed – or influence a decision not to sign the letter at all.

But there is, I think, greater value to injecting that skill and expertise in a more timely fashion, by including it in the public meetings that lead up to the “big game.”

Telestrated Version of Opening Paragraphs

Here are the X’s and O’s of this column’s opening paragraphs.

On Tuesday a capacity crowd packed a local Ann Arbor venue to watch a five-person team do its work. [The Library Lot RFP review committee consists of five members: Margie Teall, Stephen Rapundalo, John Splitt, Eric Mahler, and Sam Offen.] Part of the color commentary included talk of game-changing players [the conference center proposed by Valiant has been described as having the potential to be a "game changer"] and speculation about who had the best center of all the conferences [Valiant's proposal is for a conference center]. Everyone knew that whichever team prevailed on Tuesday would not win the whole tournament – it would just advance to the next round. [The recommendation to sign a letter of intent will ultimately require city council action.]

Here’s a highlight reel of how events unfolded on Tuesday. Play opened with a disputed call, and one of the fans nearly got tossed out of the venue. [Tom Wieder repeatedly asked to address the committee and was told by city administrator that he might be asked to leave.] There was a guy with a red sweater, reminiscent of those favored by Bob Knight when he coached the Indiana University squad, even though he was not the guy in danger of getting tossed – he was actually prepared to do the tossing. [Roger Fraser sported a red sweater vest.] Early on, the coach told the team about the “four corners” – which some older sports fans might recognize as a stalling style of basketball made popular by legendary University of North Carolina coach Dean Smith. [David Di Rita of The Roxbury Group called the what, where, when and how of the project the "four corners."] And the team managed to hold the ball for a one final shot, which it made. [The committee voted 5-0 to recommend that the city council approve a letter of intent.] The cheerleaders cheered. [Margie Teall offered that she thought it was a great idea.] The victors were valiant … hail, hail, etcetera. [The name of the development team is Valiant, which is an allusion to the University of Michigan fight song. The song's chorus begins with the line, "Hail to the victors, valiant ..."]

About the writer: Dave Askins is editor and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

Shannon Owen, circulation clerk at the Ann Arbor District Library's downtown branch, checks out materials for patrons on Monday night. (Photos by the writer.)

In addition, during public commentary the board heard from Alan Haber, a community activist who’s advocating for a greenspace commons to be located atop an underground parking structure being built adjacent to the downtown library on Fifth Avenue. Haber presented architectural renderings of the proposal, designed by Stephan Trendov, and asked the board to allow him to give a more detailed presentation at an upcoming meeting.

In his financial report, AADL associate director Ken Nieman told the board that while most costs are expected to be in line with budgeted amounts during the current fiscal year, that might not be the case for employee benefits. It was an issue that arose during the board’s September meeting as well, when library officials reported that they were changing the insurance options for non-union employees to address increased expenses. On Monday, Nieman also said they’d just received word that the employer contribution rate to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) was going to increase again – it had already been bumped up to 19.4% on Oct. 1, and would rise to 20.5% on Nov. 1.

Public Commentary: Library Lot

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is building an underground parking garage on city-owned land directly to the north of the main downtown library, which is located at the northeast corner of William and Fifth. The city issued a request for proposals (RFP) for developing the top of the garage. A group led by Alan Haber had submitted a proposal to build a community commons atop the parking structure, but a review committee has rejected that idea. A consultant hired by the city is now reviewing two other proposals that were selected by the committee as finalists. The city council will make the final call on the project.

At the Oct. 18, 2010 library board meeting, Alan Haber presents a vision for a community commons to be built atop an underground parking structure adjacent to the library.

At Monday’s meeting of the library board, Haber brought some architectural renderings designed by Stephan Trendov, which showed what a community commons might look like. [Haber had brought the same renderings to a Sept. 19, 2010 city council caucus meeting, where the project was discussed.] He told board members that while he understood the project isn’t in their purview, it was certainly in their view – windows from the boardroom overlook the Library Lot site.

He briefly described the vision for the commons, which could include an enclosed meeting space, an outdoor amphitheater, a fountain, and a pedestrian connection to the new Blake Transit Center, which will be built on the opposite side of Fifth Avenue. Haber said the commons would be governed by a nonprofit community group, and would be a continually changing Chautauqua, an attraction for visitors and neighbors alike.

Haber asked that the board add to one of its upcoming agendas some time for him to make a more detailed presentation. [Normal public commentary is limited to three minutes per speaker.] He said he hoped they would offer their creative input as well as their concerns about the project, and that they’d allow him to place a poster of the concept in the library, in order to get public input as well. Haber noted that if the city council didn’t select the commons, he anticipated that it would become a ballot initiative in the future.

Board members had no comment on his presentation during the meeting.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – associate director of finance, HR and operations – reported that the library’s unrestricted cash balance as of Sept. 30 was $13.5 million, and that it had received 77% of its tax receipts for the year, or $8.78 million. Through Sept. 30, the library showed an operating deficit of $114,669 and a fund balance of $7.48 million, down from $7.6 million the previous month. At last month’s meeting, the board had approved a $110,000 transfer from the fund balance to cover the cost of a new chiller.

Aside from employee benefits, Nieman said that other expenses are expected to come back in line before the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2011. An increase in employee health insurance that took effect July 1 caused expenses to be higher than anticipated. The library administration has offered AADL’s non-union employees alternative health insurance plans aimed at cutting costs for the library.

Nieman also noted that the employer contribution rate to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) was going to increase again – it had already been bumped up to 19.4% on Oct. 1, and would rise to 20.5% on Nov. 1. [For a primer on MPSERS funding, see Chronicle coverage of a February 2010 Ann Arbor Public Schools study session.]

Board member Barbara Murphy asked how much employees contributed to MPSERS, and was told that it varied, usually ranging between 3-8%, depending on how long they’d been employed.

Director’s Report: Accolades for Library Staff, Friends of the AADL

Josie Parker began her director’s report by noting that the Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library had received their audit report last week, and had received “great marks in every way.” Both the auditor and library officials had congratulated FAADL for three years of hard work, she said.

FAADL operates a bookstore in the lower level of the downtown library, and gives proceeds to the library. In 2006, the shop was closed when it was discovered that the group had lost its nonprofit status in 2003 and hadn’t been audited in several years. According to an Ann Arbor News report at the time, there was no indication that the 53-year-old organization had misspent money or mismanaged its finances.

Earlier this year, the Friends gave the library $55,000, Parker said at Monday’s meeting, “and there will be more to follow.” They’ve made a commitment that beyond their expenses, they’ll give their net proceeds to the library, she said, adding that they should be publicly congratulated for that.

Jan Barney Newman, who chaired the meeting in the absence of board president Rebecca Head, said the auditor had reported that he worked with a lot of nonprofits, and the Friends were exemplary among his clients. “That is something we can be proud of and they should be commended for,” she said.

Parker also reported that earlier this fall, the downtown library had been visited by Jack Bernard, chair of the University of Michigan Council for Disability Concerns, and Jane Vincent, head of the Center for Accessible Technology in Berkeley, Calif. Bernard and Vincent had “secret shopped” the library, Parker said – without telling library staff, they had explored the library to see how accessible it was to people with disabilities. The library received high marks, Parker said. Bernard and Vincent had been impressed by how well-trained the staff was throughout the library regarding issues related to the Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, which AADL assumed responsibility for last year. Vincent has asked the library staff to write up their training process to include in her new book, Parker said.

“Why would we be surprised at that level of service from a five-star library?” Parker quipped, segueing into the final item of her report: News that the AADL received a top ranking in the Library Journal 2010 America’s Star Libraries, which recognizes libraries that are heavily used by their communities.

Parker said she’d been asked by a reporter earlier in the day why this honor is different. Tax dollars are raised for many things, she said, and it’s not always clear that the money is being used for what it’s intended. But for a five-star library, you know. The ranking looks at measurements like how many people come through the door, how heavily their computers with Internet access are used, and how many people attend programs at the library. “Those are not things we manufacture,” Parker said. “Those are people using the public library.”

The ranking was based on 2008 data. In that year, AADL recorded 8.2 million checkouts and renewals; 1.6 million visits to library branches; 259,338 uses of public Internet terminals; and 52,891 people attending AADL programs. Parker noted that those numbers were even higher in 2009: 9.1 million checkouts and renewals; 1.8 million visits to library branches; 281,310 uses of public Internet terminals; and 62,584 people attending AADL programs.

This is the third time that AADL has received a five-star ranking. It is the only library system in Michigan to receive five stars, and among only 85 nationwide to achieve that ranking. Among the 10 libraries nationwide in its category – with a budget between $10 million and $29.9 million – AADL scored third highest.

The community should be thanked, Parker said, because the ranking is based on their use. It’s also hard work for the staff, Parker added, from the people who work the desk, to the people who keep the buildings clean. The board should also be acknowledged, she said.

Barbara Murphy said she was sure she was speaking on behalf of her colleagues in thanking the library staff for their hard work, because “that’s what makes it happen.”

Present: Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Carola Stearns, Ed Surovell. Also: Josie Parker, AADL director.

Absent: Rebecca Head, Prue Rosenthal.

Next meeting: Regular board meetings are typically held on the third Monday of the month, with the public portion of the meeting starting at 7 p.m. in the library’s fourth floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The board’s next regular meeting is on Monday, Nov. 15, 2010. [confirm date]

Sam Offen makes an argument for bringing along Dahlmann's park proposal to the next phase of consideration – he was not successful in convincing his colleagues to do so. At right is Ward 4 councilmember, Margie Teall. (Photos by the writer.)

After the meeting, eight people crammed into an elevator on the sixth floor of city hall, where the committee had met. The eight included The Chronicle, two councilmembers on the committee (Stephen Rapundalo and Margie Teall), along with Alan Haber – who had helped put forward the Community Commons, one of the proposals eliminated by the committee.

As the elevator doors closed us in for the trip down to the lobby, Haber mused that here in the elevator, we had, for a brief moment, a commons.

The committee’s decision had come after two days of public interviews earlier in the week when each proposer was given 30 minutes for a presentation, 30 minutes to respond to questions from the committee, and 30 minutes to respond to questions from the public. The interviews took place on Jan. 19-20 and were followed by a public open house on the evening of Jan. 20.

At the Thursday evening committee meeting, Stephen Rapundalo, the committee’s chair, reported that the request for qualifications sent out by the city to provide consulting services on the remaining proposals – the hotel/conference center proposals by Acquest and Valiant – had resulted in seven responses. The next meeting of the committee will take place on Feb. 16 from 10 a.m.- noon. Letters will be sent to the three proposers whose projects will not be given further consideration by the committee.

Who Attended

The meeting on Thursday evening included members of both the RFP review committee as well as the technical review committee. In attendance were:

• Stephen Rapundalo – Ward 2 representative from city council and chair of the RFP committee
• Margie Teall – Ward 4 representative from city council
• John Splitt – chair of the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority
• Sam Offen – citizen at large and member of the city’s park advisory commission
• Eric Mahler – member of the city of Ann Arbor planning commission
• Kevin McDonald – senior assistant city attorney specializing in planning and development issues
• Wendy Rampson – the city’s interim director of planning and development services
• Jayne Miller – the city’s community services area administrator
• Cresson Slotten – a city senior project manager in systems planning
• Alison Heatley – a city senior project engineer
• Mike Pettigrew – deputy treasurer for the city of Ann Arbor
• Jessica Black – supervisor for the city’s parks and recreation customer service unit
• Susan Pollay – executive director of the DDA, which is building the Library Lot underground parking structure

Not in attendance were city administrator Roger Fraser and Matt Kulhanek, fleet and facilities manager with the city.

Process and Proceedings

Process and procedural matters came up in several different ways at the committee meeting.

Evaluation of the Interview Process

In light of the two days worth of interviews the committee had behind them, Stephen Rapundalo asked for some general comments on the process and proceedings.

