The Ann Arbor city council’s Dec. 2, 2013 agenda is comparatively light, but might not lead to an especially short meeting.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue was aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus was rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law. The caucus drew six councilmembers and a dozen members of the public, and lasted three hours.

Another topic that could extend the Dec. 2 meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules would be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

This article includes a more detailed look of many of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the Dec. 2 meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Updates might begin somewhat sooner.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. When The Chronicle interviewed Traverse City code enforcement officer Lloyd Morris by telephone, he indicated that a pedestrian merely standing at the curb, not in the roadway, would not be considered to be “within a crosswalk.” But he allowed that Traverse City enforces the language to mean that a pedestrian who is not in the roadway but approaching the crosswalk with a clear intent to enter the roadway should be given the right-of-way. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except being in the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

A pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

As that report from 2011 indicates, the abatement applies to “personal property” that’s used in book production. If that equipment is moved to the Edwards Brothers Jackson Road plant, as part of the company’s effort to consolidate operations, then that equipment would no longer qualify for the tax abatement. That’s because it will have been moved outside of the industrial development district (IDD) where the 2011 abatement was granted.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement, which now pays the city 17% of the gross parking revenues. But it also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The $45,000 proposed amount is based on an average of the estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space, as estimated in 2009. By way of background the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 per space annually.

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, and were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review by the rules committee, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted on Dec. 2. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

5:48 p.m. Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition board chair Erica Briggs has forwarded to the city council three documents – including a letter of support, and names of more than 600 people who’ve signed an online petition supporting the existing crosswalk ordinance. [.pdf of comments from supporters] [.pdf of WBWC letter to mayor and council] [.pdf of names of 668 people supporting existing crosswalk law]

6:35 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:38 p.m. Here in council chambers, the partitions are already pulled back in anticipation of a large crowd on the crosswalk ordinance. Folding chairs are set up to provide additional seating. Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living is here. Three members of the city’s commission on disability issues attended yesterday’s council caucus: Larry Keeler, Lloyd Shelton, Linda Evans.

6:49 p.m. Erica Briggs has arrived, as has Lloyd Shelton. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. City administrator Steve Powers is now here. Assistant city attorneys Mary Fales and Abigail Elias are also in council chambers.

6:49 p.m. Firefighters to be introduced have also now arrived.

6:52 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has now arrived. Chambers are beginning to fill up.

6:55 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are now here.

7:07 p.m. Chambers are now packed. We’re shoulder-to-shoulder. Much of the supplementary seating is now occupied. It will still be standing-room-only despite the additional seats.

7:12 p.m. Professor Jonathan Levine is here, as are several others who could be counted as public transportation and non-motorized advocates.

7:12 p.m. We appear to be nearly ready to begin.

7:14 p.m. And we’re off.

7:15 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance, roll call of council. All except for Margie Teall (Ward 4) are present.

7:15 p.m. Teall’s absence might affect the council’s ability to achieve a political compromise on the crosswalk ordinance.

7:15 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:17 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wants to swap the order of public hearings so that the crosswalk ordinance has its public hearing after the others. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wants to move C1 before B1. That’s Traverwood Apartments rezoning before the crosswalk ordinance.

7:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda as amended.

7:18 p.m. INT-1: Introduction of new firefighters. The current authorized staffing level for the AAFD is 85. After the FY 2013 was approved last year authorizing staffing at 82, the council approved a subsequent increase to 85, based on the receipt of some grant funding.

7:20 p.m. Assistant fire chief Ellen Taylor is introducing the new firefighters. She’s describing the one-year probationary period. She’s introducing five of the seven new firefighters in the city. They get a round of applause.

7:20 p.m. INT-2: FY 2013 audit results. The 2013 fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. The council’s audit committee reviewed the draft report on Oct. 24, 2013. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction. Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period.

