On Tuesday, Nov 22, 2006 the Ann Arbor News published a headline: “Suarez against library site“, which my daughter said looked like I am opposed to books. In a 2 minute interview with Tom Gantert during a Council meeting break, I told him that the handful of constituents I had heard from were all opposed to using the library site for Courts and Police. Since the article was published, I have received several emails opposing use of the library site and one from Jennifer Santi Hall (DDA member and a consituent) supporting the library site location. While I am leaning against using the library lot, I do want more public input before making a formal decision. I am concerned about both promoting a vibrant downtown and about our budget.
Social Space vs. Dead Space for Library Lot
An argument against locating city, police and court facilties on the library lot is that such facilities would be dead after 5pm and if we want to promote a vibrant downtown, we should encourage business development that would foster pedestrian activity after 5 pm. For years when I would go from my house on State Street to something on Main Street, I would walk across Liberty Street, even I had to then backtrack to Washington to go to Grizzly Peak. Friends of mine refer to Liberty as the “social path,” where you can run into others while walking between places. So, surrounding the social path with a “dead zone” would seem detrimental to growing a vibrant downtown.
More Space needed When Crime is Down + Other Issues?
Karen Sidney has done a spreadsheet summarizing case and crime statistics and financial information that she prepared. Karen’s says that “the figures show we don’t need as much space as they want to build because crime and case filings are dropping. However, that does not seem to prevent the city from spending more to do less. Note that much of the need for more court space is because the judges say they need a courtroom for each judge. The existing courtrooms are empty much of the time. The attached cost estimates indicate the architect thinks it will cost 47.7 mil to build 100,000 sq feet on the library lot but the task force recommended that something be built for 25 million, because that is all the city could afford. It is unclear what was taken out. I’ve asked for the cost estimates given to council at the last working session, which are in the 30 million range. I have asked for information on the proposed “tax” on the water plant, which is to be recovered by a water rate increase. In my opinion, this is a blatant violation of the Michigan Constitution (Headlee) because tax increases must be put to a vote and this is a back door tax increase.”
Read the comments below this post including Chris Easthope’s explanation of why more space is needed.
Karen Sidney has identified these issues:
- LOCATION- I’m told lots of people are unhappy with the library lot. Court security requirments will make it an unfriendly building (see barrier planters at county courthouse and metal detectors)
- FUNDING- Current cost estimates anticipate dipping into general fund reserves and increasing water rates through use of a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes). Under a PILOT, the water department will make a payment to the GF that would reimburse the city for what it would get if the plant were taxable. My research says these are legal as long as the city can demonstrate that the PILOT charge more or less covers actual costs (police and fire protection) incurred by the city. City currently gets 30-35 mil from water/sewer charges. Observer article many years ago estimated cost to fix water/sewer infrastructure at 1 billion. Is using water rate increases for a new city hall the best use of money when the city will need huge rate increases to fix the infrastructure problem? There will be pressure to sell city land (funding assumes 2 mil from sale of 1st and Washington). Is it better to hold on to our land for future needs?
- NEEDS Current proposal is for 90,000 sq feet. Courts now have 21,000 sq feet and police 23,000 sq feet so new building would double space. I have no doubt that the police space is not great although I am unconvinced that failure to fix a 40 year old leak justifies a new building. In my opinion, the court space is inflated because we do not need 4 courtrooms (one for each of 3 judges and 1 magistrate). There are less than 1 courtrooms per judge in the county downtown courthouse and courtrooms are still unused much of the time. I don’t think the public should be asked to pay more because judges find it inconvenient to share courtrooms.
19 users commented in " New City Hall, New Court, Police Facilities? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI have copied email sent to me by Chris Easthope (responding to Karen Sidney):
Please see http://www.a2gov.org/Livingin/PoliceCourtsFacility.htm for more specific information on these issues. Also, Ms. Sidney forgot to mention that the Police Department is offering public tours of the current facility on Monday evening prior to the public hearing to highlight many of the major problems the police encounter daily, such as inadequate changing facilities for female officers as well as no separate waiting space for crime victims. The current police department facility was supposed to be nothing more than a temporary space while searching for a permanent solution. Almost 40 years later we have yet to address this issue. We are fortunate to have dedicated officers who produce such great results in crime prevention. However, the issue is not crime rates but one of responsibly addressing the city’s long-term infrastructure needs.
