The deadline for submitting proposals is May 4, 2012 at 10 a.m. A pre-proposal meeting for potential respondents will be held on Thursday, April 26 at 4 p.m. at the proposed skatepark site at Veterans Memorial Park, near the corner of Dexter Avenue and Maple Road. After proposals are submitted on May 4, they will be reviewed by a selection committee, with interviews held during the week of May 29.

The RFP provides this description of the project design: ”The site allows for an approximately 30,000 square foot Skatepark. The design must include, but not necessarily be limited to, both “street” (e.g. flat surfaces, stairs, rails) and “transitional” elements (e.g. bowls, pools, curved surfaces, halfpipes), lighting and seating, and must accommodate skaters at a range of skill levels, from beginners to advanced. The final plan must meet or exceed all storm water management and other environmental requirements, must complement the current park landscape, and must preserve the existing trees. Where practical, solar powered lights, drought resistant species, and low maintenance ground covers shall be incorporated into the design, as applicable.”

The RFP was discussed at the April 17 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that the goal is to select a designer within two months. He explained that the RFP is being handled through the city’s purchasing division using city guidelines, and the skatepark will be a city-owned asset. However, he said the selection committee – which will include members of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, as well as city and county representatives – will be relied on to make a recommendation for the designer. That recommendation will be reviewed by PAC, he said. PAC commissioner David Barrett will serve on the committee. Park planner Amy Kuras is the city’s point person on the project.

Construction is expected to start in the spring of 2013.

State Street runs north-south. Ellsworth, which runs east-west, is at the bottom of the frame. The large paved area northwest of the I-94/State Street interchange is Briarwood Mall. The proposed area of study extends farther north to Stimson. (Image links to Bing Map.)

The RFP, which will likely be issued next week, will solicit a consultant to develop a comprehensive plan for the 2.15-mile section between Stimson Street to the north – near a railroad crossing and the Produce Station – and Ellsworth to the south.

The corridor is the city’s main gateway from the south – the stretch includes an I-94 interchange, entrances to Briarwood Mall, and other retail, commercial and office complexes. Although there is one large apartment complex along that road, it is not a densely residential area.

Also at Tuesday’s working session, commissioners and staff discussed plans for an April 26 retreat that will focus on another major corridor: Washtenaw Avenue.

State Street Study RFP

A comprehensive study of the South State Street corridor had been scheduled for the current fiscal year – it was an item discussed at the planning commission’s annual retreat held in April 2010. But the city’s planning staff didn’t have the resources to do the work, according to Wendy Rampson, head of the planning unit.

So rather than having planning staff tackle the project, the city plans to hire a consultant for this project. About $150,000 is available for the project, though it’s unlikely that entire amount will be used. Those funds, which are in the budget for the current fiscal year, would require city council approval if they need to be carried over into FY2012, which begins July 1, 2011.

Jill Thacher, the city planner who’s leading this project, plans to issue the RFP next week, and on Tuesday evening asked planning commissioners for feedback on the draft she’d crafted. [.pdf file of draft State Street Corridor study RFP]

The RFP includes a proposed process for developing the corridor plan – a process that’s expected to take 12 months, beginning in July 2011:

1. Data Inventory and Analysis: A large amount of preliminary data on the corridor has been collected by staff, and includes information on related planning efforts, existing conditions for land use, transportation, natural features, and infrastructure, and issues and opportunities related to these conditions. A database of building parcel information, and a large number of GIS maps specific to existing conditions have also been collected. The consultant will utilize existing data and identify additional data requirements, and collect that data.

2. Market Analysis: A market analysis to identify market demand and redevelopment potential will be undertaken by the consultant. The analysis may include, but is not limited to, examination of existing conditions, identification of trends affecting demand for various land uses, identification of market and non-market based forces affecting the corridor, future market demand, and/or other relevant market information.

3. Identification of Goals, Issues, and Opportunities: Upon completion of market analyses and data collection, the selected consultant should analyze the data and work closely with the public, as well as business and institutional stakeholders, to complete a full SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis for the corridor. This analysis will be used to craft a preferred vision of future land use in the corridor.

4. Identification of Alternatives and Priorities: The consultant will work closely with staff and the Planning Commission, considering public input, to identify alternative scenarios that could be implemented over time as the corridor develops/redevelops.