John Splitt said he was satisfied with the proceedings.

With respect to process, Sam Offen said he thought it went very well. Half an hour was good – more would have been too much, he thought. He said he thought the presenters used their time wisely and that the committee questions went well. The technical committee, he said, had wanted them to ask some questions that perhaps they hadn’t. But everybody who had a question got their question asked, he thought. It was a good opportunity for the public – if it had not provided adequate opportunity, Offen felt, the committee would have heard about it.

Addressing the Committee

During the meeting, a procedural question came up after several members of the review committee had offered their comments on the five proposals.

Alan Haber, one of the proposers of the Community Commons, takes notes during the RFP committee meeting on Thursday, when the Commons idea was not moved forward to the next phase of consideration by the committee.

Alan Haber, who had sponsored the Community Commons proposal, rose and began to address the committee. However, Stephen Rapundalo, who was chairing the proceedings, advised him that the committee was not then entertaining public comments.

Haber replied that he had sent the committee an email just prior to the meeting, and he simply wanted to make sure that they had received it. Based on their comments thus far, Haber said, it didn’t seem like they had received it. Rapundalo assured Haber that the committee had received his email.

Revise the RFP Criteria?

Sam Offen opened the substantive discussion by the committee citing a letter they’d received from Mary Hathaway. The letter, Offen said,  goes back to the development of the request for proposals. It contends that the RFP didn’t get wide enough notice, and was created without sufficient public input. The letter questioned financial return as an inappropriate criterion, and asked the committee to reconsider the RFP criteria.

Margie Teall questioned whether the committee meeting was the right place to revisit the question of criteria. It’s going back to the city council, anyway, she said, adding that she was reluctant to stall the process at this point.

John Splitt said he wanted to see it through – the committee and the proposers have invested a lot of time already. Eric Mahler weighed in, saying that changing the criteria at this point after the proposers have developed their plans would be “wholly unfair.”

Offen acknowledged that it is not the committee’s place to rewrite the criteria. He suggested not changing it themselves, but rather suggested that the two councilmembers – Rapundalo and Teall –  take it up with others on council.

Mahler suggested that they might need a legal opinion. To change the criteria seemed “arbitrary and capricious” to him, and to do that the decision would need to be legally vetted. Senior assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald said he would not be providing legal advice in a public forum, but the request for proposals very clearly says that the city council is the deciding body – the council is not required to choose the best and move forward.

The request for proposals, said McDonald, provides a broad reservation of rights to the council. With respect to the requirement that there be a financial return, he said, this was just one aspect of the criteria. Rapundalo  concurred with McDonald that it was just one of many criteria, but that it was a key one: “You gotta tell us how you’re going to pay for it!” The development of the RFP language, said Rapundalo, had been vetted by the city staff, and looked at closely by two council members [likely Sandi Smith and Marcia Higgins, who had sponsored the council resolution directing staff to develop the RFP] then shared with all of council.

Committee Deliberations on Proposals

In presenting the committee’s deliberations from Thursday, we’ve grouped the majority of the comments proposal-by-proposal – although the bulk of those comments were actually made member-by-member as they gave their observations about each proposal. Separately, we’ve drawn out as separate chunks a few themes of more general interest.

Community Commons

Sam Offen: He said he found it “too amorphous.” As active as the proposers might be, he said, they just didn’t have the experience to pull it off.

Margie Teall: Teall said it was a great idea and that it was proposed by a really passionate group of people. She suggested that she thought it might become a reality and that she would hope that the group would begin to look at other sites in the city for realizing the vision. [Supporters of the site have contended that the Library Lot is the only site where this vision could be realized.]

Wendy Rampson: Rampson said that she could not visualize what you would actually see there.

Mike Pettigrew: Pettigrew characterized the Community Commons as having a donation model of funding – for building and maintaining it. He therefore had concerns about that, saying it was a risk. There was a difference, he said, between the cost of a park and the cost of a parking lot [which is a possibility for the top of the underground garage, if no proposal is eventually accepted by the city council]. That difference had to do with maintenance and revenues, something that John Splitt of the DDA confirmed.

Kevin McDonald: For the Community Commons there would be a completely different process for proceeding, he said – a comment that reflected the general sentiment that what the Community Commons had proposed was not a project, but rather a process for arriving at a project.

Dahlmann

During the interviews, Ben Dahlmann indicated that the features depicted in their proposal would cost between $2.5 million and $5 million. They were prepared to commit to a $2.5 million donation to the city.

John Splitt: From Dahlmann, Splitt said, he’d wanted to know what the $2.5 million would pay for – it was clear that it was a $2.5 million donation with no hard numbers about the specific elements of the park.

Sam Offen: The Dahlmann proposal was interesting, Offen said. He had learned a lot about it, more than he knew before, and he felt it had some merit.

He liked the fact that it had a fixed dollar amount and that Dahlmann was saying, “I’m in with $2.5 million – if it’s going to cost more than $2.5 million, then we’ll talk.” Said Offen: “It’s a reasonable starting point from their perspective.” There was no market analysis – but there was no market analysis from anybody.

Offen at that point introduced one way of framing the alternatives, namely, what is Plan B? He said he felt there was a minimal cost if the park failed. On the other hand, after building a hotel/conference center, failure meant an empty building. Offen allowed that it was a negative way to look at the question. He also acknowledged that there were security and maintenance concerns, but overall he concluded that the Dahlmann proposal had more merit than he originally thought.

Margie Teall: Teall said she would feel more comfortable about the Dahlmann proposal if they were offering to purchase the property, using the vehicle of a conservancy. She did not like the idea that the city would accept the burden of organizing the conservancy.

She noted that there were seven specific detailed features of Dahlmann’s proposal, but there were no numbers for any of it. She described it as feeling like a student presentation from one of Peter Allen’s classes. She said that she felt Dahlmann had not listened very well to the Ann Arbor District Library’s concerns.

[During the interviews, Splitt had asked Ben Dahlmann to characterize their discussions with the Ann Arbor District Library. Dahlmann said that they'd heard from the library that theirs was not the library's favorite proposal – due to concerns about vagrants entering the building. When he looked to the library's director, Josie Parker, to confirm that he was characterizing their conversation accurately, she replied, "You're not." Asked to clarify by Rapundalo, Parker went on to talk about how the downtown library welcomed over 700,000 of all kinds of people to its downtown location every year – seven times the capacity of Michigan Stadium. She said that the library's concern was the resources that were required to program and maintain a space of the size of the Library Lot. The library, she said, had experience in programing and maintaining a large public space, and in their experience, people did not necessarily clean up after themselves.]

Eric Mahler: On the two open-space proposals, Mahler said that only the most extremely well-thought-out open space would work in an urban setting. Of the two open-space proposals, he liked Dahlmann’s better. But he noted that the multitude of features would be difficult to maintain and that he “could not get with that if it can’t cover its costs.”

Stephen Rapundalo: About the Dahlmann proposal, Rapundalo said he learned, like Offen, a lot more about it. He was disappointed that they wouldn’t say what elements in their picture would cost what amount. Was it $2.5 million or $5 million? They were not able to explain the gap. There was not even a semblance of an explanation, he said, and that was a concern.

Rapundalo said that he was very hopeful that the two open-space proposals would take the opportunity to provide more specific cost analysis and that Dahlmann had fallen short. He said it could have been done and that he was surprised and disappointed that Dahlmann hadn’t done that, because he believed they had the capacity to provide that information.

Wendy Rampson: She said that as an urban place, the Dahlmann proposal was delightful to review and that JJR had created a really wonderful design. She expressed concern about the ability of a park to survive with the current edges – there was nothing currently to the west or east to serve such an edge.

Mike Pettigrew: The city’s deputy treasurer liked the $2.5 million donation from Dahlmann but noted that the difference between $2.5 million and $5 million was a big range. He had concerns about ongoing maintenance costs and said he would prefer to see $2.5 million put towards ownership of the parcel, with Dahlmann then taking responsibility for implementing the vision. Teall questioned whether that should be done without a commitment to actually build the park. Pettigrew said he simply felt that it was a “cleaner” approach from a financial point of view.

Jessica Black: About the Dahlmann plan, Black expressed skepticism that the city needed another outdoor ice rink, noting that it was a lot of work to program the space at the city’s Buhr ice rink. Black said she found the idea of having an open-air shelter with restrooms a good one.

Kevin McDonald: He responded to a question from Sam Offen about whether the $2.5 million is tax-deductible. McDonald said he was not going to evaluate whether it was deductible or not. But he said he expected that probably Dahlmann was looking for it to be deductible. About the Dahlmann proposal, McDonald said they were “a specific cost proposal away from a reasonable proposal.”

Jarratt Architecture

John Splitt: Splitt characterized the proposal as “an architect looking for a developer. There’s no meat on the bones.”

Jarratt Architecture's Library Lot proposal.

Sam Offen: He agreed with someone else who had described it as “all fluff” commitments. He said he was not impressed with their proposal.

Margie Teall: She said it was great architecture, just not in the right place. She said that Jarratt was not ready to build a team and had not considered at all the pedestrian interest – there were few connections from the site to the surrounding area.

Eric Mahler: Mahler described the proposal as “very thin.” However, from a design perspective, he thought it fit in the best of all the proposals.

Stephen Rapundalo: He concurred that there was “not much meat on the bone.” He said he thought that Jarratt could make it happen, and had the experience working with development teams to do so, but described his reaction as “kind of disappointed.” Rapundalo said they appeared to have started with a hotel, and built everything around that. They should have started with the public space and let the building design follow from that. With respect to that principle, Rapundalo said, Valiant came closest.

Wendy Rampson: Rampson said she didn’t see anything that she liked in the proposal. She especially did not like the driveway, which Teall had pointed out as pedestrian un-friendly.

Mike Pettigrew: Pettigrew said the Jarratt Architecture proposal had no financial aspect that he could look at.

Kevin McDonald: He said he would set aside Jarratt, citing capacity issues for doing the pre-development part.

Acquest

John Splitt: The two proposals for hotel/conference centers had some merit, he said, with a potential positive return, but it’s hard to tell what’s there.

A rendering of the Library Lot proposal by Acquest.

Sam Offen: Acquest and Valiant, Offen said, appear to be similar, but they had significant differences. He said he was bothered that Acquest wanted to purchase the air rights to the Library Lot, but did not want to pay anything until a conference center was built on the old YMCA parking lot, at the northwest corner of Fifth and William.

He acknowledged that Acquest was willing to negotiate, but felt that it was a bad starting point for them. [The starting point of the negotiation was something Offen pointed to for Dahlmann as a positive: Here's $2.5 million, if it costs more, we'll talk.]

Margie Teall: Teall said there was no impact analysis or a market study. She had concerns about the expectation that the city would develop a conference center on the site of the old YMCA.

Eric Mahler: Mahler said he liked the design, but that the conference center construction required at the YMCA lot was almost a non-starter. He also questioned whether the lofty statements about environmental benefits had not been thought out at all, and were too vague and off in the distance.

Stephen Rapundalo: He said he had concerns about the design, which he described as somewhat “hulking.” However, his biggest problem with the Acquest proposal, said Rapundalo, was the quid pro quo that it required for development of a conference center on the YMCA lot. That gave him pause, he said, and was a red flag.

Splitt chimed in to say that this could be seen as one possible advantage with respect to the potential “white elephant effect,” namely, if you split the hotel facility off from the conference center, then you might still have a useful piece of real estate. Rapundalo acknowledged that one complaint among real estate developers is that there’s not sufficient floor plate in the existing inventory to support the location of a bigger company headquarters downtown.

Wendy Rampson: She expressed concern that the Acquest proposal, with its blocky design, would possibly change the dynamic along Liberty Street.

