Stories indexed with the term ‘Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’

Among the highlights of mayoral nominations to boards and commissions made at the Ann Arbor city council’s Aug. 8, 2013 meeting were two significant boards.

Rishi Narayan was nominated to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Jack Bernard was nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven … [Full Story]

As one of several nominations confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council at its July 15, 2013 meeting, Russ Collins was approved for a third four-year term on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council’s vote was unanimous. Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, began his service on the DDA board in 2005.

The council also confirmed Jane Immonen, John Bassett, and Patrick Ion to the Elizabeth Dean Trust Fund committee. Sue Perry was nominated by mayor John Hieftje at the July 15 meeting to serve on that committee too. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting. The responsibility of the committee is to make recommendations on the use … [Full Story]

Ann Arbor city council meeting (July 1, 2013): In a meeting that featured land use and planning as a main theme, the council chose to put off final decisions on two significant issues.

First, councilmembers postponed a decision on a change to the definition of “sidewalk” in the city code – which would have implications for the adjacent property owners of “cross-lot paths.” While the definitional change would allow the city to take responsibility for capital repairs on such cross-lot paths – using sidewalk repair millage funds – it would place the burden of winter snow shoveling on adjacent property owners.

That division of responsibility for repair and maintenance is one that’s now familiar to owners of property adjacent to sidewalks that run next to a road or a street. Given the number of open questions about how logistics would actually work, and concerns expressed during the public hearing on July 1 as well as at a previous public meeting on the topic, the council decided to postpone a final vote until Oct. 7, 2013.

Second, the council postponed a vote on adding the South State Street corridor plan to the city’s master plan, which consists of several separate documents. The city planning commission has already voted to adopt the corridor plan as part of the master plan. It’s one of the few issues on which the planning commission does not act just as an advisory body that makes recommendations to the council. For the master plan, the council and the planning commission must adopt the same plan. The postponement came in deference to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The area of the study lies in Ward 4, which she represents.

Despite the postponement, the South State Street corridor plan still had an impact on a decision made by the council – to deny a rezoning request for the parcel at 2271 S. State St. The change in zoning would have allowed the parcel to be used for car sales. That use isn’t consistent with the recommendations in the corridor plan, and the planning commission had recommended against rezoning on that basis. Even though it was just the initial vote on the rezoning – an occasion when councilmembers sometimes will advance an ordinance change to a second reading in order to allow a public hearing to take place – the rezoning request got no support on the council.

In contrast, the initial rezoning requested for the Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development at the location of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street – received unanimous approval at the council’s July 1 meeting.

Also related to land use, the council reconstituted a 12-member citizens advisory committee to study the R4C zoning area. The re-establishment of the group, which was originally appointed in 2009, comes after the planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas. The recommended revisions were not the actual ordinance language. That language would need to be written after councilmembers sign off on the general recommendations. No action is expected by the council until the committee has met two or three times.

Another committee reconstituted by the council on July 1 was a group to sort through some contentious issues between the council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council has postponed until Sept. 3 a final decision on a change to Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The four councilmembers on the committee are: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Two days later, at its regular monthly meeting, the DDA’s complement was appointed: Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

A proposed video privacy ordinance that was on the council’s July 1 agenda did not win sufficient support to advance to a second reading. The proposal would have regulated the way that public surveillance cameras could be used by local law enforcement officials. Although the vote was 5-4 in favor, that fell short of the six-vote majority it needed on the 11-member body. So the council voted down the video privacy ordinance on its initial consideration – having postponed the issue several times previously.

The council also decided to delay adoption of amendments to its own internal rules – out of deference to two councilmembers who were absent from the meeting: Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Highlights of the rule changes include the addition of a public commentary opportunity at council work sessions, and reduction in the time per turn for the public from three to two minutes. A change in councilmember speaking times equates to a reduction from eight minutes to five minutes total per item for each councilmember.

The council handled a number of other items during the meeting, including the adoption of the 2009 International Fire Code, a location change for the Ward 2 Precinct 8 polling place, approval of a special assessment to help pay for sidewalk and curb improvements along Miller Avenue, and confirmation of appointments to boards and commissions. [Full Story]

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority monthly board meeting and annual meeting (July 3, 2013): In its voting business, the DDA board allocated a total of $550,000 for capital projects – either planning for future work or actual current projects.

The board also approved a $59,200 grant to support the formation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. A “trolley” for the upcoming art fairs also received $10,000 worth of support, in action taken by the board.

The capital projects included $50,000 for repair of sidewalk-related amenities that aren’t covered by the city’s sidewalk millage. In addition, the board allocated $200,000 for a streetscape framework planning project. Board action also included $300,000 for the replacement of light poles on Main Street.

The light pole replacement is one source of current friction between the city and the DDA – as the expectation of the city had been that the entire $516,000 project would be paid for by the DDA. But the result of wrangling over the DDA’s FY 2014 budget – given approval by the council on May 20 – was a transfer of $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. So the DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project, because of that transfer to the housing fund.

The light pole question is related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

The outstanding issue concerns the way that the DDA administers Chapter 7 of the city code of Ann Arbor – which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. This spring the Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to a revision to Chapter 7. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue that is expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). And at the July 3 monthly meeting, outgoing DDA board chair Leah Gunn appointed the DDA’s committee: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Another point of recent budgetary friction between the city and the DDA was raised briefly at the July 3 board meeting. In a formal resolution, the city council had encouraged the DDA to allocate money to fund downtown beat patrol police officers. For its part, the DDA has for a few years already been mulling the question of some kind of additional security – either in the form of ambassadors, community standards officers or police officers. At the July 3 meeting, DDA board members indicated they would continue to mull that range of options, but seemed disinclined to commit to funding police officers.

