Monthly Archive

We had a solid meeting yesterday with the director of MDOT and a rep from Federal Highway.  Sen. Jason Allen and Rep. Wayne Schmidt (both live 2 blocks from 8th) are strongly advocating our cause.  MDOT Director Kirk Steudle remains committed to the Grand Vision and to our goals involving transportation choices and economic development along that corridor.  Due to timing and the rules involving federal stimulus dollars, our options are going to be limited, but all agreed to go forward with making a list of what is and is not possible under the rules and working possible elements into the project under the existing work schedule.  We hope to have more info here soon.  Gary Howe spoke with Rise Rasch of MDOT last night (Rise came down for the meeting), and has some more details at www.mywheelsareturning.com.

*Also, just a friendly reminder that we welcome your comments but due to some problems a few weeks ago we need commenters to use their real names.  Thank you to everyone for writing.

TC Light & Power will be meeting with the city commission Mon night, then holding public forums this coming Thurs night and Sat to discuss how we can meet the energy needs of the future. www.tclp.org.  99% of our energy now comes from fossil fuels, and a big question is whether and to what extent our public utility should invest in biomass as part of its energy portfolio for the future. Time is tight because half of all the electricity TCLP uses now comes from a long-term coal contract that expires at the end of this year and cannot be renewed for very long.  This is a huge issue, involving hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four decades.  Please join this discussion.

I think it does, for a bunch of reasons.

It’s local. A biomass plant or plants would be built here. The people running the plant would live here. The fuel sources would come from Northern Michigan (more on that below). The money would circulate here. We talk a lot in this community about getting more of our food locally, which we should.  But we should also be talking about generating our energy locally – and for the same reasons.

It’s renewable. Some fuel sources regenerate quicker than others, but all of them within a human lifetime. (That’s the definition of a renewable energy source – one that replenishes within a human time frame, rather than a geological one.)

It may or may not be carbon neutral.  Carbon neutrality refers to whether burning biomass adds carbon to the atmosphere above and beyond what the biomass took out of the atmosphere during its life cycle. I believe the debate will be resolved to say that biomass is not carbon neutral, but that it is lower-carbon than coal. And it is certainly lower in toxics than coal.

It’s cost competitive with energy from new coal plants. 

It has the potential for combined heat and power, which saves other fossil heating fuels and helps pay for the operation.

It’s base load. The capacity factor for biomass is 70 to 80%, depending on who you talk to.

fuel for biomass.  A big question is what kind of fuel will be available, and how much. TCLP is talking about developing up to 20 megawatts of power from biomass - starting with one 5 to 10 megawatt plant.

The Michigan 21st Century Energy Plan estimates 465 megawatts of new biomass generation from forest sources are possible by 2025, not including ethanol from corn or biodiesel from soy. The plan says that if forest products workers were put back to work and the mills put back in operation, another 16.8 million dry tons of trees could be sustainably harvested for forest products each year. Not harvesting trees for biomass, harvesting them for forest products and using the residues (sawdust, branches) for biomass. The plan estimates that just the residues from these products could double the biomass plants in Michigan. (As of the date of the report there there were five in Michigan, totaling 159 megawatts, but there are more now.) Or the plan says that more agressive sustainable forestry practices could provide the same additional energy.

The plan also estimates that 1.9 million acres of crop land are presently standing idle in Michigan. The plan says this acreage

could be used to grow energy crops such as willow, poplar, or switchgrass. Willow and poplar have a three year harvest cycle. Switchgrass requires three years to mature to the first harvest, and then it can be harvested annually. Based on those assumptions, presently abandoned cropland could potentially contribute an estimated 5.7 million dry tons to the annual energy needs of the state.

