The eight recommendations of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. [.pdf of full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s eight recommendations, as amended during the meeting, are as follows [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

1. The development of any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences. The most commonly expressed community-based priorities include: a central location; sufficient size for passive recreation/community gatherings; shade; and natural features.

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

3. Any new downtown park should enliven the downtown, complement existing parks and development, and serve the community desire for a central gathering space.

4. Any additional downtown park space should not come at the expense of the quality or maintenance of Ann Arbor’s existing parks. Downtown parks are expected to be more costly to develop and maintain. Further, existing downtown parks are not currently utilized to their potential. Given the limits of current parks funding, the development of new parks should not be approved without an identified funding source for capital development, ongoing maintenance, and programming.

5. Significant capital/structural improvements to Liberty Plaza should only be made in concert with the adjacent property owner. Short-term efforts should continue to focus on smaller-scale incremental changes (removal of shrubbery) and programming opportunities (fee waiver). Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between the Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.

6. The downtown could benefit from the addition of small “pocket” parks and flexible spaces. The City should work with potential developers of city-owned properties to identify opportunities, create, and maintain privately funded, but publicly accessible open spaces. (e.g., the Y and Kline lots). As a part of this effort, staff should develop recommendations for how development contributions can better serve to provide and improve downtown passive recreational opportunities, including proposals such as flex space (parklets), streetscape improvements, and public art.

7. The public process for downtown parks and open space does not end with these recommendations. Any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities.

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

This subcommittee – Ingrid Ault, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin – has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. In addition to focus groups and public forums, the subcommittee conducted a survey that yielded more than 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] Their recommendations were based in part on that feedback.

The Library Green Conservancy has been advocating for a park atop the Library Lot, but conservancy members envision a much larger footprint than the one proposed by PAC’s subcommittee. During deliberations on Oct. 15, it emerged that the subcommittee hoped for more than the minimum size of 5,000 square feet that was mentioned for a park or open space on that site in the Connecting William Street report.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” “Survey Drafted for Downtown Parks,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where PAC holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asks to be called on during the July 16 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The council considered a resolution that would have placed a question on the Nov. 6 ballot about a charter amendment affecting city parkland. The amendment would require a voter referendum not just for the sale of parkland, but also for leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale.

The majority of the council wanted to allow time for the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) to weigh in before taking council action. To facilitate that timeline, PAC is convening a special meeting on Aug. 8 to consider the matter. The council’s postponement was until Aug. 9 – its next regularly scheduled meeting. That’s a Thursday instead of the usual Monday, pushed back because of the Aug. 7 primary election.

Some supporters of the possible amendment had hoped to bring the matter to a council vote before the August primary, because they wanted incumbent council candidates to be judged by the electorate based on their vote on the parkland ballot question. That led Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who is not seeking re-election to a third term, to call the resolution on the ballot question a “poorly disguised political stunt.”

Other park-related items on the agenda included approval of a $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the design and construction oversight of a skatepark to be built in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The council also gave initial approval to the rezoning of two parcels recently acquired by the city for expansion of the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. On final approval, both parcels will receive the PL (public land) zoning designation. The city expects the additional land to make the entrance to the nature area more accessible.

The Leslie Science and Nature Center will get $115,309 worth of improvements to create accessible pathways at the city-owned site – the council approved a contract with JB Contractors Inc. for that work. The center is operated by a separate independent nonprofit on land and buildings that are owned and maintained by the city of Ann Arbor.

The possibility of a mixed-use park and art center at the city-owned 415 W. Washington property was given a chance to move forward, with the council’s authorization of $50,000 in general fund money to pay for physical surveys of the building on the property. The building, which would potentially house a space for working artists, would need environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys done, even if a decision were ultimately made to demolish the building.

Open space outside the city got a boost from the council’s acceptance of $396,900 in federal funds for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on properties in Webster and Superior townships. The federal funds will be matched with city funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage, which supports the city’s greenbelt program.

The wetlands at Plymouth Parkway Park that were impacted by last year’s railroad embankment washout along Plymouth Road will be restored through a $97,687 contract with Fonson Inc. authorized by the council. The funds will come from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Only tangentially related to parks was the council’s approval of the site plan for the Maple Cove development. Located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side, the plan calls for combining two sites – 1649 N. Maple and 1718 Calvin – and demolishing an existing single-family home and detached garages there. Two 3-story apartment buildings would be built with a 64-space parking lot. The project also includes building a private street to serve seven new single-family houses near Calvin Street.

The parks connection to Maple Cove is that the city requested a $26,660 contribution from the developer to support the city’s parks – a voluntary contribution, with the amount determined by formula. The developer has declined to make that contribution.

The council also voted to appoint John Seto as chief of police and head of safety services – he’s now permanently in charge of policing the city, including city parkland. Seto has served since April as interim in the wake of Barnett Jones’ retirement.

In other action, councilmembers voted to suspend the use of construction unity board (CUB) agreements in construction contracts – after voting to restore their use earlier this summer. On the CUB issue, the council has been responding to a changing landscape of law, as state legislation is passed and court decisions are handed down.

Park Lease Ballot Question

The council considered a possible ballot question on a charter amendment affecting city parkland. It would require a voter referendum not just for the sale of parkland, but also for leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale.

Ultimately, the council voted to refer the issue to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC).

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confer after the meeting.

The chair of that commission, Julie Grand, had written in an email to mayor John Hieftje on July 12 that she felt “… it is critical for PAC to provide a formal resolution prior to any council vote. I therefore propose to find an alternative time for PAC to hold an open work session with councilmembers [Jane] Lumm, [Mike] Anglin and [Sabra] Briere [co-sponsors of the resolution] in accordance with the deadlines imposed on ballot initiatives prior to council’s vote on this matter.”

In the last two months, the nine-member PAC has seen the departure of three long-time members, because of term limitations: Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett. Nystuen and Offen were replaced by Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson. Nominated at the council’s July 2 meeting and confirmed on July 16 was Barrett’s replacement – Bob Galardi, a former Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator.  The two city council representatives to PAC – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – are non-voting ex officio positions.

The special meeting by PAC is scheduled for Aug. 8 at 3 p.m. at city hall. The Ann Arbor city council has until its second meeting in August to put various questions before voters on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot. A resolution placing a question on the ballot requires a seven-member (2/3) majority on the 11-member council.

The draft language before the council on July 16 was: “Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to require voter approval for long-term (greater than 5 yrs) non-park or non-recreational uses of parkland within the city while retaining the section’s current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any city park, or land acquired by the city for a park or cemetery?”

If approved by voters, the charter would be changed to read [added language in italics]: The city shall not sell, lease, or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long-term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.”

The existing charter provision, which deals only with the sale of parkland, had been approved in November 2008 by a 81%-19% margin of voters (42,969 to 9,944).

Michigan’s Home Rule City Act already lists among a city’s prohibited powers: “… to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city …”  The council voted to place the question before voters in 2008 over dissent from councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and former councilmember Leigh Greden.

That year, the council had consciously settled on wording that included just selling, as opposed to leasing. In an Oct. 31, 2008 Ann Arbor News article, mayor John Hieftje was quoted as follows: “From time to time, we’ve thought about how nice it might be to have a restaurant near the river. I think it’s something people would really enjoy … That would be impossible if the ballot measure was expanded to include leasing.”

Park Ballot Question: Public Commentary

Several people spoke in favor of the resolution that would place a ballot question before voters, including two candidates for city council who are competing for seats in the Democratic primary. One person spoke against the resolution.

James D’Amour spoke on behalf of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. A fundamental value of the Sierra Club is protection of parks, he said. The Sierra Club stands fully behind the effort of councilmembers Jane Lumm and Mike Anglin to “close a loophole” in the charter amendment passed by voters in 2008. [The council resolution was also co-sponsored by Sabra Briere, but she was not mentioned by D'Amour.]

He called the parks a trust meant for future generations. D’Amour described city actions in connection with Huron Hills golf course and Fuller Park since 2008 as demonstrating a fundamental betrayal of that trust, he contended. It could be argued that the events that occurred were within the letter of the law, he said, but the long-term arrangements that were contemplated were a violation of the intent of the voters in 2008. He asked councilmembers to support the resolution.

Rita Mitchell also encouraged the council to vote for the resolution, because it provides support for parkland – which is jointly owned by all Ann Arbor taxpayers, she said, and is enjoyed by residents and visitors. She pointed to the significant environmental benefit that parkland provides to the city as a whole. She said the 2008 charter vote shows that citizens do want a voice in how the city uses parkland. Subsequent actions have challenged the spirit, if not the letter of the charter language. As an example she gave the plan for a large parking structure and train station at Fuller Park. If a good case can be made for land transfer or different use of a park, then that case can be made to the “real owners of the land,” she said.

Lawrence Baird described the proud history of natural area preservation and parkland protection in Ann Arbor going all the way back to 1920 when Huey Eli Gallup was the city’s first parks superintendent and created the first parks development plan. Since then Ann Arborites have placed a high priority on protecting open space and parkland. Baird reminded the council of Washtenaw County’s natural area preservation millage which Ann Arbor citizens had helped pass and renew. He reminded the council of the city’s 2003 open space and parkland preservation millage passed by Ann Arbor voters. [That millage funds the greenbelt program to preserve natural areas and farmland outside the city, as well as park acquisition within the city.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks to Lawrence Baird before the meeting.

He reminded councilmembers of the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage that voters had approved and will likely renew this year. There’s a loophole in the 2008 charter amendment, he said, and recent events show that if the city chooses to do so, it can enter into long-term leases for non-park purposes. That violates the spirit of the 2008 charter amendment, he said. It also violates the spirit of the various millage votes Ann Arbor voters have made, he said. He contended that greenbelt properties enjoy more protection than city parkland. He described Ann Arbor voters as a “smart, informed, passionate bunch,” and they should be entrusted with the bigger decisions now and then.

Jack Eaton, who is challenging incumbent Margie Teall for a seat on the council representing Ward 4, told the council he was there to support the resolution. He was opposed to putting off the vote on the resolution until a meeting after the primary election. He felt it’s important to consider what’s not involved in passing the resolution. The council’s resolution does not amend the charter, he stressed, but merely allows voters to express their opinion on amending the charter. If the council opposes the resolution because of a fear that voters might approve the amendment, then the council is trying to circumvent the will of the people, he contended. But even if voters approve the charter amendment, the new protections don’t prevent putting the train station at Fuller Park – but rather requires that voters approve it. If the council fears that voters won’t approve the train station, he said, then they’re trying to circumvent the will of the voters.

As he talks to voters, Eaton said, he hears that the community holds parkland in special esteem. He asked the council to pass the resolution and to move it to the ballot immediately before the primary so that voters can know who supported the amendment and who opposed it, before residents cast their votes in the Aug. 7 primary. If the council expects voters to trust them with another park maintenance and capital improvements millage, the council needs to trust voters to weigh in on decisions about parkland, he concluded.

Sally Petersen, who is challenging incumbent Tony Derezinski for a seat on the council representing Ward 2, urged the city council to approve the resolution, because not doing so is not consistent with the city’s open space and parkland preservation, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan and the city’s 2008 charter amendment. The additional clarifying language would close a loophole, she said. She reported the results of an informal poll she’d sent to 160 people measuring their support for the resolution: by 6 p.m. she’d received 70 yes votes, compared to 7 no votes.

Gwen Nystuen, who served on the city’s park advisory commission until recently, told the council that until a few years ago she thought the city’s parks were permanently protected. But she contended that it’s not true – and much of the city’s parkland would be commercially valuable. She then enumerated some of the ways that parks are protected. One way is through deed restrictions, and conservation easements. Another way, she ventured, is if parkland has been purchased with millage money voted by the people. She’d contacted the head of county parks, and found that the county’s parks are considered protected because they’ve been purchased with millage money. Another way parks are protected, she said, is through tradition. Ann Arbor has been acquiring parkland for over a century – and most of our leaders say they’d never ever sell parkland. Beyond that, she said, she can’t find any real protection. The proposed resolution doesn’t prevent the sale or alternate use, but it does require a consensus by the voters, she said.

Elizabeth Colvin told the council she lives on Maiden Lane near the University of Michigan medical center. She urged the council not to support the resolution. She spoke as a supporter of parks and as a supporter of some of the projects that have been proposed for some parkland that don’t involve parks and recreation. The current process of handling projects involving non-park uses provides the public with sufficient opportunity to make their wishes known, she said.

Colvin perceives the current process as consisting of professionals with expertise in their fields – whether running a golf business or planning a train station – studying options, comparing alternatives, making recommendations, drawing up plans, submitting ideas for review and input. During that process, she said, people like her who are interested in a particular process can make their preferences known – by speaking during public commentary at meetings or emailing councilmembers. She felt that requiring a public referendum on top of that process adds unnecessary steps and adds delays to projects that should be completed with all due speed. For her, she said, it hits home with the train station that was initially proposed for parkland at Fuller Road. That project means the most to her, she said, because she feels strongly that improved public transit is absolutely key to the long-term economic health of the community. A new and improved train station in the right location is a critical component of a long-term mass-transit plan for our community, she said. Because that’s important to her, she said, she’d follow those discussions closely and she’d provide input on it. For those projects she doesn’t feel strongly about, she wouldn’t follow them closely and she wouldn’t care if there were a public vote.

Summarizing, Colvin said she thinks the current process works and it gives the public opportunity for input. She was addressing the council on behalf of herself, she said, but knew that several of her neighbors shared her view. She encouraged the council to vote no or at least postpone the issue to get input from the city’s park advisory commission.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Intro

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off deliberations by noting the resolution had been co-sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She thanked assistant city attorney Mary Fales for her help in drafting the language of the resolution. Councilmembers had been given the draft a week ago, she said, and it is unchanged from that version. The language has received a preliminary approval from the state attorney general’s office.

Lumm reviewed the purpose of the resolution – to close a “loophole” left when the 2008 charter amendment was approved. That amendment only specifically referenced the sale of parkland. As a result, the city could retain ownership and not sell it, but could still change the use of that parkland to a non-recreational or non-park use. The resolution is not about Huron Hills golf course or Fuller Road Station or about any specific site, she said. Those situations demonstrated the existence of the loophole. It also does not establish a principle that voters have a say in the long-term use of parkland – because that principle was already established with the charter vote in 2008. It’s simply tightening up the language, she said.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement

Briere said she cheerfully co-sponsored the resolution when it showed up – because she’d heard the same discussion over the last four years as everybody else on the council. However, she looked for unintended consequences. When the ballot measure was placed before voters in 2008, the council anticipated that a problem was being solved. But an unintended consequence was that the city could engage in long-term leases, she said, and indeed had flirted with that idea. The city had not followed through on that – but had talked about it. And that’s what the city is supposed to do, she said – look at its options. It’s that “opening” that the current proposal is intended to close.

From left: assistant city attorney Mary Fales, councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

But there are also unintended consequences for the current proposal, Briere said, which she’d learned of that day. If the current version appears on the ballot, here’s what could occur without a public vote, she said: The city could contract with a company that manages water parks to run Fuller pool – because it would be the same recreational use. The city could contract with a golf-course operator to operate Huron Hills – because it’s the same recreational use. Or the city could build and own a fire station, a homeless shelter, a train station or a parking structure on a park without voter approval – because the city wouldn’t be selling land or engaging in a long-term lease or contract.

She knew that these were not things the framers of the resolution had intended. So she indicated a desire to postpone the resolution to try to work out the details and at the same time refer the topic to the park advisory commission (PAC), to look at any implications she might have missed.

Briere noted that they needed to specify a date to which the resolution would be postponed. Mayor John Hieftje noted that the chair of PAC, Julie Grand, had written to the council, and the PAC meeting for the following day, July 17, had been cancelled. But the intent was to use the first Tuesday in August, which is the scheduled time for PAC’s land acquisition committee meeting, as a time to hold a full PAC meeting to discuss the park ballot question. [Because that day, Aug. 7, coincides with the primary election, it was abandoned as the time for PAC to meet. Currently, PAC is scheduled to meet on Aug. 8 at 3 p.m.]

The council’s first meeting in August is Aug. 9 – due to the primary election. So Briere made her motion for postponement specifically to the council’s second meeting in August – Aug. 20.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement to When?

Lumm moved to amend the postponement to the first meeting in August.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) responded to Lumm’s proposal to postpone just to Aug. 9 by saying, “I’m not sure why we’re rushing this.” It could be voted on at either meeting in August, Smith said, and that would be soon enough to place it on the Nov. 6 ballot. The only reason that the item was on that night’s agenda [the last council meeting before the Aug. 7 primary], she said, is that “it’s a really poorly-disguised political stunt.” The remark from Smith, who is not seeking re-election to her Ward 1 seat, generated a discontented murmur among some in the audience.

In support of her contention that the timing of the resolution was political, Smith noted that the council had heard from a city council candidate during public commentary [Jack Eaton], which had indicated to her that it was a political stunt. It’s not about parks, she contended. Smith said the council does not as a habit rush things, noting that they had postponed the four-party transit agreement three times. The council didn’t vote on something that significant for three meetings, she said.

What was before the council that night affected the city charter: “This is our constitution! This is what we operate our city on. I cannot see the rush.” Smith noted there’s no memo or cover letter on the agenda, and councilmembers have had very little information delivered to them. The council should slow the whole process down, she concluded.

Responding to Smith, Lumm told her she had the draft of the resolution on June 26. Subsequent to that, she was trying to answer questions, she said, and she had been told [by Smith] that by answering questions she was potentially violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA). She had been trying to be helpful, Lumm said: “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I guess.”

By way of background on the OMA issue, Smith had emailed questions about the resolution to the city administrator and the city attorney, CC-ing the message to all councilmembers. Lumm responded to everyone with her answers to Smith’s questions and what Smith perceived as possible advocacy of a point of view on the questions. That was the source of Smith’s caution about OMA issues. If more than a quorum of councilmembers engage in back-and-forth via email it could establish a “meeting” that has not been properly noticed to the public and not open to the public.

The strongest rationale for postponement, Lumm felt, had to do with the definition of potential uses of parkland that might not have been addressed. She felt that assistant city attorney Mary Fales was “Thomas Jeffersonian” in her efforts to craft the language. Fales addressed concerns about the things the city wants to continue to do. It’s a matter of not being able to legislate everything and anticipate every eventuality, she said. Lumm stated that it’s not political. She felt it should not be postponed, but if it were to be postponed, it should be just to the first meeting in August.

Councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) before the July 16 meeting.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that back in 2008, the moment had been right, even though some members of council at the time didn’t want it to move forward. But the moment was right then, and it moved forward – with its limitations. He believed the moment was right now. It had been addressed at PAC several times, he contended. Mayor John Hieftje cautioned Anglin that the issue under discussion was to postpone to the first or the second meeting in August.