The board also heard a range of routine reports on July 3, including the monthly parking revenue report. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. In the future, it was announced, the report will be delivered only on a quarterly basis. Also related to parking policy, a tentative pilot project was announced that could change the basic approach the DDA takes to selling monthly parking permits. The idea would be to assign permit eligibility only to property owners in a defined geographic area. The number of permits would depend on the number of square feet of property – independent of uses such as office, residential, retail, etc. Currently, the DDA uses a first-come-first-served system for individuals, with a waiting list.

The DDA’s monthly meeting marked a transition on the board, as two board members were bid farewell. Newcombe Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago. Leah Gunn concluded nearly 22 years of service on the board. She finished out her time on the board as chair. [Full Story]

Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas have been selected to handle the possible sale of the former YMCA lot, located at the corner of Fifth and William in downtown Ann Arbor. The roughly 0.8 acre parcel, owned by the city of Ann Arbor, is  used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system. City administrator Steve Powers notified councilmembers of the decision in an email sent July 3, 2013.

… [Full Story]

Sandi Smith has been elected chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board for the current fiscal year, which began July 1. The board took the action at its annual meeting, which followed its regular monthly board meeting on July 3, 2013. Smith’s election as chair followed the board’s custom of electing its vice chair to the position of chair for the next year.

Other board officers elected included John Mouat as vice chair, Keith Orr as secretary, and Roger Hewitt as treasurer.

One of Smith’s first challenges leading the board will be to resolve an outstanding issue over the way the DDA administers Chapter 7 of the city code of Ann Arbor – which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance … [Full Story]

Patrons at the Ann Arbor art fairs – which take place from July 17-20, 2013 – will again this year be able to ride a “trolley” shuttle bus service that circulates to the four different fair areas. [.pdf of the "trolley" route]

In action taken by the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at its July 3, 2013 meeting, $10,000 was allocated to defray the cost of operating the shuttle service. The Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau is contributing an additional $10,000. The DDA board resolution describes the annual operating cost of the art fair trolley as more than $25,000.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301 where the … [Full Story]

Some rusted-out decorative light poles on Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor can be replaced as a result of a $300,000 allocation made by the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The total estimated cost of the project is $516,000 for 81 light poles.

Based on the DDA board’s resolution, it’s the DDA’s expectation that the city of Ann Arbor will make up the difference of $216,000. The board’s action came at its July 3, 2013 meeting.

Responding to … [Full Story]

Pedestrian issues were the subject of two board resolutions passed at the July 3, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

First, a streetscape framework plan for downtown Ann Arbor will be developed at a cost of $200,000 over the next two years. The resolution allocating the funds states that “an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The $200,000 cost would not cover construction. But according to the board’s resolution, it’s a realistic budget to cover “consultants, contingency, and other related costs.” The idea cited in the resolution is to shorten the planning phases and reduce the costs associated with future streetscape projects. The resolution directs the DDA’s operations committee to create a final project budget and … [Full Story]

A $59,200 grant to support the establishment of a business improvement zone (BIZ) for the South University area has been approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. The action came at the board’s July 3, 2013 meeting. The money would be allocated only at specific milestone points.

A BIZ is a self-assessment district that can be established under Public Act 120 of 1961 by agreement of a sufficient number of property owners in the district – to generate sufficient funds to pay for additional services not provided by the city. If it’s established, the South University Area BIZ would be the second such district in downtown Ann Arbor. In 2010 such a district was established for a three-block … [Full Story]

The Ann Arbor city council has established a four-member committee to sort through issues between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council action came at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The DDA board is expected to establish counterparts at its July 3 monthly meeting.

The council will be represented by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2),  Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Lumm’s name was added to the mix during the council’s meeting.

The current source of friction between the DDA and the city concerns the interpretation of Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA has chosen to interpret the Chapter 7 language … [Full Story]

Land use is frequently a dominant theme of Ann Arbor city council meetings – and the July 1, 2013 meeting agenda fits that pattern.

The council will be giving final consideration to an ordinance change that expands the definition of “sidewalk” – to include any sidewalks the city has formally accepted for public use. The change has implications for owners of property adjacent to several “cross-lot paths” in the city – which are on the meeting agenda for acceptance for public use.

One consequence of the definition change is that those property owners will not be responsible for the repair of those paths – because the paths will be eligible for sidewalk millage repair funds. But the adjacent property owners would become responsible for clearing snow from the paths.

Also related to land use on the meeting agenda are rezoning requests associated with two proposed developments. Up for an initial vote is the rezoning from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) for the parcels on North Main and Fourth Avenue where Kerrytown Place is planned. The 18-unit townhouse development is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved.

Also up for initial consideration is a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St., where the owner would like to be able to sell automobiles. The planning commission recommended denial of that request, in part because that land use was not felt to be consistent with the draft South State Street corridor plan. At its July 1 meeting, the council will also be asked to adopt that corridor plan.

The re-establishment of a citizens advisory committee on changes to R4C zoning in the city also appears on the meeting agenda. The origins of that committee date back to 2009. The reconstitution of the 12-member committee comes as the planning commission has recommended changes to R4C zoning that the council will be weighing – to decide if ordinance language should be drafted to reflect those changes.