These are conservative assumptions, to say the least. They assume that of the total amount of forest residue and crop potential that is available, only 14% percent would be used. According to the plan:

In practice, each MW of wood-fired electric power uses approximately 10,000 tons of wood residues per year. This assumes the power plant operates at approximately 80 percent capacity, generating about 7,000 MWh per year, per MW of capacity. As evident from the above, Michigan is estimated to have an additional 27.5 million dry tons of biomass available that could, in theory, fuel 2,750 MW of generation each year. For modeling purposes, however, only14 percent of this cellulosic biomass potential (about 3.85 million dry tons per year) was assumed to be available for electricity generation by 2016, and a capacity factor of 80 percent was used for analyzing cellulosic biomass energy potential. The large exclusion percentage is a conservative assumption intended to reflect competing land uses, high transportation costs for agricultural and forestry residues (which effectively limit the distance from resource lands to biomass generating facilities), and stiff global competition in the paper and forest products industries.

The Synapse report for the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that half of the total mass of a harvested tree cannot be used for other purposes and instead could be used for energy. Synapse cites a report by the Antares Group for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that estimated there to be 248 megawatts of biomass power potential from forest and mill residues in Michigan, and another 666 megawatts of potential from agricultural wastes. Synapse concludes:

Michigan has significant biomass potential from its forest-products industry. Developing this resource could have multiple benefits, including less material placed in landfills or incinerated. Smaller-scale biomass plants would also synchronize supply better with periods of demand. The biomass used should be sustainably harvested or else be diverted material that otherwise would have been incinerated without energy recovery or being placed in a landfill. Biomass supply should be close to the generating plant to minimize transportation costs, and to keep the scale of the plant balanced with the amount of annual supply (or less). This will also ensure stability for fuel prices.

Skip Sansoucy told me that building a biomass plant is a “no-brainer” for meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and cost-effective way. Skip pointed to the experience of Burlington, Vermont, which built a 50 megawatt biomass plant 30 years ago. Skip says it was the best thing they ever did.  http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-electric-department-building-local-and-sustainable-energy-future (The Burlington plant is much larger than what TCLP is talking about).

 focusing on the right questions.  Biomass has a lot to recommend it as a component of our energy portfolio of the future: renewable energy, stable fuel pricing, local farm and forest products jobs, more control over our own destiny. It should be part of the mix. How much of the mix depends on careful study of the level of fuel that is sustainable for the region.  It sure looks sustainable if we are talking about 10 to 20 megawatts, and the Michigan 21st Century Energy Plan estimates 465 megawatts of new biomass generation is possible from just 14% of the available forest sources, without counting agricultural sources.  But we need to study it, we need to discuss it, we need to make sure.

And moving forward with biomass depends on guaranteeing that certain things are off the table, which I believe are already off the table: tires, urban wood waste, and co-generation with coal.  Like the sustainable fuels discussion, the environmental controls discussion also needs to be driven by the question of what is the best we can do, instead of what is the minimum we have to do.

And it needs to be driven by a discussion of integrated resource planning: being sure we are doing everything we can with wind, distributed solar generation, and energy efficiency. TCLP’s current 10-year plan is to get to 30% biomass, 1% solar, 4% landfill gas, 6% wind, 4% natural gas, 38% from the Detroit Edison and Consumers coal plants, and 17% energy purchased on the open market.

The discussion we should be having is, should we ramp up the energy efficiency goal from 1% to the gold standard of near 2%? Can we increase our wind from 6% to 10%, and what would that cost? Can we take solar from 1% to 2%? Is there enough fuel for 30% biomass, given other facilities that are or may be coming on-line? Or should we be looking at 10 or 20% biomass, and buying more energy from coal?

The point is, a good IRP process – which is essentially what TCLP is doing right now – will answer these questions.  It also demonstrates what is and is not possible by referencing other benchmarks.  The benchmark for wind in Michigan is 10% right now, so let’s not hinge our plans on getting to 40% wind. The gold standard for EE is 1.9% per year, so let’s not count on being able to reduce consumption by half in the near future. Solar has a key role, but what is possible with solar in a sun belt state is not possible here.

