On October 19th, the City Council considered a resolution that would have authorized repairing the toe drains and earthen berm at Argo. This resolution contained language, even after it was amended, that implied the Council as a body supported keeping the Argo Dam in place.
The Council hasn't made that decision. The Council has asked for more information from the staff, and continues to seek information about the costs of maintaining the dam OR removing the dam -- costs to the community, the infrastructure and the park system. The Council needs to understand what the impact of dam removal might be, as well as the impact of retaining the dam on the health of the river.
In addition, after we know more, we have a commitment to hear from the community.
The Council voted unanimously to table the resolution. I hope that, when it returns to the agenda, it will deal solely with the repair and maintenance of the toe drains and earthen berm.
Here's an update from the meeting between the City and the State:
On September 24, 2009, staff from Public Services (Sue McCormick, Sumedh Bahl, Molly Wade) and Community Services (Jayne Miller, Colin Smith) met with staff from the MDEQ’s Dam Safety Unit (Byron Lane, Jim Hayes) to discuss the Argo Dam Order issued to Ann Arbor in August 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and receive clarification on the technical merits of the Order and the feasibility of timing of the required actions.
Neighborhoods -- from Mainstreet to Summit to yours -- are concerned that the City's budget decisions have resulted in a trade-off that reduces safety in order to save money. I'm not the best judge of this; I've lived in Ann Arbor through a number of different situations, and seen crime waves come and go. This is what I know about the budget and the decisions that led to the early retirement of members of the police department:
When the City provided police protection to the Campus, the City needed more police officers. Once the University hired its own police staff, the City needed fewer police officers -- but didn't fire any. Instead, during the '90s, the City hired some additional officers with funding from Washington, DC.
In the last several years, the number of reported crimes dropped. Other departments at the City were required to reduce their staffing levels; the police department didn't face staffing cuts. The focus in the police department was primarily on facilities and services -- the police needed better facilities and the community wanted community policing, especially downtown.
The impact of the recession on Ann Arbor's budget forced the City to look closely at the staffing levels of the police and fire departments. Significant funding for these services comes not from the local level but from State Shared Revenues. These once-reliable sources of funding became unstable; Lansing looked for ways to cut funding to local governments, and local governments had to look at ways to cut spending. As a result, the City had to look at cuts in safety service spending.
Talking about labor issues is always risky. The Chief of Police mentioned at the Main Street Merchants Associate meeting on Thursday, October 1, that the City had to decide between allowing early retirement for veteran officers with 23-24 years in service (letting them retire 1-2 years early) OR reducing the force by laying off younger officers with 10-12 years in service. He said that he supported the City's decision to offer early retirement. The younger officers remained; veteran officers with 21-22 years in service were able to move up a little early, the City lost very little in experienced officers, and retained its reputation as a great place to work.
He also mentioned -- and this is worth noting -- that these officers who took early retirement were all within 1 or 2 years of retirement, anyway. They would have retired in 2011 or 2012.
But still, there's the question of safety. There have been a series of property crimes in the northwest side of town in August and September. The downtown area is concerned about other crimes, as well. It's the police department's responsibility to be responsive. If you remain concerned that the department isn't responding, please let me know.
Near North Affordable Housing PUD proposal
Near North passed at Council.
Broadway Village at Lower Town
In early September, Broadway Village was in foreclosure. The fence is marked with "no trespassing" signs. In this economic climate, I don't expect Broadway Village to go forward any time soon.
Recently Council decided to appoint a new study committee for the area loosly bounded by William, Fifth Avenue, Fourth Avenue, and Packard Rd. This committee will study the area to decide whether a historic district should be approved. During the next 6 months, there is a moratorium on all work -- including demolition and construction -- on this area. This moratorium affects both individual homeowner projects and developer projects.
The University has decided that its acquisition of the Pfizer campus changes much of its plans for the north side of town. While it isn't willing to commit to NOT building parking structures on Wall Street, for instance, it is willing to put those plans on hold for the near future.
It's also willing to work with the City to develop plans to build an intermodal transit center that would provide a parking structure, train station, bike, bus and other transportation hub on Fuller Road that would serve the needs of the City and the University as the new commerter rail service begins. This transit center and parking structure would provide sufficient parking for the medical center and would also serve the commuters who are expected to use the east-west rail system, beginning in Fall, 2010. The transit center would be complete in 2012.
Don't see your issue? Ask me about it!
Please contact me at 995-3518 or sbriere@a2gov.org.