Last major hurdle for reconstruction of Ann Arbor's Stadium bridges now cleared, city officials say
In three separate votes Monday night, Ann Arbor City Council members took action to finalize some of the last remaining pieces of the puzzle for the city to proceed with a $23 million reconstruction of the East Stadium Boulevard bridges.
The council voted 10-0 to authorize paying the University of Michigan nearly $1 million for road and utility easements needed for the project, as well as temporary grading permits and payment for occupation of university property during the project.
Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city's project management unit, said now the city can submit paperwork to the U.S. Department of Transportation showing it has recorded the easements, which should trigger obligation of the rest of a $13.9 million federal TIGER II grant. The city expects 80 percent of the $1 million to be covered by the TIGER II funds.
Homayoon Pirooz
"This was absolutely the last large step that needed to be completed," Pirooz said after Monday's council action. "In the next couple of months, hopefully the DOT will obligate, or lock in, the construction funds for the project, and then from that point on there will be small, routine steps that must be completed before we begin reconstruction."
The project is expected to break ground in the fall.
The city's public services administration and the city attorney's office negotiated the terms of the easements and temporary grading permits with U-M's office of general counsel.
Jim Kosteva, a spokesman for U-M, said the values of the property to be used for the right-of-way, as well as for the temporary grading permits, were established by a federally authorized appraiser. He said the university is being compensated for use of its property in a manner that is similar to what the university has paid the city when U-M has utilized city-controlled property — such as sidewalks and traffic lanes — for university construction projects.
Over the past 10 years, Kosteva said, the university has paid the city nearly $2 million for use of sidewalks and traffic lanes associated with projects like North Quad, the Michigan Stadium renovations and the Biological Sciences Research Building.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
foobar417
Mon, Apr 11, 2011 : 5:40 p.m.
Looks like the TIGER II funding was spared: <a href="http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/04/11/you-can-open-your-eyes-now-budget-deal-spares-transpo-the-worst/" rel='nofollow'>http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/04/11/you-can-open-your-eyes-now-budget-deal-spares-transpo-the-worst/</a>
Lets Get Real
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
Let's Get Real here - The city is paying the UM $1M for road and utility easements!! The University venues get the biggest vlaue for repair of the bridge: access to Crisler, UM Golf Course, Big House, Employee Parking. They wouldn't contribute anything to the repair even though major construction pojects by UM contribute to the deterioration of the road surfact (Big House & Crisler construction). Are you kidding? The least they could have done was waive the $1M as their contribution. Unbelievable. Uncooperative. Non-collaborative. Crummy neighbors.
Lets Get Real
Wed, Apr 6, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
Jim Kosteva: "We have also been working cooperatively with city staff regarding the use of university property adjacent to the bridges for construction related staging. We are continuing to consider additional means to support the city in this project." They considered it alright - they considered a way to find one of those NEW REVENUE STREAMS David Brandon spoke of in his article with Joe Marr. Jim, you should be ashamed of defending this action - even if it is your job.
Kronoberger
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
Activate a toll booth on game days $2 a car should cover it in just a few seasons.
Halter
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.
Just another example of the distrust, lack of respect for each other, and inability to work cooperatively between UM and the CIty... Its just plain old embarassing. What would UM do if the city just plain old tore down the bridges and eliminated any road access on Stadium in that area. Would make for a much nicer and quieter residential neighborhood at the Industrial/White area...bet there would suddently be lots of interest on UM's part to help take care of fixing those sports-complex-access bridges.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.
In case anyone is curious, I directly asked Kosteva last May if the university would be willing to contribute toward the Stadium bridges project. He wrote: "You might recall the University recently (Feb.18) committed to covering about a half million dollars worth of city costs on reconstructing the roadway and installing a new water line on North University. This frees up funds that may be directed to the city bridges. We have also been working cooperatively with city staff regarding the use of university property adjacent to the bridges for construction related staging. We are continuing to consider additional means to support the city in this project."
Domey
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
Well, thanks for the support Kosteva!
Tom Joad
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
Japan replaced an entire freeway in a week after the quake.
bissiechef
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
I agree with just about everyone else. U-M should be contributing 1 million towards the project, not receiving 1 million from the city. This is absurd!!
Pablo
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
That's gotta be a joke...April Fools was a few days ago...someone tell me that the mighty University of Michigan couldn't be a community partner in this effort.
A2Girl63
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
How about the UofM pay the city every time a fire truck is dispatched to a Univ building...