Mike Pettigrew: Pettigrew said he did not like the idea of offering to pay X but later pay X + Y. He said he was not sure that it didn’t violate the conditions of the RFP to propose a contingency like that. Mahler chimed in to say that Acquest would have simply been better off if they’d left that contingent part out of the proposal.

Jessica Black: She said she looked at the proposals from a park/event perspective – she oversees special events in the parks. She said that Acquest’s 5,000 square feet of meeting space, which would fit 500-800 people, was still a very large space. She said she received calls quite frequently for 200-300 people spaces.

Kevin McDonald He was most concerned about the “buy in” from the city required for the YMCA lot, which the developer had asked the city to accept on a “mini master plan” level.

Valiant

John Splitt: Grouping the two proposals for hotel/conference centers, Splitt said they have some merit with a potential positive return, but it’s hard to tell what’s there.

Valiant's design for a hotel and conference center.

Sam Offen: Offen said he was not crazy about the way the Valiant proposal looks. He said it had a lot of good points to it, but the biggest question is that it counts on a demand and need that he just didn’t know was actually there. It’s a big building with a lot of space, and it could end up as a huge white elephant, he feared.

Margie Teall: She described Valiant as having an experienced, well-managed team that did not just have out-of-state members but also had local participation. She said she thought they had a heartfelt commitment, and that of all the proposals they had the best ideas for partnering with the library. Their idea of a joint research facility with a library was fabulous, Teall said. She liked the striking design – and cited a positive reaction of her 16-year-old daughter in support of it. She said she liked the rooftop garden and the floating design, and described the project as imaginative architecture.

Eric Mahler: He stated that he was not crazy about the Valiant proposal. He described it as looking like a tornado had blown through there, with things hanging off the edge. He was concerned about the perception of the building from east and west, which would be a nondescript white column, and from north and south, with the view simply a slab of glass. He worried about the 32,000 square feet of conference center space, which would be there forever. He wondered how they could move forward based on the word of 60 people that the Valiant proposers had interviewed. They needed to do better than that, Mahler said – some of the people interviewed need to step forward and put their face on that.

Stephen Rapundalo: He reported that he didn’t have as much of an allergic reaction to the architectural design as Mahler had – he allowed that it was more bold. Teall, he said, had raised a decent point – in and of itself, the design could be a draw for people downtown. Responding to a point Mahler made about how realistic it was for any proposer to have their financial arrangements lined up, Rapundalo said that Valiant went the farthest towards that. It was not realistic to expect someone in the current economy to have 100% of the financing. He said he did share people’s concerns from the standpoint of an appropriate amount of risk. However, he said he would stop short of dismissing further consideration just because it requires future public contribution.

Wendy Rampson: She described the Valiant proposal as successfully mimicking the roofline of State Street and Main Street, while at the same time providing a visual landmark visible from a greater distance. She liked the idea of taking the conference center right up to the library and how it might overlap with the library’s space needs. She was less enthusiastic about the idea of taking the entrance to the library and putting it on Library Lane. She said that she saw the potential for Fifth Avenue to become a real spine, and for that reason she was not a fan of Library Lane – she was “not wild about it.” But she allowed that it was a decision that’s already been made. She thought that the connections up to Liberty Street were good.

Mike Pettigrew: Pettigrew said that of all the proposals, Valiant’s was the most complete from a financial point of view, noting that the design is growing on him. One concern he had was that the lease payment to the city would be subordinated to the first lender. In response to a question from Teall and Offen about whether that practice was standard, Pettigrew stated that the city had the legal right to be first in line, and that Valiant was proposing that the city sign away a right it already had. And that reflected some amount of risk, he concluded. The second point Pettigrew made as a concern was the $8 million worth of bonds the city was asked to issue.

Kevin McDonald: McDonald said that subordinating the city’s right to first lien adds a certain amount of risk and he wondered what the actual guarantee would be. Regarding the $8 million in bonds, he said, Valiant would likely be looking to finance that through the tax increment financing from the DDA district.

Deliberations of a More General Nature

Some of the commentary was either not tied to a specific proposal, or else provided interest independent of a proposal.

Down Economy: Nonprofits

In connection with the two open-space proposals, there was some skepticism, given the current economic climate, that the community had the capacity to support a downtown centrally located park through a conservancy of some kind. Sam Offen, responding to a remark that Stephen Rapundalo had made during the interviews about the fact that even the Leslie Science Center was struggling, told Rapundalo that Leslie, by the way, is doing fine.

Rapundalo pointed out that Leslie Science Center was still asking for support from the city, to which Offen responded that they were simply trying to hold the city to what it had promised. At that, Jayne Miller, community services area administrator, chimed in: “We didn’t promise anything.” Choosing a somewhat less controversial example, Margie Teall pointed out that even the Michigan Theater is struggling. She also pointed out that with the departure of Pfizer, all nonprofits in the area were struggling.

Demand for Gathering Space

Jessica Black said that the interest she heard now was in having a unique space to stage an event – she saw that in the way that people were using the city’s parks. For example, there were four weddings at the Ann Arbor Farmers Market last year, Liberty Plaza had been used for a “chalk the park” event, and from West Park a live radio show – Radio Free Bacon, had been broadcast.

Infrastructure

Cresson Slotten, a city senior project manager in systems planning, said he saw himself primarily as providing answers to any questions that people might have. Wendy Rampson asked him about sewer loads. He said that the two open-space proposals would not have any significant pull on the water or sewer load. The key, he said, was to use the storm water in an interesting way. He stressed that the parking garage itself had been designed to retain storm water, so from that point of view, none of the proposals should have any effect. He said he had held off on trying to quantify anything until the proposals became less nebulous and the sizes were more clearly known.

Margie Teal and Susan Pollay queried about the installation of new water mains. Alison Heatley, a city senior project engineer, confirmed that the infrastructure on the immediate site was being brought up to the levels needed to provide for more intense development. Heatley did say that any potential problem with the sanitary system would be downstream, but that it could be addressed.

Framing the Question

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office said that the way he would be looking at these proposals was at the level of contingencies and who controls the contingencies. Deputy treasurer Mike Pettigrew said that for his part, the most important consideration for people to ask themselves was how much risk they were willing to accept.

Density: View from the Downtown Development Authority

Susan Pollay, executive director of Ann Arbor DDA, said that she gave heavy weighting to the previous experience of the proposers. She suggested that anyone should be taken off the table who wants to use this as a chance to learn how to do development.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, suggested that any project for the Library Lot needed to complement and support the library, not leech off of it.

She felt that no thought should be given to any proposal by someone who hasn’t done this kind of thing before. She characterized the parcel as “the hole in the donut” – it was an opportunity to create density, she said. It was important to have Josie Parker of the Ann Arbor District Library at the table, and that there should not be a project built that would “leech off the library” – the project should add something to support the library.

The library, said Pollay – that is a community gathering space. In the 26 years she’d lived in Ann Arbor, Pollay said, the 100,000 people who live here tend to congregate in groups 20 or 30, and not in large gatherings. When they did come together in large throngs, it was at events like the Top of the Park – which she noted took $1.5 million to program for three weeks out of the year.

She concluded that she did not see big gatherings happening. But she noted that there is a need to get together, and in Ann Arbor we get together in smaller groups – people want to brush by each other, she said, like at the sculpture park in front of the People’s Food Co-op, at Fourth and Catherine. She said a good project would not simply take advantage of the 600 people who are going to park their cars in the underground parking garage. So for Pollay, there were only two proposals that came into consideration – the hotel/conference centers, which were proposals that might help activate the library on evenings and weekends.

Density: View from the City

Jayne Miller, the city’s community services area administrator, began by saying: “What do I have to lose?” [Miller is leaving her post with the city in mid-February to take a job with Huron-Clinton Metro Parks.] Miller said there had been five years of effort towards developing a plan for downtown density. And part of that effort, she said, was the greenbelt millage to improve the viability of the plan to increase density. She said she shared the concerns about possible financing of a hotel/conference center, but that was why they needed a consultant and that the consultant would do the due diligence on the finances.

With respect to the ice rink included in Valiant’s proposal, Miller described it as “absolutely ridiculous.” That prompted Sam Offen to ask why. Miller’s one-word initial answer: cost. From 20 years of experience, she said, you don’t make an ice rink facility profitable based on people coming to free skate.

Deliberations on Going Forward

It was Offen who then floated the question of whether the committee was going to limit the number of proposals considered. He expressed concern about ending up with “too firm a plan” that night. There was some discussion about whether to discuss which proposals to bring forward, rather than approach it from the bottom and discuss which proposals to eliminate. In the end the committee decided to put forth their rankings of the various proposals from top to bottom.

Offen’s rankings: Valiant, Acquest, Dahlmann, Jarratt Architecture, Community Commons. Teall’s rankings: Valiant, Acquest, Jarratt Architecture, Dahlmann, Community Commons. Eric Mahler and John Splitt: Valiant and Acquest (tie), Dahlmann, Jarratt Architecture, Community Commons. Rapundalo: Valiant, Acquest, Dahlmann and Jarratt Architecture (tie), Community Commons.

With it clear that Valiant and Acquest were everyone’s top-ranked proposals, Offen raised the question of whether to advance two, rather than three proposals to the next stage. He made an argument for the Dahlmann proposal by saying that it was still very early in the process and that they had a duty to look at something that is different.

Rapundalo questioned Offen’s contention that there was a duty. Why was there a duty, he asked. Said Offen, “Because I represent the citizens of Ann Arbor.” At that Rapundalo replied that the committee had “already knocked those two off once and you agreed!” Offen allowed that yes, he had in some sense changed his mind.

And part of what had changed his mind was a memo that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had distributed about a conversation she had with Chuck Skelton, president of Hospitality Advisors Consulting Group, in which Skelton had expressed skepticism about the market for a hotel. Offen said he simply felt it would be useful to have a third alternative.

Teall expressed concerns about raising the expectations of proposers who would be advancing to the next page. Mahler told Offen that the consideration he was asking for had already been given. To offer a second bite at the apple, said Mahler, does a disservice to the proposers and the community.

Mahler was not enthusiastic about bringing Acquest along, either, because of the contingency related to the YMCA parking lot. Teall agreed with Mahler on that point. Splitt weighed in saying that he wanted two proposals to go forward. Mahler said one thing that weighed in Acquest’s favor was the permanent residents that would result from the condominium element.

The committee reached a consensus that they would give Acquest and Valiant further consideration.

[Link to city website with downloadable .pdf files of all proposals and other information related to the Library Lot development.]

Sam Offen reads a section of the Library Lot RFP that he interpreted to mean that financial considerations should come later in the process. At right is Jayne Miller, community services area administrator. (Photos by the writer.)

The suggestion for reconsideration had been brought to the committee by two of its members, Margie Teall and Stephen Rapundalo, who also serve on the city council.  Monday’s city council meeting had included conversation about the issue.

The committee will now re-include in the interview process the two proposals it had eliminated at its December meeting. Representatives for all six proposals to develop the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure will be interviewed in a little less than two weeks. On Jan. 19, the two that had been dropped previously – proposals that call for predominantly open space in that area – will be interviewed, followed on Jan. 20 by interviews of the other four proposers.

Related to this process, at its Wednesday meeting the Downtown Development Authority had approved up to $50,000 for a consultant to assist with the review of proposals. So on Friday, the committee was also briefed on the request for qualifications (RFQ) for the consultant, which has now been released – and no candidates with operations in Washtenaw County will be considered.