Let’s use the accomplishments of those engaged in best practices in the industry to put a realistic and achievable plan together.  Not bare minimum, but achievable and grounded in what is actually being done in the region.  We need to be a leader, but a pragmatic leader engaged in sound business practices and responsible environmental stewardship.

The beauty of public power is that this kind of discussion is possible. We have a utility that belongs to us, is run by a volunteer board, and is willing to go the extra mile to meet our expectations about sustainability and customer rate protection.

What are your expectations? Please let us know.

A few quick items:

Waterfront - yesterday the DDA voted to hire a team to engineer the waterfront improvements discussed on this site. (see http://planfortc.com/2009/12/07/update-for-the-week-of-december-7-to-13/ )   The team includes local engineers from URS, along with premier landscape architects the Johnson Hill Land Ethics Studio, the Baird firm that worked on the Chicago lakefront, and pedestrian/bicycle/traffic-calming expert Ian Lockwood, who the city recently hired to re-design Division St and who will now also work on crossings for Grandview Parkway.  The engineering work will include two public work sessions and an open house.  A link to the team’s slide presentation will be here as soon as it is  available.  The reason why the DDA voted on this is because 95% of the funding for the engineering work is coming from the DDA – their effort to contribute to a project for the entire city.

Once the project is designed and engineered, we expect to apply for grants from the MI Natural Resources Trust Fund (up to $500,000), Rotary Charities, the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, and others.  Rotary has already hired a grant writer to investigate all possible funding sources and that matrix is being put together.  The city commission could consider in May whether to put a proposal on the ballot to use Brown Bridge Trust Fund dollars to leverage this grant money (and possibly create a sustainable fund for other park needs in the city).  The final decision to hire the URS team will be made by the city commission on March 1.

8th St - thanks to the TC Area Chamber of Commerce, Senator Jason Allen, and Rep Wayne Schmidt, City Manager Ben Bifoss and I have an appointment with the Director of MDOT this coming Thurs to discuss trying to work bicycle and pedestrian elements into the 8th St project as it moves forward under the existing schedule.  The contractor for the project, Kal Excavating, has been very good about trying to work with us to create a win-win situation for stimulus dollars, the city master plan, and the Grand Vision.  We will have an update here soon.

Future street projects -  last Wed night, the Planning Commission and DDA had a joint meeting about capital projects in the city.  The chairman of the Planning Commission, Fred Wilmeth, suggested that capital projects in the city, which are now approved mostly as a line item in a budget, should come back to the Planning Commission for plan review after they are designed and engineered but before contracts are signed.  The purpose of the review would be to ensure that all projects conform to the city’s master plan.  This is an excellent suggestion, one that would provide for public review and citizen oversight before projects are let.  We hope the Planning Commission and City Commission will enact an ordinance to do this in the coming weeks.

Tomorrow:  my two cents on biomass.

Tonight, Traverse City Light & Power took the bull by the horns to bring our city into the 21^st century economy. TCLP decided to seek a $1 million federal stimulus grant to distribute broadband over its dark fiber system, and to write a business plan for lighting up downtown TC and the waterfront area with free wireless.

Most of the info in this post comes from Boardman Neighborhood resident Mike Coco, who is also the vice chair of TCLP and a citizen leader who has been out front of this from the beginning.

First some background. Every report you read about the “new” economy says that the future is knowledge-based businesses that can locate most anywhere. Traverse City has assets to attract businesses who have a choice about where they locate. But we also have liabilities, and one significant one is our weak broadband infrastructure.

What electricity did for economic development 100 years ago and the interstate highways did 50 years ago, the internet is doing today. Lightning-fast and reliable internet connectivity is necessary to make it possible for new home-based and small knowledge based businesses to move here. This was a big topic at TC Tomorrow http://planfortc.com/question-of-the-week/jan-24-31-tc-tomorrow/.

Large organizations and businesses can get and pay for fiber optic high-speed internet, but residents and small businesses can only get what is available from traditional phone and cable companies. Traverse City’s telecom providers are actively making investments in in other areas, but not here. See http://planfortc.com/2009/10/08/economic-development/#comments for more info. We need 25, 50 or 100 Mbps service available for homes and small businesses at a cost competitive price ($50-75/month).