Another committee with its origins in 2009 is set to be reconstituted at the council’s July 1 meeting, but it’s not related to land use. The council will be asked to re-establish a “mutually beneficial” committee to work through recommendations to changes in the city ordinance that regulates the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The council has already given initial approval to some ordinance changes. Committee members will be working with their DDA counterparts with a two-month window of time – because the council has postponed final action on DDA ordinance changes until Sept. 3.

The council will also be asked to take an initial vote on a video privacy ordinance, having postponed that initial vote several times previously.

And finally, Ward 2 will not have a city council primary election a month from now, but it appears on the agenda in connection with polling places. The Precinct 2-8 polling location will be changed for all future elections to the First United Methodist Church on Green Road.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. [Full Story]

At its July 1, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider and likely adopt a new set of rules affecting meeting mechanics.

Easiest to quantify are rule changes affecting speaking time limits. For the public, the time per speaking turn will drop across the board – from three minutes to two minutes. For each councilmember, the total speaking time per item of debate will drop from eight minutes to five minutes.

Whether those quantitative changes will have a qualitative impact on the city council’s meetings is an open question. More likely to have a positive qualitative effect, I think, is a rules change that adds an opportunity for public commentary at the council’s work sessions.

The exchange of viewpoints among councilmembers during those work sessions is currently tentative and spare, often in the guise of merely asking a question. That’s because Michigan’s Open Meetings Act does not allow a gathering of councilmembers to include deliberations, unless an opportunity is provided for the public to address the council. By giving the public an opportunity to comment during those sessions, councilmembers will be free to engage in unfettered exchanges of viewpoint. And that will be a benefit to the public and to the city staff.

However, in this column I’d like to focus on a different proposed amendment to the rules – one that could potentially improve local governance, not just change what happens at city council meetings.

Among the rules changes is one that would move the mayor’s communications from a slot on the meeting agenda after all regular business to one that precedes all regular business. That’s important because the mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions. That agenda slot also includes the council’s vote to confirm those appointments – typically at the following council meeting. This rule change will ensure that interested residents will not need to stay up until midnight or 3 a.m. – or whenever the council finishes its voting business – to find out who the mayor has nominated.

And that bit of extra spotlight on the nominations could lead to an interest on the part of the mayor – whoever might hold that position – in offering a better explanation of each nomination. It’s reasonable, I think, to get a better explanation than the kind we typically hear – generally a brief comment at the end of a meeting, when everyone is barely awake.

For example: What is it about the nominee’s philosophical orientation to the board’s subject matter that makes this person a good fit for the position? How was it that this person came to be chosen? Who is this person? To the extent that residents are given a clearer idea of how and why nominations are made to boards and commissions, that might increase the inclination of other qualified residents to offer their service.

In the near future, nominations to two significant boards will be made by mayor John Hieftje. One nomination is needed due to the expansion of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s board – from seven to nine members. Of the two additional seats, the city of Ypsilanti will make one appointment. For that seat, Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber will be nominating Gillian Ream at the Ypsilanti council’s July 2 meeting. Hieftje will be making the nomination for the other new AAATA seat. He will also need to make nominations to replace two departing members from the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – Leah Gunn and Newcombe Clark.

The public policy areas of the two boards overlap – not just because transportation is related to land use and development. The overlap also stems from the fact that the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, and the availability of parking is integral to the area’s transportation system.

So in this column, I’d like to sketch out some current policy issues to be faced by new appointees to the boards of these organizations. For the AAATA board, a pressing question will be: Should we ask voters to approve an additional transportation millage in November 2013? For the DDA board, an ongoing question will be: What’s an appropriate balance among users of the parking system – downtown residents, retail customers, and employees of downtown businesses?

But first, a little history. [Full Story]

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting (June 5, 2013): An oblique quip from a DDA board member during the June meeting signaled likely ongoing friction between the DDA and the Ann Arbor city council: “Too many people’ve been staying up too late on Mondays …” The comment came in the context of two different board votes – one on adopting the DDA’s upcoming fiscal year 2014 budget, and another on adjustments to its current year’s budget as the year comes to a close on June 30.

The DDA had actually already adopted its FY 2014 budget – back on Feb. 6, 2013. And although it’s been customary in the past years for the DDA to adopt its budget in advance of the city council’s approval, the state enabling statute for downtown development authorities provides a different sequence: “Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality.”

Considerable debate on the DDA’s budget had unfolded among city councilmembers at their May 20, 2013 meeting. And the council had ultimately decided on a 10-1 vote to approve a FY 2014 budget for the DDA that differed from the one the DDA had adopted in February. In addition to recognizing an additional $568,000 in tax increment finance revenue (TIF), the council’s action transferred an additional $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

At their June 5 meeting, some DDA board members balked at the council’s action, citing the replacement of rusting-out light poles on Main Street as a more pressing need than reserving funds for undetermined future housing projects. But ultimately the board adopted the council’s approved budget on an 8-2 vote – with dissent from Sandi Smith and John Mouat. Absent from the meeting were Russ Collins and Nader Nassif.

At the June 5 meeting, the board concluded that a portion of the more than $516,000 cost for the Main Street light poles would need to come from the city’s general fund. Mayor John Hieftje indicated at the meeting that in the next month he expected the city council would be presented with a budget resolution authorizing the difference between the $516,000 total cost and the $268,000 that the DDA considers available in its council-approved budget.