Re-integration of Two Proposals

By way of background, on Aug. 14, 2009, the city of Ann Arbor issued an RFP for the development of the city-owned Library Lot – above the underground parking garage currently under construction, and directly to the north of the downtown library. At last Wednesday’s Downtown Development Authority board meeting, chair John Splitt reported that beginning the week of Jan. 25, 2010,  people could expect to see “the big drill” – marking the commencement of earth retention work

Timeline Overview of RFP

A timeline overview of events related to the Library Lot RFP,  including Friday’s meeting:

• Aug. 14, 2009: RFP issued.
• Sept. 25, 2009: Pre-proposal meeting, mandatory for anyone who wanted to submit a proposal.
• Nov. 13, 2009: 2 p.m. EDT RFP response deadline; six proposals submitted before deadline; one proposal misses deadline.
• Dec. 4, 2009: RFP review committee meets, handles organizational and scheduling matters.
• Dec. 18, 2009: RFP review committee meets after initial review of proposals, drops two: Ann Arbor Town Square and Ann Arbor Community Commons. [Chronicle coverage: "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"]
• Jan. 4, 2010: Ann Arbor city council contemplates but rejects a resolution asking for information from dropped proposals; council representatives to RFP review committee (Teall and Rapundalo) agree to bring suggestion to RFP review committee for reconsideration of dropped proposals. [Chronicle coverage: "Mixed Message from Council on Library Lot"]
• Jan. 8, 2010: RFP review committee meets, agrees to re-integrate dropped proposals into interview process scheduled for week of Jan. 18.

Committee Deliberations on Re-Integrating Proposals

At Friday’s meeting, the first order of business introduced by Stephen Rapundalo, who chairs the RFP review committee, was the question of whether to reconsider the two previously dropped proposals.

Rapundalo summarized the rationale behind the failed city council resolution that had been brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) by saying that it was Briere’s intent that councilmembers have adequate information to compare all proposals.

Jayne Miller, Roger Fraser and Stephen Rapundalo tried briefly to connect by speaker phone to Eric Mahler, who was on his way to the meeting, but the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful.

Rapundalo told the committee that those on council who opposed the resolution cited their sense that the information requested – on the proposal’s financials – had already been asked for in the RFP. In addition, he said, there was some sentiment on council that the resolution would undermine the RFP process.

Nevertheless, said Rapundalo, based on conversations he’d had with mayor John Hieftje and his city council and RFP committee colleague, Margie Teall, he was bringing the committee the suggestion that the two dropped proposals be re-integrated into the interview process.

Committee member Sam Offen responded to Rapundalo by saying that he’d read about the city council meeting and re-read the RFP to see if the committee had done something different from what had been set forth in the RFP. He pointed to a paragraph on page 10, which he took to mean that the committee should first consider the proposals based on their merits other than their acquisition costs. Offen concluded that a reasonable argument could be made that it was premature to exclude a proposal on a financial basis, and that it was worthwhile to reconsider the two dropped proposals.

The paragraph cited by Offen reads as follows:

The selection committee will initially evaluate responses to the RFP to decide which submitters, if any, it will interview. For the initial evaluation, the committee will not consider acquisition cost proposals. For this reason, the acquisition cost proposal must be separately submitted in a sealed and marked envelope. Before the interviews, the acquisition cost proposals of the submitters to be interviewed will be opened and reviewed.

City administrator Roger Fraser clarified that what they’d been thinking about with that paragraph were proposals to purchase the property – to make it clear that the city was not soliciting offers of speculative development.

John Splitt, who’s chair of the DDA board and serving on the RFP board along with DDA executive director Susan Pollay, said he was not in favor of reconsidering the proposals. Neither showed any possibility of financial return to the city, he said.

Splitt asked for examples of revenue-generating parks in Ann Arbor. Offen, who serves on the city’s park advisory commission, and Jayne Miller, who is community services area administrator, had a working knowledge of Ann Arbor’s parks financials sufficient to answer Splitt’s question. The canoe liveries, said Offen, have revenues greater than expenses. Miller allowed that was true, but noted that because the parks are supported from the general fund, there is a certain amount of overhead that is subsidized for any of the parks.

Miller gave the Ann Arbor Farmers Market as the one example of a park that was revenue positive for the city.

Margie Teall said she agreed with Splitt, but that it was not asking too much of the committee to ask questions that had not yet been asked of the proposers. She also acknowledged that arguments could be made about a financial return to the city based on economic development.

Susan Pollay put the dropping of the two proposals in the context of a winnowing down of more proposals – even without the aid of a consultant. She inquired about the proposal by Jarratt Architecture, as one that might also have been dropped from consideration – it contained descriptions of what Jarratt would try to do, as opposed to what they were going to do. In the Jarratt Architecture proposal, she said, “there’s not a lot of stuff.”

Rapundalo allowed that there was a real question of which proposals had enough substance to merit further consideration. He reported that Eric Mahler (who had not yet arrived at the meeting) had been prepared to cut the Jarratt proposal as well.

Splitt also described the process as one where there would be further eliminations – two didn’t make the first cut, others would not make the next cut, he said.

Much later in the meeting, Eric Mahler arrived and echoed similar sentiments to Splitt’s – he was against reconsidering the proposals they had already dropped. [Mahler also serves on the city's planning commission.] Mahler enumerated the reasons he was against reconsideration, which were based on the substance of the two proposals – they envision the Library Lot as predominantly open space.

Eric Mahler, foreground, arrived towards the end of the meeting and spoke against reconsidering the two Library Lot proposals that were previously eliminated.

First, Mahler said, he had concerns about spreading resources too thin with respect to security in an additional park. Second, to be successful, he cautioned, any urban park had to be especially well thought out with respect to planning, security, maintenance, and building. Finally, he did not think that the two proposals met the criterion that they be at least revenue neutral.

For his part, Rapundalo said that one of the “occupational hazards” of being a scientist with 30 years of experience doing peer review was being accustomed to following processes with rules – to him, reconsideration offered up a second chance to proposers already eliminated. [Rapundalo was a Ph.D. research scientist with Pfizer before taking over as head of MichBio].

The question of the proposal that came in late would be briefly raised by Teall, but missing the deadline was seen as an objective criterion – “a deadline not subject to interpretation,” said Splitt.

Despite his opposition, Rapundalo said, out of respect for his council colleagues and the fact that it represented only three additional hours of interviewing time [90 minutes for each], he was willing to go along with reconsideration of the two dropped proposals. Teall also noted that they were only talking about a total of six proposals – not, say, 22 of them.

While Mahler and Splitt both expressed their opposition to reconsideration of the proposal, they both indicated that they were willing to see the proposals included in the interview phase. Mahler stressed that he would go into the interview process with an open mind to the two proposals that were being re-included.

Rapundalo concurred with Mahler that it was important for the proposals to rise and fall on their merits.

The Interviews

Much of the committee meeting dealt with the logistics of the interview process, which will take place on Jan. 19-20.

Interviews: Where?

Jayne Miller reported that she’d confirmed the space availability of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, at 343 South Fifth Ave., for the interviews on Jan. 20 and that she’d be able to hold a partial day for Jan. 19 in the event that the two dropped proposals were reconsidered. That prompted Rapundalo to remark: “That’s thinking ahead.”

Interviewers: Who?

Rapundalo said he’d invited Josie Parker, the director of the library, as well as Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, to take part in interviewing the proposers, though they would not participate in committee deliberations.

For each proposer, the interview process will include a 30-minute presentation, 30 minutes of questions and answers by the committee, concluding with 30 minutes of questions and answers by the public. The public’s questions, Rapundalo said, would be taken on cards, in order to squeeze in as many as possible.

On the evening of Jan. 20, following the interviews, there will be an open house – proposers will each have a table where they can have their material set up, with people able to circulate among the tables.

Jayne Miller said she’d draft a form that could be used by open house attendees to record feedback to the committee.

Interview Questions?

While the public’s questions will be submitted on written cards, the committee’s questions will be sent in advance to proposers. That was a decision for which there was not complete consensus at the start of the committee discussion.

Rapundalo said he was inclined to provide the questions in advance. Sam Offen wondered if a proposer could then use the first 30 minutes, allocated for their presentation, to answer the questions. Remarked Rapundalo in response to Offen, “They will, if they’re smart!”

Jayne Miller distributes handouts to John Splitt at the start of the meeting. Seated to Splitt's left is Sam Offen. Seated to his right, out of camera range, is the owner of the red and black hat.

City administrator Roger Fraser wondered if it was really desirable to “tip your hand” about the questions. For example, he said, if there was a question about how the proposal fit into the overall context of the area, then something a proposer had not thought to make a priority could suddenly be come a “priority.”

The committee settled on sending the questions to proposers in advance of the interviews. One consideration in that decision was the observation by Splitt that one of the proposal teams was in the room, even as the committee was discussing the draft of some of the questions – Alice Ralph and Alan Haber of Ann Arbor Community Commons have been attending these committee meetings.

Committee members gave Jayne Miller feedback on the question set that she’d drafted. Susan Pollay suggested in general that the tenor of the questions needed to demand concrete responses – she drew the contrast between, “What are you willing to do?” and “What will you do?” A question about financing, Pollay said, should ask specifically which banks the proposer had worked with in the past.

Rapundalo urged that some of the questions cut across all proposers to ensure some basis of comparing “apples to apples.” Teall wondered why LEED Silver was a part of one question instead of LEED Gold. At that, Fraser and Miller suggested that they could as well ask about LEED Platinum.

Committee members will now send Rapundalo specific suggestions on Miller’s draft, he’ll collate them, and forward them to Miller, who will take another stab at the question set.

After the Interviews and Open House

Besides the interview questions, Miller will be refining the draft of a form for each proposal that committee members can use for implementing the scoring metric outlined in the RFP. [Link to city website with RFP and .pdf files of all six proposals.]

Fraser stressed that the idea in applying the scoring metric was not to use information from only one step in the process. The metric should be applied, he said, based on the response to the RFP, the responses to follow-up questions the committee had asked for, plus the interviews.

The RFP review committee will meet the day after the interviews conclude, on Jan. 21 from 6-9 p.m. to analyze the information collected to date and to discuss their next steps.

RFQ for Consultant

At the Downtown Development Authority’s monthly board meeting on Wednesday, up to $50,000 was approved to fund a consultant to help evaluate the Library Lot proposals. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA Ponies Up: Parking, Pipes, Planning"]

At Friday’s RFP committee meeting, Miller and Fraser indicated that the request for qualifications for a consultant had been posted on BidNet and sent to the International Downtown Association.

At the DDA’s Wednesday board meeting, DDA board member Gary Boren had said that the consultant who would be hired would have “no skin in the game.”

One of the criteria in the request would exclude local consultants:

The City of Ann Arbor must avoid any perception of influence or conflict on the part of its consultant. Therefore, the city will only consider submittals from professionals that have no operations based within Washtenaw County, and where these professionals have no financial ties or any other potential conflict of interest with any member of any project team who has submitted an RFP to the City for its Library Lot project.

Responses from potential consultants are due Jan. 13, 2010 at 2 p.m.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) explains the work of the RFP review committee for the Library Lot proposals, as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) listens. (Photos by the writer.)

At the same time, the council’s representatives to the RFP committee – Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – told their colleagues that they would bring to the committee the suggestion of re-including two already-eliminated proposals.

That idea will be floated to the committee when it next meets, on Friday, Jan. 8 at 9 a.m.

In other business, councilmembers grilled the city’s transportation program coordinator about revisions to the city’s bicycle and pedestrian ordinances to align with the Michigan Vehicle Code. Despite that, council sent the revisions on to the next step towards final approval.

The council also authorized a vote to be held among property owners to establish a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street between William and Huron streets. That’s the next step in a multi-step process for establishing the BIZ, which allows property owners to levy an additional tax on themselves to use for specific services.

The council also heard a presentation on the city’s snow removal policy from Craig Hupy, who’s head of systems planning for the city. Councilmembers heard little enthusiasm from city administrator, Roger Fraser, for any deer removal program for Ann Arbor.

Fraser also announced that the city’s community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, would be leaving her city post to head up the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, which oversees regional metroparks, sometime in the next month.

Resolution on Library Lot Proposals

At the city council caucus the previous evening, conversation focused almost exclusively on the request for proposals (RFP) process for the city-owned property known as the Library Lot. The focus was on the possibility of gathering additional information from proposers whose projects had been eliminated from consideration.