A company named Merit is bringing high speed fiber up this way from a major hub in Chicago using a stimulus grant, but this will mainly benefit those large institutions. Merit’s press release does specify their fiber optic network being available to greater-than-886K homes, but it is not clear where this access will be offered.

Mike Coco sees a few key user groups we need to serve. For residents who are doing “light work” (i.e. in a coffee shop) or tourists, wifi service downtown and perhaps other areas such as the warehouse district and 8^th St will boost activity there, help businesses draw and keep customers there, and enhance TC’s reputation as a modern place to be.

But downtown wi-fi won’t provide home-based and small businesses with what they need. Those users need video conferencing, streaming video, etc. As Mike puts it, “We are no longer a society that simply reviews content from the internet….we’re all content producers now (blogs, pictures, videos, etc.).”

Therefore, these home and small businesses need fiber connections to their premises, or significantly faster cable or DSL at better prices and higher upload speeds (not just download speeds).

Large organizations and businesses have higher needs that require fiber. TCLP is already connecting some of them with its dark fiber system. According to TCLP Executive Director Ed Rice, dark fiber means there is no connectivity built into the system. The user has to “light” the fiber by installing equipment at the two ends to create the connectivity. TCLP put in the dark fiber system in partnership with TCAPS. TCLP installed it to meet needs to send data between substations, and also offers the service to the city and county governments. The fiber is so powerful it is only being used to about 1% of its capacity now.

So tonight, the TCLP board authorized the preparation of a grant application for broadband stimulus funds. The grant recipients will be announced in September. If received, this grant would help TCLP build the distribution infrastructure between its dark fiber (and potentially a partnership with Merit) and those home based and small businesses that need to be served.

TCLP’s board also decided to prepare a business plan for wireless services downtown. Whether through ads or otherwise, the board rightfully understands that providing a free service like this nonetheless needs to financially support itself.

These two actions cost $40,000. TCLP would need to spend around $350,000 later to bring wireless downtown. TCLP would borrow from its internal utility account to fund it. This investment will only happen if the business plan supports a full pay back.

This is a memo I sent to my fellow city commissioners earlier this evening.  If you care about what this street will be for the next 25 years, the city commission needs to hear from you.

_________________________________________________________

To:  City Commissioners, City Manager, Planning Commission members

From:  Chris Bzdok

Re:  8th St

__________________________________________________________

Summary 

I want to fill you in on what is planned for 8^th St, on my efforts to give the city commission some choices about the design of this project, and my suggestion for where we go from here. I’m sorry for the length, but I’m trying to put all the information out there.

 The short version is that 8^th St will be reconstructed this year from Garfield to Barlow. It’s a roughly $850,000 project with about $230,000 of stimulus funds. The old and new master plans, the Grand Vision, and other documents and discussions call for 8^th St to be a complete street, with new pedestrian crossings and bike lanes.

 Our city engineer decided not to include bikes or new pedestrian crossings, but never informed us of that. We’re now being told we can’t do anything because making changes will jeopardize the stimulus funds. That is contrary to informal feedback from others. So, working with TART – and with the assent of the city manager – we tried to get a second opinion from a local engineering firm. The city engineer called the president of the firm, and the second opinion lost its momentum.

 I’ll be the first to admit it: I get emotional when it comes to bike lanes. But the issue is, who’s in charge here? The city commission, through our master plans and policies? Or the city engineer, who can overrule our plans and policies and not tell us?

 I don’t do this lightly and I never want to do it again. But I have been trying since December to get staff to bring us some options to consider for this street before we re-construct it for the next 25 years. Options that would make it safer to bike, safer to cross, and discourage all the speeding.

My suggestion is that we ask the city manager to get a second opinion about what our options are, that he direct the city engineer not to interfere, and that we be presented with those options so we can make a decision.

 I’ll start with a chronology.