Anglin felt that the historical context was important. He felt that the council had not rushed – that it had been very deliberate and it had been going on for some time. As policymakers, that’s the council’s role. The city would have a continual rehashing of the issue – or it could be settled, by saying that those who own the parks have the right to say what happens to them. So he was not in favor of any kind of postponement. He had not been able during that night’s deliberations to speak to the main issue, because the postponement had been brought up before he’d had a chance do that. Postponement will send a chilling statement to those who support parks, he contended.

Briere appreciated the comments by Lumm and Anglin, and indicated that her discovery of loopholes in the current proposal was also a problem for her. If everyone were to move “extraordinarily expeditiously,” the issue could be resolved by the first meeting in August. If not, then the council still has another meeting in August. It’s important that it go to the public, she said, so it’s important that it be the best legislation that the city could have. She said she was content to bring it back on Aug. 9, knowing there’s another meeting in August.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with city clerk Jackie Beaudry that the last date for certifying ballot language with the county clerk is Aug. 28. Kunselman ventured that even a special meeting could be possible. He called it the “common practice” to postpone it initially and then postpone it again if necessary. He’d support postponement to the first meeting in August.

Hieftje expressed concern about the timing, but didn’t have a problem postponing to the first meeting in August. But he was not enthusiastic about the kind of special meeting that Kunselman had described.

Smith took exception to something that Anglin had said about a “thorough and deliberate process.” Speaking to Anglin, Smith told him: “You serve on PAC and you didn’t feel this was appropriate to bring it to the commission you serve on.” Smith stated that the council is delaying in part because PAC hasn’t weighed in. PAC consists of citizen volunteers, she said. It disrespects PAC not to include that body in the process, so she questioned if it had really been a careful and deliberate process. The only appropriate way to go forward, Smith continued, is to have PAC weigh in on it. A Thursday council meeting [on Aug. 9] catches the public off guard, she said. It’s not always the best time to do something – because it’s harder to get the word out. Because of the need for PAC to weigh in appropriately, and because of the Thursday council meeting, she couldn’t support a postponement any earlier than the second meeting in August.

Kunselman sought confirmation that PAC would have time to weigh in on the proposal before Aug. 9. Hieftje told him that was the plan that PAC chair Julie Grand had proposed.

Outcome on postponement timing: The council settled on the timing of the postponement as Aug. 9 – over dissent from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement or Not

At that point, the question before the council was to postpone to Aug. 9 or not.

Lumm felt the resolution is very straightforward. She indicated that the concerns people had expressed about the language had already been addressed by the city attorney. She felt the language offered a good framework. And she reiterated that it could not anticipate every eventuality. She reviewed the basic arguments for the resolution. Lumm did not understand the need to postpone or the need for PAC to review it. The charter was not being changed, she said, but rather the issue was being put before the voters. She didn’t have a problem with PAC providing comment. She had a problem with the timing, she said. She said she didn’t receive a response from a question she’d posed to PAC chair Julie Grand about the scheduling of the meeting.

Responding to Smith’s criticism of Anglin for not moving the proposed charter amendment through PAC, Lumm said Smith had taken an unfair “potshot” at Anglin. PAC cancelled its meeting scheduled for July 17, when Anglin had been “poised to speak to this.” Apparently, Lumm said, PAC didn’t have very much on the agenda and had cancelled its meeting.

Smith picked up on the timeline issue that was part of Lumm’s argument. Smith said she was not sure how PAC could inform the council that night if the commission had been scheduled to talk about it the following day.

Smith then recalled the discussions the council had earlier in the year on the four-party transit agreement. She found some parallels that she found ironic. She then cited coverage in The Chronicle from deliberations conducted at the Jan. 9, 2012 meeting. The complete passage reads as follows:

Lumm reiterated many of her concerns, saying she felt the timeline is “backwards.” She said she doesn’t understand how the council could go forward without having critical documents. Lumm said the issue is not about whether regional transit is good. It’s about seeing information about the specific benefits. She described the process as a “rush” and as putting the cart before the horse.

Smith ventured that “parks” could be swapped in for “regional transit” in that quote. In February 2012, Smith continued, Lumm was quoted by The Chronicle during the four-party transit deliberations as saying “If it’s a good concept today, it’ll be a good concept tomorrow.”

If the park proposal is not on the Nov. 6 ballot, Smith said, it can be on a different ballot. She didn’t necessarily care if it was on this November’s ballot, she said, because she didn’t think there was an impending issue that would change things. She didn’t feel that the city council would be taking a vote on a long-term lease anytime in the next year – though she allowed she could be wrong about that. She did not see the need to rush. It’s important that the council have some robust input from citizens, and that night was the first opportunity she knew of that citizens had a chance to come to the podium to talk to the council about it. So it had to be postponed at least until the first meeting in August, she said.

Anglin said he was fearful the proposal would disappear and then never appear again. He felt the presidential election year, with its larger turnout, would yield a resounding yes or no answer. Over the last few years, the issue has been very contentious, he said, costing time and effort by staff and the council. He described most of the work as having been done by the Sierra Club – writing and re-writing language.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Anglin  contended that he’d raised these issues at PAC, but they were dismissed – because PAC members didn’t see them as significant enough to discuss. For his part, if the council goes back to PAC, “We’ll just get an opinion.” He noted that PAC has three new members. So the “real skilled PAC members” who served for multiple years, are now out in the community willing to work. [He was referring to Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett, whose terms recently ended on PAC.] The council does itself a disservice not to see this as a public process, he said. “Just ask the voters – it’s so simple,” he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward) said he felt that there were good reasons to consider the proposal and to look at the language – but he hadn’t heard any reason not to postpone. Getting input from PAC makes perfect sense, he said. Having PAC’s input can only help, he said. While Anglin might feel PAC’s input doesn’t add value, Hohnke didn’t think it would hurt. In the interest of furthering the dialogue on a thoughtful effort to change the charter, he’d support postponement.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he felt it was important to have PAC weigh in. He lamented the fact that back on Nov. 5, 2009, when the council had approved an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station, the council didn’t get advice prior to voting. But two wrongs don’t make a right, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in supporting the postponement to the first meeting in August. A problem with the volume adjustment on Higgins’ microphone prompted Thomas Partridge to chime in from the audience with a request that Hieftje make certain to ensure that microphone levels are loud enough for people to hear. Hieftje retorted with, “Could you make certain to keep quiet?”

Hieftje said the worst thing the council could do is put a flawed proposal on the ballot – a proposal that doesn’t do what voters think it will. So he’d support postponement.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the proposal until Aug. 9, over dissent by Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Skatepark Design Contract

The Ann Arbor city council was asked to authorize a $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the design and construction oversight of a skatepark to be built in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract on June 19.

City council action on the skatepark at that location dates back to a Dec. 1, 2008 approval of a memorandum of intent. [.pdf of memorandum of intent]

The roughly $1 million project – including an anticipated $100,000 endowment for ongoing maintenance – will be financed through a combination of funds. Those include private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – as well as a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary.

Selection of Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the work came after a selection committee reviewed six responses to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the city of Ann Arbor in April. The committee selected two California firms – Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Wormhoudt Inc. – as finalists. Additional review and interviews resulted in the choice of Wally Hollyday Skateparks as the recommended designer. Wally Hollyday had already been involved in the project to some extent, leading design workshops for the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark in 2009 and 2010.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the skatepark design contract as a part of its consent agenda.

Initial Rezoning for Bluffs

The council considered giving initial approval to the rezoning of two parcels that were recently acquired by the city for expansion of the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. The city planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 5, 2012 meeting.

A 1.12-acre parcel to the north of the Bluffs – connecting the existing parkland to Huron View Boulevard – is currently zoned O (office), and had been donated to the city by a nursing home near that site. A 0.57-acre addition to the south connects the existing parkland to Sunset Road and is currently zoned R4C (multiple-family dwelling). It had been purchased by the city from the Elks lodge, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. Both parcels were recommended to be rezoned as PL (public land).

City planner Alexis DiLeo told planning commissioners at their June 5 meeting that the parcels make the nature area more accessible. Though there is frontage onto North Main, there’s no easy access there for pedestrians or cyclists.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning of the parcels.

Accessible Path Work at Leslie Science Center

The council considered approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to construct barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

JB Contractors provided the lowest of two bids. Fonson Inc. had submitted a much higher bid of $197,459. Funding is available from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Francie Krawcke, raptor program director with the Leslie Science & Nature Center, brought a snowy owl to the June 19, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The owl did not fly around council chambers, but did enjoy a few snacks at the meeting.

PAC had been initially briefed on this project – the first phase of a larger renovation – at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Parks planner Amy Kuras told commissioners at PAC’s June 19 meeting that the goal of the changes to the pathways is to make the center compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to make the pathways and overall organization of the site less confusing. The project includes replacing the paths that connect various buildings on the site, and constructing new paths to connect the center’s raptor enclosures.

At the council’s July 16 meeting, mayor John Hieftje expressed general support for Leslie Science and Nature Center, mentioning the Mayfly annual fundraiser. [Hieftje is a former board member for the center.] Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added that representatives of the LSNC attended the July 16 Townie Party and brought the center’s raptors.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with JB Contractors Inc. for work at the Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Physical Testing of 415 W. Washington

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution approving $50,000 of general fund reserve money to be used for various physical surveys on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. The property, with its three buildings, was previously used by the city as a vehicle maintenance facility, before the construction of the Wheeler Service Center south of town on Stone School Road.

From left: Carl Goins, executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, and architect Chuck Bultman before the city council’s July 16 meeting.

The council received a presentation at its May 7, 2012 meeting from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work. The 555 group has assumed responsibility for the art community’s component of an initiative established by the city council on Feb. 1, 2010 to explore a collaboration between the greenway and art communities for adaptive reuse of the property. The 555 group stepped in when the Arts Alliance could no longer devote staff time to the project. Prior to that initiative, the city had gone through an RFP (request for proposals) process for the property that did not lead to the selection of any of the three proposals submitted.

Chuck Bultman, an architect who is working with the 555 group, had attended the Sunday night city council caucus on July 15. He had compared the physical surveys to be done on the 415 W. Washington property to a through medical workup for a patient. It would be more than taking blood pressure, and would include “drawing blood samples.” For the buildings, the work will include taking core samples to evaluate the structural integrity of the concrete and steel.

Besides the structural testing, other work to be done includes: an environmental survey; hazardous materials assessment; a topographic and boundary survey; a site survey; and architectural drawings of the existing buildings.

Bultman, along with several other professionals, have thus far volunteered their time to move the project forward. Others include: Paul Dannels (a structural engineer with Structural Design Inc.), Shannan Gibb-Randall (a landscape architect with Insite Design Studio Inc.), and Matt Grocoff (an energy performance consultant with Thrive).

Much of the survey work – in particular, the environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys – would be required regardless of the parcel’s future use.

415 W. Washington: Public Comment

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Carl Goins – executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios – told the council that a team of local professional had been working with the city’s task force. He noted the 555 group’s experience in transforming underused spaces into facilities that provided resources to hundreds of artists. The 415 W. Washington building’s size, location and historic character make it an ideal candidate for that kind of re-use, he said. The project could be a model for public, private and nonprofit collaboration. The physical surveys could put things on track for the building to become a regional hub for the arts.

415 W. Washington: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off deliberations by saying that the funding would move the process along. The city had been working with the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy and the Arts Alliance for the last couple of years, on the idea of developing a greenway park and art center. He alluded to an “outshoot” of the North Main corridor task force that was focusing on the greenway. The first greenway park, he said, would be the 721 N. Main city-owned parcel. The effort on 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main need to be coordinated and connected, he said. He mentioned hooking up the greenway to the county’s Border-to-Border trail. Even if you don’t agree that the dream of an art center will come to pass, the surveys would need to be done, he concluded.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) agreed that it was an important and judicious investment in preserving options for the building. Absent a clear understanding of the potential for re-use, he said, the move would be toward seeing the building demolished. [The city's historic district commission would need to grant the city a notice to proceed with that demolition, which is not a foregone conclusion.] Hohnke noted there are a number of people now involved with the effort, who have experience with this type of repurposing. The expenditure increases the likelihood that something exciting happens at the site, he said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called it pretty exciting that the city is going forward with the work. She made a note that the terminology used in the resolution refers to the future “conveyance” of the land. The council’s deliberations on the ballot question then spilled into the 415 W. Washington item, when Smith said she’d love to have a legal opinion on what the city would need to do in order to “convey” the property. It was an excellent example, she said, of a situation where a special election might have to be called in order to enter into an eventual long-term lease. She wanted to know what the impact would be of the proposed city charter amendment on the 415 W. Washington project – not that night, but eventually.

Responding to Smith, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) ventured that the 415 W. Washington project would not be affected at all – because the proposed charter amendment speaks to parkland and cemetery use. The 415 W. Washington site is public land, not parkland. So it has nothing at all to do with the 415 W. Washington site. Responding to Lumm, Smith said, “Thank you very much, councilmember Lumm. I’d love to have a discussion with the attorneys at a later time.” Lumm wrapped up the exchange with “Sorry, I was just trying to help.”

Lumm continued with her remarks by thanking Chuck Bultman, the architect who’s been working with the 555 group. Bultman had given her and others a tour of the site last week. Bultman really has a vision for the future of the building, she said. She understands that what’s contemplated is finding a positive use for the city-owned site. She asked city administrator Steve Powers to outline what the resolution does. Powers reviewed the physical surveys of the building that would need to be done – regardless of its future re-use. To provide more detail on what’s been done to date, Powers told Lumm he’d need to prepare that information and provide it at a later time.

Lumm wanted more information about what the phase 2/3 environmental surveys would tell us. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy was called on to address that question. Hupy described a phase 1 environmental assessment as an analysis of past use. The site does have a history of past uses that causes a suspicion of contamination. A phase 2 study looks at the ground more in depth to see if pollution exists, and if so, to what level.

Lumm asked why the funding was not included in the FY 2013 budget. Powers characterized it as an oversight and nothing more. He was not aware of the momentum of the project at the time the budget proposal was put together, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported to her colleagues that the previous night at the council caucus, she heard from people who are working with the 555 group [Bultman and Trevor Stone] and had heard quite a bit about what could be learned from an environmental assessment – from taking core samples of concrete, looking at groundwater, studying what part of the flooding is caused by the water table and what part is caused by grading of the site and the additional gravel that’s been added to create the parking lot. At the caucus meeting, she’d also learned there is a section of the site that is inaccessible.

Responding to Lumm’s concern about the failure to include this item in the FY 2013 budget, from Briere’s perspective, she was not surprised to see the item come forward until after the budget was approved. Frequently, she said, an item is not “ripe” until after the budget has been approved. It’s a one-time expense, she continued, and she indicated that it’s typical for such items to be approved outside the regular budget cycle.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated all the words of support from other councilmembers. She’s excited about this project, she said, which she contended she’d been working on for a decade – a public space for the arts and the performing arts. She characterized it as a first step. The surveys will tell us whether the building is usable, she said, and she hopes the answer is affirmative.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he supported the resolution and viewed 415 W. Washington as a roadmap for how to deal with 721 N. Main. He noted there’s a lot of community interest in how to use the 721 N. Main property for community needs – whether it’s a day-use center or not. [The council has heard frequent public commentary at its meetings since the fall of 2011 on the idea of a day shelter and warming center. And 721 N. Main has been a property that organizers asked the city to turn over for such use.] How the city handles 415 W. Washington sets up a framework for other city-owned properties, and he’s excited to hear what information the city gets from the work, Kunselman concluded.

Hieftje responded to the 721 N. Main thread that Kunselman had picked up. Hieftje indicated that 721 N. Main is moving forward as part of a state Natural Resources Trust Fund application by the city – because 721 N. Main already has its environmental “clearance.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $50,000 expenditure for physical surveys on the 415 W. Washington building.

Federal Money for Greenbelt

The council considered approval of the acceptance of $396,900 in federal funds from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on properties in Webster and Superior townships owned by the Robbin Alexander Trust (90 acres) and Robert Schultz (136 acres). The grant amount represents 49% of the purchase price.

Ann Arbor greenbelt as of June 2012 (not including the properties the council voted on at their July 16, 2012 meeting). The large square-ish area is the greenbelt boundary area – the land eligible for protection with Ann Arbor greenbelt millage funds. Darker green areas indicate protected property. (Image links to dynamic map.)

The council had approved the application for the federal funds at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. The local share will be provided through the city’s parkland and open space preservation (greenbelt) millage.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt commission, noted that the applications for federal grant money had been approved by the council in February 2012. He highlighted the fact that the federal grants covered 49% of the purchase price, which is the maximum amount that the FRPP will approve. Hohnke said that 49% reflects the quality of the applications that the city staff are submitting. He characterized it as great leverage for the millage funds that Ann Arbor voters have approved.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she certainly supported accepting the funds but contended that it could be better – if other sources of local funding (from the townships) besides the city’s greenbelt millage had factored into the local match component. She ventured that this was not the funding proportion that had been anticipated when the millage was approved.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the receipt of the FRPP funds.

Wetland Restoration at Plymouth

The council considered approval of a $97,687 contract with Fonson Inc. for restoration of a wetland in Plymouth Parkway Park that was filled in as a result of a railroad embankment collapse caused by heavy rains in July 2011. The funds will be taken from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Immediately after the collapse, about half of the soil from the embankment washout was removed from the site, and the rest was removed last month, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. The staff memo also states that  Ann Arbor Railroad worked with the city to restore and improve drainage systems in and around the railroad embankment.

The work covered by the contract with Fonson is to repair underground drainage systems in the park, complete final site grading and replanting the wetland with appropriate species.

Council deliberations consisted of a remark by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that she is delighted the restoration will go forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Fonson Inc.

Maple Cove Site Plan

The council considered the site plan for the Maple Cove development located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side.

The plan calls for combining two sites – 1649 N. Maple and 1718 Calvin – and demolishing an existing single-family home and detached garages there. Two 3-story apartment buildings would be built with a 64-space parking lot and eight bike spaces. The project also includes building a private street to serve seven new single-family houses near Calvin Street, but with an entrance off of North Maple. According to a staff memo, there will be no access to Calvin Street, which “is a private street with a checkered history regarding access rights.” The apartment complex would have a separate entrance, also off of North Maple.

Each apartment building would contain a total of 18 one-and two-bedroom apartments ranging from 745 to 1,057 square feet. The plan calls for each apartment building to have a rooftop patio for use by residents, with the possibility of a vegetated cover (green roof) for the remainder of the roof surface. The staff memo noted that the city has requested a $26,660 parks contribution, but the developer has declined to make that contribution.

The project has a somewhat unusual history. Planning commissioners originally approved it at their March 20, 2012 meeting. But that vote was rescinded because Scio Township residents on Calvin Street had not been included in an original public notice mailed out for the commission’s March meeting.

There were no changes to the plan in the interim period, but at their May 1, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted to postpone action to get more information from the traffic engineer about whether the proposed two separate entrances to the property created a health, safety and welfare hazard. According to city planning staff, the city’s traffic engineer raised some concerns, but he subsequently confirmed that the site plan – with two entrances off of North Maple – does conform with city code.