Two proposals meeting the deadline for submission, but subsequently eliminated by the RFP review committee, both envision the top of the underground parking garage under the Library Lot to be predominantly open space.

Two other proposals did not meet the deadline for submission and are not being considered. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Library Lot: Choice Between Apples and Pears?" and "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"]

The resolution considered by the council on Monday read in its original form as follows:

Whereas, The RFP advisory committee is charged with making a recommendation to the entire City Council about the proposals submitted in response to the RFP involving the “Library Lot”;

Whereas, The City Council has the right to accept any proposal or reject all proposals; and

Whereas, The City Council should therefore have equivalent information about all six proposals;

RESOLVED, That City Council requests that any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee submit all relevant financial information about their projects to the City Council at their earliest convenience; and

RESOLVED, That any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee be prepared to respond to questions from the City Council in advance of City Council’s consideration of any recommendation the RFP advisory committee may make.

Near the start of the council’s Monday meeting, during the communications section, mayor John Hieftje said he’d spoken with Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serve on the RFP review committee.  He reported that they were not averse to the idea of leaving the two previously eliminated proposals in the mix for the 90-minute interviews of each proposer, to be held on Jan. 20. Hieftje said that Teall and Rapundalo would be bringing that idea to the RFP committee when it meets on Friday, Jan. 8.

Public Commentary on Library Lot Resolution

Four people signed up to speak about Library Lot proposals during time reserved for public commentary at the start of the meeting.

Lily Au criticized the idea of building a hotel on the lot when there was no daytime warming center for the homeless. She noted that the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, located next to the Library Lot, was a de facto warming center. Au cited cases of three homeless men who had been arrested on charges of trespassing, when they were simply looking for a place to sleep. [One of the men, Caleb Poirier, had his case dropped by the prosecution on the day following the council's meeting.]

Libby Hunter rendered her commentary in the form of a song with a melody from Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” and lyrics that compared a conference center at the Library Lot location to a “white elephant.”

Jack Eaton, who had attended the previous night’s caucus, encouraged more council members to avail themselves of the opportunity of caucus. [None of the councilmembers up for re-election in November, except for Mayor Hieftje, are regular attendees of the Sunday caucus, which the city's website bills as "meetings of the mayor and members of council to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration."] Eaton said that in light of the mayor’s remarks about Rapundalo and Teall bringing the idea to the RFP committee of re-including the two open space proposals, he’d be abbreviating his comments. He stressed the importance of the parcel to the whole community and the need for a full sense of public participation in the process.

Alan Haber waits his turn to speak at public commentary. Kudos to readers who can identify both blurry city staffers in the background.

Alan Haber greeted the council by saying, “Hello, again!” He’s spoken frequently on the topic and has sent councilmembers many emails. He allowed that the open space proposal he’d helped to draft and submit as a part of the RFP process [one of the proposals that has been eliminated] was “a little informal,” but that it sought to answer the question: “How can the creativity of the community be brought to bear on that space? “That’s the place for the heart of the community to begin beating,” he suggested. There were other places where  high density and affordable housing could be put, he said.

Council Deliberations on Library Lot Resolution

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’d sponsored the resolution, led off by saying she was “very cheered” by the mayor’s remarks earlier in the meeting. The mayor had indicated the willingness of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) to float to the RFP committee – on which they  serve – the idea of re-including the open space proposals in the interview process.

However, Briere said she was not certain that it met the council’s needs. It wasn’t about whether there was a public hearing, or whether a particular proposal was included at a point in the process, she explained. It was about the council having complete information – in the event that the council chose to consider some other proposal than the one eventually recommended by the RFP review committee. The resolution, she said, would provide all councilmembers with an equal amount of information about all the proposals.

In subsequent deliberations, Teall questioned what options the council had in considering the RFP committee’s recommendation. She suggested that the council could only vote the recommendation up or down, and then perhaps start a new RFP process. Briere cited the mayor’s statement at the Dec. 20 caucus that the council could bring back any proposal it wanted, which Hieftje confirmed by saying that a six-vote majority of councilmembers could resolve to undertake what it liked with the various proposals. [Chronicle coverage: "Mayor: 'Council can bring back any proposal it wants.'"]

Rapundalo, who’s chairing the RFP review committee, said he would not be supporting the resolution, though he was quite willing to take the suggestion to the committee of including the two open space proposals in the interview process. The work of the committee thus far, he said, was a straightforward application of best practices as they related to RFP reviews. If the committee had failed anywhere, he said, then it was only in not articulating clearly what the steps were that it had taken.

Among the steps that Rapundalo drew out was the fact that two proposals had been eliminated even before they’d reached the committee – because they failed to meet the deadline. He also pointed out that additional questions had been formulated for each of the proposers, including the two open space proposals, asking for additional clarity on particular elements. The formulation of those questions had taken place, Rapundalo said, in advance of any decision to eliminate the proposals from further consideration.

Later in deliberations, Briere would note that “a question unasked remains unanswered.”

Rapundalo questioned whether it was fair to give certain proposals a “second chance,” saying that it reminded him of how human services money was formerly allocated – when those who did not receive an allocation would come “tugging on a councilmember’s sleeve.” [Rapundalo oversaw a revamping of that process that led to an objective scoring metric to guide those allocations.]

Responding to Briere’s call for “equal” information, Rapundalo said that the equalizer was the RFP itself in the information that it requested.

Saying that there had been no predetermination by the committee of what proposal would be selected, Rapundalo allowed that there was something that had been predetermined: that something would be built and that it would not be only open space on the area. On two different occasions, he said, the council had made clear for the record that something would be built.

By way of historical background, one of those occasions was the resolution the council passed on Nov. 5, 2007. That resolution directed the Downtown Development Authority, which is building the underground parking structure, to prepare a written recommendation for its construction at the Library Lot. From the set of “Resolved” clauses:

The underground parking garage shall be designed to support above ground, in the short-term, surface public parking, and in the long-term, development which could include, but is not limited to, a residential, retail, and/or office building(s) and a public plaza along either Fifth Street or the newly constructed street;

The same language was part of the resolution approved four months later, on Feb. 4, 2008, that authorized the DDA to design and construct the parking garage. It was a somewhat different membership of the council then, but there is much overlap. At that time, the council consisted of [those currently serving in bold]: Ronald Suarez, Sabra Briere,  Joan Lowenstein, Stephen Rapundalo,  Stephen Kunselman, Leigh Greden,  Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins,  Christopher Easthope, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje. [Who served when? Try ArborWiki.]

During Monday night’s deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) suggested that if the commitment to build something had been constraining, then it would have been built into the RFP itself. While he said he was glad to see that by casting as wide a net as possible, they’d elicited some exciting proposals, for him, it boiled down to process. And he did not want to make the playing field unlevel, he said, thus he did not support Briere’s resolution.

Teall echoed Rapundalo’s sentiments, saying there was both a need to maintain a sense of objectiveness for the RFP process, plus a need to be efficient with time and resources from the DDA. [The Downtown Development Authority will likely authorize funding for a consultant to help evaluate the proposals at its next meeting, on Wednesday, Jan. 6.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested an amendment to the second “Resolved” clause to make it mirror the first one, which was accepted as “friendly,” thus did not require a vote. Taylor said that he was sensitive to the work done by the committee, and said that the fact that the committee found two of the proposals “wanting” was an important data point. He said the resolution would not override the committee’s work.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she could not support the resolution but appreciated the desire to consider the eliminated proposals – the council had the prerogative, she noted, to do so. She said, however, that the resolution was now premature. She then ticked through the public processes that had included planning for the Library Lot: the Central Area Plan, the Calthorpe process, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan, and the Downtown Plan. “We’ve asked and answered this question,” she said. The conclusion had been, Smith continued, that the lot has to have adequate-sized open space, but that it also had to have buildings on it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) remarked that his opposition to public-private development, which most of the proposals entailed, was well known. As for the resolution, he said, “It’s just information. We don’t need to be fearful of it.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), possibly responding to Smith’s contention that there’d already been public process surrounding the Library Lot, asked when it was that community members had brought forward their ideas – he hadn’t been there, he said. [By this he meant it hadn't happened, not that he was absent.] Anglin stressed that the community owned the property and that citizens needed to be involved in the process.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) focused on the question of process, noting that the RFP review committee included two of the council’s own members, and that changing the process after proposals had been prepared in good faith sent the wrong message.

Mayor John Hieftje essentially echoed the sentiments of Rapundalo in concluding that the information mentioned in Briere’s resolution had been requested in the RFP. Hieftje said he did not see what the resolution did to evolve the council’s understanding of the proposals.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ended deliberations when she called the question [a procedural move to end debate], but not before delivering a lambasting of the proposed resolution. “There are members of council who don’t trust the committee to do its work,” she said. Instead of the resolution the council was considering, Higgins declared, the council should just call it what it was and consider a resolution to disband the committee.

Outcome: The resolution failed to pass, winning support only from Briere, Taylor, Kunselman, and Anglin.

Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Before the council were two resolutions affecting bicyclists and pedestrians. One of them revised city ordinances on bicyclists and pedestrian behavior, while the other revised the bicycle registration fee. This was the first reading of the ordinances, which means that they’ll need to come back to council for final approval.

Public Commentary on Non-Motorized Issues

At the time allotted for public commentary at the end of the meeting, two people spoke on issues related to bicycles and pedestrians. And one of those made comments related, tangentially, to a third public speaker, who’d addressed the council during reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Kathy Griswold told the council that her New Year’s resolution was to speak at every council meeting and to use the full three minutes allotted – that was less time than it took for traffic to clear at the mid-block crossing near King Elementary School, she said. Griswold has spoken at multiple meetings through the fall and early winter on the need to move that crosswalk to the intersection from its current mid-block location. Griswold pointed councilmembers to a website she’d set up – SeeKids.org. The site provides information on steps the city could take to improve Ann Arbor’s current rating by the League of American Bicyclists to the platinum level achieved by Boulder, Portland, and Davis.

Kathy Griswold’s draft of notes for her public speaking turn at the end of the meeting.

Portland and Boulder has also been mentioned by John Floyd during his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting. Floyd thanked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) for clarifying at the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting that Hohnke saw Seattle, Portland and Boulder as models for Ann Arbor to emulate. Floyd then asked Hohnke if he thought that Ann Arbor should change to resemble Seattle and Portland by increasing its population to upwards of half a million people.

During her turn at public comment, Vivienne Armentrout related to the council her experience as a bicycle commuter in Madison, Wisc., where the bicycle registration served as a possible mechanism for enforcement. In Madison, she said, registration included issuance of a small metal license plate, which could be used to help identify a cyclist who’d committed an infraction like sideswiping a pedestrian on a sidewalk.

Armentrout’s comments came partly in response to some pointed questioning from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) of city staff about a perceived failure by the city to educate bicyclists about their responsibilities and the enforcement of laws concerning them.

Council Deliberations on Non-Motorized Issues

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led things off by asking the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to summarize what the council was being asked to consider. Cooper noted that the repeal of multiple city ordinances regulating bicyclist behavior reflected updates to the Michigan Vehicle Code, and was essentially an administrative revision.

Front to back, Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The revision to the pedestrian ordinance extended pedestrian rights from crosswalks at intersections with traffic signals to those without traffic signals, Cooper said.

Hohnke would observe later in deliberations that the city still had work to do on the issue of pedestrian rights – which currently begin only on entering a crosswalk, as opposed to approaching a crosswalk.

The problem had been well-documented, mayor John Hieftje would later add, in a video produced by an Ann Arbor resident [Matt Grocoff's YouTube Video: "Pedestrian Crossings in Ann Arbor"] Hieftje also described plans to begin enforcement of pedestrian rights, but stressed that it was important to lead up to that with adequate education and conversation with the magistrates who’d be asked to uphold the citations.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d like to see an educational outline. She hoped that Ann Arbor could eventually get to the same point as other cities she’d visited where cars stop as soon as pedestrians even think about crossing the street.