Also approved by the DDA board were annual routine adjustments to its current year’s budget, which are undertaken to ensure that actual expenses and revenues are reflected accurately. The adjustments are made so that expenses do not exceed revenues in any of the funds. During those deliberations, back-and-forth between board treasurer Roger Hewitt and Newcombe Clark indicated a realization that the kind of budget amendment they were undertaking for FY 2013, at the end of the fiscal year, might be used to work around the budget levels authorized by the city council. It’s not completely clear if that strategy is possible.

But in response to Hewitt’s assurance that budget amendments could be enacted for any reason – as long as expenditures didn’t exceed revenues – Clark made his comment about people staying up too late on Monday nights. [The city council meets on Monday nights, and the council's deliberations on the DDA budget have gone long into the evening. If the DDA board can change its budget after adopting the council-approved version, then the council's deliberations would seem to be moot.]

The June meeting was Clark’s penultimate one, as his term expires at the end of July and he’s moving to Chicago to take a job there. The board’s July 3 meeting will also be board chair Leah Gunn’s last meeting, which will mark the end of over two decades of service on the DDA board, beginning in 1991.

The parking revenue and patrons report from the public parking system was one of the regular highlights of the meeting. The DDA manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under a contract with the city. The parking report was complemented by a board resolution that awarded five additional monthly parking permits to The Varsity residential project, bringing its total to seven. The DDA can assign monthly permits to residential projects under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program – which provides a mechanism for building housing without providing parking spaces onsite.

Local developer Peter Allen addressed the board during public commentary, reporting that his company had been one of three to submit bids in response to the city’s RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the former Y lot at Fifth and William streets. He told the board he thinks the parcel is worth $5-7 million or more. [Full Story]

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board has re-adopted its FY 2014 budget, after it was approved, with changes, by the city council on May 20, 2013. The DDA board action came on June 5, 2013.

The decision came over dissent from two board members – John Mouat and Sandi Smith, who perceived the city council’s changes to the budget as arbitrary. They criticized the process – which is set forth by the state’s enabling legislation for downtown development authorities.

During the council’s debate on the city’s budget, of which the DDA is a component unit, councilmembers had argued about how to handle the additional tax increment finance (TIF) revenue that will be captured by the DDA this year. In the … [Full Story]

The Varsity, a residential high-rise building at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor, has been granted the right to purchase five additional monthly parking permits in the public parking system, bringing its total to seven.

The right to purchase monthly parking permits – under the city’s “contribution in lieu” program – is administered by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The action came at the DDA board’s June 5, 2013 meeting.

The DDA had previously approved two permits for The Varsity, which is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 people. Construction is nearing completion, with plans to open by the fall.

The project needs to provide a total of 76 parking spaces. That parking is required in … [Full Story]

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has now been encouraged through a formal resolution of the city council to consider paying for three police officers to be assigned to the downtown. The total annual cost would be about $270,000.

The council’s action came at its June 3, 2013 meeting, two weeks after the council set its FY 2014 budget – during a May 20, 2013 debate that ultimately rejected funding for three additional police officers. The proposed budget amendment, which failed on a 5-6 vote, had been brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The amendment would have reduced the budget of the 15th District Court by $270,000.

The resolution on June 3 was brought forward by Lumm and Sumi Kailasapathy … [Full Story]

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has enjoyed significant attention from the city council through the spring – and that attention will continue at least through next week.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has been leading the effort by the council to have an impact on the DDA – first by proposing ordinance amendments, then by bringing forward a proposal during the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations on May 20 – to reallocate DDA funds toward housing. More on that later.

Next week’s June 3 city council meeting would have marked the start of a three-month DDA-free period on the council’s agenda. However, Ward 2 councilmembers Jane Lumm and Sally Petersen, joined by Sumi Kailasapathy from Ward 1, have now placed a resolution on that meeting’s agenda calling on the DDA to allocate money for three additional police officers dedicated to patrolling the downtown area.

For Lumm, this might appear to be a course reversal. Earlier this spring she argued that funding for police officers should be found within the regular city budgeting process. She argued that police officers should be paid for with city general fund dollars – because the city is responsible for public safety. Specifically, she argued that the city should not be looking to the DDA to pay for police.

Yet it’s not actually a course reversal for Lumm. If you follow the city council and the DDA closely, her position now – calling on the DDA to fund police – makes perfectly logical sense, if “logical sense” means “political sense.”

The fact that this reversal makes perfect political sense is not an indictment of Lumm specifically, but rather of the entire 11-member council. They’ve managed as a group to forget what they accomplished together at their retreat in December 2012.

At that retreat, the council achieved a consensus that the city’s achievement of success for the public safety area would not be measured by the number of sworn officers. Instead they agreed that success would be based by actual crime stats, perceptions of safety by residents, and an objective measurement of the time that officers can spend on proactive policing. Yet the council’s debate on May 20 reverted to the familiar past habit of measuring safety success by counting sworn officers.

To the credit of the June 3 resolution’s sponsors, their proposal at least claims that adding police officers downtown would contribute to the perception of increased safety – a nod to the council’s retreat consensus. But I can imagine arguments both ways about whether that claim is true.