Planning commissioners ultimately approved the project at their June 5 meeting on a unanimous vote, but three of the nine commissioners – Bonnie Bona, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal – were absent. Bona and Eric Mahler had dissented on the commission’s March 20 original approval. Part of their objection stemmed from concern that no sidewalks were planned for the private street.

At the Sunday night city council caucus held on July 15, the project’s developer indicated the possibility that the private street portion of the project might be sold to another developer – and that developer would have the option to submit a revised site plan that includes sidewalks.

Maple Cove: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge spoke, describing himself as an advocate for the most vulnerable residents of the city. He contended that amendments should be made to the proposal that would require a percentage of the units to include affordable housing.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, mayor John Hieftje responded to Partridge’s mention of an affordable housing requirement by saying that with a planned unit development (PUD), the city could require affordable units; but for a “by right” development like Maple Cove, something like that couldn’t be required.

Maple Cove: Council Deliberations

Project area for Maple Cove is shown outlined in black. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by saying that there are some positive aspects to the proposal, including the fact that it will help fill in Maple Road. He noted there had been a healthy discussion by the planning commission on the site plan. The developer had been asked to consider some minor improvements – not required by code, but that would have improved the experience for future residents of the project and for the public at large. The developer had not undertaken the suggested changes. He was disappointed, Hohnke said, but did not feel it rose to the level of concern that would cause him to vote against the project.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support the project. As city councilmembers, he said, they have a right to do everything they can to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Because the developer did not want to include some things that affect safety – like sidewalks on the private street – he would not support the project. He characterized that as “cutting corners,” saying the developer should be held to the same standards as everybody else.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to ask her a single question to which everyone already knew the answer: “Is this a by-right development?” Rampson told Hieftje that yes, Maple Cove meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Hieftje then ventured that if Kunselman requested it, the council could have a closed session to discuss the ramification of voting no. [Assistant city attorney Mary Fales whispered to Hieftje words to the effect that Hieftje's idea for a closed session wouldn't work, because the council would need a written memorandum from the attorney's office to discuss in order to justify the closed session. That had been part of the point of a lawsuit filed by The Chronicle in September 2010. Since that time, closed sessions held by the Ann Arbor based on the attorney-client privilege have become rare events, when previously they were regular occurrences. Hieftje subsequently relayed Fales' comments at the table.]

Because Maple Cove is a by-right development, Hieftje said, a vote against it would be a “protest vote” but he felt the course was clear. There are many by-right developments where the developer doesn’t cooperated to the utmost, but the council has to follow the law.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that many councilmembers would like to see sidewalks included in all new neighborhoods, but that’s not a code requirement. While the council could change the city’s ordinance to require sidewalks in the future, it was not an option that night. She indicated she would cheerfully tell the developer that, as she did the previous night at the council’s caucus.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that it’s a complicated project that has generated a lot of discussion by staff and the neighbors. She concurred with Hohnke in his conclusion that the developer had not been very flexible – with respect to the possibility of eliminating one of the driveway entrances (curbcuts) and the voluntary parks contribution. But she concluded that the project met the code requirements. She felt that the project reflected an improvement.

Responding to a question from Lumm about the city staff’s recommendation for approving the project, Rampson said that “as near as we can tell” the project complies with city code.

Rampson noted that city code requires a sidewalk for a private street with eight lots or more, but the private street for Maple Cove includes seven lots, so there’s no requirement for sidewalks. She noted that the project had been reviewed twice by the planning commission, because the township neighbors weren’t notified the first time around. Neighbors from the township had concerns about the different lot sizes in the Maple Cove project compared to those on Calvin Street – and they felt the project reflected an increase in density. However, Rampson pointed out that the property was already zoned, and the proposed lots are consistent with zoning.

On the traffic issue, related to the two driveways, a city traffic engineer took a look at the placement of the two driveways. The conclusion, Rampson allowed, was that the two driveways were “not ideal” – in that they don’t have the desired spacing between each other or the desired distance from the intersection. But the city does not have anything about access management in the code. According to the traffic engineer, Rampson said, if the driveway configuration becomes a hazard, one of the drives can be removed under the city code.

About the parks contribution, she noted that it’s a suggestion based on a formula, but it’s not a code requirement. She noted that there are some amenities included in the project that might actually count toward the park contribution.

Hohnke asked Rampson to share some views of the expected benefit for the development, compared to the existing situation. Rampson told Hohnke that the planning commission had pointed to the fact that the current site is not very well maintained. The project would bring additional housing to the area – both rental and homeowner opportunities. It would also provide a sidewalk link on the public frontage along North Maple, so it’s consistent with the city’s master plan, she said.

Maple Cove driveway configuration. Magenta arrows show the two driveways.

Hohnke said he shared Kunselman’s concerns, but indicated surprise that Kunselman was considering voting against the project. He felt it’s hard to make a reasonable argument that it’s a detriment to health, safety and welfare. He ventured that it could be considered irresponsible [of Kunselman] to put people of Ann Arbor at [legal] risk by denying a site plan that meets code and provides some benefit. He encouraged people to understand the weightiness of denying a by-right proposal.

Kunselman responded by noting that Rampson had said the driveway curbcuts don’t meet the desired standard, but that the city doesn’t have a mechanism in the city code to do anything about that. If it were determined that there was a hazard being caused, he said, and the driveway entrance to the private street had to be closed, then the only access to the private street would be through the other driveway entrance – and that would lead past the additional lot for the multi-family housing in the project, for a total of eight lots. If that’s what happens, Kunselman ventured, the developer will have been able to circumvent the requirement of having sidewalks for the private street.

Kunselman restated his view that it’s an issue of public safety. There are no sidewalks in his neighborhood, he said, and walking down the street last year with the mayor of Tübingen [Ann Arbor's sister city in Germany], they almost got run over. He rejected Hohnke’s suggestion that Kunselman’s would be a protest vote. Kunselman noted that he grew up in that part of town. He wanted to make sure that sidewalks are added.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, contended all these questions were raised and answered. He restated the fact that it’s a by-right development. “When it meets the code, that’s it!” he said. He characterized the application of the rubric of health, safety and welfare as a very “slippery slope.” He felt the council should vote for the project.

Hieftje indicated he would support the project because he did not think there’s any latitude, citing the potential of a lawsuit, and saying the council would be on extremely thin ice to deny it.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Maple Cove project, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Ann Arbor Police Chief: John Seto

The council considered a resolution appointing John Seto as permanent police chief and head of safety services.

John Seto at the March 30, 2012 farewell for former chief Barnett Jones.

Seto has served as interim in both roles since the resignation of former police chief Barnett Jones effective March 31.

At his farewell sendoff on March 30, Jones was emphatic about his view that Seto should be hired as permanent chief, describing Seto as “the right person to follow me.”

Seto was hired in 1990 as a patrol officer in the AAPD and achieved the rank of deputy chief in 2008.

Seto’s college degree is from Eastern Michigan University, and his subsequent professional development has included training from the FBI. He also holds certification as a firefighter.

As head of safety services, Seto oversees the fire chief. The administrative position of safety services administrator is appointed by the city administrator. But the city charter requires that the council approve the appointment of police chief.

Police Chief Appointment: Public Commentary

During public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Blair Shelton reprised sentiments he’d expressed at the council’s March 19, 2012 meeting, alleging racism on the part of the Ann Arbor police department and Seto specifically. [By way of brief background, Shelton won a lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor in the mid-1990s in a case involving racial-profiling in the AAPD's approach to collection of blood samples.] At the July 16 meeting, Shelton told the council that in 1995 when Channel 7 came to his home to interview him about winning his lawsuit, Channel 7′s Bill Proctor told him that on the way there, the AAPD had pulled over the Channel 7 news truck on suspicion of having stolen the vehicle. He invited people to ask Proctor about the ethnicity of the AAPD officer.

[Shelton was implying that the officer was Seto. In a phone conversation with The Chronicle, Proctor could not confirm the episode that Shelton described. Proctor noted that he did not recall interviewing Shelton, noting that the incident in question took place in 1995. Proctor indicated he did not recall ever being pulled over in the news truck because an officer questioned his legal right to be behind the wheel.]

Shelton contended that the “vestiges of racism have been enshrined in the department” since its inception. He pointed to the hiring of the first African American officer in the early 1900s, an officer Thomas Blackburn. He contended that Blackburn had been accused of raping a white university student and that the courthouse had been surrounded by people screaming: “Lynch the ‘n-word’ kill the ‘n-word.’”

In connection with his court case, he said, through the discovery process, they’d learned that the AAPD had wanted to perform DNA testing on the University of Michigan football team, but coach Bo Schembechler had said, “Hell, no.” Shelton told the council, “I am a human being!” with the right to move freely through the community. On the hiring of Seto as permanent chief, he told them, “Good luck.”

By way of additional background on the history of the Ann Arbor police department and racial issues, from former AAPD police officer Michael Logghe’s “True Crimes and the History of the Ann Arbor Police Department“:

Officer Clayton Collins was thought to be the first black Ann Arbor Officer when he was hired in 1950. However, according to Officer Camp’s report, a black officer named Thomas Blackburn, was hired in 1907. I discovered a photo of Officer Blackburn and it does not appear that he was black. Officer Blackburn was with the department for ten years and it is open for debate if he or Officer Collins was the first black officer. …

Officer Collins told me he was asked to apply to the department by Albert Wheeler (Wheeler would later become mayor). He stated Wheeler was always trying to get blacks to apply for positions which they had historically been barred. Officer Collins thought about it and finally applied. The department hired him and thus he became the first black officer in the city’s history. (I should note that in Officer Camp’s report, he stated a black man named Thomas Blackburn was an officer with the department at the turn of the century. Officer Collins had heard about Blackburn and thought he was half-Indian. In any event Officer Collins was the first black officer in the modern era.)

I was surprised to find that Officer Collins encountered very little racism, not only within the department, but within the city. Almost all of the officers were very accepting of him and none made a negative comment to him. At worst, some of the officers were distant to him. He stated his experience as an Ann Arbor Officer was very positive and enjoyable. He said Ann Arbor was a wonderful place in the 1950′s.

Jonathan Marwil’s “A History of Ann Arbor” gives an account of the hiring of Blackburn that’s consistent with Logghe’s. The Chronicle was not able to confirm in those two sources Shelton’s account of the rape accusation against officer Blackburn.

More recently, the AAPD was reviewed for possible racial profiling in a 2004 study of traffic stops, conducted by Lamberth Consulting. The AAPD scored well in the study, according to a Feb. 12, 2004 Ann Arbor News article. [.pdf of the Lamberth Consulting study on AAPD traffic stops]

Police Chief Appointment: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d had an opportunity to work with a few police chiefs in his time as mayor – Dan Oates and then Barnett Jones. Hieftje felt like he knows what it takes to be a good police chief – and whatever it is, John Seto has it. Seto has proven himself in this interim period, he said.

John Seto received a round of applause on his appointment as chief of Ann Arbor police. From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) praised Seto in the context of her work with him over the years. She was pleased to see promotion from within. She said that former chief Barnett Jones did a great job of succession planning. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wholeheartedly supported the appointment. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Seto to come to the podium so that the public could see him.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) congratulated Seto for his work on sensitive issues. He was impressed with his professionalism and sensitivity. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) hoped that Seto recognized the unanimous support from the council reflected full faith and trust on the part of the council for his ability to lead. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) offered a single word: “Amen!” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) called Seto’s appointment a recognition of the quality of the department as a whole, saying that it was the department that helped create Seto as he moved up the ranks.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint John Seto as chief of police and head of safety services. He was given an enthusiastic round of applause.

Seto thanked city administrator Steve Powers for the confidence to make the recommendation to appoint him. For the last 22 years, Seto said, it has been a privilege to work with the men and women of the police and fire departments. He’s witnessed first-hand the hard work, dedication and the sacrifices they’ve made to serve and protect the community. More than the honor of being appointed chief, he said, it’s his honor to be a part of this organization. Throughout his entire career, he said, he’d worked very hard to represent the city in the most professional manner and to treat everyone he meets with great respect – and he’d continue to do that, he concluded.

CUB Agreements

The council considered a resolution to reverse at least temporarily an earlier action on restoring the use of CUB agreements. Construction unity board (CUB) agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The resolution considered by the council at its July 16 meeting suspended the use of CUB agreements for contracts over $25,000. The resolution appeared on the agenda after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed Public Act 238 of 2012 into law on June 29. The law amends the Michigan Fair and Open Competition Act.

The council’s previous action was taken about a month earlier on June 4, 2012, and had restored the use of such CUB agreements. The July 16 suspension allows for the resolution using the CUB agreements to be restored administratively, pending possible court rulings.

An alternating series of positions by the city of Ann Arbor began with the adoption by the city council of the use of CUB agreements at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting. The resolution required that contractors and subcontractors execute such agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts.

But last year, the Michigan legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required to make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement. However, the U.S. District Court subsequently found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act. So at its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council restored the use of CUB agreements. The lone voice of dissent at that meeting was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who opposed the resolution on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation (Act 238) that might be enacted.

And the pending legislation was, in fact, passed and signed into law, which led to the city council’s action on July 16 again to suspend the use of CUB agreements.

The staff memo accompanying the resolution states that the suspension of CUB agreements does not affect the city’s living wage ordinance. Not discussed in the memo is how a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 might affect the city’s living wage ordinance. The order affirmed an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

During the brief council deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that the way the resolution is intended to work is that the use of CUB agreements will be suspended – but on the outcome of court decisions, the use of the agreements could be restored administratively.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution suspending the use of CUB agreements.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Library Lane Parking Structure

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reported on the grand opening of the new underground parking garage at South Fifth Avenue, called the Library Lane parking structure. [As of July 20, the parking facility was open with temporary occupancy permits, according to Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Remaining issues to be finalized include one elevator (which has a wall that's damp to the touch) and the water pressure in the fire suppression system.]

Smith invited mayor John Hieftje to reprise his remarks made on the occasion of the grand opening. He held forth at length. Highlights included the fact that the parking structure did not use any city general fund money, but rather money dedicated through the DDA. The parking structure revenue is supposed to pay for the bonds. [The DDA will be drawing on tax increment finance (TIF) capture for some initial capital costs and debt service.]

Later Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would pick up on the bond payment topic, noting that it was Build American Bonds that were used to pay for the structure. He wanted some communication directly from the city’s bond counsel on any restrictions to the possible uses for the parking spaces. By way of background, in April 2010 the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center had sent the council a letter outlining its view of the applicable restrictions. The concern in the letter is that dedicated use of spaces in the structure by private, non-governmental entities could jeopardize the federal subsidy provided to the city through this type of bond. [.pdf of GLELC bonding analysis]

Kunselman’s view is that any problem caused by a private entity undertaking a development on the site could be solved if the Ann Arbor District Library were to build its new building on top of the structure, just to the north of its current location. That same night, the AADL board voted to place a $65 million bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot for construction of a new library on its current site. It appears unlikely that the library would follow Kunselman’s suggestion.

Comm/Comm: Non-Partisan Elections, Public Speaking

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson noted that of the eight candidates for four city council seats that are contested in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, the vast majority have responded positively to the idea of converting Ann Arbor’s local city elections to a non-partisan format. Regardless of whether non-partisan elections are a good idea or bad idea, Benson said, he thought it might be good for the council to form a task force to study the issue and report back on it.

Benson also pointed out to the council that for that night’s agenda, more than 10 people had signed up to speak for public commentary at the start of the meeting. So some people who wanted to address the council on an action item had been assigned only an alternate slot and had not been able to address the councilmembers. Benson alluded to the fact that some speakers will meet the condition of speaking on an “agenda item” by referencing attachments of communications on the agenda, like minutes from various boards and commissions. He suggested that the council look at its priorities on allotting public speaking time. [Benson has previously suggested that the time per speaker be reduced from the current three minutes to two minutes, while adding 10 minutes to the current 30-minute time block. That would result in a doubling of the number of possible speakers from 10 to 20.]

Comm/Comm: AATA

Tim Hull related to the council how he had needed to travel to Canton and had discovered there is no way to ride on the Canton Express from Ann Arbor to Canton. [The service is configured for commuters from Canton to Ann Arbor, not the other way around. The issue has been raised by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) when the council has been addressed by Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.] Hull was critical of the AATA’s plan for countywide expansion – it amounts to an effort to get people from the county into Ann Arbor, and running empty buses out to Chelsea and Canton to start the service. AATA remains “woefully inadequate,” he said. He pointed to the New Year’s Day Winter Classic hockey game, a day when there’d be no regular bus service scheduled.

Comm/Comm: Better Services

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there as he has been for over a decade to lobby for increased services, attention and priorities for residents needing and deserving services the most. He told the council he was there as a candidate in the Democratic primary for the state house of representatives 53rd District, which covers most of Ann Arbor. [He's running against incumbent Jeff Irwin.] He called on the council and the public at large to adopt a progressive agenda. He called for expansion of affordable transportation and housing in a way that is balanced and that is backed by adequate appropriations. He contended that the expansion of employment in the city is being neglected.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge repeated his call for expanded services, including an expanded competent public transportation system. He lamented the lack of a public hearing on John Seto’s appointment as permanent police chief. He said the public deserves open, transparent government. It’s not good public policy to approve large contracts without due deliberations on them or to approve site plans that would require little children to walk in the streets, he concluded. [Partridge was alluding in his last comment to the Maple Cove site plan approved by the council that night. The site plan does not include sidewalks for a private street leading to single-family homes.]

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

Absent: Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Francie Krawcke, raptor program director with the Leslie Science & Nature Center, brought a snowy owl to the June 19, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The owl did not fly around council chambers, but did enjoy a few snacks at the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

An $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks – for design and construction oversight of a new skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park – was unanimously recommended for approval. Trevor Staples, president of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, was on hand to answer questions, and several commissioners congratulated him for spearheading this project. Staples noted that fundraising is still underway, focused now on building a $100,000 endowment for future maintenance. Funding for design and construction of the skatepark has been secured primarily from a $300,000 state grant and $400,000 from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

PAC also unanimously recommended approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to build barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

This first phase of a broader renovation project on the center’s grounds will include making the raptor enclosures – housing owls, falcons, a bald eagle and other birds of prey – more accessible. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Also unanimously recommended for approval was placement of a millage renewal on the Nov. 6 ballot. The current 1.1 mill Ann Arbor park maintenance and capital improvements millage expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and is expected to generate about $4.9 million next year.

The June 19 meeting included a quarterly financial update, and the election of Tim Doyle as chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. Commissioners also were briefed on a Traver Creek streambank stabilization project at Leslie Park golf course, designed to improve the water quality of this Huron River tributary.