State law requires the City of Ann Arbor to provide for physical court space based on our population. Council has had numerous discussions with the county over options at the current facility. The County agreed to extend the lease by 1 year. The court is open each business day to the public. Public tours and descriptions of the challenges faced by the courts may be available on request to the 15th District Court Administrator.
Chris Easthope
City Council 5th Ward
Emailed to Ron from Jennifer Hall (DDA):
I do support redevelopment of the library lot - in some form. I
believe that a surface parking lot at that location is not the best
use of prime downtown real estate. If Council decides that the
library lot is the best location for a police/court facility, then I
would support that decision (as your constituent). If Council decides
that it is best to renovate or expand the existing city hall, then I
would support that decision if the library lot is made available for
some other form of redevelopment. I think it is important to keep
city functions in our downtown. I think it is also important to make
the best use of all our downtown real estate. You have a tough
decision in front of you about how best to spend the city’s resources,
and I appreciate that you and the rest of Council are taking that
seriously.
You both know that I serve on the DDA and that the DDA has passed a resolution supporting the police/courts facility at the library lot.
I supported that resolution - and all the details in it. I encourage
you to read it thoroughly - the DDA said a lot more than just giving
support for the library lot and than is being reported on by Tom
Gantert in the Ann Arbor News. I should also say that the resolution
came before the DDA because the board felt it was important to say
something about the task force’s recommendations. I supported the
resolution not because I have a preference about where Council decides to put the courts/police … but because I was responding the
recommendation issued by the task force … the only recommendation that was in front of the DDA at the time.
–
Jennifer Hall
Emailed to Ron from Bernard Agranoff:
I urge you to actively protect the library lot, mostly for Ann Arbor
readers, but note that it is important for many AA businesses as well. It is already inadequate at times. B. W. AGRANOFF
Eamiled to Rin from Alan N. Connor:
Building a new structure for the police station district court parking adminstration. etc on the Ann Arbor Public Library parking lot or anywhere. appears to be a not very thrifty action, especially now when we the citizens of Ann Arbor hear frequently that city’s general fund and reserves are low. Costs of government are not going down apparently as revenue declines. There alternative other the two City Council is considering. Any DDA recommendation will be in the interests of increasing and protecting downtown businesses first. Any other development are incidental to the DDA.
One alternative, that should be less expensive than a new structure is the city repurchasing the building diagnally across Huron Street from City Hall. It was the city hall in the first half of the 20th century. I believe it is called the City Center Building and I believe the city has rented space in it, Repurchasing it should be less costly than building a new structure any where downtown, even on a city owned lot. And the city could lease space to other organiztions and businesses to help defray the inflated purchase price.
Although surface parking lots generally are an inefficient use of space and increase impermeablesurface and polluted storm water runoff, the library lot is one that gets lots of short term use and is a convenience to families. Getting rid of it might reduce auto traffic downtown, which would be a positive consequence, but probably not by much and it could make use of the library difficult for families with school children.
The excuse that the city does not want to be and should not be a landlord is nota good one. All cities own and rent property. The agency to handle that already exists. Just add commercial property to residential-public houing–that you have now.
Alan N. Connor
Emailed to Ron from Peter Pleitner:
Why is there so little creative thinking on council regarding new
police and court facilities? You are staring at a good win-win
scenario but don’t see it. Last time I looked, all those new condos
you approved and are likely to approve have kitchens and bathrooms.
But where are the downtown grocery stores and drug stores?
Does the police and court really need street level facilities? I
don’t think so. So why not solve this problem by making downtown
more livable too? Those potential new stores might find it
profitable to also carry the basic office supplies. I’m sure someone
can think of a clever public-private financing arrangement.
Imagine a practical win-win solution which also increases predestrian
traffic and decreases vehicular traffic.