Kafkaland
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
The University already pays for each fire call that is answered by the city. And the bill is quite substantial, that's why they have DPS answer first when a fire alarm is pulled, to determine whether a city fire truck is really needed.
Dr. Rockso
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
City charged UM 2 mil. UM charged UM 1 mil. What comes around goes around.
Oregon39_Michigan7
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
I see there are several people concerned with the city paying $1million to UM ($200,000, after TIGER covers 80%). My question is how much money does UM bring into the city each year? I'm guessing well over $200,00 in one football Saturday alone. I drive over the Stadium bridge each day, sorry if this makes me selfish, but I'm excited for this project to get underway!
Basic Bob
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
So what your saying, is the U gets $800k of the TIGER money for letting a few construction trailers and pickup trucks park in the parking lot. The city, the state, and the federal government all chip in to pay for the bridges, and then we have to pay the university its tribute to boot.
Fat Bill
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
How about a new state law forbidding publicly owned entities from charging each other for easements and temporary storage on mutually beneficial projects like these? What a silly waste of public dollars, and the U does NOT need the money.
Dog Guy
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
Counting the ribbon cutting, how many more Dingell photo ops are projected for this project? May we expect completion just before the 2012 election?
Awakened
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 1:21 p.m.
Dear U of M, Thank you for letting the City use your property for only $1 million. I hope the City offers you a discounted rent of $100,000 per football game for it's use.
Ken B
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
As a U/M alumius I feel outraged that they would charge the city for the minimal land consumed by the project, and EVEN WORSE that they would charge rent for property access for a project which greatly benefits them!!! The U receives many benefits from the city for which no tax revenu is paid. This would have been an opportunity for the U to repay some of those city costs without cash out of pocket. I agree with the excellent driveway example. So much so that now I'm thinking about taking the U out of my will. Greed does not deserve further reward!
Terminal
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
UM = Greedy cheapskates
Jaime
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.
What a crock! It's not like it is costing the university anything. The next time the city should try using eminent domain.
Awakened
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.
It could if the University were private. But that is State property.
1bit
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
racerx is right. This is a project where U of M is one of the chief beneficiaries. It is not like johnnya2's example - a better example is building a shared drive with your neighbor. The current drive is crumbling and dangerous. You tell your neighbor that you'll pick up the entire tab for the project and make it better than ever with better landscaping and lighting (although you need to borrow the money to do it). Then your ungrateful neighbor asks you for money to "access" their property. No, in this case, U of M is not being a good neighbor.
racerx
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 10:55 a.m.
This is so rich! The city is paying the UM $1M for road and utility easements so the city can build a bridge near their property. Gotta love it!
BobbyJohn
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.
UM is a prime beneficiary of this. A GOOD neighbor helps out, especially when he gets much of the benefit. Yes, it is like a SHARED driveway and one person is attempting to screw over the other. For the permanent loss of a lane on Main street in front of the stadium, AA should have charged $20M to UM
1bit
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
The easements are required. Charging for them is not. I'm not privy to all the ins and outs of the City's dealings with U of M. Perhaps U of M is doing this as payback for the millions it has paid to the City? The funny thing is that this bridge is a fairly vital corridor to U of M Stadium. If the City were to say "forget it" and close the road, or create a simple two-lane road then what would U of M do? My guess is they might intervene and assist in creating the new bridge with their funds. When some commenters express frustration at government spending, this is exactly what they find concerning. Our City went begging for government money, got it (or most of it) to build a structure which may not have needed to be so grandiose and then pays a taxpayer-supported institution for the right to build the structure that is going to help that institution anyway!
WalkingJoe
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 11:50 a.m.
That's for clearing that up for me johnnya2. At first when I read the article I too was thinking this was a little dumb, but when you used the neighbor analogy it made perfect sense.
johnnya2
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 11:19 a.m.
You obviously are having trouble understanding that it will require the construction people to encroach on U property. Easements are REQUIRED. Imagine your neighbor wants to build a garage and the best way to do it will require that you can not use your garage for several months. You would also ask for compensation for this. The city collects money from the U under similar circumstances.
a2grateful
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 10:24 a.m.
"Jim Kosteva, a spokesman for U-M, said the values of the property to be used for the right-of-way, as well as for the temporary grading permits, were established by a federally authorized appraiser." This is an example of an entity exercising due diligence and fiduciary care. It should serve as an example for the city. For example, apply this logic to the property underlying the proposed Fuller Road Transit station, as an example of fairness doctrine application. Why wouldn't we, as a city, exercise similar diligence?
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 5, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
It's my understanding it was the city that obtained the appraiser, in accordance with federal and state requirements.