The new bicycle registration policy, Cooper explained, would replace an $8 lifetime registration with a $3 fee good for five years, plus one complimentary five-year extension.

Hohnke elicited from Cooper the clarification that bicycles are not “classified as vehicles” under the Michigan Vehicle Code but rather in places are “treated as vehicles.” That explained, Hohnke said, why the wording of the city’s proposed ordinance revision on bicycle lanes made sense: “A person shall not operate a vehicle on or across a bicycle path or a bicycle lane, …”  That is, bicycles are not prohibited on bicycle paths.

The typical pattern for each bicycling ordinance proposed for repeal is that there’s a corresponding section in the Michigan Vehicle Code. An example of such a pair, on brakes:

[City] 10:172. Brakes.
Every bicycle shall be equipped with at least 1 effective brake.
(Ord. No. 46-61, 8-14-61; Ord. No. 26-74, 8-19-74)

[State] 257.662 Bicycles or electric personal assistive mobility device; equipment; violation as civil infraction.
(2) A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

Not included in the council’s meeting packet were the contents of the city’s ordinances and the corresponding Michigan Vehicle Code equivalents. [The Chronicle's set of the respective city-state pairings is available as a text file: statecitybicycle.txt.]

The lack of specificity about the material effect of the proposed ordinance repeals and revisions left some councilmembers wondering what was being proposed.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) led off with an expression of frustration by noting that the set of ordinances were described in the packet as addressing bicycles riding on the sidewalk, but asked: “Where is it?” Cooper summarized the content of the Michigan Vehicle Code requirement by saying that it essentially establishes that “bicycles are guests on sidewalks.” By way of background, the specific language of the MVC reads:

[State] 257.660c Operation of bicycle upon sidewalk or pedestrian crosswalk.

(1) An individual operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
(2) An individual shall not operate a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk if that operation is prohibited by an official traffic control device.
(3) An individual lawfully operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk has all of the rights and responsibilities applicable to a pedestrian using that sidewalk or crosswalk.

Teall told Cooper she still had concerns about bicycles on sidewalks and complained about almost being run over on occasion. Cooper allowed that if she’d almost been run over by a bicyclist, then that fell outside of proper use of a bicycle per the code. Teall replied that by then, it was too late.

Cooper then described some efforts the city would be undertaking, using federal stimulus money, to educate the public on such issues. The implementation would include signage addressed to bicyclists to yield to pedestrians and to walk their bicycles on sidewalks.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) allowed that he was also confused about what was being proposed. “Do I need a brake on my bicycle?” he asked.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then weighed in, criticizing the fact that the information explaining what was being proposed was not in the council’s packet but rather in another document – the Michigan Vehicle Code. She then cited her own experience watching bicyclists weave in and out of cars, then shoot across intersections against the light. She concluded that there was an “educational disconnect.”

Higgins then launched a criticism of a lack of clarity on plans for educating cyclists about their responsibilities, saying she wanted to know how the money was being spent.

Hohnke would later point out that Cooper had previously presented the council with an outline of the educational plan, suggesting that Higgins had perhaps not attended the meeting when that occurred. Higgins rejected Hohnke’s suggestion that she had not attended, saying, “I was there!”

She then complained that the educational efforts always focused on the drivers of cars and that the approach should include everyone. She contended that by now, we should be seeing some kind of shift in behavior. But since they weren’t seeing a shift, she contended, the needed to address the disconnect.

Cooper offered that part of the challenge was the “enormity of the problem.”He then began to describe a program of collaboration with the Washtenaw County Public Heath department, but was cut off by Higgins, who declared, “I’m less interested in the county. What are we doing in the city?”

By way of background, if Hohnke meant to reference two meetings of the council in June 2009 when Cooper described the specifics of the educational program, Higgins is correct in saying that she was there. However, those presentations did address – at least in part – the concerns she was raising. From The Chronicle account of the June 1, 2009 meeting:

During the introductions section, Eli Cooper, transportation program manager with the city of Ann Arbor, gave a presentation announcing the launch of a transportation safety campaign. It’s based on the premise that whether we walk, bicycle, ride the bus, or drive, we are all human beings who are entitled to a safe and attractive journey.

From The Chronicle account of the June 15, 2009 meeting:

The campaign itself, which has already been developed, will include brochures, radio spots, and video spots. Higgins noted that there had been an ongoing discussion about how to accomplish the educational component. She noted that deputy chief of police Greg O’Dell had previously worked with bicycling groups on the topic. She wanted to know if the city had ever heard back about how that worked. Hieftje noted that the previous effort had never actually been funded. He cited the statistic that at any given time, the majority of people on the road in Ann Arbor don’t actually live here. So the outreach campaign had a certain challenge in reaching the population. Signage would be key, he said. Higgins stressed that she felt it was important that education be provided for cyclists about their responsibility for using the road.

Hohnke asked Cooper to explain how the various constituencies would be engaged through the campaign. Cooper cited the slogans themselves as reflective of targeting all users of the roadway, not just motorists: “Share the road” and “Same road same rules.” He described the brochure that had been developed as a tri-fold that when opened displayed a motorist on the left and a cyclist on the right.

In reviewing the Michigan Vehicle Code as background for this report, The Chronicle noticed a section that’s tangentially relevant to a possible city ordinance on cell phone use while driving. At the council’s  Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) mentioned  a resolution he and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had asked the city attorney’s office to develop, prohibiting cell phone usage while driving. At the time there was some speculation about whether the new ordinance would apply to bicycles.

There is already a section of the MVC that would seem to preclude cell phone use while bicycling:

257.661 Carrying package, bundle, or article on bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, or motorcycle.

A person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, or motorcycle shall not carry any package, bundle, or article that prevents the driver from keeping both hands upon the handlebars of the vehicle.

Outcome: Both resolutions on bicycle- and pedestrian-related ordinances were approved on first reading.

Business Improvement Zone (BIZ)

Before the city council was a resolution authorizing the city clerk to hold an election among the property owners between William and Huron streets on Main Street to determine if they wanted to establish a business improve zone (BIZ). A BIZ is a mechanism for property owners to levy an additional tax on themselves in order to pay for services that would otherwise not be provided.

During the public hearing on the resolution, two people spoke.

Thomas Partridge said that he hoped such an effort would be coordinated with all other areas needing improvements throughout the city and county.

Lou Glorie said she’d heard that the revenue would be used to employ greeters, Wal-Mart style, and wondered if Ann Arbor citizens could be issued badges identifying them as residents so that they wouldn’t be pestered by the greeters. [No such greeters are identified as a part of the BIZ plan. Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

Glorie asked why Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority funds were not being used for the services that the BIZ was proposed to provide. She said that downtown merchants were already stressed enough, and hoped that the cost of the additional tax levy would not be passed along to merchants.

Outcome: The BIZ was approved unanimously without discussion by council.

Snow Removal

One of the primary services to be offered by the BIZ is snow removal – on downtown sidewalks, which is above and beyond what the city provides. The city council had scheduled a presentation from city staff on snow removal citywide at the start of its Monday meeting, during the introductions section.

Face in the sand. Sand/salt mixture at 721 N. Main maintenance yard, cited by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as a useful resource for residents to maintain their driveways and sidewalks in winter.

The snow removal presentation was handled by Craig Hupy, head of systems planning, and Sue McCormick, public services area administrator.

The presentation generated many questions from the council, some of which are answered in the complete slide presentation, which is available online [Snow Removal Presentation 3 MB .pdf].

Hupy presented a subset of those slides to the council.

We eschew a comprehensive summary in favor of some key points that emerged:

• Safe travel at a reasonable speed, not bare pavement, is the goal.
• 4 inches of snowfall is the threshold for a straight time versus overtime approach.
• Salt is spread only on designated routes; residential streets are sanded only on hills, corners and icy intersections.
• Residents are required to clear sidewalks adjacent to their property. [City of Ann Arbor Sidewalk snow removal regulations]
• It’s illegal for private parties to plow or blow snow into the street.
• Permeable pavement, such as will be installed on Sylvan Avenue, requires less winter maintenance due to thermal gain – water soaks through instead of remaining on the surface and refreezing.

Communications from Council/Administrator

During the agenda slots for communications from councilmembers and the administrator, a few different topics received brief discussion.

Ann Arbor’s Deer Herd

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked city administrator Roger Fraser about an increase in “deer-car interactions.” Fraser indicated that Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had also inquired and that in each of the last two years there had been more than 30 such interactions.

Derezinski reported that he’d looked a bit into the issue and that the nearby village of Barton Hills had some experience through the Department of Natural Resources of culling the herd, but had not done so in the last two years due to complaints about the sound of gunshots.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d inquired with the Humane Society and that birth control for deer had not yet been perfected. She suspected that would be the only effective solution.

This is not the first time deer have come up for discussion in the last year or so. From The Chronicle’s Nov. 30, 2008 caucus report:

Derezinski raised the issue of deer and the possible need to cull the herd. Higgins expressed some skepticism that they were actually a problem, asking if anyone had heard of someone hitting a deer in the city. She said she thought people basically enjoyed looking at them. She said she was not in favor of killing them. Briere said she didn’t want to kill them, either. Derezinski said he wasn’t necessarily in favor of killing them, but thought there were other options like tranquilizing them and relocating them.

Fraser put the problem in perspective for the council. He suggested that while 30 incidents might seem like a lot, in the community where he worked just prior to coming to Ann Arbor – a similar-sized community geographically to Ann Arbor – they had 150 incidents a year. He expressed little enthusiasm for implementing a program to cull the deer herd.

Parking in Parks

Ward 4 representatives Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins indicated that they would be opposing any attempt to allow football Saturday parking in Allmendinger and Frisinger parks. [Chronicle coverage "Parking in the Parks, Art on the River"] That came in response to remarks made during public commentary reserved time by Charlie Cavell, who’s a college student home on winter break.

Cavell lives directly across from Allmendinger Park, he said, and provided evidence of the opposition by neighbors to the idea of football Saturday parking in the park with 160 signatures on a petition. He described how parents of children and other members of the community used the park on football Saturdays and suggested that the estimated additional $30,000 in revenue was not worth it, despite the tough budget times.

City Administrator Announcements

Roger Fraser announced that the city’s community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, would be leaving her city post to head up the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority sometime in the next month.

Fraser told the council that their work session next Monday, Jan. 11, would focus on a briefing on how the city’s Housing Authority would be revamping its business operations.

On Tuesday, Jan. 12, he said, city offices would be closed starting at 9:30 a.m. due to a meeting for all city staff from 10 a.m. to noon at the Michigan Theater. The meeting will focus on the budget.

The layoff of 14 firefighters, which was to have been effective on Jan. 4, Fraser said, had been postponed, with the negotiated agreement with the union to be put to a vote next week. If approved, Fraser said, the council would be asked to approve the arrangement at its next meeting, on Jan. 19. [Note that this is a Tuesday, not the usual Monday meeting day, because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.]

Other Public Commentary

Nine speakers signed up in advance to speak during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Besides those whose remarks are already reflected in other sections of this report, the following people addressed the council.