The council’s general distraction from its budget retreat consensus might be linked to the energy spent on the DDA. So what has stoked that interest? The fuel for this political fire is the perverse interpretation the DDA has given to Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) revenue. The DDA contends that the revenue constraint that’s articulated in Chapter 7 isn’t really a constraint. The DDA further contends that the $470,000 it returned to other taxing jurisdictions in 2011 was paid back “erroneously.” Kunselman’s ordinance amendments would exclude the DDA’s interpretation.

Throughout the council’s months-long debate about the DDA, the DDA board and staff have enthusiastically participated in city council politics. They’ve done so in a way that has not added much value to the city of Ann Arbor, except in the form of political drama.

In this column I’ll lay out the DDA’s role in the most recent political play that was performed at the council’s May 20 meeting. [Full Story]

Ann Arbor city council meeting Part 1: Budget debate (May 20, 2013): The council’s meeting did not conclude until nearly 2 a.m. after a 7 p.m. scheduled start. This portion of The Chronicle’s meeting report focuses mostly on the council’s fiscal year 2014 budget deliberations, which started at about 9 p.m. and ended around 1:30 a.m.

The council considered several amendments to the FY 2014 budget. But the total impact on the general fund of all the successful amendments was not significant, leaving mostly intact the “status quo” budget that had been proposed by city administrator Steve Powers a month earlier. That was a budget with $82.9 million in general fund expenditures. [.pdf of one-page summary of possible amendments] [.pdf of longer detail on FY 2014 budget amendments]

Most of the successful amendments were voted through with relatively little debate, and involved amounts of $100,000 or less. For example, the Washtenaw Health Initiative received an additional $10,000 allocation, and the Miller Manor senior meals program received a $4,500 boost. Allocations to human services nonprofits were increased by $46,899. And the general fund balance was tapped to conduct a $75,000 study of sidewalk gaps so that projects could be prioritized.

The affordable housing trust fund received an infusion of $100,000 from the general fund reserve. The council also approved an amendment prohibiting the spending of $326,464 that was set aside in the FY 2014 budget for public art, in anticipation of a final affirmative vote on a change to the public art ordinance. A vote on amending that ordinance is likely to take place on June 3, before the fiscal year begins on July 1.

The “parks fairness” amendment, which came after deliberations on all other amendments, was a straightforward calculation in accordance with a city policy. The policy requires that any increase in general fund spending be matched by a parallel increase for parks. The council approved that $22,977 amendment with scant remark.

Just three issues took about 80% of the council’s roughly 4.5-hour budget deliberations: (1) the budget of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, (2)  the possible reduction of the 15th District Court budget in order to pay for three additional police officers, and (3) the proposed restoration of loose leaf collection in the fall.

Of the most time-consuming items, the change to the DDA’s budget was ultimately approved – after escalating political rhetoric led to a kind of compromise that had almost unanimous support. The DDA compromise budget amendment called for a $300,000 transfer from the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund to the DDA’s housing fund, and a recommendation to spend $300,000 of TIF money on the replacement of Main Street light poles. Only Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) dissented.

The lone dissenting vote on the budget as a whole was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who issued a verbal spanking of her colleagues and the city administrator – for proposing and approving a budget she did not feel reflected a priority on public safety. Countering Lumm was Taylor, who pointed out that roughly half of the general fund expenditures are related to public safety. [Full Story]

Ann Arbor city council meeting (May 6, 2013 – May 6 session): Although the council did not take final action on many agenda items, it did complete eight public hearings and postponed some significant questions – before deciding to recess the meeting for a week. When the same meeting resumes on May 13, the first item to be confronted by the council is the site plan approval for the 413 E. Huron apartment project.

The council decided to suspend the proceedings around 11:30 p.m. – a different strategy than the one taken at the council’s April 15 meeting. On that occasion, councilmembers let the meeting continue until about 3 a.m. before deciding to end the session, postponing all remaining items until the next regular meeting on May 6.

At its May 6 meeting, the council voted unanimously to postpone until Sept. 3 one of the most controversial items on the agenda – revisions to the ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The most significant revision would clarify language from the original 1982 ordinance, which caps tax increment finance (TIF) revenue to the DDA. The clarifications would not allow for the kind of interpretation the DDA has given the ordinance for the last two years, which has resulted in no return of excess TIF to jurisdictions that have their taxes captured by the DDA.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off communications time early in the meeting by describing some further changes he was prepared to make to the DDA ordinance – which would earmark money to support affordable housing. During the public hearing on the ordinance changes, the council heard from speakers on both sides, including five members of the DDA board. A highlight was the apparent initial indication of a slightly moderated position by some opponents of the ordinance changes. The council’s relatively brief deliberations on postponement revealed only grudging support from some councilmembers for putting off the vote for four months. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) made clear they did not support the proposed changes to the ordinance.

The council also postponed action on a revision to the city’s sign ordinance, which would allow only certain types of digital signs. The ordinance amendments would cap the total number of billboards in the city at 28 and allow them to remain in place as non-conforming signs. It would not allow for retrofitting any existing billboards with digital technology. The council has already given the ordinance initial approval, and will take up the issue again on June 17.

Another item postponed by the council was consideration of a video privacy ordinance, which has not yet been given initial approval. That will come back to the council’s May 20 meeting.

Receiving approval from the council was the site plan for Summit Townhomes, located on Ellsworth Road. The project has been working through the city’s review and approval process for more than a year.