Peter Pleitner
Emailed to Ron from Jake Gunter:
I am a 1st ward, 5th precinct member.
Concerning the new courthouse, the following:
The primary concern on where the location of the new courthouse should be money.
I.E. Cost to the taxpayer.
I am preparing to do my taxes this year, and as a small businessman I take %30 off the gross before I even think about overhead or my own paycheck. My income bracket is well under the A2 median.
Additionally, my property taxes are nearly $5000.00 on a $200,000 house.
Thanks for listening.
Best Regards,
Jake Gunter
Emailed to Ron from Frances McSparran:
I am writing to register in the strongest possible terms my opposition
to the proposal to build on the lot adjacent to the Mail Library. The
Ann Arbor Library is a wonderful institution, heavily used, and besides the basic library functions it offers, serves as a splendid center for community-based activities–book readings, talks, exhibitions, activities for children. The various satellite libraries serve their local clienteles well, but the main library is an invaluable and vibrant resource for all the community, and draws adults and children from all over the city for the varied events it offers. A huge new building next door would strangle it, and should not be placed there.
I don’t know how the square footage of the present site of City Hall,
police and district court compares with the parking lot adjacent to the
library, but my impression is that there is little difference between
them, and as far as I can see the only people to benefit from the
proposed shift would be the property developers of the vacated site. For the citizens of Ann Arbor, a far better option would be to develop part or all of the parking lot into a piazza which could offer a handsomely landscaped area as a fine resource for outdoor use by library users, residents in that part of town, shoppers on Main Street. It is nicely situated between the university campus and Main Street and could be a great amenity for the public, and encourage further community use of that part of town.
Please reject this proposal, and save both the library and one of the
last open areas in the center of the city from overbuilding and
overcrowding.
Frances McSparran
Emailed to Ron from David Merchant and Emily Klancher:
Tonight, and as the issue arises in the future, please be aware that at least two of your constituents are in favor of the city exploring the usage of the parking lot adjacent to the downtown library for a new police station and/or city hall. Given that the construction of these new facilities seems inevitable, it would be prudent to build them upon land that the city already owns, especially when that land (as a parking lot) is both under productive and an eyesore. As for the library board’s apparent perception that this is their private parking lot, they should be disabused of that notion immediately. Surface parking lots are among the worst possible uses of urban land, so whether or not the police/city facility is built we need to plan for a more productive usage of that land.
Thank you,
David Merchant and Emily Klancher
Emailed to Ron from Tony Audas:
to the chorus of ‘not on the library lot’ for the new cityhall/police.
is there really only two site choices?
i haven’t seen anything on why the city’s north main lot
is unacceptable for a new police station.
Emailed to Ron from June Rusten:
Having lived in Ann Arbor for at least 50 years, I cannot imagine not having an Open Space with parking beside the District Library. I’m not too pro a suggested skating rink, etc. in this area. I am very much against building a new City Hall and District Court on this site.
I urge you to consider creative and optional ideas. Some ideas: 1- Consider building just a vertical/taller Court building on the lot next to the Library, this would save ground level space, leaving open space and some parking at this site. Without some parking next to the Library, it will not be as viable or useable, especially for elderly people who may no longer be able to walk any distance.
2- Enlarge City Hall and the Police facility on the current City Hall site, even if it means purchasing more space there. I wonder if the City Hall could have floors added to its height? It could go up, instead of out on land surface? There must also be some minium (15min.parking) at this site.
3- Or consider purchase of and use of the Ann Arbor News site and build the District Court building there. There really is no reason that the Court must be in same building as the police.
4- Some community space and parking must be saved for the lot next to the Library.
I wonder about the cost and “looks” of a narrow rectangle parking structure perhaps at one end of the current parking lot. One could be built next to a new 4-floor Court building. This would allow more Open Space in this area. Actually an attractive Court building in this area would add a different atmosphere in this area of town. If this Court building were 4 or 5 stories, perhaps City Hall wouldn’t need so much new space, saving costs and space to build out.