7:26 p.m. Tom Crawford leads with some light humor: “I’m sure the crowd has come to hear this report.” He gets the intended laugh. Now he’s into a discussion of net assets of the city – over a billion dollars. But that’s mostly buildings and roads, not much of which can be used to pay for things, he notes. There’s $82 million that’s actually available. The general fund has a balance of about $14 million. Street repair millage had $18 million in it. Minimum balance for that fund is $9 million. Crawford explains that the apparent excess is partly due to timing of when road repair takes place. He’s talking about the potential liabilities of various funds. He highlights the public market fund – which has an adequate fund balance, but is actually weak in the context of GASB 68 requirements.

7:27 p.m. The pension system is 80% funded. VEBA is 39% funded. Their return achieved 11% last year, Crawford reports. He characterizes the general fund last year as doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. It was a good year for the general fund, he says.

7:27 p.m. INT-3: Volunteer appreciation. Phillip Delekta is being honored with a mayoral proclamation for his volunteer work with the Ann Arbor police department.

7:29 p.m. Delekta is now explaining his work with the citizens emergency response team. He’s thanking the police and fire department personnel who’ve helped. Football games, the Ann Arbor marathon and the art fairs are some events they help with. He gets a round of applause.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes just two speakers: Thomas Partridge and Henry Herskovitz. Partridge is speaking on ending discrimination. Herskovitz will be talking about the council’s 2014 meeting calendar, which will be set tonight.

7:33 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He’s using the hand-held microphone. It doesn’t seem to be working. He says he’s an advocate for all residents of the city, county and state who need advocacy due to various challenges. Sound of kids in the audience makes this tough to hear. He calls for an end to discrimination. He contends that red-lining is practiced in Ann Arbor – with respect to housing and transportation. He says the council needs to be reformed. The council should see the world through the eyes of the most unfortunate among us, he says.

7:37 p.m. Henry Herskovitz says he’s speaking about the establishment of the council’s 2014 calendar. He wants the council reconsider a decision made 10 years ago to give preference to those commenters who want to talk about items on the agenda. That was based on a desire to prevent people from talking about Palestine and Israel, he says. He’d not been able to talk to the council at its previous meeting about “blacklisting of companies by MasterCard” – because it wasn’t an agenda item.

7:37 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:39 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) leads off by announcing he’ll be putting forward a compromise amendment on the crosswalk ordinance. “That will be my first order of business,” he says. “We will not be repealing the pedestrian ordinance,” he says. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says that Kunselman means that he hopes a repeal will not happen. Added late to the agenda, she notes, are the city council committee appointments, including resolutions on the environmental commission and greenbelt commission.

7:41 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is speaking about the crosswalk ordinance. Kunselman’s compromise would strip out language that requires motorists to stop for pedestrians at the curb or curbline, Taylor stresses. Mayor John Hieftje is clarifying that the compromise would still not require motorists to stop for motorists at the curb. Kunselman reads aloud the language.

7:43 p.m. Taylor quips “with summer just around the corner” that a resolution will be brought forward in the near future (not at this meeting) about the art fairs. The council provides financial support for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, and Taylor is indicating that the art fairs should also be supported.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanks several people who are present: Matt Grocoff, Chris Hewett and Erica Briggs. A meeting will take place on Dec. 11 at Bach School at 6:30 p.m. on pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Screaming children in the audience.

7:45 p.m. Briere is calling the public’s attention to a meeting to be held on Dec. 4 at 6:30 p.m. on a presentation of results of the Allen Creek berm opening feasibility study.

7:47 p.m. CC-1 Appointment of 2014 city council committees. [.pdf of committee assignments]

7:47 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventures that nobody wants to spend time with him on the University of Michigan student relations committee.

7:48 p.m. Hieftje says that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) was going to be asked to serve. Eaton asks when it meets. Hieftje explains that it’s not regular. Eaton accepts the assignment.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the committee assignments.

7:50 p.m. Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA) appointment. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to LDFA.

Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Petersen to the LDFA.

7:51 p.m. Planning commission, greenbelt advisory commission. Briere is returned to the planning commission and Taylor to the greenbelt advisory commission by a unanimous vote.

7:52 p.m. Environmental commission. Anglin and Briere are appointed to the environmental commission.

7:52 p.m. Commission on disabilities. The council has established a position for a councilmember and appointed Petersen to that spot.