The downtown section of Fourth Avenue was somewhat of a geographic highlight for the May 6 meeting. The council approved a $741,900 contract with E.T. MacKenzie Co. to make improvements on Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets this summer. And the council formally withdrew its objection to renewal of the liquor license for The Arena, a bar located at Washington and Fourth. The Arena finally paid back taxes, which led to the council’s vote – but not without complaint from some councilmembers.

Another highlight of the meeting was the general topic of appointments to city boards and commissions. A brief discussion of how appointments work was prompted by the observation during public commentary that none of the appointments are current for members of the downtown citizens advisory council. The city council put off voting to confirm Stephanie Buttrey’s appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission. And not reached on the agenda were nominations to replace Jesse Bernstein on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and Eric Mahler on the city planning commission – with Susan Baskett and Paras Parekh, respectively. [Full Story]

On a unanimous vote, the Ann Arbor city council has again delayed final enactment to changes in the city’s ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The postponement is until the council’s second first meeting in September – on Sept. 3, 2013.

Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue projections. The vertical line indicates the year when the clarified calculations would be implemented. The red line is the amount of TIF revenue assumed by the DDA in its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets, and in its 10-year planning document. The blue line is the estimated TIF … [Full Story]

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting (May 1, 2013): The DDA board’s meeting, which lasted under a half hour, included only public commentary and some updates from the board’s committees. No voting items were on the agenda.

The meeting did not feature one of its typical highlights – discussion of the monthly parking report. However, the data was released to the public at the meeting, and it was mentioned that the data was now available to the public in draft form.

So this meeting report adds that provisional parking data to the data set that The Chronicle maintains – to chart the activity in Ann Arbor’s public parking system as the DDA measures it.

Highlights from public commentary included appreciation from representatives of the Neutral Zone for grants the organization has received from the DDA. The board also heard an update – during public commentary and in its committee reports – on a proposal to install an artificial ice rink on top of the new Library Lane underground parking garage.

Committee reports included updates on a possible economic development task force initiated by Ward 2 city councilmember Sally Petersen. Other updates included getDowntown’s commuter challenge, which takes place during the month of May, and the opening of the “Bike House” bicycle parking facility inside the Maynard parking structure.
[Full Story]

The Ann Arbor city council meeting that started on Monday evening, April 15, 2013 did not end until after 3 a.m. the following day. This was due in part to a stream of about 100 citizens who took the podium for general public commentary and two significant public hearings. The three-minute allocation of time per speaker translated into about five hours of public speaking time.

Conversation amongst audience members at the meeting – as well as subsequently in the community – described the effort as a “citizens filibuster.” The result of all the commentary: Two significant items on the agenda were postponed until the council’s May 6 meeting.

One of those items was the site plan approval for 413 E. Huron. Postponement of a decision on that project was lumped in with the general motion to postpone all remaining action items on the agenda until May 6. It was not necessarily expected that the council would postpone the 413 E. Huron site plan that evening, even if it was hoped by opponents that councilmembers would put off the decision – for a third time.

But there was a reasonable expectation that another significant item would be postponed – the council’s final action on a proposed revision to the city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. It was during the often acrimonious debate on that decision that the council ultimately opted to postpone all of its remaining action items until May 6.

The acrimony stemmed in part from the fact that the stated intention of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) at the start of the meeting was to postpone a final decision – and that was the expected outcome. The fact that this expected outcome was called into question heightened the tension in an already emotional debate. The tension was heightened by the fact that deviation from the anticipated postponement was made possible mainly by the absence of two councilmembers – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

By the time the council reached the DDA ordinance on its agenda, the hour was approaching 2 a.m. And by then Higgins and Kailasapathy had needed to leave the council meeting. Both of them had supported the ordinance changes in the 7-3 vote taken at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. But for the final reading on April 15, neither of them were at the table when the debate on the DDA ordinance began.

Kailasapathy described herself to The Chronicle as on the verge of physical exhaustion when she left – having had little sleep over the several days leading up to the meeting. She earns her livelihood as a certified public accountant, and tax season is a time of peak workload.

So apparently recognizing that the absence of Kailasapathy and Higgins would mean defeat for the ordinance change – if it were voted up or down, instead of being postponed – mayor John Hieftje led an effort to force an up-or-down vote on the issue. And councilmembers who were willing to put off the issue were not unified in their view about the parliamentary procedure to use to achieve that delay. So the council voted on two different options – postponing until a date certain (June 17) or tabling the issue. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) provided a crucial vote against postponement, but voted in favor of tabling.

Kunselman argued for the postponement by pointing out that because the sequence of the roll-call vote that evening allowed him to vote last, he could simply assess how the tally stood, and vote accordingly with the prevailing side. That would give him the right to bring back the vote for reconsideration at the council’s subsequent meeting. But Kunselman’s argument was not persuasive to a six-vote majority.

Without a six-vote majority in favor of either tabling or postponing, the council was left to deliberate on the actual ordinance amendments. As some attempted amendments failed – clearly due to the dynamic that had resulted from the absence of two councilmembers – Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) eventually proposed adjourning the meeting until the following Monday, when the meeting could continue. However, after a brief recess it was decided that the council would simply postpone all remaining voting items until its May 6 meeting, and put an end to the April 15 meeting.

After approving the motion to postpone the action items, councilmembers ticked through the remaining “housekeeping” items on the agenda, which largely included various reports and communications. Of those, one highlight worth noting was the nomination by Hieftje of Eric Mahler to replace David Nacht on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The public commentary at the April 15 meeting exceeds The Chronicle’s capacity to report in its customary way. Still, some accounting of the meeting is important for the archives.