Other water-related issues were brought up during the parks and recreation manager’s report. Colin Smith told commissioners that final repairs on swirl concentrators at West Park – designed to help stormwater management – will start later this month, with final renovations of the park occurring over the summer. And city staff will be harvesting Eurasian watermilfoil from about 6-7 acres around the Gallup Park canoe livery, using what Smith described as a “Zamboni on the water.” The aquatic plants have overgrown the area around the livery, making it hard for people to use paddleboats, canoes and kayaks.

During public commentary, Alan Haber urged commissioners to support the Library Green project, a citizen-led effort to put a public commons on top of the new city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure. He invited PAC to a July 14 “Imagine a Park” block party on the site, from noon until 5 p.m. Later in the meeting, park commissioner Tim Berla picked up the idea, saying he wasn’t advocating for that particular project but that he felt PAC should be “in the game” for discussions of a downtown park.

The June 19 meeting was the last one for commissioner David Barrett, who is term-limited after serving two three-year terms. PAC chair Julie Grand praised his work, particularly in advocating for renovations to the city’s athletic fields and ballparks. The mayor has not yet publicly put forward a nomination for Barrett’s replacement.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the Ann Arbor Skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. The $89,560 contract would cover design and construction oversight of the project.

Sketch from the Wally Hollyday Skateparks proposal for the Ann Arbor skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. Hollyday told The Chronicle that he considers this an example that addresses many of the community’s desires for the skatepark, but that considerable public input will be sought to shape his development of the design.

A selection committee reviewed six responses to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the city of Ann Arbor in April, and selected two California firms – Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Wormhoudt Inc. – as finalists. Additional review and interviews resulted in the choice of Wally Hollyday Skateparks as the recommended designer. Wally Hollyday had already been involved in the project to some extent, leading design workshops for the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark in 2009 and 2010.

The roughly $1 million project – including an anticipated $100,000 endowment for ongoing maintenance – will be financed through a combination of funds. Those include private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – as well as a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary.

Representatives from all of these groups attended PAC’s June 19 meeting: Trevor Staples, president of Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark; Jeff Dehring of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department; and Jennie Hale, development/program officer with the community foundation.

Park planner Amy Kuras is the city’s point person on the project, and briefed commissioners on the selection process. The pre-qualifications were written tightly, she said, including requirements like a minimum of 10 years experience in designing and overseeing skatepark construction, extensive work with municipalities, building in climates similar to Michigan, a track record of at least 10 parks that have been in place at least 10 years, and experience with stormwater management.

The two finalists rose to the top pretty quickly among the six bids that were submitted, Kuras said.

Staples also addressed commissioners, reminding them that it’s been about five years since skatepark supporters filled council chambers to advocate for the project. He thanked PAC for its support. [At its March 2011 meeting, PAC had recommended support for the city to apply for the $300,000 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund grant, with one commissioner – Sam Offen – voting against it. Offen ended his two terms on PAC in May.]

It had been exciting to go through the RFP process, Staples said, and they could have picked either of the finalists. But Hollyday is the right person for this job at this point, he added. Staples said he’s skated several skateparks designed by Hollyday, describing him as a skateboarder who is hands-on. “It’s art for him,” Staples said.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Commission Discussion – Design

Several commissioners congratulated Staples for his work in spearheading this effort. Karen Levin said it sounded like Hollyday’s skateparks have stood up well over time, and she assumed that his design would take Michigan’s weather into account.

Staples noted that Hollyday is based in the San Diego area, as several skatepark companies are. It’s a specialized project that requires a particular kind of expertise. But the plan is to incorporate a lot of Michigan-based elements – labor and public art, for example. Regarding climate, Staples noted that part of the selection criteria included a requirement that the company have experience in building skateparks in northern climates.

Trevor Staples, president of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark.

David Barrett asked for more details about where the skatepark will be located. The site will be at the park’s northwest corner, near the intersection of North Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads. Smith noted that there might be an opportunity for an amphitheater there, too.

Barrett, who served on the selection committee, said that even though the skatepark is for kids, it’s also for the entire community. The idea is to create a skatepark so that people can come and watch, even if they don’t “hop on a board” themselves, he said.

Smith added that the location is important because this will likely be a regional draw, and the site is close to I-94 and M-14 interchanges. It’s also close to businesses and neighborhoods, and is very visible and accessible, he said. As people enter the city from that area, it will be a very dynamic site.

Staples also clarified that the large stand of trees at that corner will remain in place. The trees are an asset, he noted – most skateparks don’t have shade.

During the discussion specifically about the resolution of support for the contract, Alan Jackson initially requested that the resolution strike the word “concrete” from this whereas clause:

Whereas, Construction of a custom, concrete skatepark is being proposed using funds from a State of Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant, Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission and the Friends of Ann Arbor Skatepark to be constructed in Veterans Memorial Park;

Smith said it wouldn’t be possible to strike the word – the specifications are very specific. Staples explained that the main reason the resolution and RFP specified “concrete” is that many non-concrete skateparks are built in a modular way. That type of construction falls apart quickly and requires a lot of maintenance. The quality of a concrete skatepark is better.

Jackson withdrew his suggestion, saying that his intent simply had been to eliminate constraints on the project. Staples replied that the constraints are self-imposed.

Smith also pointed out that one aspect of the design includes stormwater management, in recognition of the fact that the skatepark will be adding impervious surfaces. The stormwater management might be in the form of rain gardens or other elements.

Tim Doyle noted that there are a number of design specs – are there any elements that PAC should be aware of, from a parks perspective? Kuras replied that the city will be relying heavily on Hollyday for this project. Midwestern Consulting, a civil engineering firm based in Ann Arbor, will be hired as a subcontractor to handle certain aspects, she said. But it will be a collaborative process, she added, to work through any concerns that might arise.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Commission Discussion – Financing

John Lawter asked whether all of the fundraising was in place. Fundraising is still happening, Staples replied. The goal is $1 million – $900,000 for design and construction, and $100,000 for an endowment to fund future maintenance. The majority of the $820,000 they’ve raised so far is in the form of grants, which can’t be used for the endowment, he said. So the focus now is on the endowment. He noted that he had dropped off a pile of bricks at Arnet’s Monuments earlier that day to be engraved as part of a fundraising drive.

Lawter asked how someone could buy a brick. Staples explained that details are on the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark website, where payments can be made online. There are three sizes: $100, $250 and $1,000. Purchases are tax deductible, he said.

The group will also have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs, he said, in the nonprofit section.

Christopher Taylor observed that about $100,000 is “in the bank,” but he wondered when the remaining funds would “land.” Smith reported the city expects that the $300,000 DNR grant will be distributed later this summer. After that, the county’s $400,000 in matching funds will be available. Jeff Dehring of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department clarified that county funds would be available as soon as the construction contract is awarded. Staples noted that the design needs to be completed before state funds can be accessed, and Amy Kuras added that the state funds are actually reimbursements – so the city would pay, and be reimbursed from the DNR grant.

In response to a question from Tim Berla, Smith explained that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is holding the funds now, but later the money will be transferred into a segregated city account for the project. There also is a reference in a memorandum of intent regarding how the funds will be transferred, he said. [The city council approved the MOI with the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee – the predecessor to the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – at its Dec. 1, 2008 meeting. .pdf of 2008 memorandum of intent]

Do the other funders have to give approval for the selection of the Hollyday? Berla asked. Smith replied that the other groups had input via their membership on the selection committee. Staples added that all parties have agreed on this decision.

Tim Doyle observed that it’s a challenging project, and until it’s designed and the construction bids are in, it’s difficult to know how much it will actually cost.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Next Steps

Colin Smith explained that the plan is to put this contract on the city council’s July 16 agenda. If approved, the project will move forward for design and construction. Amy Kuras noted that several public meetings will be held to get input on the design, and when a design is developed, it will be presented to both PAC and the city council for review and input. The hope is to have a design and construction drawings finalized by early fall to put the project out to bid for a builder, with the goal of starting construction in the spring of 2013.

Over the winter, Smith said, he’d work with Staples to develop an operating agreement for the facility.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended that the city council approve a contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks. It will now be forwarded to the city council for review, likely at the council’s July 16 meeting.

Leslie Science Path Renovations

In an item added to the agenda during the June 19 meeting, PAC was asked to recommend approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to construct barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

JB Contractors provided the lowest of two bids. Fonson Inc. had submitted a much higher bid of $197,459. Funding is available from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

PAC had been briefed on this project – the first phase of a larger renovation – at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Parks planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that the goal of the changes to the pathways is to make the center compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to make the pathways and overall organization of the site less confusing. The project includes replacing the paths that connect various buildings on the site, and constructing new paths to connect the center’s raptor enclosures.

From right: Susan Westhoff, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center, talks with city park planner Amy Kuras.

Those enclosures house owls, falcons, a bald eagle and other birds of prey, and are located at the highest part of the site. The birds are very popular, so the intent is to make the area as accessible as possible. The paths connecting the raptor enclosures will be made from porous pavement of recycled glass, Kuras said. In addition to pathways, there will be better signs indicating how to get to the enclosures, as well as directions to other parts of the center.

A master plan for the broader project includes renovating the parking lot, creating a new drop-off are, and reconfiguring the remaining paths.

Kuras said construction drawings for this phase are complete, and she hoped that following PAC’s recommendation, a resolution could be placed on the city council’s July 16 agenda. If approved, construction could start after Labor Day and would likely last a couple of months.

Susan Westhoff, the center’s executive director, attended the June 19 PAC meeting and spoke briefly about the need for the path improvements and overall renovations. Francie Krawcke, the center’s raptor program director, was also on hand with a snowy owl, which she kept on a tether and fed snacks during the presentation.

Leslie Science Path Renovations: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked how long the project would taken and if it would impact the center’s programming. Amy Kuras estimated that construction could last 6-8 weeks, though there was not yet a schedule. Much like the current work in Buhr Park and Cobblestone Farm, she said, it will be coordinated closely with staff. [The Buhr/Cobblestone contract – $865,190 to Fonson Inc. for road, parking, pathway and other exterior renovations – was recommended for approval at PAC's Feb. 28, 2012 meeting, and subsequently authorized by the city council.]

Kuras said she’s stressed to the contractor the importance of safety, since the work will be done while people are coming to the center. When people call the center to reserve space for events, they’ll be informed about the work, too. There will be constant information-sharing, Kuras said.

David Barrett asked if Kuras had ever worked with this contractor. No, she said, but the firm recently merged with Abbott Concrete, a company she has worked with. She told commissioners that she’d keep reminding the workers that the job is in a public park.

Responding to a question from Alan Jackson, Kuras clarified that the circular drive would remain in place as a drop-off, until the second phase of the project. That phase, which hasn’t yet been bid out, would require additional recommendation by PAC and authorization by city council.

Julie Grand asked whether schools had also been notified about the work. Susan Westhoff replied that September, when the work will start, is typically a light programming month for the center. And a lot of the October programming tends to be staff going out to schools, rather than students coming to the center, she said. The only building that won’t be accessible during the work is the Critter House, which is completely surrounded by the sidewalk that’s being rebuilt.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. for barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

Park Millage Renewal

On the PAC agenda was a resolution recommending that city council put a 1.1 mill renewal of the Ann Arbor park maintenance and capital improvements millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager for the city of Ann Arbor.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities.

PAC was first briefed about the millage renewal at its March 22, 2012 meeting. At the time, PAC chair Julie Grand – who served on a working group to strategize about the renewal – said concerns about the economic climate were a major reason why an increase wasn’t being recommended. City parks staff and PAC members subsequently held several public forums about the renewal that were sparsely attended.

The proposed ballot language reads as follows: “Shall the city renew the existing park maintenance and capital improvements millage for 2013 through 2018, which will raise in the first year of the levy an estimated revenue of $4,900,000 for park maintenance and park capital improvements?”

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, gave a brief overview of the process to date, noting that the city council would need to take action in order to put the millage renewal on the November ballot. At that point, the city staff could have additional public forums to educate the community about the renewal request and how the millage revenues are used.

A public hearing on the millage had been held at PAC’s April 2012 meeting, but no one attended. On June 19, there were no comments or questions from commissioners about the renewal.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend that city council put the millage renewal on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot.

Traver Creek Stabilization

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager for the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, was on hand to update PAC about a Traver Creek streambank stabilization project at Leslie Park golf course. Commissioners had initially been briefed about the project at their Dec. 20, 2011 meeting by Jen Lawson, the city’s water quality manager.

Sheehan told commissioners that the purpose of the project is to improve water quality flowing into the Huron River – Traver Creek is a tributary. The project aims to reduce the amount of phosphorus that’s discharged into the river, address erosion and flooding issues, control the amount of sediment that’s being deposited downstream, enhance the wetlands and habitat for wildlife, and improve the aesthetics of the Leslie Park golf course.

The city council had authorized petitioning the county for the $1.05 million project at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting. The city’s portion is $981,540, which will be assessed by the county over a period of up to 20 years, at a maximum of $62,415 per year, according to a staff memo prepared for council. The first payment was included in the FY 2013 stormwater fund operations and maintenance budget, approved by the council earlier this year.

The resolution passed by the council on Jan. 9 also authorized annual payments to the county for this project from the stormwater fund (Fund 0069). The project has been approved for a 2.5% low-interest loan from the state revolving fund, and up to 50% of the loan could be forgiven by the state.

Sheehan reported that the construction work is out for bid, and the plan is to start work in November of 2012, after the golf season ends, through March of 2013.

It’s essentially a drain project, Sheehan said, but the work is being done with an understanding of the site’s special nature within a golf course.

Traver Creek Stabilization: Commission Discussion

John Lawter asked for more details about how the position of the creek would be affected. Sheehan explained that the creek would be made more “meandering,” compared to its current course.

David Barrett wondered what will happen if all the work can’t be done within the November-to-March timeframe – would it be delayed until the following winter? And if so, how would that affect the project’s financing?

From left: Christopher Taylor, a Ward 3 city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC, and Alan Jackson, one of the newest PAC members.

There’s no hard deadline for getting the work done, Sheehan replied. If next winter was like the most recent one, then it won’t be a problem to do the work, he said. The final part of the project is more contained to the area around the south part of the course, so conceivably that work could be done during the summer, and it wouldn’t disrupt play.

Alan Jackson wanted to know how the project is being coordinated with the city’s golf staff. Sheehan said the golf staff have been integrated into the design process. They’ve provided suggestions for removal of sediment and its use elsewhere on the course – for example, to fill in areas that are chronically wet.

Jackson also asked whether any public meetings had been held. Yes, Sheehan said. The first one was held several years ago to discuss the financing aspect, he said. Earlier this year, about 25 people – mostly stakeholders in the golf community – attended a public forum on the project. Another forum held a few weeks ago drew only one person, he said, although residents in the nearby neighborhoods were all sent notices.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said the golf staff have been involved from the outset. There has also been communication with golfers about the project, as well as with other user groups. All the feedback has been positive, he said.

Responding to a question from Tim Doyle, Smith reported that because of warmer-than-usual weather, the golf courses opened this year in mid-March – usually, opening day is April 1. He noted that even if the courses were to open early in 2013, the work by that time would be more out of the way and wouldn’t disrupt play.

Jackson wanted to know whether ongoing maintenance costs would be incurred because of this project. Sheehan replied that sediment maintenance would likely be needed every two to five years, but would cost only in the $2,000 to $5,000 range. The costs would be handled through an assessment fee paid by the city, but the work would be done through the county’s office of the water resources commissioner.

Outcome: This was not an action item – no vote was required.

Financial Update

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, walked commissioners through a quarterly update of the parks and recreation budget. The current fiscal year ends June 30, 2012. [.pdf of parks & rec quarterly financial statement]

Recreational facilities supported by the city’s general fund are forecast to bring in $2,372,166 in revenues for the fiscal year, about $6,000 more than budgeted. Expenses of $3,442,592 are $17,500 less than budgeted. That means $1,070,426 will be used from the general fund to cover the difference between revenues and expenses.

Three units – the farmers market, Huron Hills golf course, and Leslie Park golf course – are operated in “enterprise funds,” where the expectation is that revenues will cover expenses.

For the farmers market, revenues are projected to be on budget at $165,118. Projected expenses of $160,118 are $5,000 lower than budgeted, in part because of a transitional period between the departure of former market manager Molly Notarianni and the hiring of Sarah Benoit, who was introduced at PAC’s May meeting.

At Huron Hills, revenues of $382,375 are on budget, while expenses of $541,080 are $7,500 lower than budgeted. The general fund will contribute $158,705 to operations at Huron Hills.

The Leslie Park golf course is expected to bring in revenues of $901,319 – about $20,000 less than budgeted. Expenses of $999,580 are also about $20,000 lower than budgeted. The general fund will contribute $98,261 to fund that golf course.

Matt Warba, supervisor of field operations, reviewed the financial statements for those parks operations that funded out of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage. He noted that expenses will be about $300,000 lower than the budgeted $2.353 million because the unit did not have a full complement of full-time staff this year. However, over the past month four full-time employees have been hired – two paid for from the general fund, and two from the millage.

There are 12 employees in field operations now, plus about 18 seasonal workers. The additional staff allows for a mowing cycle of 14 days, compared to the previous 19-day cycle.

Financial Update: Election of Committee Chair

Later in the meeting, the commission took action related to park finances – by voting on a new chair for the group’s budget and finance committee. It had previously been chaired by Sam Offen, whose term on PAC ended last month.

PAC chair Julie Grand nominated Tim Doyle, who’s been working with Offen on the committee. Doyle had been expected to take that leadership role.

In announcing her nomination, Grand told Doyle, “You’d better not say no!” He did not.

Outcome: Tim Doyle was unanimously elected chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Library Green: PAC Action?

During public commentary, the only speaker was Alan Haber, who told commissioners that he frequently had spoken to other public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council on behalf of a group that’s trying to develop a community park, commons and gathering place on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Recently, members of the advocacy group had suggested coming to PAC as well. He asked commissioners to urge the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to separate out the Library Lane from its consideration of other parcels in the downtown area.

[Haber was referring to an effort called Connecting William Street, which is exploring alternate uses for the surface parking lots in the area bounded by William, Ashley, Liberty and Division streets – including the top of the underground parking structure. The project is being undertaken by the DDA at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council, given last year on April 4, 2011.]

The DDA should separate out the Library Lane parcel, Haber said, and gather ideas from the community about how to make a Central Park-type gathering space. There are so many people who say that’s what they want, he said – ask anyone whether they want a building or a park, and almost everyone will say a park. But this effort needs energy from people with responsibility for the parks who can actively pursue it. Don’t wait until another plan is presented, he said. He urged PAC to take some initiative. Haber said that advocates for Library Green are having an “Imagine a Park” block party on July 14, a couple of days after the grand opening of the parking structure earlier in the day. The event will run from noon until 5 p.m. on the top of the structure.

Haber contended that the conversation about this option was completely suppressed by the group that evaluated a request for proposals (RFP) for the top of the Library Lane. PAC should start to think about the possibility, and offer its advice to the DDA, he said.