James D’Amour: D’Amour introduced himself as a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. He expressed opposition to the council’s greenlighting of the Fuller Road Station project, saying that the city land on which the parking structure was to be built was designated as parkland, though it had been used as a parking lot for many years. The arrangement between the city and the University of Michigan, he said, would amount to a permanent lease, which was essentially a sale of the parkland – which required a vote of the people. He also characterized the project as inconsistent with environmental goals, noting that only 200 of the parking spaces had been allocated to a possible train station. [Chronicle coverage of the Fuller Station project: "Trains, Trash and Taxes"]

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz described how he’d been walking with a woman down Ann Street towards Fourth Avenue on Nov. 21, 2009 when they’d been assaulted by a noise so loud that it had caused the woman to grab his arm. It had caused parents to try to reassure their children that things were okay, but the children had been inconsolable. The loud noise, he explained, had come from Michigan National Guard jets that had buzzed Michigan Stadium on the day of the UM-Ohio State football game. He reminded councilmembers that the children of Palestine experience that kind of noise on a daily basis, and that it was causing a psychological crisis in Gaza. That terror, he concluded, continued to be funded by American citizens.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat who was a potential candidate this election year. He called upon other potential candidates and elected officials to put forward a democratic, progressive agenda to advance the causes of human rights, education, housing and transportation. He noted that while the council had heard a presentation on snow removal, there were people in the Ann Arbor area who did not have a place to live.

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

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date] [Note that this is a Tuesday, not the usual Monday meeting day, because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.]

Tangerine Tower is not an alternate proposal for the Library Lot development. But in providing an illustration to accompany an article, sometimes you go to press with the fruit you have, not the fruit you wish you had.

A committee appointed to review the proposals submitted for the city-owned parcel, known as the Library Lot, recently dropped two of those proposals from consideration. [Chronicle coverage: "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"]

The two proposals – one from Ann Arbor residents Alan Haber and Alice Ralph, and the other from a local developer, Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. – both envision the top of the underground garage primarily as open space.

At Sunday’s city council caucus, seven supporters of an open-space use for the Library Lot outnumbered the four councilmembers who attended: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

Conversation at caucus was devoted almost exclusively to the RFP (request for proposals) process and dissatisfaction with its preliminary outcome. On the council’s Monday night agenda is a resolution sponsored by Briere that seeks – “delicately,” in Briere’s words – to address some of that dissatisfaction.

Briere likened the winnowing down of the alternatives in advance of public participation to asking someone if they’d like an apple or a pear – you might get a different answer, she said, if you ask, “What kind of fruit would you like?” Maybe, she said, people want grapefruit.

Briere’s Resolution: Directing Proposers

Sabra Briere’s resolution that will be considered by the council on Monday night is a directive to the proposers who responded to the city’s Library Lot RFP. Its text reads:

Whereas, The RFP advisory committee is charged with making a recommendation to the entire City Council about the proposals submitted in response to the RFP involving the “Library Lot”;

Whereas, The City Council has the right to accept any proposal or reject all proposals; and

Whereas, The City Council should therefore have equivalent information about all six proposals;

RESOLVED, That City Council requests that any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee submit all relevant financial information about their projects to the City Council at their earliest convenience; and

RESOLVED, That any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee be prepared to respond to questions from the City Council in advance of City Council’s consideration of any recommendation the RFP advisory committee may make.

Asked at caucus to explain the rationale behind her resolution, Briere described it as: “This is me being delicate.” It was a way, she said, to get what she wanted, stepping on as few toes as possible.

What she wanted, Briere said, was all the information about all the proposals. She said that up until the last Sunday night caucus – when mayor John Hieftje had stressed that the city council could bring back any proposals it wished to – she’d been under the impression that the council would have to accept or reject the RFP committee’s recommendation. [Chronicle coverage: "Mayor: 'Council can bring back any proposal it wants.'"]

The mayor’s revelation at the last caucus, Briere said, made clear that the council would have the freedom to explore other proposals not recommended by the review committee. But if the council did not have equivalent information on all of the proposals, she said, it would be in no position to make a decision other than up or down on the committee’s recommendation. [City website with .pdf files of all six proposals]

The sense in which Briere’s resolution is intended to step on as few toes as possible is that it does not direct the RFP committee to undertake any action or to undo any of its work to date. Briere noted that she felt it was important as a general principle that committees appointed by the council be given independence to do their work, without interference from council. That did not mean, she cautioned, that the council needed to abide by any committee’s recommendation.

The resolution – by directing the proposers to take an action, as opposed to the committee – is intended to elicit information from eliminated proposers that might have come to light in the course of the next steps of the process. Those next steps include in-person interviews on Jan. 20, which allow 90 minutes for each of the four remaining proposals, during which time questions from the public will be entertained.

If the resolution does not pass, Briere said, then proposers whose projects had already been eliminated, or that were eliminated at future points along the way, could still expect questions from her, if not from the council as a body.

Objections to the Process to Date

It is the exclusion of the two open space proposals in the next steps of the process that residents attending Sunday night’s caucus criticized. The criticisms at caucus mirrored many of those cited in a letter forwarded to the council from several citizens – some of those who signed the letter were in attendance at caucus.

Chief among the objections was that there was an expectation – based on the resolution passed by council establishing the RFP review committee – that the public would be able to weigh in before any decisions on the proposals were made. At caucus, the decision by the committee first to eliminate two of the proposals, and then provide the public with an opportunity to react, was described as “backwards.”

Another objection, raised both in the letter and at caucus, is the membership of the RFP committee. There is no “citizen at large” on the committee who is not also a member of council, city staff, or an appointed city board or commission. Caucus attendees emphasized that they did not question the qualifications of Sam Offen – who’s on the RFP committee and also serves on the city’s park advisory commission – and allowed that “he’s a regular person.” But he was not a citizen who had no connection to other city entities, they said.

At caucus, mayor John Hieftje said that membership on the committee by a park advisory commission member had been seen as useful in light of the fact that the council had expected there would be proposals that included predominantly open space.

Centrally Located Park versus Greenway?

In the Sunday caucus discussion, mayor John Hieftje said that in weighing the merits of a park for the top of the Library Lot, he saw a connection between such a park and the city’s financial ability to realize the vision of a greenway along Allen Creek: “I can’t for the life of me figure how we can maintain a park [at the Library Lot] and a greenway.”

The choice between a centrally located park versus a greenway was rejected by one caucus attendee as an artificial one. She told the mayor that he should not connect the two, based on her support of both. Another caucus attendee suggested that the choice as yet “does not appear to be either-or, but rather neither.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested that until the railroad came to the table – which they had not yet – the greenway was unlikely to happen.

When Hieftje expressed concern about security costs associated with a park on top of the underground parking structure, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) offered this solution: “You gate it!”

Vision for Ann Arbor: Where’s Its Heart?

A thread that ran through much of the caucus conversation was the community’s vision for Ann Arbor. When one caucus attendee asked that councilmembers individually and as a group articulate their overall vision for Ann Arbor, mayor John Hieftje noted that he’d done that before in response to a question from The Chronicle and that it could be found online. [Hieftje's vision for Ann Arbor]

Some of that discussion on vision concerned where the “center of Ann Arbor” is. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje – who both grew up in Ann Arbor – pointed to the University of Michigan Diag as a natural place where the community gathered. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allowed that when she’d moved to Ann Arbor in her early 20s, the Diag served that purpose. But she felt its role as a central gathering place for Ann Arbor – as opposed to the university community – was less and less significant.

Caucus attendees saw the Library Lot as an opportunity to define a “heart” of Ann Arbor, which it had not had since the old county courthouse was torn down and a new one built.

Hieftje noted that in a video produced by Kirk Westphal – who serves on the city’s planning commission – people were asked to identify the center of Ann Arbor and that people tended to point to the Main and Liberty intersection. [Link to that video, now available on YouTube: "Insights into a Lively Downtown"]

Public-Private Partnership?

Another theme that ran through the caucus discussion was the question of public-private partnerships – which some of the hotel/conference center proposals would entail.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was not bashful at caucus about his opposition to public-private partnerships, and proposed instead that the question of what goes on top of the underground garage could be settled without an RFP process. An alternative that he described would have a public process to determine how much of the area would remain public space and where that space would be located. Then, he said, you draw a line around that, and the rest is available for sale and development through the regular site planning and review process.

The idea of essentially fixing the location of buildable space above the parking structure was also mentioned at caucus by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who described how other communities had built underground parking garages, placed supporting foundations in a way that dictated where things could be built, and then allowed proposals to be made under those constraints.

As for public-private partnerships and RFP processes for city-owned property, Briere observed that the city did not have a great track record – citing William Street Station (the old YMCA lot), 415 W. Washington, and Village Green as examples. The developer of William Street Station has filed a lawsuit against the city for canceling the project, no recommendation for one of the three proposals was ever rendered by the city’s RFP review committee for 415 W. Washington, and Village Green may or may not happen, depending on the developer’s ability to get financing.

Local developer Peter Allen and Stephanie Simon, a student in Allen's urban development course at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Simon was part of a student team that had developed a project for the Library Lot – they presented their work to library board members on Dec. 17. (Photo by the writer.)

It was a telling moment. A group of graduate students from the University of Michigan had just finished making presentations to members of the Ann Arbor District Library board. They were part of a class on urban design taught by local developer Peter Allen.

Some of their class projects had focused on development of the Library Lot, and two teams were on hand to show their work to the board.

When they were done, Allen talked about why the student perspective was important – for the worldview they brought, and the insight they could give on how to make downtown Ann Arbor attractive for the 25 to 35-year-old professional.

The moment came when Prue Rosenthal, the board’s treasurer, asked this question: “How many of you plan to stay here?”

Silence – then some awkward laughter. None of the six students, it turns out, intend to stick around Ann Arbor after graduation.

That alone isn’t a big deal – it’s a small sample, after all. But it was striking when combined with the vision these students had for downtown development – a vision very different from what’s typically proposed for Ann Arbor, or from what actually gets built. But it’s a vision that, if realized, might compel these young professionals to make a life here.

I was able to watch the students’ presentations, both at the Dec. 17 meeting at the library as well as earlier that week, when six projects were showcased during a three-hour class meeting on Monday, Dec. 14. Their task had been to pick one of three sites in Ann Arbor, and develop a proposal that would help create a lively, liveable, transit-oriented town.

Some common themes emerged from their work, providing a lens through which to view the city’s current efforts to develop the Library Lot. More broadly, their projects raised questions about what might be possible in downtown Ann Arbor – and highlighted challenges that developers would certainly face to get there.

Student Visions for Ann Arbor

Since 1981 Peter Allen has been teaching this interdisciplinary course, or classes similar to it, as an adjunct faculty member at the UM Ross School of Business and Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. One of the main components is an exercise in developing a specific site in Ann Arbor – Allen selects places that in theory could be developed, and asks students to do the research and come up with proposals that are as close as possible to what a real developer might make.

This term, three sites were selected: 1) the Library Lot, atop a city-owned underground parking structure being built next to the downtown library, between Fifth and Division; 2) a city-owned lot on Fuller Road, where a joint city/UM transit station and parking structure are being developed; and 3) riverfront property owned by DTE Energy – known as the MichCon site – and the adjacent Amtrak station, near the Broadway Bridge.

Emily Tsiang, an MBA student at the UM Ross School of Business, describes Broadway Mills, a project that her team developed for Peter Allen's course on urban design. She gave a presentation at the Dec. 14 meeting of Allen's class. (Photo by the writer.)

At the Dec. 14 class, six teams gave presentations – two for each site. Elements of each project varied, depending on the location. The MichCon site, for example, includes heavily contaminated areas that any developer would need to remediate. And the Fuller Road site had to be designed to include a multi-modal transit hub, on the assumption that a high-speed rail line would be part of that location.

That said, there were many common threads among the six projects. All put a premium on density, and on a mix of different uses – hotels, restaurants and cafés, retail shops, groceries, offices, apartments or condos.

Most mentioned that retail and restaurant tenants needed to encompass both national chains as well as locally-owned businesses. Some students even cited specific stores they thought would appeal to young professionals, like Express, Brooks Brothers and Zara. (I was a bit surprised to hear that Brooks Brothers appealed to young professionals, but I’m willing to believe.) “Basically, we want to steal business from Briarwood Mall,” said Peter Sotherland, a masters student in urban planning.

Other similarities: All of the proposals included tall buildings, some designed to the maximum height allowed by the A2D2 zoning changes – one as tall as 17 stories. Most proposed public space, either park-like settings or plazas, and some incorporated areas envisioned for outdoor performances or public art.