5. Preparation of Plan Concepts and Selection of Preferred Scenario(s): Using the alternatives and priorities identified via the ongoing public process, corridor plan concepts will be developed that address the priorities and needs identified. The consultant will work with staff and the Planning Commission to recommend and select the preferred future land use scenario(s).

6. Identification of Action Strategies, Plans, Policies, and Best Practices: The consultant will work with staff and the Planning Commission to identify action steps and strategies needed for successful implementation of the preferred future land use scenario(s). This could include outlining methods to work with City leaders, local, regional, and state planning agencies, business groups, and members of the community at large to best implement the corridor plans, preserve the desired current aspects of the corridor, and to embrace future anticipated growth.

7. Development of Final Corridor Plan Report: Deliverables expected from the selected firm will include a final corridor plan report, in a format suitable for publication, including intermediate studies which were used in the planning process, such as future development scenarios, alternative scenarios, and market analyses.

Thacher told commissioners that the RFP will likely have a mid-May deadline for submitting proposals, with selection of a consultant taking place later that month. The planning commission’s master plan review committee – consisting of Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt and Erica Briggs – will help select the consultant. The goal is for work to begin in July 2011. Because the study is expected to cost more than $25,000, it would first require city council approval.

In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Rampson said that the Ann Arbor city council had approved $70,000 to develop corridor design standards in FY2010 and $90,000 in FY2011 for consulting work on corridors. Of that, about $10,000 has been spent so far on inventory work, leaving $150,000 available. She said they do not intend to spend the entire $150,000 on this contract.

In addition, the council had allocated $85,000 for master plan revisions in FY2010 and $95,000 in FY2011. Following direction given by the planning commission, the city’s planning staff has not embarked on a full master plan revision effort, Rampson said, and they don’t intend to use the remainder of those funds.

[It was at its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting that the city council revised its FY 2011 budget by moving funds out of the general fund reserve and allocating them for corridor and master planning. The money had reverted to the general fund – after being previously allocated in the FY 2010 budget, but not spent. Because the unspent funds were not carried forward for FY 2011 when that year's budget was approved in May of 2010, the council needed to authorize the transfer back from the general fund reserve. That authorization came with dissent from Marcia Higgins, who represents Ward 4]

State Street Study RFP: Commissioner Feedback

Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, began the working session discussion by looking at the eight deliverables listed in the RFP – items that the city will want the consultant to produce as part of the project. They include:

1. Data Inventory & Analysis: Interview and meeting summaries; analysis maps; narrative.

2. Market Analysis: Findings and summary report.

3. Issues/Opportunities/Goals: Overview of SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis; preliminary goals summary.

4. Choices/Trade-offs/Priorities: Summary of criteria and methodologies used; summary of choices

5. Recommended Plans/Policies/Practices: Draft plans and policies.

6. Action Strategies: Policy implementation and action strategies reports.

7. Draft/Final Corridor Plan: Draft and final plan text, illustrations, executive summary.

8. Two to four public meetings plus up to 25 targeted individual or small group interviews of key stakeholders.

Mahler said those are fine, but he noted that commissioners had also talked about incorporating sustainability goals into this project.

[By way of background, commissioners discussed sustainability and the State Street project at their April 2010 retreat, and more generally at a three-way joint working session of the environmental, energy and planning commissions that took place that same month. This year, the city was awarded a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to: (1) create a sustainability framework; and (2) develop an action plan based on the sustainability framework. The funds are paying for a temporary employee, Jamie Kidwell, who's keeping a blog about the project on the Sustainable Cities Institute website. The goal is to develop a framework of goals, objectives and indicators, and a State of Our Sustainability Report.]

Mahler told other commissioners that this project is ideal for making the city’s sustainability goals concrete, though they need to settle on what specific goals they’d want to achieve. It might vary from one end of the corridor to the other, he said. There might not be a better opportunity to do this for a long time, Mahler added, saying that at the very least, the outcome would be something they could critique.

Rampson noted that Kidwell is just beginning her year-long project to build a sustainability framework, but she might be far enough along by the time the State Street consultant starts that they could work together.

Bonnie Bona added that it would help even if they simply developed questions to ask themselves relative to sustainability goals, and to identify where potential conflicts arise between the different goals of economic, environmental and social justice sustainability. The goals don’t always work together, she said.

Moving off the topic of sustainability, Evan Pratt suggested asking for the consultant to come up with alternative scenarios for the corridor. What would it look like in the future if the city did nothing? What might happen if there were different types of zoning changes?