Library Green: PAC Action? – Commission Discussion

Later in the meeting, Tim Berla asked what the process would be for following up on Haber’s suggestion. He felt that PAC should get ahead of the issue regarding downtown parks. It seems like there does need to be a park downtown. The Library Lane site might be an obvious place, though not necessarily the best place – and Berla said he wasn’t advocating for that. But he wanted PAC to get in the discussion. Berla said he knows that money is part of it, in terms of whether a park will raise the value of land surrounding it. But he didn’t think PAC should be involved in evaluating the financial aspects. His question was this: What can PAC do to move the discussion along so that the commission’s input is given? Berla said he’d been surprised that a surface parking lot is going on top of the 700-space underground structure, which seemed odd, though it might be the cheapest option at this point.

Tim Berla, a member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that PAC always has the option of forming a subcommittee or focus group to look into any issue. If that’s what the commission as a whole wants to do, it can do that. There are a lot of discussions related to city-owned property in and near downtown, he noted, including the Allen Creek greenway, 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main sites, and Liberty Plaza – a city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division, near the underground parking structure. From the staff’s perspective, Smith said, it would make sense for PAC as a group to decide what it wants to do.

PAC chair Julie Grand noted that at the last meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee, committee members talked about holding a priority-setting session after all of the new commissioners come on board. [Gwen Nystuen and Sam Offen recently left PAC, and the June 19 meeting was the last one for David Barrett. All were term-limited. Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson were appointed to replace Nystuen and Offen, but Barrett's replacement hasn't been appointed yet.]

Berla said he’d like to see several different plans developed for the Library Lane site, so that people could start evaluating options. Another insight he’d had related to Sonic Lunch – the weekly summer music series that’s held in Liberty Plaza and organized by the Bank of Ann Arbor. Wouldn’t it be awesome to have a music performance space downtown? He wanted to explore ideas like this, though perhaps they should wait until the Connecting William Street process played out, though it seemed like the focus for that project was different.

John Lawter noted that members of PAC and the DDA had met, and he had thought there would be a follow-up meeting. Julie Grand agreed, and said that one approach would be to advocate for involvement in the Connecting William Street effort.

Smith said that in the past, the city council has given PAC a charge to make recommendations back to the council. He asked Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who is an ex officio member of PAC, if Anglin knew who might be working on this issue. [PAC's other council representative, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), had left the June 19 meeting by that point.]

Anglin replied that a lot of things are happening, and it’s important for PAC to be involved. Fuller Road is another area of interest, he said – an allusion to the possibility of building a transit station on land that’s part of Fuller Park. He noted that the Ann Arbor District Library is discussing what to do on its downtown site, too. It would be good for PAC to be more actively involved, he said, and perhaps form a focus group that could track some of these projects.

Outcome: There was no action taken on this issue, and it’s not clear if there’s consensus among commissioners about what steps to take next.

Parks & Recreation Manager’s Report

Colin Smith gave updates on two projects during his manager’s report: Repairs of the swirl concentrators at West Park, and “aquatic plant management” near the Gallup Park canoe livery.

Parks & Rec Manager’s Report: West Park

In late June, Smith said, the city expects the manufacturer of the swirl concentrators at West Park to replace the lids and finish repairs on those units. That work should take about three weeks. After that, the project’s contractor will rebuild the diversion structures, finish the access paths, and complete native plant restoration in that area, located along Seventh Street. That work will likely last throughout the summer. There are three entrances to the park off of Seventh, and during this work only the middle entrance will remain open, he said. Other activities at the park will be uninterrupted. He told commissioners that updates will be posted online.

Swirl concentrators had been installed for stormwater management as part of a major renovation of West Park in 2010. Most recently, PAC received a detailed update on the project at its Jan. 24, 2012 meeting from Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer and one of the project managers in the city’s public services unit. Hutchinson had told the commission that after the manufacturer of the swirl concentrators makes repairs on the units, the city would hire a contractor to complete additional work that was recommended by Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM), which the city had engaged in 2010 to look into the problems with that aspect of the West Park project. City staff had previously hoped to have that work completed by July of 2012.

Parks & Rec Manager’s Report: Aquatic Plants at Gallup

Smith reported that aquatic plants near the Gallup Park canoe livery are extremely overgrown, and that city staff will be harvesting excess plants in the coming weeks. Specifically, Eurasian watermilfoil is making it difficult for people to use paddleboats or canoe on that part of the pond.

Staff will use what Smith described as a “Zamboni on the water” to harvest about 6-7 acres around the livery. They’ll deposit the plants in an area of the park that’s unused, where the plants will dry out and shrink, he said. The work will start in late June.

Farewell to David Barrett

Turnover of park commissioners continued at the June 19 meeting – the last one for David Barrett, who has served on PAC since 2006.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Tim Doyle and David Barrett. The June 19 meeting was the last one for Barrett, whose term expires this month.

Near the end of the meeting, PAC chair Julie Grand thanked Barrett for his service. He had been a tireless advocate for improving the city’s athletic fields, she noted, and had been a quiet advocate on a lot of other issues over the past six years. He was an incredible human being and a good soul, she said.

Barrett is a songwriter and musician who is best known for the song “One Shining Moment.” It’s become the anthem for the NCAA basketball finals, with versions sung by Luther Vandross and Jennifer Hudson. He has written music for other sporting events and TV networks, and won an Emmy for the score of a PBS documentary on C.S. Lewis.

Barrett thanked the mayor for his appointment, and also thanked his fellow commissioners. He praised the city’s parks staff, saying they do a great job. It’s been an honor to serve, he said.

Barrett is the latest of three PAC members who have left the commission after being term-limited. Park advisory commissioners are limited to two consecutive three-year terms. Sam Offen and Gwen Nystuen recently ended their two terms on PAC as well. New commissioners replacing Offen and Nystuen are Alan Jackson and Ingrid Ault. No replacement has been nominated yet for Barrett.

Two other commissioners – Doug Chapman and Karen Levin – will be ending their first three-year terms in September of 2012, and could seek reappointment for another term.

Present: Ingrid Ault, David Barrett, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Alan Jackson, John Lawter, Karen Levin, Julie Grand, councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio), councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Doug Chapman.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

At its May 2, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had been updated with the expectation that the street would be re-opened by the end of May. [photo of South Fifth, taken on May 31]

The groundbreaking for the garage occurred in the fall of 2009. [photo] The project was originally expected to be completed in the fall of 2011. The opening ceremony for the new parking garage is now expected on July 12, 2012, though the garage itself might open sooner than that.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members Roger Hewitt (left) and Keith Orr. They're examining a Girl Scout badge created for assisting in the Downtown Blooms event. The car on the wall in the background is a mockup of the planned wayfinding system for the levels of the new underground parking structure, anticipated to open by mid-July. (Photos by the writer.)

One of those structures farther west of the campus is the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, which is nearing completion. The garage, which the DDA is currently calling the “Library Lane” parking structure, is now expected to open by the time the art fairs begin, which this year fall on July 18–21. South Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William is expected to re-open by Memorial Day.

A characterization of that timing as “on schedule” was disputed during public commentary by Ali Ramlawi, owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant. Jerusalem Garden is adjacent to the construction site. Ramlawi noted that the structure was originally due to be completed by August 2011.

The future use of the top of the underground garage was the subject of public commentary from advocates who’d like to see it used as a green plaza. That suggestion was met with remarks from mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, with a description of his expectation that three major parcels would soon be incorporated into the city’s park system – 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington, and the MichCon property (located between the Amtrak rail station and the Huron River near the Broadway bridges). Hieftje’s point was that the additional financial burden for the maintenance of those parcels as parks might impact the city’s ability to add a downtown green plaza to the park system.

Requests for better information about the parking system and suggestions for disseminating information about the availability of open parking spaces were topics of additional public commentary.

Although it was not an action item, the board discussed a draft policy on supporting “brownfield” projects – a policy prompted by discussions at the board’s partnerships committee over the last few months. [.pdf of draft DDA brownfield policy]

The committee has been discussing a proposal by Dan Ketelaar for support of a proposed development at 618 S. Main, which received a positive recommendation from the Ann Arbor planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012. If the project moves forward, the 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. Ketelaar has estimated that the tax on the increment between the current valuation of the property and the final built project would yield around $250,000 a year in TIF (tax increment finance) revenue to the DDA. If adopted as it’s currently worded in the draft, the formula in the policy would translate into up to $625,000 of support for 618 S. Main.

The board also received updates on the third-quarter financial statements for the DDA, as well as an update on the Connection William Street planning project. 

The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor that ensures the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues, which amounts to around $3 million annually.

So parking is typically a topic at DDA board meetings that receives a great deal of time and attention. The May 2, 2012 meeting was no different. The construction of the new parking garage on South Fifth Avenue was highlighted at the meeting in three ways: (1) public comment on future planning for the top of the underground parking garage from advocates of a public park to be constructed there; (2) a resolution to help foster usage of the new garage through differential pricing; and (3) and the regular update on construction progress.

Parking Structure Park

A request for proposals (RFP) process that could have led to the selection of a development project on the top of the underground parking structure was terminated by the Ann Arbor city council on April 4, 2011. The structure includes reinforced footings designed to support future development on the site.

Parking Structure Park: Public Comment – Library Green

Will Hathaway told the board that he was speaking on behalf of group of Ann Arborites advocating for a downtown public park – a Library Green on the Library Lot. He allowed that there are other competing views for the future of the Library Lot. He also allowed that there are also concerns about the possible impact of public open space in the downtown.

He reviewed the site plan for the top of the parking structure, given the absence of any future development on the top of the lot. The design includes 40 parking spaces, he said.

The red rectangle outlines the area where Hathaway and the Library Green advocates would like to see a public park/plaza constructed, instead of using all the available area for surface parking. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

Hathaway then reviewed the configuration of the spaces that are currently planned for the top of the structure. He suggested that a public plaza be created now and proposed a configuration that would leave 18 parking spaces, but would allow for a plaza too.

He invited the DDA board to think about an interactive water feature or an ice rink or a piece of public art like The Cube as elements of the plaza. He reported that he’d been on a tour of the underground garage, which is nearing completion, and he allowed that in some ways it’s architecturally beautiful.

But it needs a better “crown,” Hathaway said, than a surface parking lot.

Eric Lipson introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and former city planning commissioner. He told the board he was also wearing the hat of a Library Green advocate. He explained that as general manager of the Inter-Cooperative Council, he was also representing a stakeholder in the Connecting William Street project. The ICC houses 600 members, and its headquarters is located on East William Street, within the area of study for that project.

Lipson reminded the DDA board of the Calthorpe process that the community had engaged in around 2005. He described it as an extensive process that had included a series of design charettes. One of the ideas that had emerged was the need for a public plaza, or a “town square.” The Calthorpe report mentions a town square over a dozen times, Lipson said, and depicts such a square on the Library Lot.

Lipson called it a perfect time to revisit the question of what to put on top of the underground structure. He told the board it was doing an excellent job on the Connecting William Street project. The DDA’s planning and research specialist, Amber Miller, and executive director Susan Pollay were doing a good job, he said. The speaker series that Concentrate is sponsoring as a part of that is very useful, he said.

Right now the plan for the top of the Library Lot is for it to be a surface parking lot [until some other possible future use is identified]. But surface parking lots are anathema to active downtowns, he said. He encouraged the DDA board to put something on the site that is not a surface parking lot. He acknowledged the concern about crime and panhandlers, but characterized that as a broader issue. The community shouldn’t sacrifice the idea of a plaza because of the issue of the homeless. He said that as he moved through downtown Ann Arbor walking along the sidewalks, he was approached more and more by panhandlers – but no one is suggesting we abolish sidewalks.

Ray Detter, during his report from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), said that Lipson and Hathaway had spoken to the advisory council at its meeting the night before. Detter said the CAC agreed with them that a plaza space should be part of the plan. But he said that a plaza space has always been part of the plan. The CAC agreed there should be a clear-cut process for using Library Lane when it was finished. [Library Lane is the mid-block cut-through from Division Street to Fifth Avenue just north of the current location of the downtown district library.] Detter said the CAC had affirmed a long-held commitment to tax-producing private development on top of the parking garage. The CAC has always believed that whatever goes on the top of the parking garage should benefit the library, Detter concluded.

Parking Structure Park: Board Response – Three Other Parks

Responding to the remarks of Library Green advocates about the perceived problem of panhandling as an argument against additional open space in the downtown, mayor John Hieftje noted that panhandling had been the focus of a task force that had done some work on the issue. He mentioned that people would start seeing posters appear that give suggestions for ways to help without giving money to a panhandler.

[By way of background, the city of Ann Arbor previously staffed a downtown beat patrol, which many officers chose to cover by bicycle. With the reduction of the police officer force, that specific patrol assignment has been reduced to the point of elimination. Many people have contended that there's an increased panhandling and other nuisance-type crimes in downtown Ann Arbor and that it can be attributed to the elimination of the downtown beat patrol.]

So in connection with panhandling, Hieftje then took the occasion to point out that later in May, the city council would be likely to approve a budget that does not cut 9 police officers as had been planned last year, but would add one, for a net gain of 10. He also pointed out that some additional personnel would be added as part of a recruitment program.

[In May 2011, the city council approved a budget that eliminated six police officer positions, with a plan to eliminate nine additional positions this year. So compared to 2010 budgeted levels for sworn officers, preserving the nine positions and adding one leaves Ann Arbor police officer staffing at five fewer for next year. That doesn't include the proposed recruitment program, which calls for potential new hires to the department to work under the direction of sworn officers.]

Image from the city/county flood map website showing the 721 N. Main parcel. The blue area is floodway. The green area is floodplain. Two of the three buildings on the parcel are in the floodway. They could be demolished with a FEMA grant described by mayor John Hieftje. Acceptance of the grant from FEMA would require a deed restriction against development in the floodway. (Image links to floodway mapping tool.)

Continuing his remarks on panhandlers, Hieftje noted that most of them are not homeless.

Hieftje then pitched a framework for discussing the future of the top of the underground parking garage – which Library Green advocates are suggesting should become a public park. Hieftje contended that it should be considered in the context of other significant anticipated additions to the city park system.

Hieftje indicated that the city council’s May 7 meeting would include a presentation about a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant for demolition of buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main property.

By way of additional background, Jerry Hancock, the city’s floodplain manager, provided some explanation about the grant, which has been awarded but still awaits some steps on the city’s part. One of those steps is updating the city’s All-Hazard Plan, which had expired, delaying the award of the grant by FEMA.

From The Chronicle’s March 5, 2012 city council meeting report:

Hancock responded by saying there’s only one other site on which the city has moved forward with FEMA applications: 721 N. Main St., a city-owned property.

The city had received approval of a grant to remove two storage structures in the floodway on the 721 N. Main site, but that grant has been delayed because the city’s All-Hazard Plan has expired. The city’s emergency manager, along with the city attorney’s office, is updating that, Hancock explained. Once that All-Hazard Plan is complete, the city will be able to move ahead with that grant. However, no other sites besides the two storage structures at 721 N. Main have been identified for FEMA applications, Hancock said.

At the DDA board meeting on May 2, Hieftje also said there was a real push being made to get the area across Main Street from the 721 N. Main property cleaned up – it’s the site of Avalon Housing‘s Near North affordable housing project, which currently has several vacant houses on it. Hieftje indicated that the city would be pursuing a state Natural Resources Trust Fund grant to make the 721 N. Main site the first of the greenway parks. It would have a linkage across Main Street under the railroad tracks to the countywide Border-to-Border Trail, he said. City staff would be investing time in planning for that, he said. Washtenaw County [parks and recreation], Hieftje reported, had agreed tentatively to participate in the project by making a match for the Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

[Hieftje appears to have somewhat overstated the currently expected level of participation by the county's park and recreation program. In a phone interview, Bob Tetens – director of Washtenaw County parks and recreation – told The Chronicle that there was not anything yet on the table in front of the parks and recreation commission. He indicated that there'd been conversations with the city about the project, and that the idea of connecting the 721 N. Main property would be a good fit with the Connecting Communities grant program – a $600,000 annual program over five years, for a total of $3 million. Tetens also said that a project that's already partly funded through another source (like the state's Natural Resources Trust Fund) would enhance a project's application. However, there are more applications for various projects every year than Washtenaw County parks and recreation can fund through the Connecting Communities program, Tetens said.]

Hieftje characterized the land at 721 N. Main as something that the city needs to do something with – because the city doesn’t want to contribute to blight. [The property was previously the city's fleet maintenance yard, but was closed when the Wheeler Service Center opened in 2007.] He also reported that he’d been working with community members on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. He said that not much progress has been made because of the condition of the old building. By council resolution, he said, that parcel will be a greenway park. [The council resolutions to which Hieftje is referring don't appear to commit the entire parcel to becoming a greenway park.]

Environmental cleanup work is being done on the MichCon property, located between the Amtrak rail station and the Huron River, near the Broadway bridges. Hieftje stated he hoped that would also become a park – across from the new whitewater features to be constructed in connection with the Argo Dam bypass, now called the Argo Cascades.

So as people start to think about adding parks, he said, people need to think about how to maintain them. According to the park advisory commission, Hieftje said, the city is at the limit of being able to maintain parks. Because the city already owns the 721 N. Main site, and because the MichCon property is one the city has wanted for 40 years to be cleaned up and added to the park system, those would be “first in line,” he stated. The capacity to care for another park will stretched, Hieftje said. He recommended to people who are working on the Library Green to take that into account: How will we maintain the park? Also, Hieftje invited Library Green advocates to think about how that fit into the competing interests of three large new parks that will need planning, development and maintenance.

Hieftje also said that he’d be recommending to the park advisory commission that they take up the issue of how to re-design Liberty Plaza [at Division and Liberty streets] so that it becomes a more active center and not something that people avoid. It’s fortunate that First Martin cares for the park, Hieftje said. [First Martin is an Ann Arbor firm that owns the building adjacent to Liberty Plaza.]

Picking up on Hieftje’s comments, Sandi Smith noted that the Connecting William Street committee members would have the future of the top of the underground parking garage on their radar as well, and noted that Liberty Plaza is within the boundary of the study area. Trying to maintain and activate two parks within the same block seems to be a difficult chore, she said.

Responding to Hieftje’s comments during the second opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting, Jerusalem Garden owner Ali Ramlawi suggested that one idea of funding the maintenance for a public park plaza on top of the parking garage would be to take a fraction of a percent of the parking revenues collected from the structure.

Parking Demand Management

Parking demand management is basically a strategy of differential pricing – higher for higher demand areas and lower for lower demand areas – to try to optimize the available parking spaces in the system. At an April 9, 2012 city council work session, Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere had asked DDA board member Roger Hewitt when residents could expect to see demand-management strategies implemented. At that work session, Hewitt had been presenting the DDA annual budget to the council.