This report provides: (1) a summary of votes taken; and (2) a summary of actions that will now appear on the May 6 agenda as a result of the April 15 postponement. In addition, this report begins with details of the deliberations on the proposed DDA ordinance revisions. [Full Story]

On a unanimous vote taken at about 3 a.m., the Ann Arbor city council decided to postpone all remaining action items on its agenda until its May 6 meeting, including revisions to the city’s ordinance governing the Downtown Development Authority.

The council was in the middle of deliberations on the DDA ordinance when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) suggested that it would be appropriate to adjourn the meeting, given the late hour. The politics of the issue had become heated. And two councilmembers who had supported the ordinance revisions at first reading had needed to leave the meeting before it ended – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Early in the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had indicated he’d be … [Full Story]

At its April 15, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council likely will take a final vote on changes to the local ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. On April 1, by a 7-3 vote, the council gave initial approval to the changes.

In the interim, the city council has undoubtedly received communications lobbying for and against these changes. Among those communications was a letter sent on April 12 – with signatures from representatives of eight different entities that have significant specific interests in downtown Ann Arbor: “We write to oppose the proposed ordinance amendment … [P]aramount is the proposed change to the current ordinance procedure for calculating potential rebates of higher than anticipated TIF revenues back to taxing units …”

One of the eight signatories is unique – for two reasons.

First, the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber is the only one of which The Ann Arbor Chronicle is a member.

Second, the chamber is unique among the eight because it’s the one that has the legal and public policy resources to arrive at a position based on the legal and public policy merits of the issue. But in this case, the chamber has chosen a view that seems only half-informed by legal and public policy analysis.

With access to legal talent like Doug McClure, a recent candidate for 22nd Circuit Court judge who is chair of the chamber’s public policy committee, I’d expect this regional chamber to support the kind of clear, solid, forward-looking legal foundation that the proposed ordinance amendments would provide for us as a regional community. That’s especially true given that so many people – for and against the ordinance changes – agree that the current ordinance language lacks clarity.

And the idea that the chamber would support whatever interpretation the DDA chooses to give the ordinance – in the DDA’s sole judgment, with millions of regional tax dollars at stake – is bizarre from a public policy point of view. It’s especially bizarre given that this purportedly regional chamber has access to regional public policy talent like Andy LaBarre. He’s the chamber’s vice president of government relations who’s a former staffer for Congressman John Dingell. LaBarre is also an elected representative serving on a regional governing body that has tax dollars at stake in this debate – the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

But the chamber chose to glance past the legal and public policy issues, opting instead to allow personal, petty mayoral politics to cloud its collective thinking.

What’s even more incredible is that the chamber has chosen wording for its letter – which it then recruited the other entities to sign – that would actually point an alert reader to the relevant legal and public policy issues. If the chamber itself had taken the words in its own letter more seriously, perhaps that would have guided the organization to take a position in favor of the ordinance changes.

In this column, I’ll lay out an analysis of the wording that the chamber has chosen – “… which the DDA calculates using its judgment within the standards set by the ordinance” – and explain why those words point the way to supporting the ordinance changes. [Full Story]

Even in a smaller-sized city like Ann Arbor, governmental issues can be fairly complex. Still, our local issues are typically simple enough that they can be mastered even by an ordinary citizen who can read words on a page.

However, over the last several weeks, a significant issue has been brought forward for debate that’s been portrayed by some local officials as far more complex than that.

For now, let’s not even think about what the issue might be. It could be zoning. Or dog parks. Or parking rates. Or police staffing levels. Or public art. Or express bus service. Or outdoor signs. Or none of those. Call it Issue X.

As I’ve chronicled the workings of Ann Arbor’s local governance recently, I’ve watched as two local representatives – one elected and one appointed – have seemed to portray Issue X as too mathematically challenging to grasp. I chalk that up to politics: If the math can be set aside, then the conversation can more easily move to pure politics – the strong suit of elected and appointed officials.

To be clear, Issue X is fraught with politics. But I don’t think that focusing on the politics of Issue X serves the interests of Ann Arbor residents.

Issue X is also fraught with mathematical calculations. But not everyone is comfortable with equations.

So in this column I’ll sketch out an analogy that I think, on a purely conceptual level, accurately captures the essence of Issue X – in non-mathematical, non-political terms. [Full Story]

Ann Arbor city council meeting (April 1, 2013): The council’s first meeting in April featured some progress on items that have appeared repeatedly on its agenda in the last several weeks.

After two postponements, the council gave initial approval to a set of changes to the ordinance that establishes the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The changes can be divided into those that affect board composition and those that relate to the computation of the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture.

The tax calculations have implications of roughly $1 million a year for the DDA and the taxing jurisdictions whose taxes are captured by the DDA. Those taxing jurisdictions include the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. The vote was 7-3, as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) voted no. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent. The final vote will likely come at the council’s April 15 meeting. Councilmembers are not obligated to vote the same way the second time around.

The council also wrapped up an issue that has appeared on its agenda for several meetings. At its March 18 meeting, the council had finally decided not to enact a moratorium on site plan applications in D1 (downtown core) zoning districts. Instead, the council had directed the planning commission to conduct a review of D1 zoning. But councilmembers had left open the question of the exact scope of work and the timeframe for its completion by planning commissioners. At the April 1 meeting, the council allowed the commission six months, until Oct. 1, to review the following: the appropriateness of D1 zoning on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; the residential premiums; the zoning for the University of Michigan Credit Union parking lot.