Chronology

September 28, 1994

The old city master plan is enacted. This master plan was in effect until the new master plan was adopted on August 3, 2009. It specifically says future improvements of East 8^th St need to include bike lanes and better pedestrian crossings:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel

There are areas within the community that are vehicle-oriented, where driving is encouraged and walking is made difficult. Numerous driveways, obstacles, and lack of sufficient rights of way to develop adequate sidewalks contribute to an environment hostile to the pedestrian. East Eighth Street, Fourteenth Street, Division Street, Garfield Avenue, East Front Street and Peninsula Drive are examples of roadways where the needs of the pedestrian and bicyclist must be taken into consideration. Roadway improvement designs must consider the needs of the pedestrian and bicyclist by incorporating sidewalks and bike lanes. In order to provide a sense of security for the pedestrians, sidewalks need adequate separation and clear demarcation from the roadway. Appropriate building concentrations at easy walking distances from bus stops and residential areas, plus interesting, lively street edges invite walking and biking. Lighting, landscaping, benches and public art are also encouraged, as they enhance the sidewalk environment. Pedestrian crossings should be clearly marked and lighted.  (Page 4.6, the emphasis is mine).

2008 and 2009

The planning commission and city commission work on the new master plan. Until the new master plan is enacted, the old master plan remains in place.

The new master plan does not address specific locations, but rather gives directives for types of neighborhoods. The stretch of 8^th Street in the project area is part TC 4 Corridor Neighborhood (between Garfield and Rose St), and part TC 3 Traditional Neighborhood (between Rose and Barlow).

TC 4 Corridor Neighborhood says: “Bike lanes incorporated with street markings along major streets.” There is even a photo of a bike lane with the caption “Bike Lanes” on page 15.

TC 3 Traditional Neighborhood says: “More formal designated transportation access (sidewalks, bike lanes, alleys).”

The new master plan also has 7 “Core Principles.” One of them is “Transportation choices are important to our vitality and environmental health.”

It also has 9 Goals. One of them is “Become pedestrian friendly and encourage more energy efficient, environmentally friendly transportation choices.”

 Fall 2008

I do not have a precise time frame, but I believe the city engineer was designing the reconstruction of 8th St during this period. I do not know when he made the decision not to include bike lanes or new pedestrian crossings on 8^th St. More on that decision later.　

November 2008

The Grand Vision hired Harris Interactive to do a scientific poll, and the poll results come out. 91% of those surveyed in GT County want more walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. It was the highest positive response to any question they asked.

February 21, 2009

City Commissioner Jim Carruthers requests that 8th St be re-striped to include bike lanes. I can’t possibly say it better than he did:

There is lots of good study and information available for changing roads from 4 lanes to 3 lanes with bike lanes. Lowering traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, traffic calming and flow, emergency vehicle movement and a relatively inexpensive fix to support a pedestrian friendly town, are all positives as I see it. I have included a number of websites below for review. This is not rocket science and is something that many communities are doing all across this country.

I’m hoping we as a city can do a demonstration project on 8th Street, say from Lake to Woodmere for our spring street striping program and from Garfield to Munson (I am open to options). After some preliminary engineering study by the city (which is in process already I believe) I hope we can try this for the 2009 summer season.

Let’s take a pro-active approach to a safer, more walkable community, something citizens have been asking for now for some time. What is the harm in trying something like this?

April 20, 2009

City commission votes to re-stripe 8^th St between Garfield and Munson. The city manager’s specific request was for authorization to undertake the “Eighth Street Re-striping Pilot Program in the spirit of making Eighth Street a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly street.” We were never given a choice to re-stripe from Woodmere to Lake that Commissioner Carruthers suggested as an option, but the idea was that this would be a pilot program. I don’t know about you, but I always thought a pilot program is something you try out and if successful, you do more.