7:52 p.m. CC-2 Approval of 2014 city council rules. Internal business tonight includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules] That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.”

At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations. [For additional background see Internal Council Business above.]

7:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt its rules for the year.

7:53 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayoral communications fall typically into two categories: (1) nominations to boards and commissions that will be voted on at a subsequent meeting; and (2) requests for confirmation of nominations that have been made at a previous meeting.

7:53 p.m. MC-1 Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the nomination of David Blanchard, put forward at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, to the housing and human services advisory board.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm David Blanchard’s appointment to the housing and human services board. It runs through June 4, 2016.

7:53 p.m. MC-2 Nomination. Elizabeth Bletcher is being nominated to replace Al Gallup on the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee. For some historical background on the Elizabeth Dean Fund, see “Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed.” That nomination will be voted on at a future meeting.

7:53 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight three public hearings appear on the agenda. The first is on the repeal of the crosswalk law. The second is on establishing an industrial development district (to facilitate granting a tax abatement) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. The third is on a site plan to build a three-story addition to Running Fit at the corner of Liberty Street and Fourth Avenue downtown. The order of the hearings was changed at the beginning of the meeting, so that the crosswalk law public hearing will come last.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Establish Industrial Development District at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Luke Bonner, vice president of business development for Ann Arbor SPARK, is addressing the council. The petition was initiated by the property owner, he says. The establishment of a district will allow a tenant there, Mahindra Genze, to then apply for a tax abatement.

7:58 p.m. Alan Clark is addressing the council as a Ward 3 resident working at a start-up, called Mahindra Genze. It was started in the basement of the chief engineer. The location at Phoenix Drive has “max-ed out,” he says. Another new hire came in today, Clark says, and there’s around 25 employees there. Clark moved to Ann Arbor from Washington D.C. to become the seventh employee. He’s describing the product: an electric scooter. They’ll sell the product nationally, he says. There’s international interest in the product as well.

7:59 p.m. Clark says the company is looking to hire another 34 employees and wants to start production early next summer.

8:01 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says he’s usually conservative with respect to such requests. But he’s endorsing this request. He calls for the establishment of a larger district, he says, which was the point of the state’s enabling legislation.

8:02 p.m. Here are the names of the firefighters who were introduced earlier: Brian Schotthoefer; George Allard; Nicholas Kaczor; Christopher McGlothin; John Crowell; Ryan Newkirk; and Christopher Brown.

8:03 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:04 p.m. PH-3 Running Fit addition site plan. Architect Brad Moore is addressing the council. The expansion will add more stories for residential units. He notes that there were previously more stories before it burned back in the 1950s. He notes that the city’s historic district commission gave it a unanimous approval, as did the planning commission.

8:05 p.m. Thomas Partridge contends that there’s been a history of discrimination involved in zoning and site plan approvals. The site plan should be re-examined with respect to accessibility issues, he contends. Affordable housing is needed, he says.

8:07 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Crosswalk ordinance change. Hieftje asks people to line up and be ready to speak.

8:08 p.m. Hieftje advises that it’s not required to use the whole three minutes, but people can do so. Erica Briggs, chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, leads off.

8:11 p.m. Briggs urges the council not to repeal the ordinance. She says that the Kunselman compromise really does amount to a repeal. She’s ticking through familiar points. She’s citing pedestrian crashes so far this year – 36, and  she contends that this reflects a 16% decrease since the ordinance was passed. She cites the community-wide support for the ordinance. She invites people to stand who are against the repeal. The vast majority of people here are standing.

8:15 p.m. James Briggs addresses the council from his wheelchair. City clerk Jackie Beaudry then reads aloud his statement on his behalf. “It boils my blood,” says the statement, to see the ordinance repealed. He calls the approach that some councilmembers are taking one that asks people to “check your brains at the door.”

8:15 p.m. Katie Brion tells the council that she walks to school with her kids crossing Madison to get to Bach Elementary School. After the ordinance passed, she’s seen a huge improvement, she says. Enforcement should be the focus, she says.