Parking Demand Management: Resolution on Permits

At their May 2 meeting, the DDA board considered a resolution authorizing its operations committee (aka bricks & money and transportation committee) to use demand-management strategies to price monthly parking permits in Ann Arbor’s public parking system. The goal of adjusting monthly parking permit rates is to expand campus-area parking to structures other than those immediately adjacent to the University of Michigan campus. In broad strokes, “demand-management strategies” means pricing the most desirable parking options higher than those that are less desirable.

The move comes as the opening of the new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue, offering around 700 total spaces, is set to open by the start of the Ann Arbor art fairs, which this year run from July 18-21. Monthly permits for some of the spaces will be offered at the new structure, which will add to the five public parking structures where permits are available: Ann & Ashley, Forest Avenue, Fourth & William, Liberty Square (Tally Hall), and Maynard.

Under a demand-management strategy, prices of monthly permits at the underground parking structure are likely to be lower than at other structures.

The Ps denote parking structures offering monthly permit parking. (Image links to Google map.)

Hewitt noted that the DDA has been focusing on the completion of the new underground parking garage and has not had time to pay as much attention to parking demand-management initiatives.

As the DDA gets closer to opening the new underground garage, Hewitt said, the idea is to look at carrots and sticks for evening out the usage in the system. Rather than forcing people to move their permits from structures in high demand to those that are in lower demand, the idea is to offer incentives. There’s a number of ideas to relieve the pressure on the structures closest to campus – Forest, Maynard and Liberty Square. The idea is to move those folks into the new underground structure or the Fourth & William structure, he said.

The resolution authorized the operations committee to use parking demand management to alter rates to even out the demand in the system, he said.

Newcombe Clark questioned why there was an explicit mention of “two blocks west” in one of the “whereas” clauses. Hewitt assured him that the intent was to explore parking demand management for monthly permits throughout the system, without any particular boundary.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously approved the resolution authorizing the operations committee to use parking demand management strategies to alter monthly parking permit rates.

Parking Demand Management: DDA-City Contract

The  Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under contract with the city. The DDA has the unilateral ability to set parking rates. To implement an increase, the DDA is required under the contract to complete a series of steps designed to ensure adequate notice and public input before implementation of a rate increase. From the contract [emphasis]:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, DDA shall not implement any increase in the Municipal Parking System’s hours of meter operation or parking rates intended to persist for more than three (3) months without first: (i) announcing, and providing written communication regarding, the details of such increase at a meeting of the DDA Board; (ii) providing all members of the public an opportunity to speak in a manner similar to a public hearing before the DDA Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting on the subject of the proposed increase (“Public Hearing”); and (iii) postponing any vote on the proposed increase until at least the regularly scheduled meeting of the DDA Board after the Public Hearing

The changes to the monthly permit system, which Hewitt characterized as “incentives,” do not appear to involve rate increases, but perhaps only decreases. So the various steps outlined in that contract clause would not apply.

Parking Demand Management: Public Comment

Edward Vielmetti addressed the board during the second opportunity for public commentary, and focused on the topic of demand management pricing. He ventured that sometimes people don’t have much of a choice as to where they can park and they pay whatever price they have to pay – because they don’t know much about what their alternatives are.

In addition to improved communication about availability of spaces, Vielmetti asked for better communication about information on the parking system performance – as opposed to simple pronouncements about the parking system being at full capacity.

Vielmetti also addressed the board at the start of the meeting on the topic of relatively low-tech ways to get parking space availability information to people who need it – people who are looking for a place to park.

He shared an experience he had visiting Toledo to watch the Toledo Mud Hens play. It’s usually easy to find a place to park, he said, and if the lots near the stadium are full, there are usually other lots that are easy enough to find. But on the occasion of the visit he described to the DDA board, the Detroit Tigers were playing, and all the lots were filled up. So he had to navigate using his wits and found the farmer’s market, which offered free parking.

Part of the challenge of parking in an unfamiliar place, he said, is not knowing the lay of the land. You have to figure out if the place you want to park is legal, and you might not know if the structure you know exists is already full. He said that what was fascinating about Toledo was not any kind of fancy smart phone application that anyone had running, but rather a sign at the border that advised people to tune their radios to AM 1640. That’s a station that tells you how much traffic was on the roads to get to the stadium, or to get to downtown Toledo from the Michigan border.

The radio station, Vielmetti said, would give estimated travel times to different places, on a constant loop. Every few minutes the information would be updated. It’s a low-power AM station that you can only hear in Toledo, he said. He suggested that setting up such a station would be within the means of any municipality or a public body like the DDA, and the radio station could tell people a little bit about what they need to do in the downtown. The DDA already has realtime parking information available, so potentially that information could be broadcast every three minutes and listeners could hear something like “All the lots have spaces available,” or if the Fourth and Washington structure is full, then it could advise people to use the underground garage.

Vielmetti said he wanted to revisit the realtime parking information issue that he’d raised with the DDA back in 2009. This time around, he said, he didn’t want to look at “fancy things” that only people with fancy phones could use, but something that people could tune into from their car radio.

Parking Demand Management: Parking Report

A report of the monthly parking figures are a standard part of every DDA board meeting. Generally, the message conveyed by Roger Hewitt is that revenues are up in excess of the rate increase, which he interprets as an indicator that demand for parking is increasing.

For the past few months, The Chronicle has charted out revenues and hourly patrons in the system as reflected in the DDA’s monthly reports over the last couple of years. Hourly patrons don’t include people who park at on-street meters, but rather those who pay hourly at a parking structure – as opposed to parking there using a monthly permit.

Ann Arbor public parking system revenue through March 31, 2012. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons (in structures) through March 31, 2012. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Parking Garage Construction

At its monthly meetings, the DDA board typically receives a report on the progress toward completion of the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. It will offer around 700 spaces underground. The surface lot that existed there previously offered 192 spaces.

Parking Garage Construction – Public Comment

Ali Ramlawi introduced himself as the owner of the Jerusalem Garden and a resident of Ward 5 – but he allowed that board members already knew who he was. [Ramlawi has addressed the board previously to raise essentially the same issues he did at the May 2 meeting.]

He described the construction of the underground parking structure as stretching now into its fourth calendar year, but was not yet complete. [The ceremonial groundbreaking took place in October 2009.] He reviewed some of the issues he’s raised before – loss of income, disruption in deliveries, forced evacuation [due to the emergence of a sinkhole]. He questioned how the construction contract was awarded to the Christman Company and contended that the choice of subcontractors by Christman had raised some eyebrows. He contended that the original contract with Christman had no penalties for being late and no reward for finishing on time. No one is held accountable, he complained. With the powers and budget the DDA board members have, they need to do a better job of awarding contacts, he said. If this were the private sector, he contended, someone would have been fired. Where are the penalties for the lateness? he asked.

He told the board that when they have the ceremonial opening celebration he would not be around for it because he didn’t want to “puke over [himself].”

Parking Garage Construction – Board Report

John Splitt gave the update on the construction of the underground garage. Work continues on the mechanicals. The most exciting part of things, he said, is that the backfilling on the plaza level is going along nicely and the waterproofing is almost complete. Backfilling on the “bridge” section, which will allow the re-opening of South Fifth Avenue, is almost complete, he said. Curbs are beginning to be formed on South Fifth Avenue. It’s on schedule to reopen by the end of May, and it’s anticipated that the underground garage will be open by the time that the art fairs start, he said. The fairs run from July 18-21 this year.

During the second opportunity for public commentary near the end of the meeting, Ali Ramlawi objected to Splitt’s use of the phrase “on schedule to open,” saying that the project is a year behind schedule. He contended that saying it was on schedule undermined the DDA’s credibility.

Following up on Splitt’s construction summary, Newcombe Clark asked that the depiction of the Lincoln Continental on the meeting room’s wall be explained, so that people did not think the DDA was getting into the sponsorship business. Splitt explained that it’s part of the underground garage wayfinding system – which will use both colors and four different automobiles to identify floors. The car is a mockup of a wayfinding sign.

“Brownfield” Policy Draft

The DDA board considered a draft policy on supporting “brownfield” projects – a policy prompted by discussions at the board’s partnerships committee over the last few months. [.pdf of draft DDA brownfield policy] The board was not expected to act on the policy, and did not vote.

“Brownfield” Policy Draft: Background

The DDA’s partnerships committee has been discussing a proposal by Dan Ketelaar for support of a proposed development at 618 S. Main, which received a positive recommendation from the Ann Arbor planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. Ketelaar has estimated that the tax on the increment between the current valuation of the property and the final built project would yield around $250,000 a year in TIF (tax increment finance) revenue to the DDA.

Ketelaar is asking that the DDA pledge 80% of its TIF capture money for six years – about $1.3 million – to support certain aspects of the project in connection with the state’s Community Revitalization Program. The CRP is the successor to the brownfield and historic preservation tax credit programs. In order to approve the tax credit, the state would like to see a commensurate commitment from local units – and Ketelaar is proposing that it take the form of the DDA’s support.

At the April 11, 2012 DDA partnerships committee meeting, one of the points that resonated strongest with some board members in favor of supporting the 618 S. Main project was the ability of the contribution to leverage state money that would otherwise not be invested in Ann Arbor. The amount of money from the state that could be leveraged is in the range of $3 million.

Under Ketelaar’s proposal, taxes on the property would still need to be paid. In other words, the DDA would not simply waive its tax capture on the property. The 618 S. Main project would be reimbursed for a portion of those taxes it would normally owe. In the draft policy, that’s reflected in the following passage: “The DDA will not forgo its TIF capture from a project; the DDA may elect to provide a grant to a project utilizing its funds, or it may elect to provide all or some of its support using such in-kind elements as access to parking for contractors or construction staging.”

The maximum amount of a possible grant described in the draft policy is “calculated by estimating 25% of the total TIF captured by a project over ten years.” In the case of the 618 S. Main project, that amounts to .25*(10*$250,000) = $625,000. That’s about half what the 618 S. Main project is requesting.

The DDA board has heard about the proposal on several occasions – first at the full board meeting on Feb. 1, 2012, and at four subsequent DDA partnerships committee meetings. DDA board members are cautious about the precedent that such a pledge might set, and the appropriateness of the DDA’s role at this early stage in the project. (Ketelaar has not yet acquired the land.) At the March 28 partnerships committee meeting, DDA board member Newcombe Clark expressed concern that, depending on the precise role defined for the DDA’s participation, the DDA could effectively be artificially inflating land values.

“Brownfield” Policy Draft: Board Discussion

Sandi Smith introduced the draft policy. Looking at the 618 S. Main project caused the partnerships committee to take a really hard look at the reasons why the DDA would participate in the project at all, some or a lot, she said. The committee felt that it was struggling with the idea of creating a precedent. So the committee wanted to make a strong policy statement that the DDA would be able to honor for the 618 S. Main project, as well as for projects that came after it.

She walked the board through some of the highlights of the draft policy. She said she was looking for board-wide feedback for further work by the partnerships committee.

Roger Hewitt said that a lot of his concerns were addressed by the draft policy – about the subjectivity of picking projects. He liked the idea of getting rid of as much subjectivity as possible. The idea of a state match was good, he said, as well as the idea that the only costs to be reimbursed would be public infrastructure, not parts of the development itself. He also wanted to make sure that the DDA would not be paying out more than the DDA would receive in TIF capture.

Smith assured Hewitt that nothing would be paid until the taxes have been paid. The DDA would never be in a position of being ahead of the taxes it had received. Hewitt said his concern was that the amount of the grant could become a larger percentage of the TIF, if the value of the project actually went down. He wanted some way to protect against that. Keith Orr suggested some kind of clause that states that while the grant amount would be based on the estimated value of the TIF capture, the payout would be capped by the actual value.

Russ Collins noted that the scenario that Hewitt was describing involved possibly paying out more than anticipated, but not more than the DDA was capturing. John Splitt noted that there could be flexibility to pay out sooner than the actual TIF capture was received, so that’s where the issue could arise – if it were paid out on a schedule sooner than the 10 years.

Splitt wondered if 25% was enough to make a difference in the project. Bob Guenzel clarified that “enough” meant whether it was enough to actually provide the matching leverage for state funds. Smith responded by saying that for past projects, the Liberty Lofts project [a residential development at Liberty and First] had been the most significant one – and that had amounted to 17% of the TIF over 10 years. Taking all that into account, she wondered if 25% was too high or too low.

Keith Orr agreed with the idea of making it as objective as possible and focusing on public infrastructure.

Newcombe Clark said he was happy that the DDA has continued to be creative even when the organization doesn’t have a lot of money. He appreciated the patience of Ketelaar, watching the “sausage making.” Clark said he’d enjoyed the process. Maybe the DDA didn’t make everyone happy or didn’t get it right the first time, he said – that’s always possible. He knew it was not perfect, but he felt that as a group the DDA board could pick it back up and shine it up some more. He said he’d had the fear that for a few years there’d be nothing the DDA would be able to do [because of diminished financial capacity] and he’d been proven wrong.

Collins quipped that he found Clark’s positive and optimistic attitude completely inappropriate, which drew laughs around the table. On a more serious note, Collins said that the DDA had structured itself as an organization that tends to assets. That causes a certain amount of fiscal conservatism. The draft brownfield policy, therefore, is very conservative, he said. But by being conservative, the DDA could miss the chance to be a stimulus to other private investment, which is the core of the DDA’s mission, he said. That’s the constant tension a DDA has, he ventured.

Clark suggested that based on past experience, once the DDA creates policies, it lays down the rules of engagement, and then people will line up with proposals. Collins continued with his friendly ribbing of Clark, saying that Clark’s unmitigated optimism was completely out of character.

During his report from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), Ray Detter congratulated the DDA on the formulation of the draft policy. He said the CAC supports the project and is confident the DDA is developing a consistent policy that will be fair to everyone.

Outcome: The draft policy was not before the board for a vote. It will be subjected to further discussion by the partnerships committee.

Third Quarter Financials

Roger Hewitt reviewed the financial statements for third quarter, through March 31, 2012. The DDA’s accounting system includes four funds: the TIF (tax increment finance) fund, which gets its revenue from tax capture; the parking fund, which receives revenue from the public parking system; the parking maintenance fund, which gets revenue through transfers from the parking fund; and the housing fund, which gets revenue through transfers from the TIF fund. [.pdf of DDA  financial picture through March 31, 2012]

The tax increment finance (TIF) income is anticipated to be $200,000 below budgeted – $3.7 million instead of $3.9 million, Hewitt reported. The drop, he said, is primarily due to changes in personal property, not changes to real property. Personal property depreciates quickly, he said. Operating expenses will be about $250,000 below budget, primarily from less use of consultants and lower administrative expenses. Only about $45,000 in capital expenses are shown so far, he said, but he anticipated that number would be right around $1 million at the end of the fiscal year.

That figure will come from the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements project and a portion of the “Library Lane” parking structure. Overall, he said, the DDA had budgeted for around a $1.5 million use of fund balance. Now, said Hewitt, it looks like it would be around $1.44 million of fund reserves that would need to be used. Hewitt pointed out that the use of fund balance was planned, and the natural consequence of accruing capital funds to pay for major construction projects and then using the money.

Revenue for the public parking system is anticipated to be around $17 million, or about $800,000 more than anticipated. The rate increases had been budgeted into the anticipated revenue, he said, so he attributed the additional revenue to increased demand. He stated that the DDA continues to see strong growth in demand for parking. It’s fortunate that the “Library Lane” parking structure is coming on line when it is, because the system is at capacity, he said, at least in the campus area and at the Ann Ashley parking structure.

Direct operating expenses are expected to be $800,000 less than expected. That has to do with the fact that Republic Parking – the DDA’s contractor for day-to-day parking operations – is doing a good job at belt-tightening and is efficient in its operations, Hewitt said. He commended Art Lowe, Republic Parking manager, and his staff for keeping costs in line. Overall, it looks like the parking fund will be around $1 million to the positive.

Parking maintenance has received around $2 million, he said, which is right where the DDA anticipated being. The DDA has not spent money on maintenance that it would have ordinarily done, but the DDA is so far ahead on preventive maintenance that it was able to scale back without any concern about the structural integrity or long-term durability of the structures, he said. So parking structure maintenance has been conservative. There’s been about $1.6 million less spent on maintenance than what had been budgeted. That money will be there for future years as needed, Hewitt said.

The only income into the housing fund was due to interest. About $500,000 had been budgeted for Avalon Housing’s Near North project, but that project has not gone forward. The $500,000 is not due to be paid until Avalon has a certificate of occupancy, and that shows as under budget on the expense side for the housing fund.

Summarizing the financial picture in terms of fund balances, Hewitt gave the following round figures: TIF fund – $6.5 million; housing fund – $1 million; parking fund – $2 million; and parking maintenance – $1.8 million. Total fund balance is $11,444,000, he said. That will certainly be drawn lower as the Fifth and Division streetscape and the “Library Lane” parking structure projects are paid off, he said, but the DDA still has adequate cash.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included a usual range of miscellaneous reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. To the extent that significant issues are not already included in the other parts of the meeting report, we include them here.

Comm/Comm: Connecting William Street

Joan Lowenstein gave an update on the Connecting William Street project – an effort the DDA is making under the direction of the city council to find alternate uses for city-owned parcels currently used for surface parking. Lowenstein said that the DDA’s leadership and outreach committee is continuing and increasing efforts to bring different “scenarios” to the public. The scenarios won’t be exact building drawings, but there would be more detail in them, she said. In mid- to late June there’d be something concrete to bring to the public.

Focus group meetings will continue in an effort to shape scenarios. A meeting with members of the city’s park advisory commission had taken place. On May 16, the committee would hear the market analysis findings that will shape the scenarios, based on survey feedback and the market analysis. Throughout the month of June, the committee was moving ahead to have something to show people and get feedback.

The next event in the Concentrate speaker series, focusing on land-use economics, will take place on May 17 at 5 p.m. at Conor O’Neill’s, Lowenstein said.

Comm/Comm: Commuter Challenge

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, gave the board a brief update on the Commuter Challenge, which getDowntown sponsors annually during the month of May.

Comm/Comm: Girl Scouts

Girl Scout badge design for "Spring Blooms" park cleanup day. The DDA is camouflaged into the design.

Board members were given a Girl Scout badge that’s been created in connection with the parks cleanup day, Spring Blooms. Girl Scouts can earn the badge by participating in the event, DDA executive director Susan Pollay said.

Pollay noted that the DDA name was hidden within the badge design.

This year, the event falls on Saturday, May 19. The assembly point is Liberty Plaza at Division and Liberty. Said Pollay: “We will go forth and clean up the downtown!”

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein.

Absent: John Mouat, Leah Gunn.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. While you’re parked in front of your computer screen, please click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The view from the bottom of the construction site for the South Fifth underground parking structure, facing Fifth. The project's next phase requires shutting down southbound Fifth between Liberty and William, starting Aug. 1.

This week, the DDA – which is managing the closure as part of the construction of the underground parking structure on South Fifth – released more information about changes in traffic routes and parking, related to the closure.