April 20, 2009

City commission passes the first Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. The NEZ is a stretch of 8^th St within the reconstruction project area, from Rose to Franklin. The NEZ is a tax abatement whose purpose is to “encourage owner occupied housing and new investment in core communities.” To reiterate: we are giving people some of their tax money back, in order to promote a more residential neighborhood along this stretch of 8th St.　

June 8, 2009

City commission starts discussing Infrastructure Policy. Right from the get-go, the policy says:

All projects shall use the technical resource, “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities.” Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a process of balancing the needs of all users of the system, including non-vehicular uses. It is a “Complete Streets” approach that incorporates methods to reduce vehicular traffic impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.

All major street construction should include a bias in favor of sidewalk or bikeway construction in conjunction with the street (in addition to the #1 sidewalk above). There may be cause to not include either sidewalks or bikeways but that cause would need to be demonstrated.  (Emphasis is mine).　

July 27, 2009

City commission continues discussing the Infrastructure Policy. The parts about complete streets and context-sensitive solutions for neighborhoods continue to be included.

 August 3, 2009

City commission accepts the new master plan. The text about bike lanes in those neighborhoods, and transportation choices being a core principle and goal, is included.　

August 27, 2009

City enters into the contract with MDOT for $230,000 of stimulus funds for 8th St. More on the specifics of this contract later.　

September 21, 2009

City commission adopts the Infrastructure Policy, including the parts about complete streets and context-sensitive solutions for neighborhoods.

December 16, 2009

I hear from an outside source that the 8th St reconstruction project does not include bike lanes or new ped crossings. I inquire, and two days later Ben forwards me this email from the city engineer:

The 8th Street Reconstruction Project includes repair of sidewalks and installation of barrier free ramps to current standards. We examined opportunities to include bike lanes in the proposed cross section and found the street would need to be widened by 4′ in either direction (8′ total). When applying this additional width to the cross section we would need to remove several large trees and change the look of the route significantly. The wider street would reduce the tree lawn are between the sidewalk and curb to 3′. Thus, the existing width was retained.

The proposed project follows the current configuration including:

• A narrow center turn lane and wider travel lanes for shared use in the area between Rose and Garfield. The center turn lane also functions as a pedestrian refuge area
• A two lane section with wider travel lanes for shared use and parallel parking on the south side from Rose to Barlow
• The current configuration between Barlow and Woodmere with wider travel lanes for shared use

Also, the designated cross town bike route (Washington Street) is located a few blocks to the north and the recreation trail is located a few blocks to the south of this portion of 8th Street.

Note two things. First, the reason not to include bike lanes was not because they would cause a traffic or safety problem. It was because of some trees and some tree lawn. Second, the email says the project follows the current configuration, but that’s not entirely true. There is a new left turn lane on either side of Barlow.　

December 2009

Mead and Hunt sends their first drafts of the Grand Vision corridor of significance reports. While they need a lot more work, there is one key item. Corridor #9 includes 8^th St from Cass St east to Munson. The report says “In addition, a non-motorized facility should be constructed throughout the entire corridor.” (Emphasis is mine).

Early January 2010

I meet with Ben more than once on this. My impression from those meetings is that the city engineer’s position is that we simply cannot make any changes. The two reasons are (1) it would take a year to re-design and so we will lose the stimulus funds, and (2) MDOT will not agree to any changes and so we will lose the stimulus funds.

Informal inquiries with others in town indicate these things are not true, or not entirely true. I tell Ben I am going to see about getting a second opinion. Not to attribute any particular statements to Ben, my impression was that he expressed openness to a second opinion.

January 14, 2010

TART hires Gosling Czubak for the second opinion. It seemed more appropriate for a bicycle and pedestrian organization to hire the opinion than for me to do it. (Disclosure: I did contribute). The scope of work was for Gosling to do a concept design and have a meeting with TART and the city engineer about how to implement the design if the city commission chose to do so. Two landscape architects and a PE were involved for Gosling, and they made a contribution of part of their services.