8:18 p.m. Judy Stone speaks in favor of retaining the ordinance. She’s relating her experience almost hitting someone. She’s paid more attention to pedestrian crossings, since the installation of flashing lights, she says. The response to say “get rid of this system” goes in the wrong direction. It’s her own responsibility to modify her behavior, she says. Elderly people or people with children in tow shouldn’t have to put themselves in harm’s way, she says. Stone calls for a strong and ongoing educational campaign. “We need to keep at it,” she says. It would be shortsighted to repeal the ordinance, she says.

8:20 p.m. Matt Grocoff introduces himself as a resident of Seventh Street. He relates his experience taking his daughter back home and attempting to cross the street. The traffic was heavy and fast. He waited at the crosswalk with his daughter in his arms. Cars didn’t stop. Then an Ann Arbor Public Schools bus went through the crosswalk as he was already standing there with his child in his arms, he reports. He’s posted a video of the encounter on Safety on Seventh. He calls for a sober, thoughtful process.

8:24 p.m. Cory Snavely supports the ordinance as it stands. The point of contention, he says, is which pedestrians have the right-of-way, so Kunselman’s compromise doesn’t really do anything for that. He applauds the installation of the HAWK signal and pedestrian islands. He noticed a difference, he says, when the ordinance was passed. The only safe street to step into is one with no cars or cars that are stopped, he says.

8:26 p.m. Charles recalls spending a year in the hospital after being struck by a car. “When a car hits you, it wins, no question,” he says. He was proud that the ordinance had been passed and calls it a demonstration that Ann Arbor is a progressive town. He talks about how M.A.D.D. had changed culture with respect to drunk driving. And he calls for a similar cultural change for pedestrian safety.

8:28 p.m. Lloyd Shelton leads off by saying that the setup for addressing the council is not accessible. He’s astounded and disappointed that the city council would leave him out of the equation. “To put the onus on me is wrong. I would wag my finger at you if I could,” he says. Kunselman’s amendment is “exclusionary,” he says.

8:31 p.m. Annie Wolock tells the council she’s lived in Ann Arbor for 35 years. She wonders if repealing or changing the law is the right way to approach citizen safety. She calls for more law enforcement and education. Changing the law now will lead to more confusion, she says. “We need to stay the course,” she says and reevaluate after 10 years. She calls for tabling the issue.

8:34 p.m. Marissa Arnold has been a bus driver at UM for 15 years. She’s noticed a shift in culture for pedestrians. On a daily basis, pedestrians don’t do what their mothers taught them, she says – they just go out into the street. She says that pedestrians think that because they have an ordinance to back them up, they can just walk across the street without checking traffic. She calls for balance. She calls for more education. “Everyone has somewhere they need to go and be,” she says. So she supports the amendment of the ordinance as Kunselman is proposing. It’s too difficult to assess the intent of someone standing at the curb, she says.

8:37 p.m. Jeff Hayner urges the council to increase education, engineering and enforcement of the current ordinance. Failing that, he’s in favor of repealing it. He’s spoken to thousands of people, he says. [He ran for Ward 1 city council earlier this year.] He heard from a lot of people who wanted to see the crosswalk ordinance repealed. But he’s not sure that’s the right thing to do. He says that the lack of engineering leads to people not knowing what to do – giving the example of three crosswalks in succession that are marked in different ways. He calls education of pedestrians and their responsibilities an important priority.

8:39 p.m. Another UM blue bus operator [Kwajalynn Burks] is addressing the council. She wants more HAWK signals. Other drivers are always trying to beat her somewhere, she says. Pedestrians feel entitled, she says, which could lead to a fatality. At some intersections near campus, there’s no end to the pedestrian flow, she says. The “pedestrian rules” type of marketing has pushed pedestrians to adopt that mindset, she says.

