Farmers Market Renovations

There are two basic issues with using storm water fees to fund the Farmers Market renovations. The first is whether this is an appropriate use of the storm water fees and second, even if it is, is this a good storm water project. Education is now claimed as a primary reason for doing the project at the Market.   But is the education benefit worth the expense of the storm water treatment? The final question is whether this expensive storm water project is a requirement for the Market renovations.

USE of STORM WATER FEES

Jeff Dehring presented a brief history of the Market renovation project to the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) on January 20, 2009. Mr. Dehring stated that the Market project had been divided into phases so that initial work could begin while additional sources of funding were found to complete the project. He described a loan from the State of Michigan, obtained through the County Drain Commissioner's Office, as the funding now available to complete the project. The loan is to be paid back over the next 20 years from the storm water fees that are part of our utility bills.

When the storm water fee was proposed, Sue McCromick and Craig Hupy stated it was necessary because the city was not maintaining the infrastructure. We were told that city pipes were nearing the end of their useful life and were not being replaced. It was explained that this fee increase and similar ones planed in the future were necessary simply to insure the present system did not continue to get worse. Certainly nothing was mentioned that it would be used to renovate the Market. It does not seems fair that these fees should now be used to fund new construction.

Mr. Dehring's justification for using the utility fees on a new capital improvement project is that the renovation includes storm water detention and a green roof and these are related to storm water management. The use of storm water fees to renovate the Market made us wonder where else our storm water utility fees might be used. Reviewing the city schedule of employee allocations ½ of the cost of the the city forester is now charged to the storm water fund. The Headlee amendment to the Michigan constitution prohibits a tax increase without voter approval. We did not vote on the utility fee increase , yet it is being used for general fund expenses as though it were a tax.

DESIRABILIY of the MARKET STORMWATER PROJECT

The County Drain Commissioners office held several storm water meetings at Bach school. Possible projects were presented and citizens were asked what projects should be considered further. At this meeting we were told the estimated cost of the Market project was about $60,000. This was the lowest cost project presented and even though there was very little storm water benefit, the cost effectiveness of the Market project was similar to other projects. Based on this analysis many people commented the Market project was worth further consideration.

Later at a meeting at Pioneer High we were told a loan application had been made and approved, but there was an error in the earlier cost analysis. The correct estimated cost was approximately $600,000 instead of $60,000. Here is the cost analysis from the loan application.

The proposed Market project provides the least storage and the least phosphorous reduction of any of the proposed projects. It is clearly the most expensive of all the proposed projects based on either the cost per cubic foot of water retained or the cost per pound of phosphorus removed. The average storage costs for all proposed projects except the Market is $35/cuft, but the estimated cost at the Market is 316/cuft The average cost of removing phosphorous for all other projects is $9,000/lb Phosphorous removal at the Market costs $70,500/lb. The Market project is the least cost effective of any of the proposed projects.

The total phosphorous discharge from the Allen creek is about 900lbs/yr. The city of AA has a directive to reduce this to about ½ the current value. If the city funds projects as inefficient as the Farmers Market, achieving the goal will require an investment of $800 million. This is not feasible. The city should not be funding major projects that are this inefficient.

EDUCATION

Mr. Dehring has stated that the extreme cost of the market project is justified because it provides an opportunity for storm water education. There are numerous problems with this assertion.

First this is not a good demonstration project. The storage tank will be under ground and not visible. The green roof will be a flat or low slope roof on a shed or building and not very visible to a Market shopper. Most of the customers at the Market are residential home owners, unlikely to undertake or even consider a green roof project. The obvious reason is that a green roof requires a flat or low slope which is more common in commercial construction than residential construction.

If the city wants to demonstrate a green roof, one of the promenades of the Larcom building would be much better than the Market . It could be a small demonstration area, not necessarily covering the entire promenade. Put signs in the elevators or on the sixth floor to inform professional builders and architects coming for their permits. Invite the local architect's society to hold one of the spring or summer meetings on the Larcom promenade .

If the parks planners anticipate a general educational display at the Market; this display could be anywhere. It does not need to be directly associated with a storm water project. It could be at the Market in the shoulder season when space is readily available, It could rotate to the Hands on Museum and join the solar panel readouts and display. The Reuse – Recycle center would be another potential location.

Better yet, the city could partner with the school system which is, after all, already in the education business. A second, very large project is planned for the lawn at Pioneer High. This would be a logical location for a display for the U of M football fans.

DOES THE MARKET RENOVATION REQUIRE STORM WATER TREATMENT?

The simple building modifications desired by the vendors, better lighting, better electrical distribution and better water availability can be done under a simple building permit. This does not require a site plan and does not trigger any requirements for storm water treatment. This is routinely done in many Ann Arbor buildings. Even repaving the parking lot does not require storm water treatment. The parking lots at the Maple Village shopping center have been recently repaved without any storm water treatment, this is much larger than the market.

It is the construction of a new building that triggers the requirement for storm water treatment. Even here there is an escape clause. The Market can “buy out” of the requirement for about $100,000. We are told that the Market is not being asked to do more than any other developer, but would a developer spend $600,000 when they could buy out for $100,000? How many developers have used a green roof, swirl separators and storage tanks on a project to build a few sheds?

The city is different from a developer in that it owns many properties in Ann Arbor. Buy out isn't a “cop out” It just means being able to spend the money where the “bang for the buck” can be much greater. The city is also different because it must choose between diverse projects for the best total citizen good.

The total cost of the Market project is $2 million, it moves a shed 30 feet and removes 0.34lb of phosphorous from the river. The Pioneer project costs $4.4 million and removes 93 lb of phosphorous. Spending the $2 million in a storm water project as efficient as the Pioneer project would remove 42lbs of phosphorous or over 120 times as much from the river.

When Council asks about the importance of storm water treatment Craig Hupy warns Council that failure to remove phosphorous from the Allen Creek could result in fines of $25,000/day. What is more important for the city at large; move a Market shed 30 feet and remove 1/3 lb of phosphorous from the river or look for a project that can remove 120 times more phosphorous and leave the shed at the present location?