TART would like to present the concept design Monday night; hopefully we can get copies ahead of time. The gist is that rather than widen the street 4 feet on either side for the whole stretch, they widen it only within 100 feet of Rose St and Garfield. They also take out the relatively recent center turn lane between Rose St and the approach to Garfield. (Garfield still has a turn lane.) Left-turning traffic into Glen’s is directed to use a short stretch of Rose St from the dedicated turn lane there. The travel lanes are narrowed slightly but still meet AASHTO standards and will help discourage speeding on 8th St. Better pedestrian crosswalks are included. Tree grates are installed where the tree lawns narrow around the intersections.

The plan is the very picture of what the old master plan says we want East 8th St to look like. Yet because the only differences are some paint and some widening around the two intersections, the changes can be done by change order. Engineering design – including for storm water – still needs to be done, but we understand that would take a week, not a year.

 January 21, 2010

Bob Otwell from TART calls the city engineer and leaves a voice mail requesting a meeting with Gosling, TART, and city staff to discuss the second opinion. A couple hours later, the president of Gosling calls Otwell and puts the meeting on hold. Apparently the city engineer had called the president of Gosling.

January 27, 2010

The meeting does go forward, but the president of Gosling attends. This was not part of the scope of work for the second opinion, nor did TART request it. The report I got from the meeting (which I did not attend) was that the president of Gosling agreed with the city engineer that no changes could be made to the project.

A couple days later I asked for the purpose and substance of the city engineer’s call to the president of Gosling. Here is the response I received:

• Inquired about the nature of their work for TART after receiving a phone message from Bob Otwell requesting a meeting to review bike lane concepts
• Discussed the status of the Project
• Discussed the potential conflict of interest with their existing services contract with the City for testing and surveying services for the Project
• Inquired about the use of plans prepared by the City Engineer as the basis for their work

The existing services contract referred to was for soil testing and surveying, for about $12,000. I want to be clear – I do not think the president of Gosling did anything unreasonable under the circumstances.

But here is my question about the “conflict of interest.” The mayor told the city manager we were going to get a second opinion for the city commission to consider. The city manager told the mayor he was open to a second opinion. Gosling, who was working for the city on the soil testing, was hired to do the second opinion on the design. Was there really a conflict with the city’s interest, or just with the city engineer’s interest?

Discussion

As a result of discussion with the city manager (who has been frank and open every step of the way), here are the arguments I expect we will hear, and my notes on each:

A. We cannot change the project or we will lose the stimulus funds.

No one is arguing that we should give up the stimulus funds. The question is what changes can we make without losing the stimulus funds?

The agreement we entered with MDOT says that MDOT hires the contractor, and that has occurred. The work is supposed to start in the spring. The stimulus funds are for “shovel-ready” projects That doesn’t really answer the question though, because projects like these also have change orders as I understand it.

The contract we signed with MDOT is interesting. At page 5, it says “[MDOT’s] sole reason for entering into this contract is to enable [the city] to obtain and use” stimulus funds. It says that “any and all approvals of, reviews of, and recommendations regarding … plans and specifications … are done to assist [the city] in meeting program guidelines in order to qualify for available funds.” It says that the city still has “exclusive jurisdiction” and “control” of 8th St.

Now on Attachment II, item E (p 14 of pdf), the contract does say:

No extra work shall be performed nor changes in plans and specifications made until said work or changes are approved by the project engineer and authorized by [MDOT].

So we do need MDOT’s consent to make changes. Informal feedback from other sources is that if the project engineer advocates for changes, MDOT can be flexible. Remember – we’re not asking for more stimulus money for the changes.

Terms like “programming change” and “function change” have been thrown around. As in, “MDOT won’t agree to that because it’s a programming change,” or, “bike lanes can’t be put in because they change the function of the street.” But no one has been able to find where these terms come from, or how they dictate what we can or cannot do. The documents I received don’t say anything about this. We are talking about changing the paint and some extra width at two intersections. And if we cannot do both, can we do one of those? Can we do something else?

What about making changes after the project is closed out? Could we cut the curbs back at those intersections and change the paint then? What would that cost?