8:42 p.m. Helen Aminoff says she’s lived here since 1960. The push to repeal the crosswalk law was prompted by the tragedy of a death in a Plymouth Road crosswalk, she says. That incident was not a result of the crosswalk ordinance, she points out. The driver had passed a car that had been stopped at the crosswalk and struck the pedestrian, she says. There’s room for improvement and tweaking, she allows, but she doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

8:44 p.m. Ted Reynolds relates an experience from 10 years ago. He was in the middle of a crosswalk when he saw a car come through a red light. He dodged the car, but fell and struck his head on the pavement. His brain had lost the connection to his right foot. He has not driven since then. He says he didn’t want to become an old geezer who rams into people in a crosswalk. He’s against anything that makes it easier for drivers to go through crosswalks and strike pedestrians.

8:45 p.m. Emma Wendt is advocating for the current crosswalk ordinance. She says she wants more of her peers to move to Ann Arbor. It’s a walkable, liveable, progressive city, she says. But her friends on the coast find it odd that she likes living in the Midwest. When they hear that Ann Arbor is planning to repeal the crosswalk ordinance, they’re aghast, she says.

8:47 p.m. Chris reports that he was hit in 1980 by a car. He was on the sidewalk on a ramp and the person turned left. A good buddy of his, a “little person” in a wheelchair, was crossing Stone School, he says, and was killed. An apparatus needs to be set up to make cars slow down, he says.

8:48 p.m. The gentleman now addressing the council supports the current ordinance. Before he moved to Ann Arbor, he says, he was director of disability resources for a university in Illinois. Each of you will have a disability if you don’t die first, he tells the council.

8:51 p.m. John Weir is a Ward 4 resident. He walks where he goes – by choice. It matters a lot to him to live in a place where he feels safe and doesn’t need to own a car. That matters to a lot of his peers, he says. The other towns and cities of Michigan are not the only places that compete with Ann Arbor. The norm for Boston, where he’s from, he says, is better education and enforcement than Ann Arbor. “We can do better,” he says.

8:53 p.m. Don Whitaker has lived in Ann Arbor for 28 years and he supports the current ordinance. He’s an automotive engineer and commutes to Detroit every day. He was proud of the council when the council passed the ordinance originally, calling it a progressive move. Walkable cities are good for property values, he says. The main reason we should have the ordinance is safety, but a vision of a better community for everybody is also important. We need to work on education of pedestrians and motorists alike, he says.

8:56 p.m. Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, speaks in favor of keeping the current ordinance. She says there’s a lot of work to be done on engineering and education. She points out that in 1978, the law changed so that you’re supposed to stop for people with white canes. Before the ordinance, it took 35 minutes for someone with a white cane to cross, she says, which is not acceptable. She agreed with the UM bus drivers that pedestrians also need education.

8:58 p.m. Steven Kronenberg cautions against the idea that it should be an issue of motorists versus pedestrians. He points out the link between the amount of traffic on the roads and the number of parents who drive their children to school. He urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:02 p.m. Tricia Jones introduces herself as a Ward 5 resident. She feels for the UM bus drivers who spoke, but says that students have behaved that way forever. The recent data at non-signalized intersections, she says, show that incidents have decreased from 34 to 11 – but she allows that it’s just for 10 months of the year. She urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:03 p.m. Andrew Peters is a student at UM law school. He and his wife chose Ann Arbor over Boulder and Manhattan. They didn’t know about the crosswalk ordinance before they moved here. But when they visited they noticed that people were able to walk around the city. He was concerned that before something is changed – about something that makes Ann Arbor what it is – more thought should be given to it.

9:05 p.m. Julie Grand says that she visited some personal websites of councilmembers. She’s quoting their own sentiments at them to argue for waiting for a recommendation from the pedestrian safety task force.

9:08 p.m. Jonathan Levine said he’s relieved that Kunselman is bringing forward an amendment that would still require motorists to stop. A number of states are updating their laws from “yield” laws to “stop” laws, he says. If Ann Arbor is going to be different from the rest of Michigan, it’s important to think about how it should be different. He argues from the point of view of how to treat the negligent pedestrian versus the patient pedestrian. A law requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians standing at the curb rewards patient pedestrianism, he says.

9:11 p.m. Ken Clark notes that Michigan actually doesn’t have a law on crosswalks. He reviewed all the 2012 pedestrian crashes. 77% of the crashes last year were assessed by the police as the fault of drivers, he says.