Please take your time considering many ideas before you make a decision. Whatever you decide will have a lasting impact on the downtown area. We, citizens do trust you to make wise decisions, We did elect you and have faith in your representing us.
Good Luck and Wisdom to you,
June Rusten
Emailed to Ron from Ilene Tyler:
Re: CITY HALL DOWNTOWN LOCATION
Hearing date: 27 November 2006
To Mayor Hieftje and Members of City Council:
I believe that City Hall, Courts, and Police Headquarters should occupy a prominent location on a primary thoroughfare of downtown Ann Arbor. These functions should NOT be located mid-block in a secondary commercial area at the fringe of downtown. Our local government buildings deserve visual access, along with practical and functional access, all of which are already evident in their current location on Huron Street. Don’t make us all slaves of the automobile and the money to hide cars underground in new structures. Times change. We should NOT sacrifice sound urban planning for short-term cost savings to achieve this narrow benefit for a downtown destination that serves our entire city.
I live very near City Hall in its current location, and I accept that
our city government functions need to expand, both in services and in scale, wherever they are located. I envision improvements to the
current site that are mindful of the multitude of functions of city
government, and respectful of their context near other city services and the adjacent historic district. City Hall is a good neighbor to our
downtown residential neighborhood. We value the proximity and ask that City Council retain this relationship.
City Hall has served the city well at its current location on Huron
Street. I urge you to consider the long-term benefits to our citizens
as you make the decision to renew and expand City facilities in the
current location.
QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS
Ilene R. Tyler, FAIA, FAPT
Emailed to Ron from Joan W. Blos:
Please add my name to the list of persons strongly opposed to the plan that would surround the Ann Arbor District Library on Fifth Avenue with buildings dedicated to Municipal and Federal use.
I understand that some persons believe that this is an appropriate use for this location and that parking, sufficient to meet the needs of
persons served by these buildings is a high priority. But the cost is
dear, too dear many of us believe. We are dismayed to learn that
Liberty Plaza, the only functioning park in the central downtown area,
is at risk; we deeply regret that serving library patrons will no
longer be regarded as the top priority for the eponymous Library Lot. I
have heard it rumored that even Kempf House is not safe from this
predatory plan. Any one of these actions would be unfortunate. Together they constitute a serious threat to downtown Ann Arbor. and the very things for which it stands.
I have been a downtown resident and a member of the Citizens’ Advisory Council (CAC) since 1987. Twenty years ago Main Street was five blocks and fifty years from State Street. Now Main Street has undergone an impressive revival. It needs to be supported, not undermined, by planning that promotes governmental use and turns its back on the community.
Our downtown library identifies the center of our city in important
ways even as the prominence of New York City’s 42nd Street Library
identifies New York. Significantly the twin lions that guard the
entrance to the New York library are named Patience and Fortitude. It
is to be hoped that the City Council will stand as fast as lions and
that the threat of encroachment by Municipal and Federal offices and
their parking needs will be roundly defeated. Ann Arbor will thank you,
its citizens will thank you, and I thank you.
Sincerely,
Joan W. Blos
Emailed to Ron from Peter Blos Jr., M.D., Bobbie Levine and Myron Levine:
We, the undersigned, are adamantly opposed to the development of the “Library Lot” for Municipal and Federal office facilities. The Library - with parking - is a centerpiece of downtown Ann Arbor modern development. With the tremendous increase in downtown living space, its importance to the citizens of our city will only grow. Better synchronous planning for downtown development and citizen interest is in order.
In addition, we support the letter sent to you today from Joan W. Blos.
Sincerely,
Peter Blos Jr., M.D.
111 South Fourth Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Bobbie and Myron Levine
356 Hilldale Rd
Ann Arbor, MI48105
Emailed to Ron from Kristen A.G. Schleick:
I understand that tonight you will be discussing the future location of City Hall and police/courts facilities. I have reviewed the three options, and think that all of the options are deeply flawed, mostly because of the financial baggage each was given. It appears that using the existing Larcom Building site was given only a cursory study, whereas the Library Lot option was given the added bait of ‘free’ money from the DDA, thereby slanting the discussion to one obvious (pre-ordained?) favorite. The rough financials only harm the discussion because they don’t address the real costs of each option. What will happen to the Larcom building if a new city hall is built? what does the city lose by not reusing the building and/or site? what will the new city hall or addition look like, i.e. will it be masonry and stone, or cheap materials? will it use sustainable design, and maximize windows for all employees? All of these things affect the finances and it is foolish to make a decision without knowing them.