Page 13 of the attachment to the MDOT contract (p 23 of the pdf), raises some concern. It says that after the project is done, the city may “make no changes in ordinances or regulations enacted, or traffic controls installed in conjuction with the project work without prior approval of [MDOT] and approval of the FHWA, if required.”

We need to be absolutely sure we understand what that means. But it seems likely there are still options, if we want to find options.

B. Changing the design will take a year.

I have not heard this argument in a while, so I do not know if we will hear it again.

C. We need a public process.

That’s the goal of this discussion. There was no public discussion of this project. There was a public process involving the installation of the Rose St light in 2004, but there was no public process involved in the new center turn lane from Rose to Garfield.

There was also no public discussion of new turn lanes at Barlow. The neighbors are just now finding out about it. One of them wrote:

Ignoring for a moment that this design does nothing to improve or enhance 8th Street, I am deeply offended that the City has decided to encourage and facilitate the routing of traffic into the Oak Park neighborhood. Name any other place where they would treat the citizens and homeowners with such total disdain.

D. We’re just putting the street back exactly the way it was.

That is not true. The new left turn lanes at Barlow are different. The “function change” of those turn lanes will be to route traffic into that neighborhood and make it easier to speed on 8^th St, as the above comment states.

E. The city commission was informed about this.

Could we have spotted a thread and pulled and pulled until we had answers? Maybe. Was it brought to our attention? Definitely not.

It’s true that action was taken – on the consent calendar – to approve various contracts related to this project. But I have reviewed each one of these packets. No contracts were ever provided to us. No plans were ever provided to us. No presentation or discussion was ever held.

When was the last time we did an $850,000 project in this city and it was never presented to us?

F. The city engineer made an engineering decision that bikes don’t belong on 8th St

I suggest this statement is the most direct explanation of this whole process. And it brings us back to the central question: Who is running the city? Whose decisions are these?

Let me tell you what you already know. People spend a ton of time on these efforts: city commission meetings, planning commission meetings, master plan meetings, ad hoc meetings, “conference committee” meetings, TALUS meetings, Grand Vision meetings. We discuss and debate goals and priorities and wording, and through time-intensive processes we make group decisions. These meetings are usually staffed, so we also spend public money on these plans and policies. And we make the decisions in public.

The old master plan was clear: put bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements on East 8th St when we improve it. The city engineer disregarded the master plan when he designed the project. Then, while we were putting in place the new infrastructure policy and the new master plan, he chose not to re-visit the design so it would be consistent with those documents.

We cannot review the details of every project. We set policy. But the point is that the policies we set are supposed to be followed. At the very least, if the city engineer decides to overrule our policies, shouldn’t we get a heads-up? Shouldn’t we be presented with recommendations, and then allowed to make the decision? If these plans and policies can just be overruled by one person without discussion, what do they even mean? Why bother?

Finally, as someone who is emotionally involved on this particular issue, let me tell you this. When you ride your bike in traffic, you are very aware of your surroundings. Therefore, you constantly observe the choices that were made on streets, bike trails, and intersections. As a city taxpayer who helps pay for this infrastructure, you ask yourself: Was a decision made here to protect me, or to expose me? Was my safety a higher priority or a lower priority at this location? Do I get a choice about how I get around my hometown, or don’t I? And whose decision is that anyway?

Bikes are on 8th street now. The question is whether they will get some protection, or continue to have no protection. The bigger question is, who decides?

Conclusion

We are boxed in now, and no one is going to suggest we give up the stimulus money. The question is whether we are boxed in completely, or only partially.

We tried to get a second opinion, but that process was influenced. My suggestion is we ask the city manager to get a new second opinion, and to direct the city engineer not to interfere. That’s what a second opinion is after all – one that the author of the first opinion does not influence.

Our choices will be more limited now than they were 6 or 12 months ago. But we still should have a chance to hear what is possible, what it will cost, and what the pros and cons are. That’s our job. That’s what people expect us to do.

Thanks for listening.