9:14 p.m. Jeff Gaynor, a teacher at Clague Middle School who’s on the school’s Safe Routes to School committee, explains how the group had applied for a grant. Three of the engineered crosswalks had been installed on Green Road with that money, he says. In his 35 years of teaching, he’d taken his students on hundreds of field trips and taught them how to cross the street. There has been an increase in the number of cars that stop, he says, but the behavior is not yet universal.

9:15 p.m. Gaynor says that he can’t tell his students to step off the curb and hope that cars will stop.

9:17 p.m. Mike Miller says he logs 30-35 miles a week walking different routes. He thinks that the ordinance has made things better. He thinks Kunselman’s amendment is a step backwards. He calls for more engineering and education. He thinks that stoplights might be put in on certain streets. Through enforcement we could get a more effective law, he says.

9:19 p.m. Julia Roberts is speaking as a resident (she’s an AAATA transit planner). She’s lived in Ann Arbor for eight years – having moved here from Chicago. She’s proud of the ordinance that was passed. The crosswalk law isn’t responsible for reckless driving or walking. She asks for the council to wait for a recommendation by the pedestrian safety task force.

9:20 p.m. Tony Pinnell, a translator for European companies, advises the council that repealing the ordinance would send a bad message – and would be bad business.

9:21 p.m. Chip Smith says he lives in Ann Arbor to give his daughter a chance to walk to school. In the 18 years he’s lived here, the city has made progress but it’s still not a walkable city. He calls for the council to wait until the pedestrian safety task force can make a recommendation.

9:23 p.m. Mary Benson describes the situation as “Russian Roulette.” She thinks the issue isn’t addressed in either version of the ordinance. “I think we need more red lights,” she says. That’s universally understood. People don’t know what the flashing beacons mean. “We can educate until hell freezes over,” she says. There will still be 10,000 new drivers every year, she says. She also calls for enforcement of jaywalking laws.

9:24 p.m. Larry Deck says that he doesn’t see how Kunselman’s amendment gets to the heart of the matter. He encourages the council to wait for the recommendation of the pedestrian safety task force. He calls for a culture of mutual respect.

9:26 p.m. Ed Vielmetti says he started looking at maps of pedestrian crashes. Many of them happen near UM campus and downtown. There are two problems. One is main arteries along big long stretches. The other problem is downtown pedestrian safety, where cars are turning. He cites State Street as a particularly difficult area.

9:30 p.m. Kathy Griswold says that almost 10 years ago she spoke to the council and asked why Ann Arbor couldn’t be more like some other cities. But Ann Arbor doesn’t want to do the work, she said, to enforce existing ordinances. She contends that the crosswalk ordinance was borne out of a desire to help Ann Arbor win awards. Ann Arbor’s crosswalk ordinance isn’t consistent with AAPS school safety rules, she says, or with the state’s UTC. She contends that a professional engineer hasn’t been heard from. She asks if the city wants to work hard or just have an ordinance.

9:31 p.m. Robert Gordon addresses the council as a Ward 3 resident. He says this is a “rush” to repeal. He calls for waiting for the pedestrian safety task force to make its recommendation.

9:34 p.m. Thomas Partridge recounts his various candidacies for public office. He calls for using scientific data and for enacting ordinances to make a better community. Councilmembers come to meetings having made decisions before the meetings, no matter how many people come to the podium to make reasoned, logical arguments, he contends. He’d attended his first caucus meeting yesterday, when they had spoken in emotionally committed ways to the repeal. He calls the language of the ordinance “muddled.” He tells councilmembers to put themselves in a wheelchair and then try to cross Huron Street.

9:36 p.m. Karen Moorhead asks the council to move carefully and slowly. She hopes that the council might reconsider how much the ordinance means. Think about enforcement, engineering, and education, she says.

9:37 p.m. Recess. The public hearing on the crosswalk ordinance is done. We’re now in recess.

9:49 p.m. And we’re back.

9:50 p.m. Approval of minutes from previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just one item: a resolution to approve purchase order for Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) for annual geographic information system (GIS) software maintenance and license agreement ($58,900).

