Council Member Report from Zach Michels

Fire Station Location Considerations

It has recently been argued that the MAV site on Ann Arbor should not be considered as a location for a new, modern fire station because building a public facility at that location would remove it from the tax rolls and that that “property should remain on the tax roll.”

The understandable general opinion amongst most laypersons has been that greenfield, strip developments provide a stronger tax base than properties within the downtown.  It feels consistent with most people’s perceptions.  Properties with new buildings surely must be more valuable to the tax rolls than those with century-old buildings in downtown, right?

Wrong.  Significant research has been devoted to municipal fiscal sustainability within the planning profession these past 20 years.  The Michigan Municipal League has conducted studies with several member communities showing how much more valuable downtown properties are on a square foot or per acre basis.

I decided to do some research this past weekend to see how this applied here in Dexter.  I was truly amazed with what I found.  The taxable value per square foot for commercial properties along the Ann Arbor commercial strip were significantly lower than those of commercial properties downtown.

Calculations are based on information available from the Washtenaw County Online GIS and the City’s online assessing database.

Now, it is tricky to get clean comparisons because of laws affecting taxable value in Michigan.  To balance for this, I looked at five properties of diverse characteristics, construction dates, and ownership tenure in both areas.

The commercial properties along Ann Arbor, in the vicinity of the MAV site, had taxable values ranging from a low of roughly $4.27/sf ($187,294/acre) to a high of $15.08/sf ($704,833/acre).

Rainbow Childcare          $10.63/sf                 $481,555/acre

Old National Bank             $8.03/sf                  $357,733/acre

LaFontaine                           $4.98/sf                  $259,850/acre

Chelsea Bank                     $15.80/sf                 $704,833/acre

Dexter Crossing                  $4.27/sf                  $187,394/acre

The commercial properties in downtown had taxable values significantly higher, ranging from a low of roughly $17.21/sf ($753,297/acre) to a high of $65.02/sf ($3,158,615/acre).  The highest per square foot taxable value downtown is more than four times higher than the highest per square foot taxable value along Ann Arbor!

Monument Park               $65.02/sf             $3,158,615/acre

PNC Bank                            $21.94/sf                 $945,493/acre

Dexter Bakery                    $42.88/sf             $1,915,262/acre

Former Buschs                  $17.21/sf                 $753,297/acre

Three-Bird                           $29.85/sf             $1,274,757/acre

Assuming a per square foot taxable value using the most recent structures in both of these areas, the Monument Park Building for downtown and the Rainbow Childcare for the MAV area, shows that the current fire station site has a potential taxable value of roughly $1,111,651 more than the MAV site ($2,832,271 vs $1,720,620), if it were to be developed commercially.

The space devoted to police parking alone (6 spaces for cruisers and 6 spaces for employees) at a downtown site could account for a taxable value of roughly $126,398 (or more).  Again, that is just the taxable value of police parking spaces at a downtown site!

This quick research shows that any argument for the location of a public safety building based on the potential impact on the tax rolls clearly favors removing the public safety building from downtown because doing so would result in a significant net increase in taxable value.

It has also recently been argued that the MAV site on Ann Arbor should not be considered as a location for a new, modern fire station because this property “should… be developed commercially consistent with our Master Plan.”

I will spare everybody the lengthy discussion of the role of master plans as policy documents and the many contradictions contained within their goals and objectives that require balancing and interpretation.

Instead, I will focus my comments on this argument towards the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) portion of the master plan, which is often the most-recognizable and easiest to understand element of a master plan.  Basically, it provides guidance for future uses of properties in order to ensure adequate services and minimize negative externalities.

The FLUM does indeed call for the MAV site to be within the Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor Mixed Use area.  The intent of this area is to encourage development that is separate and distinct from the city center.  It calls for a compact commercial node at the intersection with Dan Hoey, less-intensive office or multi-family in other areas, physical connection with the city center, design guidelines to blend with the city center, and flexibility with parking arrangements.

The FLUM, however, calls for the site of the current fire station at 8140 to be Open Space/Recreation.  The intent of this area is to protect environmentally-sensitive areas by limiting development and strengthen the boundaries of the city.  It lists appropriate uses as public of private conservation areas and active and passive recreational areas.

(Municipal buildings and facilities are listed as appropriate uses in the Public/Semi-Public Areas.)

Although the use of the MAV site for a municipal, public safety facility does represent a deviation from the FLUM, it is a far smaller deviation that the use of the current site for a municipal, public safety facility.

Any argument that the location of a public safety building should be based on the Future Land Use Map clearly favors the MAV site because it is a far smaller deviation from the Future Land Use Map.

Because these explanations are relatively straight-forward, I did not feel it necessary to add it to the agenda as a discussion item.  I would be more than happy to discuss the above at a public meeting or with members individually outside of a meeting.  Thank you for your attention in allowing me to correct the errors in those arguments.