The developments were, without exception, designed to be accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, with the assumption that residents and visitors would have access to public transportation, or be within easy reach of whatever services they required, from grocery stores to health clubs.

Students also followed a similar process in developing their proposals, regardless of location. They were asked to identify stakeholders that would be affected by their projects, and their reports included an analysis of those different perspectives. For the Library Lot site, for example, teams met with Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker to find out what features of their developments would be seen as assets or detriments for the library.

That library-as-stakeholder approach taken by Allen’s students contrasts rather sharply with the approach now being taking by city officials – and theirs is not just an academic exercise. They’re currently evaluating actual proposals from actual developers for the Library Lot in response to an RFP (request for proposals) for that space. But the library is not represented on the RFP review committee, and the committee did not solicit the library’s feedback – though library leaders are providing feedback anyway. [Chronicle coverage: "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated" and "Library Lot: What Should Go on Top?"]

Library Lot: Thinking Big

The students’ Library Lot proposals reflected another approach differing from the one that the city is taking: The projects took into account a much wider scope than just the development on top of the underground parking structure.

The issue of master planning – or rather, the lack of it – came up during a Dec. 21 library board meeting, when board members discussed what they’d like to see in a development next door, and the implications a development would have on the library’s future. From a Chronicle report of that meeting:

Margaret Leary said she liked the idea of a hotel and conference center. She then spoke more generally about the kinds of things that would affect the downtown library. It’s crucial for the library to know what’s going on top of the underground parking site, she said, because it will affect how the library designs its own building, when that project is ready to move forward again.

And it’s not just the underground parking site, Leary added. The library will be affected by what happens to the surface parking lot at the northwest corner of Fifth and William – formerly the site of the YMCA – and by what happens at the AATA’s Blake Transit Center, adjacent to that parking lot. What’s needed is a master plan for the whole area, she said.

[For background on the AATA project, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA Board: Get Bids to Rebuild Blake"]

The student teams who developed proposals for the Library Lot connected that space with surrounding properties.

A proposal called “Library Gardens” extended its scope to Liberty Plaza, the multi-tiered city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. The project called for making Liberty Plaza into one level and connecting it with an outdoor amphitheater/ice skating rink to the south, which in turn would lead into the proposed Library Lane, a small road running between Division and Fifth next to the library. Library Gardens also envisioned using the former YMCA site – now a city-owned surface parking lot at the northwest corner of Fifth and William – in part as a community garden.

Likewise, a proposal called “City Center” incorporated Liberty Plaza, the library, the UM Credit Union property just east of the library, and the former Y site. Presenting the team’s project to the library board on Dec. 17, MBA student Sara Jones said they took inspiration from Washington D.C., as well as cities in Europe, to make the area a focal point for downtown Ann Arbor. The plan called for building a new library on the former Y site, and using the property vacated by the current library as part of a complex of four buildings, including a hotel, offices and apartments. The project also envisioned creating new pedestrian-friendly streets within the block – a restaurant row, fashion avenue and a street modeled after a European market.

The student proposals are quite detailed in terms of their market and financial analysis, though obviously there are real-world considerations that in some cases they sidestep. For example, library director Josie Parker noted there are constraints on vacating or selling the downtown library property – linked to the library’s historical connection to the Ann Arbor Public Schools – which make it unlikely that they would pursue that option.

Still, the student projects contain an element that’s missing from most development proposals that come before the city. Perhaps it’s that the students are emboldened to take risks – there’s really nothing at stake for them, after all. Perhaps it’s that they’re not grounded in the city as it is, but rather as it could be – as they’ve experienced in cities elsewhere, places where they’ll move when they graduate.

After hearing their presentations, library board member Margaret Leary said she felt discouraged about the ability of Ann Arbor to ever realize the kind of vision that these students laid out. The two student projects she’d just seen were better than any of the six proposals that had been submitted to the city for the Library Lot site, she said. [Two of those six proposals were subsequently eliminated by a review committee. Copies of all six proposals are posted on the city's website.]

Leary described her experience as a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner, noting that the commission couldn’t even get approval to allow accessory dwelling units in the city – a zoning change that was originally seen as low-hanging fruit, she said, but that was “flattened” after two years of public debate.

How is it possible to focus on the greater community good, she asked, when some people will pick apart each project based on their own pet goals, from affordable housing to green space? Even when those goals are desirable for the community overall, if every project is forced to address them, then creative development is stymied.

Peter Allen told the board that getting political consensus was the biggest obstacle to any development project, “but I think you can build consensus around this site,” he said. He urged the board to take a leadership role – the library has built great public trust, and now needs to step up and help create a master plan for the area. “You need to be driving this process,” he said.

Some Final Thoughts

The demographic that these graduate students represent has been cited repeatedly as an important one for the city’s future – and for the state’s, for that matter. The Ann Arbor Region Success initiative has identified the development of a young professionals network among its priorities.

So following up on her own question – the one I cited at the start of this column – Prue Rosenthal asked what would compel the students to stay here.

One student talked about how she hadn’t needed a car, until she moved to Ann Arbor. The city either needs a better public transportation system, or more businesses within a walkable distance to housing – like pharmacies and groceries that aren’t overpriced, she said.

Active nightlife was another draw – things to do 24/7, whether it’s nightclubs or restaurants or just people out and about. In fact, the energy of people – the thrum of activity, of different kinds of people going about their business or play – was a strong allure. And that kind of energy, not coincidentally, was what their development projects sought to foster.

But if there are lessons to be drawn from these students, it’s not just in what they envision for Ann Arbor, but in how they would attempt to achieve their goals – like talking to stakeholders and taking seriously their input, and taking a far less piecemeal approach to projects that will transform the city, for better or worse.

Perhaps because I’m not from Ann Arbor – though I’ve lived here 13 years, and plan to stay – I’m most intrigued not by what the city was in the past, but by what it will become. And I hope Peter Allen’s students will return some day to see how things turn out.

Editor’s note: Added to this article on Dec. 31, 2009:

• BroadwayMills.pdf
• NoMo.pdf
• ArborDepotPark.pdf
• ArborGate.pdf
• LibraryGardens.pdf
• CityCenter.pdf

But residents still stirred the pot – on the issue of extended hours of parking enforcement as well as development proposals for the Library Lot.

The parking issue is part of a more complex resolution that the council will consider on Monday night, but possibly postpone, based on comments at caucus made by Mayor John Hieftje. A separate, but related item on the agenda calls for the purchase of parking equipment for installation on Wall Street at a cost of $87,000.

Receiving no discussion at the caucus was the second reading of the resolution that would reduce the Percent For Art program to a Half-Percent for Art program for the next three years. The resolution passed on its first reading at the council’s previous meeting.

Also receiving no discussion was the first project to be funded through the city’s public art program – a sculpture by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl proposed for for installation outside the new municipal center currently under construction. Council had been expected to have the approval of the Dreiseitl project on its agenda in November, but that expectation then shifted to the Dec. 7 council meeting. It was further shifted to the meeting on Monday, Dec. 21. And now it appears that the Dreiseitl vote will not be taken until sometime in 2010. [Update: The Dreiseitl project was added to the agenda at just after 11 a.m. Dec. 21, 2009.]

Extended Parking Hours

Bob Snyder, president of the South University Neighborhood Association, appeared at the caucus to convey his opposition to the installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown. That meter installation is connected to a revenue generation plan that was a part of the FY 2010 budget adopted by city council in May 2009. Monday’s agenda item approving purchase of some parking equipment is part of that plan.

At the caucus, Mayor John Hieftje contended that the parking meter installation, which the council had approved and adopted, had caused the council to “scratch our heads” about how much sense it made.

Councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who will not attend the council’s Monday meeting due to travel plans, reminded caucus attendees that the purchase of the parking equipment has been on the agenda at two previous meetings and that the council had postponed its consideration, because Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had indicated she’d be bringing a more comprehensive alternative. Smith has now done that in the form of the Monday resolution, which would provide revenues from the Fifth and William surface parking lot to the city, extend meter enforcement to 10 p.m., and discontinue the city’s plan to install additional meters. [Chronicle coverage: "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible"]

Snyder did not weigh in for extended meter enforcement hours, even though the issue has been framed by the council resolution as trading longer enforcement hours for installation of additional meters – which Snyder opposes. Said Snyder: “There’s nothing better for dessert than a $20 ticket!”

When Hieftje suggested that one obstacle to implementing extended enforcement hours was staff to enforce the meters, Snyder quipped: “I could use a part-time job.”

Hieftje revealed at caucus that the South University Area Association State Street Area Association, a merchant group, had sent an email saying that they were “not opposed” to the extended meter enforcement.

But the mayor also indicated that email communications he’d received in general were overwhelmingly against the extended meter enforcement, and hinted that council would not act Monday on the question.

A question about “bagged meters” and enforcement hours was raised by Nancy and Harvey Kaplan, the other two residents at caucus: Does the reservation of the space afforded to the purchaser of the meter bags extend 24/7 or does it end with meter enforcement? [The orange bags, which are placed over the meter heads and indicate that parkers will be towed, are administered by the Downtown Development Authority. Typical uses include special event street closures, or construction sites where contractors need guaranteed space for unloading materials.]

The Kaplans’ question couldn’t be answered by Hieftje, Briere, or Mike Anglin (Ward 5). [The Chronicle will try to follow up on that as resources allow.]

Library Lot RFP

The majority of the discussion at caucus dwelt on an issue that is not on the council’s Monday agenda: the recent decision of the Library Lot RFP (Request for Proposals) review committee to eliminate two of the six proposals. [Chronicle coverage: "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"]

Nancy Kaplan lamented the fact that the two proposals that called for a majority of the space above the underground parking garage to be open space had been eliminated from further consideration. She called the committee’s intention to now hire a consultant to evaluate further the remaining four proposals “backwards” – the consultant should evaluate all of the proposals, she contended.

Kaplan wondered if Hieftje, as the mayor, could exert some pressure on the committee to consider the open space proposals and “show some leadership.” Hieftje responded by saying that he did not want to tell the committee how to go about its work, but that the council could choose to consider all of the proposals. In this the mayor was repeating a sentiment he’d expressed at the council’s Nov. 15, 2009 caucus. At Sunday’s caucus, he suggested that there were three votes on council in favor of hearing the open space proposals in the room right then – Briere and Anglin did not disagree.

Hieftje’s main concern about a predominantly park use of the space was related to maintenance and security – not just balanced against existing parks, but also against the future parks planned in connection with the greenway.  He wondered if the maintenance commitment to a centrally-located park would put off  the city’s ability to develop a greenway [along Allen Creek] for another 20 years.

Hieftje expressed his fondness of the idea of an ice-skating rink – included in one of the open space proposals for the lot – and recounted the experience of his youth in Ann Arbor skating on the ad hoc outdoor rinks formed by the city in various parks. But he expressed reservations about the amount of city investment required for the ice-rink proposal, which was made by Dahlmann Apartments Ltd. Dahlmann offered $2.5 million for construction, but did not identify funds for ongoing maintenance.

With respect to the need for maintenance, Briere pointed out that most of the maintenance for New York’s Central Park is paid for by a nonprofit group [Central Park Conservancy]. She suggested that a similar effort – perhaps coordinated through the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation – might allay some concerns about future funding for upkeep and maintenance.

Regarding one of the other six proposals – for a conference center – Briere wondered whether the conference center proposal actually reflected a future where travel budgets would be curtailed and “virtual conferences” would be more common. Resident Harvey Kaplan also wondered if the newly acquired Pfizer space by the University of Michigan might be better suited for adaptation to a conference center-type use. Hieftje noted that there was a huge dining facility on the Pfizer property.

Anglin said he’d like to see an analysis of the financial benefit that the open space proposals would bring, something he felt had not been given due attention.