Past Issues‎ > ‎Conference Center‎ > ‎

email

Subject:  RE: Economic benefits of Parks on Downtowns 

From:  "Rapundalo, Stephen" <SRapundalo@a2gov.org> 

Date:  Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:18:00 -0500 

To:  "EricLipson, "Hieftje, John" <JHieftje@a2gov.org>, "Smith, Sandi" <SSmith@a2gov.org>, 

"Briere, Sabra" <SBriere@a2gov.org>, "Derezinski, Tony" <TDerezinski@a2gov.org>, 

"Taylor, Christopher \(Council\)" <CTaylor@a2gov.org>, "Kunselman, Stephen" 

<SKunselman@a2gov.org>, "Higgins, Marcia" <MHiggins@a2gov.org>, "Teall, Margie" 

<MTeall@a2gov.org>, "Hohnke, Carsten" <CHohnke@a2gov.org>, "Anglin, Mike" 

<MAnglin@a2gov.org>, "Miller, Jayne" <JMiller@a2gov.org>, "Fraser, Roger" 

<RFraser@a2gov.org>, "Pollay, Susan" <SPollay@a2dda.org> 

CC:  "Peter Nagourney", "Rita Mitchell", "Lou Glorie", "Eppie Potts", "Karen Sidney", 

"Kathy Boris", "Nystuen, Gwen , "Barbara Kritt", "Jack Eaton", "Tom Whitaker", 

"Alan Haber", "Vivienne Armentrout" , "Nancy Kaplan", "Leslie Morris" 


Eric, 


The bottom line is that the two public options did not provide any $ descriptions for 

costs of building and operations, and how everything would be funded - e.g., land sale, 

lease payments, user fees, etc. 


Any successful project has to pay for itself without the use of City funds.  Furthermore, 

the project should be able to describe in some basic fashion how it will do that as a 

minimum to meeting the RFP requirements.  The four remaining proposals did so.  Granted, 

there is more information we need to glean from them to fill in the gaps, but at least 

they provided some basis for costs and funding in $ and cents (though some Committee 

members questioned at least one other proposal in this regard).  The two public options 

did not, except for indicating a $2.5 million donation towards project/operational costs 

(indeterminate for both projects) in the case of the A2 Town Square.  The fact is that 

there has to be some sort of payment to taxpayers either through land sale and property 

tax revenue, long-term lease payments, or some guaranteed revenue streams. 


Taxpayers must be left intact at the time of build and for the future (we should not take 

away from existing Parks & Rec funds and facilities in order to support an open space 

project at the Library Lot, and certainly not from elsewhere in the General Fund).  The 

public options are being treated no differently than any other proposal in that regard. 

Any economic benefits generated by a project must be disclosed and articulated in a 

balance sheet.  That's what we're asking for when we say that a financial benefit must be 

demonstrated.  It's simple math.  Of course, that does not exclude all the other elements 

that must be addressed, i.e., experience with actually building such a major infill 

project, a viable development team, physical concept and design, etc. 


Bottom line - I'm happy to review and compare any project with any design concept so long 

as they can provide me with a full accounting, profit-loss, balance sheet and description 

of all other requested features. 


Stephen 

Stephen Rapundalo 

City Council - 2nd Ward 

City of Ann Arbor 

Email: srapundalo@a2g

Tel: (734) 476-0648