But let’s say we do need to make a decision, let’s take the financials out and look only at the physical characteristics of each site. Doing this, I came to the following conclusions.
I think that the Larcom Building Option 1 is the best, with several provisions. First, the addition should be built up to the street, or close to it, to maximize the usable floor space. The first floor should be more welcoming, open, and visible than the current building. Second, the ‘addition’ should in fact be a replacement for the Larcom building. Couldn’t it be built in stages, gradually dismantling the Larcom building as construction progressed? similar to the Courthouse Building on Main Street, which was built around the original building first, and then the original was torn down as the new was finished. This could result in a lovely amenity for the workers - a courtyard space within City Hall.
Of the three, putting the new facility on the Library Lot is definitely the WORST, for the following reasons:
(1) Size & access: The library lot appears much smaller than the current city hall site, and certainly has worse access. The current location has access to three streets, the new location has access to two and much more limited access at that. This could provide considerable traffic and auto circulation issues.
(2) Sense of place: The current city hall lot is the historic center of our city and should not be abandoned. It has great visibility on the main street (Huron Ave), not tucked away like it would be on Fifth Ave.
(3) Loss of true library lot potential: The biggest reason I hate the idea of moving city hall to the library lot is because the library lot is the single best opportunity for a downtown park. I mean a real park DOWNTOWN, not in the Old Westside where they have plenty of parks. Even if you installed a street running along the north side of the library for patrons to park for 15 minutes and pick up reserved materials, there is a lot of land left. There could be an outdoor auditorium for small plays, and a plaza which would make a better place to protest than the tiny Federal Plaza. It would link Liberty Plaza to the Library, and energize both. A park here would provide great synergy with the library – think of all the activities that could be done outside! concerts, kids activities, small group readings in summer, etc. That would be a much better use than a desolate parking lot.
Please don’t build over this surface lot without a study on its use as a civic plaza. It is an amenity Ann Arbor could really use, now and long into the future.
Sincerely,
Kristen A.G. Schleick
Emailed to Ron from
Carl Luckenbach, FAIA
Luckenbach|Ziegelman Architects, PLLC
As a member of the Community Security and Public Space Task Force, I have been concerned by press reports of the discussions, and particularly by what appears to be an overly narrow focus on portions of the issues that we considered. In retrospect, we did a poor job of presenting our conclusions in our final report and, perhaps more importantly, the underlying reasons for them. I will certainly accept my share of the responsibility for the report but want to take this opportunity to to give you my sense of our reasoning on three issues.