Bona pointed to the city’s transportation plan – it would be nice to coordinate the State Street study with that plan, she said. Pratt added that an overview of traffic management issues should be part of the study.

Rampson later noted that the city will be able to provide the consultant with previously collected traffic data. City staff have also taken soil borings from the medians along State Street near Briarwood Mall, she said. The aesthetics of those medians has been an issue, and soil samples provide information about what can be done there – possibilities such as bioswales or native vegetation.

Kirk Westphal asked whether the consultant should explore funding possibilities, like a corridor improvement authority (CIA) that’s being considered for Washtenaw Avenue. Rampson felt it was more appropriate to ask the general question: What tools are available to implement the plan? She said they’ve already encountered the “realities” of possibly implementing tax increment financing (TIF) in the Washtenaw Avenue project, and she was reluctant to suggest that as a specific option for the consultant to explore.

Erica Briggs suggested that the study include information about where commuters who use the State Street corridor are coming from and going to. Westphal said the proposed Costco site on Ellsworth west of State – which will likely have a large surface parking lot – presents a huge park-and-ride opportunity.

Related to alternative transportation, Briggs noted that riding a bicycle along State Street is a problem.

Jean Carlberg described the diversity of development along the corridor, from “dilapidated” student housing on the north end, to the huge impact that Costco could have if it builds a store near State and Ellsworth, in Pittsfield Township. She also noted that the topography of the area isn’t mentioned in the RFP, but should be – stormwater issues are a concern.

Thacher reported that she had attended a meeting in Pittsfield Township where the draft of the township’s master plan was presented. For the area near South State and Ellsworth, Costco would serve as an anchor retail store, but the plan also calls for offices, live/work units that are characterized as artist lofts, and a centralized parking structure.

Rampson said that when Pittsfield officials complete the master planning process, they’ll send out copies to adjacent municipalities – including Ann Arbor – for review. That will likely occur soon, she said. [At its April 13 meeting, the Pittsfield Township board of trustees approved release of the master plan for a 63-day public review period, beginning April 18.]

Diane Giannola clarified that land south of I-94 and to the west of State Street is in Pittsfield Township, while land south of I-94 to the east of State is in Ann Arbor. Rampson added that the road itself is in Ann Arbor’s jurisdiction.

Thacher asked for feedback about the public participation component – her draft suggested two to four general public meetings, plus smaller focus groups with stakeholders, including local businesses, residents at the apartment complex, and the University of Michigan, which has offices in Wolverine Tower near State and Eisenhower.

Pratt said they’ll probably need to knock on doors – getting meaningful feedback in that area will be difficult, he said. Mahler suggested that two public meetings would be sufficient.

Briggs noted that city staff had successfully used an online survey to get public input for the recent update of the Park and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. The city could contact businesses along State Street, and have employers ask their workers to complete the survey, she said.

Westphal said he assumed that overlays would be a potential option for tweaking zoning in this corridor, as would a possible premium for building affordable housing. Rampson replied that it would depend on the commission’s goals. If they want more density, they could recommend changing the zoning to allow for that, she said. Westphal clarified that the corridor study would include a discussion of goals.

Briggs pointed out that the community hasn’t yet clearly articulated its overarching goals, whether those goals include density, affordable housing, transportation or other things. As the city’s resources become more limited, she said, it’s important to know the community’s goals and direct resources into those areas.

Maher suggested adding to the RFP an indication of what kind of modeling they’d like to see. Words on paper are dry, he said – the consultant should develop some sort of visual representation, either a computer model or physical 3-D rendering.

Thacher noted that the draft RFP asks for a market analysis. She asked for feedback – the analysis could be tailored, or quite broad. Mahler weighed in on the side of keeping it basic, saying he was reluctant to get into a protracted discussion about the underlying assumptions needed to do trending forecasts. “The simpler we keep it, the better.”

Pratt agreed, noting that if you ask for a 20-year forecast, you get what the Library Lot proposal entailed – a lot of caveats. Carlberg suggested looking at what a five-year build-out might mean, then identifying possible opportunities beyond that.

Rampson said these types of projects have rarely included market analyses in the past, but that in this case, because State Street is an employment corridor, it would be useful to see what’s on the horizon. They don’t need to do a fine-grain analysis, she said, but to get a sense of where the market is heading in this region, so that the corridor can identify a niche.