9:51 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration, but no one moves to separate out the one item from itself.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the consent agenda.

9:51 p.m. C-1 Approve rezoning for Traverwood Apartments. The council is being asked to give initial approval for rezoning of a 3.88 acre parcel for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office research light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The site plan for this project, being developed by First Martin Corp., is not being considered by the council tonight. But the $30 million project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. [For additional background, see Traverwood Apartments above.]

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning necessary for the Traverwood Apartments project. A final vote will come at a future council meeting after a public hearing.

9:52 p.m. B-1 Crosswalk ordinance. The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote. Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping. Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. …

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?” [For additional background in the preview above: Crosswalk Law]

9:53 p.m. Kunselman leads off by calling it a great discussion with the citizenry. That had led to the effort not to repeal but to amend the ordinance, he says. It would also make it more consistent with the language on the city’s signs, he says. He now reads forth the ordinance in its entirety.

9:54 p.m. The key part is “shall stop and yield the right of way to every pedestrian within a crosswalk …”

9:55 p.m. Hieftje says that Kunselman can just substitute the amendment in place of the previous repeal, without a vote.

9:57 p.m. Kunselman says that the issue has been talked about for several months. The death on Plymouth Road was very emotional, he says. Whether that death resulted from the words in the ordinance, it was a situation to be taken seriously, he says. Kunselman complains that Erica Briggs of WBWC had taken the conversation he’d had with her and used it as “propaganda.”

9:58 p.m. Kunselman reviews the Traverse City ordinance, which requires stopping, but doesn’t talk about pedestrians anywhere except within a crosswalk.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman argues from the point of view of uniformity. We don’t want to have confusion among drivers trying to guess how to operate, he says. About the crash data, he says, any decrease can’t be attributed to the crosswalk language. He says that the citizenry has called for more enforcement and education. So at the next council meeting, “by golly” he’s going to propose a budget amendment to fund more traffic enforcement.

10:03 p.m. Kailasapathy says that it’s not the case that councilmembers were asking pedestrians to step into traffic. And it’s not acceptable to have to wait a long time to cross the street, she says. “We’re telling you to wait and find a gap,” she says. She calls for HAWK and other signals and infrastructure. She supports any amendments to the budget to support this – like hiring more police, or spending money on infrastructure. The marginal rate of return on pedestrian infrastructure is greater than investing in something like a rail station, she says.

10:06 p.m. Lumm agrees with investing in infrastructure and enforcement capability as budget priorities. She appreciates everyone coming out to speak. She’s talking about the crash data. She says it can’t be used as a definitive argument either way. She’s reviewing the history of the crosswalk ordinance changes.

10:07 p.m. Lumm says she tried back in 2011 to get the crosswalk ordinance language revised to refer only to “within a crosswalk.”

10:10 p.m. Briere says that Lumm is correct that the data doesn’t support a particular conclusion. November and December – for which 2013 data is not available – are months when accidents have historically been higher, she says. Briere says the question is what problem they’re trying to fix. The public has said more education, enforcement and engineering is necessary. So she doesn’t see how changing the ordinance helps. She says that accidents happening with pedestrians are in the crosswalk, not when cars are stopping for pedestrians stopping on the curb.

10:11 p.m. Briere clarifies what a “traffic signal” is: a red-yellow-green light. So it doesn’t include flashing beacons or stop signs, she explains.

10:11 p.m. Briere notes that the ordinance doesn’t apply to most downtown locations.

10:13 p.m. Briere says she’s going to reflect more on this issue. But she says she’ll paraphrase Jeff Hayner, who ran against her this last election – he had called for education, enforcement, and engineering, not repealing the ordinance.

10:14 p.m. Anglin is for spending the money on education and engineering. Right now there are too many irregularities, he says. He notes that many of the drivers are parents driving their kids to school. He says he’ll support the Kunselman amendment, and says it’s important to follow through and support it.

10:15 p.m. We’re in a state of confusion, Anglin says. And until that confusion is removed, we won’t have a safe community.

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski says he doesn’t see how the Kunselman amendment lines up with the rhetoric of uniformity. He likes his irony like he likes his coffee: bitter. Tomorrow is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities, he points out.