Much has been said about the undesireability of separating the Police and Courts from the other City functions, and there are clearly some valid
reasons for keeping them together. For almost the entire duration of the Task Force, the discussion of potential sites constantly focused on housing the Police and Courts as a part of a total City Hall project that also included a significant public space, or Town Square. The latter was clearly part of our charge as reflected in the task force name. It was only at the very end, when we reluctantly concluded that there was no apparent way to finance such a total project without going to the voters for a millage, did we seriously consider moving just the Police and Courts to the Library Lot. However, the intention clearly was that it would be the first step of a phased project to bring all of the municipal facilities to that site. There are valid reasons and long-term economic justification for replacing City Hall, but we did not have the time or resources to thoroughly investigate all of the economics, nor was it clear that such efforts were a part of our charge. The possibility of taxing utility property was never put forward by staff. I know the impossibility of your committing a future council to do anything specific, but the adoption of a master plan for the site that includes all of the components would certainly help to create the climate for its ultimate implementation. Speaking strictly for myself, I could not support relocation of just the Police and Courts to the Library Lot without
the clear understanding that it is a first step, and that the remainder of the project would be realized as quickly as possible. The site is far too
valuable and symbolically important for that function alone. The second issue is the repeated allegation that these facilities would
create a “dead zone.” That phrase has acquired all of the cliche qualities of “stay the course” or “cut and run.” It is true that police and courts by themselves do little to create urban vitality, and again this is a reason to oppose relocation of only these two components. However, the alternatives proposed, such as high-rise housing, also do little for urban vitality. Residents would primarily come and go by car to and from an underground garage, with a trickle of a few coming and going on foot. There are no really good market alternatives. Retail activity cannot fill the space currently available and in the pipeline. No one seems to think that Downtown needs more bars and restaurants. If the Library Lot is to support any meaningful urban activities, they will in all probablity have to be programmmed. Successful urban spaces in other cities are designed and programmed for music, film, food, skating, people watching, etc. The AATA Terminal and the retail at William Street Station will generate some activity, and the City Hall can and should provide public meeting and exhibition space. The Task Force considered performance space but concluded that such a use was not in our scope of work. Concerted efforts will be required, but a creatively designed and managed Town Square is probably our best option to enhance the quality of life downtown.
Finally, the far larger quantity of parking that can be built under the Library Lot offers the potential for significantly increased public parking
in a desireable location. Any decision to build on the Library Lot should include assurances that City government will not incrementally consume more and more of the parking, leaving the public and the Library with no more, or even less, than they have now.
In sum, I believe that it was the sense of the task Force that the Library Lot was the far better choice, but only as a part of a complete package.
Thank you for your consideration of these observations.
Sincerely,
Carl Luckenbach, FAIA
Luckenbach|Ziegelman Architects, PLLC
255 E. Liberty Street
Suite 277
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Emailed to Ron from Colleen Crawley:
Councilman Suarez:
I read with interest and pleasure the Ann Arbor News article regarding your position on the location of the new police and courts building. Count me as one of your constituents who feel strongly that the library sight is NOT an appropriate location for this facility. Please hold your ground on this issue.
Colleen Crawley
As a member of the Library Board, I continue to be distressed at any proposal to remove the Library Lot’s surface parking. If that parking disappears, I predict a long and sad decline for the Downtown Library. While I am glad to hear via the grapevine that the Library Lot idea for a court/police facility is now the second choice, I still think the Library is at risk.
The Library Administration has sent out a request for proposals for a “needs assessment” of the long-term future of the Downtown Library. This assessment should be done within six months. The Board will be eager to see the recommendations of this assessment.
With crime falling, as Karen Sidney has demonstrated, I see no pressing need for expanding the police station or building a new court facility. With the economy depressed and the City’s budget not in the best shape, now is not the time for succumbing to an “edifice complex.”
Interesting that we have such a reluctance to let the voters decide whether to fund this construction. Certainly this is due to the lack of enthusiasm among the people of Ann Arbor for spending on court/police buildings and/or a new city hall. The same is true for a new jail and court facilities in the county. The only people this is a priority for are the police, judges and the elected politicians on council/commission who are effectively lobbied by our local power elite. The people are much more interested in lower taxes and affordable housing among other issues. Why when we talk about affordable housing are we always told of the lack of resources, but when the council has a project they want (or the county commission) magically the funds materialize. If Google wants a $20 million parking deal the will is there. Will one city council member stand up and speak this truth?
The downtown library attracts Ann Arbor residents downtown in part because they can be relatively assured of their ability to park near by. If the City Council is acting in the interests of the current citizens of Ann Arbor they will retain the surface parking lot next to the library. Surface parking is much better for both families with children and the elderly than are parking structures which they avoid.
Gearing policies solely to hypothesized future down town residents and the tourist who come to the restaurants etc. will continue to drive Ann Arbor residents away from shopping down town. Surveys already show that Ann Arbor residents are staying away from down town. Many retail establishments formerly patronized by city residents have gone under as the DDA has attempted to increase traffic for the restaurants etc while neglecting the needs of the city residents. It was only recently that they even had a parking survey done.
Leave A Reply