Other business was further delayed by the council. At the developer’s request, the council postponed for a second time the 413 E. Huron project, a proposed 14-story, 216-apartment building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets. That project will come back before the council at its April 15 meeting. A new public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan application was started on April 1 and will continue on April 15.

The council also postponed a second and final vote on changes to the city’s sign ordinance. The changes would prohibit any new billboards, and allow only a limited range of digital signs. That won’t come back before the council until May 6. Several people addressed the council during the public hearing. All of them worked for Adams Outdoor Advertising, and spoke in opposition to the changes. Because of the postponement, the council extended a moratorium on digital sign applications, which has now been in place for a year.

The council also extended a moratorium on spending of monies that have been set aside under the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. A revision to that ordinance, which would likely eliminate the public art set-aside but still allow for aesthetic elements to be built into a project, is expected to be brought forward in the next few weeks. The public art ordinance revisions are being crafted by a council committee that was tasked with that responsibility in December of 2012.

At its April 1 meeting, the council also approved contracts for renovations at the Gallup Park canoe livery, and the Argo and Geddes dams. In addition, the council approved a lease for additional parking in connection with the Argo Cascades.

Other business at the meeting included council approval of the notice to issue bonds for the city’s drinking water system. The council also authorized contracts in connection with street reconstruction and sidewalk repair work for the 2013 season. [Full Story]

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting (April 3, 2013): The board had no voting business on its agenda, but still dealt with serious business: the city council’s initial approval of changes to the DDA ordinance. The changes are meant to clarify the authority’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture, as well as place restrictions on board composition. [.pdf of Chapter 7 amendments]

The proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the city code, given initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting, would reduce the DDA’s TIF capture by roughly $931,000 for FY 2014 – compared to the amount the DDA would receive based on the DDA’s current interpretation of the ordinance. But in adopting its two-year budget recently, DDA did not factor in recent building projects in the downtown – which add to the increment on which the DDA can capture taxes, starting in FY 2014.

So compared to the amount of TIF revenue in the DDA’s adopted FY 2014 budget, the clarified calculations would result in only about $363,000 less TIF revenue for the DDA. And compared to the DDA’s adopted FY 2015 budget, the clarified calculations would result in about $74,000 less revenue than budgeted. The clarified calculations would result in TIF revenue to the DDA in FY 2014 and FY 2015 of $3.570 and $3.682 million, respectively.

A dispute on the clarity of the existing Chapter 7 language had emerged in May 2011 just as the DDA and the city were poised to sign a newly renegotiated agreement under which the DDA manages the public parking system. At that time, the city’s financial staff reportedly first noticed the implications of an existing Chapter 7 paragraph that appears to place a cap on the DDA’s TIF capture – a cap that’s calibrated to projections in the DDA’s TIF plan. The TIF cap rises each year based on forecast growth in the DDA’s TIF capture district.

Several board members weighed in on the issue during the April 3 meeting. The idea of any kind of cap – let alone one that’s based on estimates contained in the appendix of the DDA’s TIF plan – was sharply criticized by Joan Lowenstein, who characterized the approach as based on “a fallacy.” She also called the idea of a cap poor public policy. However, both the cap and its basis are already in the existing ordinance language that the city council’s ordinance amendment seeks to clarify.

Roger Hewitt took the board’s meeting as an opportunity to question whether the ordinance amendments actually clarify how the calculations are to be done, contending that he’d come up with different results than the city treasurer, starting from the same ordinance language. He cautioned that the DDA’s financial planning and the DDA’s budget would need to be re-evaluated – allowing for no “sacred cows” – if the council gave final approval to the ordinance changes.

Russ Collins contrasted the amount of net revenue received by the city from the geographic area of the DDA district before the DDA was established back in 1982, compared to today. The net proceeds from taxes and the public parking system (which lost about $250,000 a year during that era) came to about $1.25 million 30 years ago, according to Collins. Today, the city receives nearly $8 million annually – around $4 million in taxes, $3 million in parking revenue, and a grant to the city of roughly $0.5 million a year toward debt on the city’s new Justice Center building.

Bob Guenzel focused his remarks less on the financial side and more on the aspects of the ordinance change that would restrict future board membership. He saw no benefit to the proposed DDA term limits, noting that the city council has an opportunity to end a DDA board member’s service by deciding not to re-appoint someone to the board. John Mouat was critical of the proposed ordinance changes that would prevent elected officials of taxing jurisdictions from serving on the board, saying he’d found the participation of politically-connected people to be beneficial to the board.

The extended remarks by board members on the topic came in the context of a 7-3 vote by the city council on April 1, giving initial approval of the ordinance changes. [Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent from the meeting of the 11-member council.] A second vote, expected at the council’s April 15 meeting, would be required to enact the changes. Based on their remarks made at the council table, two of the seven votes in support of the changes – by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – were widely read as likely to change at the second vote. Ordinance changes require a six-vote majority.

In addition to discussion of the possible ordinance changes, the DDA heard its usual range of committee reports, including the monthly parking update. Public commentary related to a possible artificial ice-skating rink atop the Library Lane underground parking garage. [Full Story]