When Briggs said that one thing they can predict with certainty is rising gas prices, Mahler replied that there might be a viable alternative fuel that’s developed, to offset that factor.

Westphal observed that even if they aren’t hiring an economic development consultant, it would still be useful to ask for comparisons to corridors in other communities that were anchored by a large retailer and near an interstate. What other areas have made those assets into an opportunity? He also suggested looking at other corridors in Ann Arbor – making sure that their vision for State Street doesn’t detract from other areas, like Westgate, Arborland and the Plymouth/Green corridor.

They’d talked about the North Main corridor previously as well, Derezinski said. But there’s no question that in terms of priority, State Street was second in importance only after Washtenaw Avenue, he said. Pratt added that State Street stood out as an opportunity because changes there were likely to raise fewer objections from residents – there are few residential areas there now.

Derezinski noted that it was remarkable to see the businesses that have sprung up around the Birch Run outlet mall north of Flint, or around the Cabela’s store in Dundee, south of Ann Arbor. Briggs commented that she hoped that kind of development wasn’t in Ann Arbor’s future.

Some of that development could happen in Pittsfield Township, Rampson noted – and the city will need to work with the township about it, in a respectful way.

Planning Commission Annual Retreat

Part of Tuesday’s working session was spent talking about the group’s April 26 retreat, which will focus on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also serves on city council, along with commission chair Eric Mahler have been planning the retreat with Wendy Rampson and Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff. It’s set to begin at 3 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial, where they’ll get an update on the county’s transit master plan from Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO.

At least two hours are devoted to a bus tour with stops along Washtenaw Avenue, between the split at East Stadium in Ann Arbor, and as far east as Hewitt Road in Ypsilanti. Stops are likely to include the crossing at Arbor Hills; the Arborland shopping mall; Glencoe Hills, an apartment complex owned by McKinley Inc.; and the Washtenaw intersections with Golfside and Hewitt.

The group will return to the AATA headquarters for dinner and a discussion of the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority (CIA), a project that involves the four jursidictions that Washtenaw Avenue crosses through: Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township and Ypsilanti. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "What Does Washtenaw Corridor Need?"]

In describing the agenda at Tuesday’s working session, Derezinski said they planned to invite other community members to participate. Albert Berriz, McKinley’s CEO, will be joining them for part of the retreat, he said, as will Anya Dale, a Washtenaw County planner and AATA board member. The broad theme of the retreat will be regional planning – looking at how communities can work together, Derezinski said, noting that it’s an effort the current administration in Lansing is stressing.

Erica Briggs said she hoped they’d have time to get off the bus and walk along some of the sections of Washtenaw, to experience it as a pedestrian. It’s difficult for pedestrians, especially along the US-23 interchange – and biking is even worse, she indicated.

Rampson said they purposefully picked rush hour to take the bus tour, so that they could see the corridor at its most congested.

Also during the retreat, the commission plans to discuss its work program priorities for the coming year. The retreat, which is open to the public, will run until 8:30 p.m. However, it’s not yet clear how the commission plans to make the bus tour portion of the retreat accessible to the public.

Planning commissioners present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Wendy Woods.

AAPS board members Susan Baskett and Glenn Nelson met with representatives of two search consultants who will be bidding for the contract to help AAPS with its superintendent search. (Photos by the writer.)

The two consultants that attended were the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), from Lansing, and David J. Kinsella and Associates, from Ann Arbor. By the end of the meeting, both consultants said their questions had been answered, and that they planned to submit proposals.

As the board embarks on the replacement process for Roberts – the district’s current superintendent who will be leaving in November – it has decided to hire an executive search firm to help in the recruitment, selection, and hiring process. Friday’s meeting was optional, and offered potential bidders a chance to ask questions of board members Glenn Nelson and Susan Baskett before bids are due on Friday, Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.

Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services, opened the meeting by inviting the consultants to interact informally with the board members. Dick Dunham of MASB began by asking whether the board as a whole planned to be involved in the superintendent search, or if the search firm would be interacting mainly with a committee of the board.

Nelson said that although the board had not addressed that question explicitly, his belief was that the board was planning to work on the search as a “committee of the whole.” “Based on history, and how we work, I think it will be the entire board,” he said, clarifying that some specific tasks may be delegated to board president Deb Mexicotte throughout the process. “We trust our president,” Nelson said.