Those changes include the closing of the downtown post office’s public parking lot, allowing truck traffic on southbound Main Street, and installing a new turn arrow at the intersection of Fifth and William, to allow AATA buses to turn north onto Fifth. Read on for more details about these and other changes to expect after Aug. 1.

Downtown Post Office

Currently, patrons of the post office have access to free short-term parking on the east side of the building, with one-way access off of South Fifth. That will be closed to the public after Aug. 1 – instead, new parking spaces will be added on East Liberty, in front of the post office. Like the existing spots, the new spaces will be short-term (10 minutes) and free.

The mailboxes available for drive-by mailing on the east-side parking lot will be removed.

Library Access

As The Chronicle previously reported, the sidewalk in front of the downtown library’s main entrance on South Fifth has been widened and an ADA-compliant ramp added, replacing the ramp access that had been located on the building’s north side – which is now the site of the underground parking project. Bike hoops that were located on the north side of the library are being moved to the front of the building, and new lighting will be added there.

The removal of the flower planters and the installation of the ADA-compliant ramp is related, in part, to the change of venue for  the Ann Arbor Tranportation Authority’s regular board meeting to the downtown library, starting in August. Library and AATA staff, as well as the AATA’s local advisory commission, had wanted to make sure that that the library was adequately accessible – given the current construction environment – before making the change of venue.

Blake Transit Center

A lane of South Fifth will be used for northbound access – with entrance off of William – by Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses, postal service trucks, and some workers at the federal building. In the coming weeks, part of the Blake Transit Center pedestrian shelter closest to Fifth Avenue – as well as the adjacent wall – will be removed, so that USPS semi trucks can maneuver into the federal building’s back loading dock.

As part of this change, a new left-turn arrow will be added to the signal at the intersection of William and Fifth, allowing permitted vehicles to turn north onto Fifth, off of William.

Recommended Alternative Routes

Vehicles will be asked to detour to South First as an alternative southbound route – signs will be posted indicating that street as the detour. It is also a one-way southbound street, located four blocks west of South Fifth. Other two-way streets, including South Fourth Avenue and Main Street, are also open to southbound traffic.

Trucks are now prohibited from using Main Street between Huron and William, but after Aug. 1, trucks will be allowed on southbound Main until South Fifth reopens. Trucks will still not be allowed on that section of northbound Main.

Other Parking Changes

In addition to closing the east-side post office public parking lot, several parking meters on the west side of South Fourth will be bagged, taking those spaces out of service. According to the DDA, the intent is to provide more space along Fourth for emergency vehicles, which will be using the southbound lane as an alternative to Fifth.

Nearby parking will remain available in the surface lot at Fifth and William, in the parking structure at Fourth and William, and at metered on-street spaces throughout the area.

More information about the DDA’s underground parking structure is on the project’s website.

The view from the entrance of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, looking west. In the foreground is construction from the Fifth Avenue streetscape project. Across the street is a city-owned surface lot that will be closed when the AATA rebuilds the Blake Transit Center, seen to the right.

Vibrations from work on the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, just to the north of the library building, have caused problems with the building’s HVAC system – the library temporarily lost air-conditioning as a result. In a related move, the library board voted to award a contract for HVAC maintenance and repair to Pace Mechanical, despite arguments that it should go to a local company.

And in her director’s report, Josie Parker noted that a public parking lot used by library patrons will close as early as next spring, due to the rebuilding of the AATA’s Blake Transit Center. The city-owned surface lot is located at the northwest corner of Fifth and William, directly across from the library.

The Chronicle followed up with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which oversees management of the surface lot for the city, for more details on possible contingencies for patron parking, as well as other access issues that could arise when Fifth Avenue along that block is closed for at least a year, starting Aug. 1.

Parking, Access for the Library

In her director’s report to the board, Josie Parker reminded board members about the DDA’s ongoing Fifth Avenue and underground parking garage construction projects and their effect on the downtown library, which is located at the northeast corner of Fifth and William. The library will remain open during the construction and patrons will still be able to access the doors opening onto Fifth Avenue. However, until the garage is completed, pedestrians are only able to walk to the library from the sidewalks running south to William Street – pedestrian access along the east side of Fifth, north of the library, is blocked by the construction site.

Parker noted that the downtown library temporarily lost its air conditioning recently as a result of the construction. She said the building’s 25-year-old chillers haven’t been holding up well against the vibrations coming from the construction site. Additionally, she reported that next spring the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is planning to demolish and rebuild its Blake Transit Center, located across the street from the library. That will result in a loss of surface lot parking used by library patrons.

In a phone conversation with The Chronicle later this week, DDA executive director Susan Pollay said her organization has been working to minimize impact on the library and to accommodate the upcoming AATA project as well. The DDA has committed the Fifth & William surface lot to the AATA to use as a bus staging area, as soon as construction begins on the new Blake Transit Center. The AATA is in the design phase, and would need to gain site plan approval from the city before starting construction. That might happen as soon as the spring of 2011, but it could take longer.

In addition to a parking structure a block away, on Fourth and William, there are metered street parking spaces on William just south of the library that can be used by patrons, Pollay said. The DDA recently widened the sidewalk in front of the library along Fifth down to William, removed large planters and installed an ADA-compliant ramp there, she said – all to provide better access for patrons during the construction process. Previously, the ramp to the library entrance was oriented toward the north side, which is now adjacent to the DDA underground parking project.

The changes to the front of the library are also intended to address some concerns that had been expressed about accessibility to AATA board meetings, which are scheduled to take place there starting with the regular August meeting.

The changes to ease access are also in preparation for the closing of South Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William, which will likely occur on Aug. 1. That stretch is expected to remain closed for about 12-18 months. Access to the library for police and fire services was a concern, Pollay said – the widened sidewalk and ramp will make it easier for those emergency services to quickly get to the library’s front entrance from William Street.

Back to the Board Meeting: Financial Issues

During their June 21 meeting, the board amended the budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2010. Board members unanimously approved a resolution to make the following transfers:

• $15,000 from capital outlay expense to communications expense
• $60,000 from capital outlay expense to supplies expense
• $50,000 from other operating expenditures to utilities expense
• $60,000 from other operating expenditures to communications expense

Eli Neiburger, associate director of IT and product development, said the communications budget needed to be amended due to a high demand for Internet access and some phone system issues, which he said are in the process of being resolved. Utilities expenses for the past year also came in over budget. Neiburger told the board that the library regularly adjusts its supplies budget at the end of the fiscal year, due to the high cost of items such as hardware.

As of May 31, 2010, the library’s unrestricted cash balance was $8,147,403. The library has also received $11,556,341 in tax receipts, 99% of its budgeted amount for the current fiscal year. AADL director Josie Parker informed the board that they are waiting on a payment from the county on tax delinquencies for the final 1%. The library also had a positive fund balance of $7,370,875 as of May 31.

Parker noted that the library has received half of its promised state aid: $20,536 for the Washtenaw Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled @ AADL program. She said they anticipate receiving more aid before the end of the state’s fiscal year, for a total of about $40,000. This is a drop from previous years, when the library received about $120,000 annually in state aid. Parker said the library’s decision to leave The Library Network, a Southeast Michigan library cooperative, is responsible for the loss of revenue. AADL voted to leave the cooperative at its January 2009 meeting. From The Chronicle’s coverage of that meeting:

Just before the vote, Parker said the library was assuming too great a financial risk by being a member. Because of its size and resources, AADL doesn’t tap services from the cooperative. Yet if state aid that funds TLN isn’t sufficient to cover the cooperative’s costs, members would be on the hook to pay the difference, she said – even members that don’t use its services. Though co-ops were originally designed to share the wealth by providing services that smaller libraries could use, there hasn’t been a recent analysis about their effectiveness, Parker said. Because of the way state funding is structured, if AADL is not a member of the cooperative, it would receive only half of the $120,000 it gets annually from the state – although that funding is never guaranteed.

AADL trustee Barbara Murphy wanted to know if not being part of the cooperative affects the library’s day-to-day operations. Parker responded that it doesn’t at this time, although the library had depended on the cooperative for some “very minimal” things in the past such as magazine subscriptions.

The board also voted unanimously to approve various disbursements for the month of May.

HVAC Contract

At its May meeting, the board had discussed which contractor should receive the contract to provide HVAC equipment maintenance and repair service for the library for a three-year period. The library’s current mechanical services contract with Pace Mechanical expires on June 30, 2010.

The library started the bidding process earlier in the year and received responses from three companies: Pace Mechanical, Goyette Mechanical and Campbell Inc. Pace presented the library with a bid of $261,985 for 2010-2013. Campbell bid $262,500, and Goyette’s bid amounted to $79,000. At a post-bid meeting, library administration later determined that Goyette did not understand the scope of the agreement, quoting a price for quarterly maintenance instead of total coverage.

Although they found both Campbell and Pace to be highly recommendable, reliable and capable of providing quality service, library administrators recommended that Pace receive the contract, since the company is the current contractor and is therefore the most familiar with library equipment.

Kevin Rodgers, a Campbell Inc. maintenance solutions specialist, spoke at the May meeting, reminding the board that the Ann Arbor-based company had worked for the library previously. He also said his company would conduct a feasibility study of all library buildings in order to determine ways to lower operation costs.

The agenda for the board’s meeting this month included a resolution to be voted on, awarding the contract to Pace Mechanical. During the public commentary portion of the meeting, representatives from both Pace and Campbell spoke concerning the board’s decision.

Pace Mechanical service manager Don Lawson told the board he just wanted to be present for their decision concerning the contract. He reminded the board that his company has served the library and taken good care of their equipment for the past four years.

Campbell vice president Dominick Cuda stressed to the board that his company is locally based and connected with the Ann Arbor community. He questioned why the library didn’t decide to use a local contractor, a company that contributes to and pays taxes in the city of Ann Arbor.

HVAC Contract: Board Discussion

When the board discussed the HVAC contract resolution later in the meeting, Parker personally thanked Cuda and Lawson for attending. Parker said she and Ken Nieman – AADL associate director of finance, HR and operations – considered the statement Rodgers made at the previous month’s meeting but ultimately did not change their recommendation that Pace receive the contract. She said this was due to the lower cost of Pace’s services as well as the fact that they felt it was best to keep their current contractor. She pointed out that with the construction currently happening near the downtown building, the library’s equipment is especially vulnerable due to hazards such as dust and vibrations.

“We’re not comfortable changing contractors while we’re in that process,” Parker said, referring to the construction. She added that their decision was not a reflection on Campbell.

AADL board secretary Margaret Leary agreed, saying she had thought a lot during the past month about how the construction threatens the building’s sensitive and aging equipment.

“It seems to me that it’s in the best interest of the library and its patrons to continue with the company that’s done well, although that’s not a disparagement of Campbell,” Leary said.

Board president Rebecca Head agreed with Leary and Parker, while vice president Jan Barney Newman said she supports the library using local companies whenever it can. Ultimately, the board voted unanimously to adopt the resolution and granted the contract to Pace Mechanical.

Director’s Report

Parker informed the board that AADL’s 2010 Summer Reading program — with a “Make it Happen” theme — would kick off on Wednesday, June 23 at The Ark. She described it as an event full of music, singing and dancing aimed at preschool-aged children. Summer reading runs through Aug. 23. Children receive stickers, stamps and prizes as they work toward reading or listening to 10 books. There are also prizes and drawings for teens and adults. Parker said there will be more reading-related events and programs throughout the summer.

Retirements

Parker’s written report noted the retirement of two library employees. Richard “Dick” Durham retired on May 31, 2010 after working for the library for 15 years. In an email to the AADL staff, Durham stated, “I’ve seen us go from a sleepy little library with three small, overworked branches to the high tech organization we are today, with three new branches, each of which is large enough to be a main branch in most cities. I’m proud to have been a part of it and proud to have been associated with the wonderful people here.”

Sue Budin will retire on June 30. Budin worked for AADL as a librarian for 29 years. Parker’s report stated that Budin is known for her work with teens as well as her passion for poetry. She served on the Teen Advisory Committee for the Michigan Library Association and began the Short Story Writing Contest at AADL with her colleague Vicki Browne 18 years ago.

“We will miss Sue’s gentleness and how her presence alone makes one slow down and take a little more time to consider,” Parker wrote in her report.

The board unanimously passed two resolutions of thanks to Budin and Durham upon their retirement.

Present: Rebecca Head, board president; vice president Jan Barney Newman; treasurer Prue Rosenthal; secretary Margaret Leary; and trustees Carola Stearns, Ed Surovell, and Barbara Murphy. Also: AADL director Josie Parker.

Next meeting: The board’s next regular meeting is on Monday, July 19, 2010. The public portion of the meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the library’s fourth floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Chronicle publisher Mary Morgan contributed to this report. About the writer: Helen Nevius is a freelance writer for The Chronicle.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirms with an Ann Arbor resident at the city council's Sunday caucus that the map she's sketched reflects accurately the block bounded by Huron, State, Washington, and Division streets. In the background, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photo by the writer.)

The downtown zoning ordinance package – known as A2D2, which the council has approved on two prior occasions at a “first reading” – will be given a public hearing, with a vote also scheduled for Monday night. In addition, the downtown design guidelines will have its public hearing continued, which started on Oct. 5. No vote on design guidelines is scheduled for Monday.

Also receiving discussion at caucus were the six projects that were submitted before last Friday’s Nov. 13 deadline, in response to the city’s request for proposals to use the space on top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage.

Also the council’s agenda, but not receiving discussion among councilmembers who attended the caucus, is the council’s formal acceptance of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) from the city’s environmental commission – but not the plan’s recommendations related to Argo Dam.

And a consent agenda item that requests funds to purchase additional electronic parking meter equipment contains in its description a plan to install meters in new areas that have not been previously identified.

Finally, there’s a whole new category of item on Monday’s agenda – a category that raises questions.

Councilmembers attending the caucus were Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Design Guidelines

Prior community-wide discussion on proposed design guidelines for Ann Arbor’s downtown has focused on the lack of a mandatory process into which the guidelines would be integrated. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should" and "Mandatory Process Likely for Design Guides"]

At Sunday’s caucus, the councilmembers who were present heard from representatives of a citizen volunteer group that has been meeting and going through the proposed design guidelines. Overall, their message was that more time was needed to get the guidelines right: “There’s no reason to hurry this. It’s too important to hurry,” one resident said.

Among the specific areas needing focus, they said, were the following:

• Coordination between new zoning codes, design guidelines and the Downtown Plan.
• Specification of a design review process; the city’s new public participation ordinance helps define a “schedule” for a project approval process – where does the design review process fit into this schedule?
• Elimination of the checklist, because “checking all the boxes doesn’t mean good design.”
• Context of new construction in terms of respecting surrounding buildings.
• Use of example projects on which to test-run the guidelines before they’re formally adopted.
• Use of premiums for additional floor area ratios (i.e., taller buildings) only when a project is approved by a design review panel; this would be a way to leverage compliance.
• Improvement of photographs and graphics in the design guidelines document.
• Sustainability should be included in the design guidelines document not just in the context of new buildings, but also in the context of rehabbing older buildings.
• Character districts are not completely articulated and in some cases seem rather “open ended.”

Another area of concern was the need to clarify language so that the the meaning would be clear to three distinct groups of readers of the document: the general public, developers, and members of the design guideline panel.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was intrigued by the idea of using compliance with design guidelines as a condition on granting premiums – but had questions about how the ordinance language would be crafted to achieve that goal. She also wondered, as a  practical matter, how a developer might deal with the need to provide a design that assumed premiums, when the developer could not know in advance that the design would meet with the approval of a design guidelines review panel.

The composition of such a design review panel was suggested by one representative of the volunteer group to have five members: one member of the public, an architect, an urban planner, a specialist in historic preservation, and a real estate developer. The number of people on the review panel was not an area of complete consensus among the volunteer group, with one alternative having two representatives from each professional category, for a total of 10 or more people.

There was, however, a consensus that the members of such a design review panel should not also be members of other development-related boards and commissions in the city, e.g., the planning commission or the Downtown Development Authority.

Mayor John Hieftje raised the question of whether sufficient numbers of such professionals could be found who’d be willing to serve on a design review panel, and if so, whether they would find themselves with frequent conflicts of interest when projects they were working on came before the panel for review.

A2D2 Zoning

During discussion at the Sunday caucus, much of the history of the A2D2 was drawn out.

The A2D2 rezoning initiative was meant to simplify Ann Arbor’s downtown zoning code by reducing multiple zoning districts into something easier for city staff, developers, and the public to grasp. In broad strokes, the outcome of the A2D2 process was the establishment of two zoning districts for the downtown: D1 (core) and D2 (interface). One key defining feature of D1 is its 180-foot height limit, as contrasted with a maximum of 60 feet in D2. That D1 height limit applies across all D1 areas except for a swatch along East Huron and in the South University area, where the height limit for D1 is 150 feet.

For the South University area, the planning commission had originally envisioned all of South University as a D1 area and passed along that recommendation to the city council. The city council saw things differently, and carved out roughly half the South University area as D2. That meant that the council could not accept the planning commission’s proposed Downtown Plan, which specified all of South University as “core.”

But unlike zoning code, over which the city council has the final decision, the Downtown Plan requires agreement between the planning commission and the city council – on master planning documents, the planning commission has equal standing with the council.

The outcome of that interplay between the city council and the planning commission was a greatly reduced D2 area in South University, compared to what the city council had wanted. Council’s amendment to its originally passed A2D2 zoning – with its large D2 area in South University – was substantial enough that the ordinance had to be brought back again for a “first reading.” [All ordinances are heard by the city council at a "first reading" and a "second reading," before a vote is taken.] Here’s a more detailed chronology:

• April 4, 2009: City council passes A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version with South University larger D2.
• April 20, 2009: City council refers Downtown Plan back to the planning commission [Useful backround in previous Chronicle coverage: "What's Your Downtown Plan?"]
• May 19, 2009: Planning  commission revised slightly different Downtown Plan with smaller D2 in South University.
• June 15, 2009: City council accepts revised Downtown Plan with smaller D2 in South University.
• July 6, 2009: City council postpones A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• July 20, 2009: City council again postpones A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• Sept 9, 2009: City council passes A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council’s agenda includes A2D2 Zoning “second reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.

Some of the discussion at caucus centered on the question of how rezoning affected property values. Hieftje allowed that it was important to remember when rezoning, the city is rezoning property that is owned by people.

One resident focused on the block that includes the First Methodist and First Baptist churches downtown – bounded by Huron, State, Washington, and Division streets. She observed that the new construction at the corner of Washington and Division [411 Lofts] would already violate D2 zoning if it were to be zoned that way, but wondered if it was possible “to grandfather it in.” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) explained that it was possible, and that it would simply be a “non-conforming use.”

Another resident wondered why it was not possible to “down-zone” when it was clearly possible to “up-zone.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that from a legal point of view, it was always easier to give than to take.

That led to a discussion of the fact that by up-zoning a parcel, there could be a kind of “taking” from the owners of smaller residential properties adjacent to the up-zoned parcels.