Baskett echoed his sentiments, saying that the selection of a new superintendent was such an important job, they would all take part. She added, “We [board members] have a history of working well together,” and assured the consultants that “it would not be cumbersome” to work with the full board. “There are only seven of us,” she said.

From left to right: Dave Kinsella of David J. Kinsella and Associates; Dick Dunham and William Brewer of Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB).

Dave Kinsella of David J. Kinsella and Associates asked how many of the current board members had been part of the search for Roberts in 2006. Four of the seven current board members – Nelson, Baskett, Mexicotte and Irene Patalan – had been involved. Baskett pointed out, “This will [Nelson’s] fourth superintendent.” Nelson provided some additional context, explaining that, though there were five board seats up for election in November, only incumbents had filed. “If the thought arises that you might be working with a different group [of board members] in January,” he said, “you won’t.”

Both consultants asked about the extent of community involvement in the search process expected by the board. Baskett began the response by saying, “You know Ann Arbor – we expect it all.”

Nelson explained that the search consultant that the board had employed during the search for Roberts – which was MASB, one the two bidders at the meeting – had facilitated open meetings at which community input was solicited, synthesized the suggestions, and reported them back to the board. He stressed the consultant’s role in that part of the process, and suggested that the board would expect the same level of involvement in managing community input this time around. Nelson also mentioned that, during the Roberts search, a committee of community members appointed by the board met with the candidates. He emphasized, “Community input is very, very important.”

William Brewer, also from MASB, asked if the board had identified principal constituencies from which it would want input solicited. Baskett answered, “Yes, it’s a long list.” Nelson named performing arts groups, civic groups, and community centers as some of the constituents to be included, but noted there were many more.

Baskett stated that some feedback she received after the last search made her question whether some members of the community would participate in another search process. She noted that the board would look to the search firm they hire to help get the community involved, and stated that she wants people to leave happy that they participated. Nelson agreed, “This is part of where we need help, efficiently bringing in the community.” He added that the goal should be for everyone to know the search was a good, fair, open process.

Dunham confirmed that the board wanted to do a national search for a superintendent, and asked whether the board would entertain a non-traditional candidate, such as someone who had experience in the private sector but no experience in education.

Baskett answered that the board had not yet discussed desired criteria of the next superintendent, and that they would be looking for advice from the search firm to craft these criteria. Nelson then followed with a response he stressed was only his individual perspective. He noted that some universities have a governance model in which a president manages external affairs, and a provost manages internal ones. “I can see us entertaining the notion of that kind of structure,” he said, “in which case, we would want the best CEO in the country as the superintendent, and the best educational expert in the country as the deputy superintendent of instruction.” [The AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction position is currently unfilled, but was maintained in the district’s 2010-11 budget.]

Dunham asked the board members to explain how the AAPS strategic plan is relevant to the search process. Nelson answered, “We don’t want the coming months to be a period of treading water.” He expressed an interest in the district continuing to update the plan’s action items, and emphasized that the plan belonged to the district, not to the superintendent. Baskett agreed, saying, “We’re not going to give it up.”

Nelson did note, however, that the 180 people actively involved in the strategic planning process would likely overlap with those who would attend the community meetings focused on the superintendent search. This overlap could cause the timeline for the strategic planning process to be amended due to the superintendent search, Nelson conceded.

Both consultants complimented the board on the comprehensive nature of the RFP. Kinsella joked that he “would have had to be an oral surgeon” to extract this depth of information from previous clients.

Nelson first thanked the consultants for their feedback, and said that the board is proud of itself. He gave kudos to both board treasurer Christine Stead for writing the first draft of the RFP, and Comsa for providing excellent staff support of the board’s work. Nelson then took the opportunity to characterize the board as one that is “respectful of expertise, but likely to say, ‘Show me.’”

Baskett agreed, saying, “I like to think of us as intelligent, but not snooty.” She noted that five of the seven current board members have worked as consultants in some capacity, and that she herself had managed many government contracts. “We don’t follow blindly,” she said, “but do recognize that others have talent we could use.” Baskett closed the meeting by asserting, “The seven of us enjoy working with each other. We hope whoever we choose enjoys working with us.”

Present: Board secretary Glenn Nelson, trustee Susan Baskett, and Dave Comsa, assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010, 7 p.m., Downtown Ann Arbor District Library, fourth floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [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.