Underground Parking Garage: What Goes on Top?

A topic on several residents’ minds was the request for proposals the city had made for use of the area on top of the underground parking garage currently beginning constructed on the lot along Fifth Avenue, next to the library. The deadline for submission of proposals was last Friday, Nov. 13. The city has received six different proposals.

One sentiment expressed at Sunday’s caucus was that all six should receive interviews, given that it was a relatively small number. It falls to the selection committee to determine which proposals are to advance to the interview stage, but on Sunday, Mayor John Hieftje stressed that the city council could determine to hear whatever proposals it wanted.

The selection committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Eric Mahler (planning commission), John Splitt (DDA board), and Scott Rosencrans (Park Advisory Commission).

At caucus, there was support for inclusion of a proposal for a community commons, which was one of the six submitted. In response to the suggestion that there was not adequate open space downtown, Hieftje pointed to the University of Michigan Diag, West Park, the Arboretum, and Liberty Plaza, which he said needed to be redesigned to be all on one level.

Hieftje also pointed out that the city was planning to build a greenway, and that the surface parking lot at First & William had been designated for future use as a park in that greenway corridor. What had been common to the majority of parkland additions to the city’s park system in the time he’d been in office, said Hieftje, was that they were natural areas.  Natural areas, he continued, posed lower costs for security and for maintenance than urban parks.

Referencing the development of the top of the underground parking garage, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) cautioned against speculative development, saying that there’d been two examples of less-than-successful attempts: Tally Hall and William Street Station. The former developer of William Street Station, which would have been located on the site of the old YMCA at the northwest corner of Fifth and William, has filed a lawsuit against the city over the city’s cancellation of the project.

Kunselman suggested exploring public-public partnerships, saying it made more sense to think of putting the new library on top of the parking structure, then simply selling the old library parcel and the old YMCA lot. [The library board had planned to build a new library on the site of its current downtown building at the northeast corner of Fifth and William, but called off the project late last year, citing the poor economy.]

After caucus, Kunselman pointed out to The Chronicle that the public-public involved with putting a new library on top of the parking structure would be a four-way partnership: the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA, the Ann Arbor District Library, and the Ann Arbor Public Schools. AAPS still holds its board meetings at the library, and there’s a historical relationship between the library and the school system, dating back to when the library system was actually a part of the school system.

A possible different approach to the RFP process the city had undertaken with the top of the underground parking garage, suggested Kunselman, would be to sell the air rights to a developer, with that developer then able to bring a project forward in a standard site-plan review process. In order to get the open space the city wanted, deed restrictions could be placed on the sale of such air rights.

Cell Phones

One resident at caucus wanted to know what happened to a proposed cell phone ordinance that had been mentioned at a previous council meeting. Mayor John Hieftje said that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) was still working on it. [At the council's Aug. 6 meeting, Rapundalo indicated that he and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had asked the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance to prohibit cell phone usage and texting while driving, and they expected it to come before council at its Aug. 17 meeting. It didn't come forward then.]

Single Stream Recycling

A question was raised about the investment being made in single-stream recycling infrastructure: Was a $0.5 million investment worth it during this economic time, when the payback period could be seven years? Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that there was more being invested than $.05 $0.5 million. Discussion of the dollar amounts clarified that in any case it was not general fund money being invested. [At its Nov. 5 meeting, council approved roughly $3.35 million related to the program. See previous Chronicle coverage: "Council OKs Recycling, Transit, Shelter"]

HRIMP: Dam-in/Dam-out

Also on the council’s agenda is its formal acceptance of the Huron River Impoundment and Managment Plan. That report contains 32 recommendations – the resolution to be considered by council will accept 30. The two recommendations that the resolution leaves out are those that say the dam should be removed or kept in place. The HRIMP committee could not reach a consensus on the dam-in/dam-out question, and included both recommendations in its final report, which was completed in the spring of 2009.

Acceptance of the HRIMP could set the stage for the city council to contemplate making a dam-in/dam-out decision, or if not, then at least to consider a previous resolution to repair the toe drains in the earthen embankment along the headrace. That resolution had been tabled at the council’s Oct. 19, 2009 meeting. [Chronicle coverage of that meeting: "Still No Dam Decision"]

Parking Meters

An item on council’s consent agenda for Monday will appropriate up to $87,000 for purchase of electronic parking meters for the Wall Street area. This is an area that was identified as a place where additional parking meters could be installed to generate additional revenue, and which the city council approved as a part of the FY 2010 budget.

The supporting memo on the agenda item indicates that city staff overestimated the number of meters that could be installed in the area, which means that revenue projections associated with the FY 2010 budget would not be met. The memo indicates that other areas have been identified for meter installation to make up for the shortfall [emphasis added]:

On June 15, 2009, City Council approved the installation of parking meter equipment in various locations within the city via Resolution #R-09-233. Wall Street was one of the areas identified for installation of equipment for 115 spaces. As staff began the field work for the installation, it was noted that the original count of 115 spaces did not account sufficiently for drive approaches and no-parking areas. The space count for Wall Street has been updated to 71 spaces for metering. This decrease in metered spaces will decrease our projected meter revenue by approximately $80,000.00. Staff has identified an additional area for meter installation that will be presented to council during discussions about potential budget adjustments for the current fiscal year.

Kunselman’s Questions

In reviewing the council’s agenda online, The Chronicle noticed a novel kind of item – attachment of a communication from a councilmember with questions about agenda items asked of the city administrator and city attorney. In this case, the questions were from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3):

PH-1 A2D2 Design Guidelines

What is the state enabling legislation that allows for a community to enforce mandatory compliance with community-adopted design guidelines (also known as “design standards”)?

What is the case history for legal challenges to mandatory compliance with community-adopted design guidelines? Specifically, has a community legally defended in a Michigan Court withholding a certificate of occupancy for violating a community-adopted design guideline for a building permitted, constructed, and compliant under the State Building code enforced by the municipality?

DS-6 Contracts for West Park Improvements

Are funds from the voter approved Park Millage being used for this project? If so:

Are any funds from the Park Millage being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide the voter approved Park Millage language that authorizes said funds to be directed to public art. If such language is not explicit, then, please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that voter approved Park Millage funds can be directed to other uses such as public art by Council majority approval.

If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Are funds from the Stormwater Fund, a utility enterprise fund, being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that utility enterprise funds, including loans from the State, can be directed to public art by Council majority approval. If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Given the phrasing of at least some of the questions, which request an opinion from the city attorney, their answers could be expected to be filed with the city clerk’s office as required by the city’s charter, which reads in relevant part:

The Attorney shall:

(1) Advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of all the Attorney’s written opinions

DDA board chair John Splitt (left) and Michael Ortlieb (right) of Carl Walker – the design firm that's handling the new Fifth Avenue underground parking structure. (Photo by the writer.)

Downtown Development Authority board meeting (Nov. 4, 2009): Measured in raw dollars, the major news coming out of the DDA‘s regular Wednesday meeting was the selection of The Christman Company as the construction manager for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage.

Because the firm had already been awarded the pre-construction services contract, with the construction management contract to be contingent on performance during pre-construction, Christman’s probable selection was well known. The  dollar amount of Christman’s guaranteed maximum price is now also known to an exact figure: $44,381,573.

In other significant business, the board passed a resolution authorizing support of an initiative to increase the number of shelter spots for the homeless in the face of the coming winter – $20,000 for additional beds, to be paid for out of the DDA’s housing fund.

The board also passed a resolution that might resuscitate the LINK – the downtown circulator bus that did not resume service this fall after its usual summer hiatus. The resolution calls for a partnership with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to sort out what that service should look like. Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, had alluded to these efforts in a side-remark during his presentation to the AATA board last week.  This resolution reflected those efforts.

Shelter Beds

In a presentation to the city council at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting, Mary Jo Callan, director of the city/county office of community development, had outlined a strategy for increasing the sheltering capacity for homeless people this season. That strategy includes adding 25 beds to the Delonis Center and increasing the number of beds in the rotating warming center from 25 to 50.

In the resolution before the DDA board on Wednesday, $20,000 was proposed to be given as a grant to the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which operates the Delonis Center.

Deliberations were brief, with board member John Mouat getting clarification on the total number of beds the money would purchase and how they were categorized: 25 of the beds would be heavy-duty “cots” for the Delonis Center itself; 25 of them would be the set of “bedding” materials used in the rotating warming shelter, which is located at local churches.

Mayor John Hieftje explained that the initiative had come from a working group including himself, councilmembers, city/county staff, and other community members, which had been meeting over the last several weeks.

In support of the same initiative, the Ann Arbor city council will be asked at its Nov. 5 meeting to authorize an expenditure of $159,000 from the city’s housing trust fund, which will provide case management support and vouchers for family housing.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved $20,000 for beds to be used at the Delonis Center and the rotating shelter.

The LINK: “Not Just a Cute Purple Bus”

At the Ann Arbor Transporation Authority’s special meeting held last week  at Weber’s Inn, as AATA CEO Michael Ford added the LINK to a PowerPoint slide, he mentioned that there were some people interested in bringing back the downtown circulator bus service. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "No Funding for LINK bus ... For Now" and "AATA to Arborland: We Could Pay You Rent"]

Earlier in the year, the DDA did not renew the grant support that would have allowed the resumption of the LINK service in the fall after its usual summer hiatus.

The resolution before the DDA board on Wednesday expressed support for a partnership with the AATA “to develop the elements of a successful downtown Ann Arbor circulator in partnership with the DDA.” In presenting the resolution to his fellow board members, John Mouat, chair of the DDA’s transportation committee, reported that the resolution had come as a result of further study of the LINK by the transportation committee.

Mouat reported that the work of the DDA’s intern, Amber Miller, in researching examples of successful downtown circulators in other small cities had been useful to the committee. It had convinced the committee, he said, that such a thing was possible. He was also encouraged that Michael Ford and AATA’s director of service development, Chris White, attended the transportation committee meeting.

Among the features to be considered for the re-invented LINK, said Mouat, included:

• Don’t include the University of Michigan’s Oxford Housing on the route
• Reduce number of stops (to speed up the service)
• Route should help patrons get to South University, State, Main, and Kerrytown
• Locate stops to foster connectivity
• Offer 7-day service
• Consider special event use
• Consider use of service for integrating the UM campus into downtown

Board member Keith Orr, in expressing his support for the resolution, stressed that there was no funding component. The expectation from the AATA, Orr said, was that the AATA board would respond with a similar resolution. This would give the AATA staff the necessary confidence that boards of both organizations were in support of the service, Orr explained. Previously, the LINK was perceived partly as a downtown marketing tool more so than a piece of the transportation system, and the idea was to put the LINK squarely in the realm of transportation.

Board member Jennifer Hall suggested an amendment to the resolution that added a “Whereas” clause to make clear why the LINK did not re-appear in the fall: The board had not considered and declined a grant to continue funding, but rather had not appropriated a grant in order to continue study of the issue. She would later echo Orr’s emphasis on the role that the AATA needed to play in developing the LINK system going forward, stressing that it was a part of the transportation system as opposed to a downtown marketing program: “The LINK is not just a cute purple bus.”

Hall’s suggested amendment passed unanimously.

Board member Russ Collins suggested that the additional language might have been added as a friendly amendment, instead of taking a vote on it – a point that board chair John Splitt would later use for humorful effect.

Collins also observed that while the language that the transportation committee had chosen to describe the types of businesses served by the LINK included retail and restaurants, but not “arts and entertainment.” This was met with a chorus of playful ooooooh’s from his fellow board members – Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater. Collins also put the LINK in the historical context of his recollection of 30 out of the last 50 years of downtown – there’d been a lot of attempts to implement downtown circulators, but they’d all failed due to lack of ridership.

Collins noted that the majority of the riders on the LINK before it was discontinued were affiliates of the University of Michigan and that this raised the question of where the money to fund its operations should come from.

Collins then returned to a theme he’s consistently emphasized over the last year in discussions on the LINK: The DDA itself is not a transportation authority, and design of the service should rely primarily on the expertise of transportation planners, not community discussion that could become politically co-opted. [See, for example, Chronicle coverage of a 2008 DDA retreat: "Trick or Retreat: DDA Board Plans Year"] At Wednesday’s meeting, Collins suggested that the board “let professionals, not amateurs, tell us what’s going to work.”

Collins asked how the resolution addressed his concern that the AATA should be responsible for planning the service. In response, Orr and Mouat pointed to the specific mention of the AATA’s expertise in the resolved clauses, and the transportation committee’s conscious choice not to include specification of routes in the resolution.

Collins suggested that the DDA board needed to steel itself for the calls they might get from business owners who wanted to know why the LINK did not to run past their business or stop in front of it.

Board member Leah Gunn then “called the question” – a procedural move to end deliberations and vote. The board voted in favor of Gunn’s motion, and was ready to vote on the resolution. Then Splitt noticed that Mayor John Hieftje had wanted to address the question. Splitt deferred to the mayor, who noted that there was a fair question of whether this was the best use of transportation dollars. Splitt then quipped that this was the last time he’d make an exception for the mayor on the procedural issue and that during his time as chair the board there would also be no friendly amendments to resolutions.

Outcome: The resolution expressing support for a DDA-AATA partnership on the LINK downtown circulator passed unanimously.

Underground Parking Structure Construction Manager

The Christman Company had previously been selected as the manager of pre-construction services for the underground parking garage to be constructed along South Fifth Avenue at the city-owned lot next to the downtown library. Based on performance during the pre-construction phase, Christman was to be awarded the contract for construction manager of the project.

Board member Roger Hewitt indicated that Christman had performed up to expectations on the pre-construction phase. The guaranteed maximum construction price of $44,381,573, he explained, included the fixed fees for Christmas determined during pre-construction, with all other work to be competitively bid.

The price summary provided in the board packet shows that the single most expensive component of the project is for structural concrete – almost $20 million worth. [.PDF file of Nov. 4, 2009 board packet.] This explains why the companies that bid for the construction manager job, but did not win the contract, are still following the project. With their own in-house concrete teams, they’ll be bidding for that $20 million worth of concrete work in a closed bid process against Christman, which is managing the project.

Board member Leah Gunn expressed her agreement with Hewitt on Christman’s performance.

Outcome: The resolution to award the construction manager contract and accept a guaranteed maximum price for the underground parking structure of $44,381,573 was approved by the board with dissent from Jennifer S. Hall.

Construction Updates

John Splitt reported out from the capital improvements committee on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project, as well as the underground parking structure. Brick is being laid along Division Street, which has gone slower than anticipated, but is catching up. Water main work is taking place at the intersection of Division and Liberty, but is expected to be completed by the end of the week, Splitt reported.

DTE and AT&T were moving utilities for the underground parking garage. Some of the easements were still being worked out, but work was moving ahead, Splitt said.

The wayfinding sign project continues, as does tweaking of those signs, Splitt said. The first of the signs that needed approval by the Michigan Department of Transportation have been installed, reported Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA. Those are located on Jackson Road near Westgate. “You are here” maps for the information stations will arrive shortly. Splitt said that the tweaking and corrections would be implemented when installation of all the signs was completed, so that it could be treated as one unified process.

Energy Grants

Board member Sandi Smith, who’s also on city council, reported out from the partnerships committee on the energy grant program. The program, now in its second year, provides support for property owners downtown to have their buildings audited and to implement improvements. Phase I is the audit, while Phase II is the implementation. This year, 50 applications for Phase I have been received, reported Smith, which included 692,000 square feet of space. Those applications were all approved.

Parking and Finances

Roger Hewitt, chair of the operations committee, reported nothing unusual from the first-quarter’s finances. He pointed out explanations for some apparent discrepancies, including direct parking expenses that were already at 44% of their budgeted amount. That’s because the DDA has already made the $2 million payment to the city as part of its agreement with the city to manage the parking system.

The DDA and the city face coming negotiations over that agreemeent, which has been the subject of considerable controversy. [Chronicle search results of articles on that subject.]. Smith reported that there was nothing to report from the committee charged with the task of negotiating that agreement – the “mutually beneficial committee.”

The parking system continues to show increased demand, reported Hewitt. Compared to the first quarter from last year, there was a 8.13% increase in revenues and a 23.08% increase in the number of hourly patrons. Mayor John Hieftje joked that the data should be sent to Lansing and Washington D.C. as a leading indicator showing signs of a recovery.

Board members Smith and Jennifer Hall asked for future parking data reports to include information on specific events and the number of spaces in each structure and lot, so that changes in the numbers could be more easily understood.Hewitt indicated that he’d see what he could come up with.

Russ Collins said that as the board’s new treasurer, he’d be looking at ways to condense the financial information that was presented at the whole board level in order to facilitate greater clarity. The details, he said, would still be available, or course, to any board member or member of the public, and attendance at the operations committee meetings was open as well.

Other Business

Board member Russ Collins, reporting out from the partnerships committee, said that two requests for grants had been put off for now, but not rejected. One was from the Near North affordable housing development in which Avalon Housing is a partner. The other was from the Arts Alliance, which is seeking support for development of a web portal. The idea of the web portal was pitched to the whole board at its October meeting by the alliance’s president, Tamara Real.

From the transportation committee, John Mouat presented a table reflecting the committee’s work of identifying high-impact, low-cost strategies for improving the quality of the pedestrian experience downtown. This was met with particular enthusiasm from Russ Collins. Among the items identified was “minimize sidewalk obstructions, including café tables/chairs, no bike riding on sidewalks.”

Public Comment

Ray Detter: Detter gave his monthly update from the meeting of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, touching on two main points: (i) the A2D2 rezoning effort, and (ii) the Downtown Ann Arbor Historic Street Exhibit Program. With respect to the first of these, Detter said that there were 14 representatives from 8 different downtown neighborhood associations that had been meeting every Monday focused on the design guidelines that would be proposed, and providing feedback to the city council as quickly as they could. They were advocating for a mandatory process with voluntary compliance initially, which could perhaps evolve to a mandatory compliance system.

Later in the meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt, who’s a member of the A2D2 steering committee, would indicate that city council action on A2D2 was anticipated at its Nov. 16 meeting. The steering committee would be meeting on Nov. 19 to discuss where they should go from here.

The street exhibit program, Detter said, had begun with a $50,000 grant from the DDA, and had grown to a $1 million project funded largely through private sources. It serves to activate downtown and give it a sense of identity, Detter said. He reported that 200 students from Skyline High School had been brought to downtown Ann Arbor and run through tours using the street exhibits, and that this represented 200 students who are now connected to the downtown.

Alan Haber: Haber introduced himself as an Ann Arbor resident who lived on Third Street who was involved with a group of people developing a proposal for the top of the underground parking garage. [The city of Ann Arbor has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the lot.] He was there, he said, mostly to say hello and to encourage the DDA board to give his group’s proposal some thought. That proposal was not for dense development, but rather for a community gathering place – a “front porch” for Ann Arbor. He said the group’s focus was on development of community, not development of buildings.

Present: Gary Boren, Jennifer Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Newcombe Clark.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 2, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]