10:19 p.m. Warpehoski talks about his goals for the pedestrian safety task force. He’s not convinced that an inappropriate sense of pedestrian empowerment exists. He doesn’t buy that argument – but allows that that’s a data question. That data could be collected, he says, or the council could take a fire-ready-aim approach.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski says that he walks a lot, with his kids. And he says he’s noticed that things have improved since the ordinance was passed. He says he feels safer as a pedestrian since the ordinance was passed. He says he’ll vote no on Kunselman’s proposal.

10:23 p.m. Taylor says he rejects the idea that Kunselman’s proposal is a compromise. He’s ok with Ann Arbor being different with its crosswalk law. No ordinance can protect drivers or pedestrians from negligence, he says. He repeats an argument from the Nov. 18 meeting – that the ordinance can’t be so powerful to embolden pedestrians but too weak to compel motorists to stop. He calls the budgetary amendments that others have talked about “chest thumping.”

10:24 p.m. Taylor says that the alleged confusion and fear has been “sown” and is not real, because the ordinance is very simple.

10:28 p.m. Eaton thanks everyone who showed up to speak. But he also says his vote is informed by those he talked to during his council campaign. The small numbers in the data, he says, mean that conclusions can’t be drawn. Eaton calls for a real education program and a real enforcement regime. “Here were are again tinkering with the ordinance,” he says. Ultimately, the money will have to be spent, like Griswold said, Eaton says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen says that she’s struggled with the logic of the ordinance. She says the data doesn’t show that increasing the right-of-way for pedestrians has increased safety. Petersen is skeptical that enforcement of the current ordinance would actually work. And she’s skeptical that effective education is possible in a transient community. Pedestrians should take full responsibility for their own safety, she says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen puts her faith in engineering. She says she’ll support an ADA compliant pedestrian bridge over Plymouth Road.

10:35 p.m. Warpehoski says he can count votes and realizes that he’s not going to win this one. But some comments of colleagues have gotten under his skin. He responds to Eaton’s characterization of the engineering efforts to date by saying the staff should be applauded for their efforts. Warpehoski explains that Petersen’s characterization of how a pedestrian claims the right-of-way is not correct. He agrees that pedestrians need to take responsibility for their own safety, but argues that pedestrians can best do that when they’re standing on the curb and can expect that motorists can stop.

10:36 p.m. Petersen responds to Warpehoski by saying that what he’s describing is ideal and that there’s not adequate enforcement to get to the point where motorists will actually stop.

10:39 p.m. Taylor says there’s are those who are unable to make the judgment as to whether it’s safe to enter the roadway. Under the current ordinance, it’s proper for the motorist to stop for someone just standing at the curb. Taylor says that the public speaker who talked about the culture change associated with drunk driving made a good analogy. That casts interesting light on where we are as a culture, he says.

10:42 p.m. Briere says that Petersen wants better enforcement, engineering and education and thinks there’s no way to achieve those goals, and thinks that the ordinance needs to be changed. She ticks through a paraphrase of positions taken by Eaton and Kailasapathy. Briere says that as more cars stop for pedestrians, more and more cars will stop for pedestrians. When drivers are not prepared to see a pedestrian – because they don’t have to stop for pedestrians – then they’re not prepared to stop for a person with a white cane or a person in a wheelchair, she says.

10:44 p.m. Briere also says that for “foreigners,” the more they see people stop for pedestrians, the more those “foreigners” will stop for pedestrians.

10:46 p.m. Hieftje says that in light of the closed session that’s scheduled, he would like to have the council suspend the council rule that requires a closed session to begin before 11 p.m. That rule is now suspended. Now back to the crosswalk ordinance.

10:48 p.m. Lumm is arguing against tabling. She says there’s been a lot of debate about the ordinance. Lumm is now holding forth with prepared comments.

10:50 p.m. Lumm’s comments are based essentially on an argument for uniformity across Michigan.

10:53 p.m. Hieftje corrects Anglin’s previous statement that “most bicyclists get hit” saying that some do but most don’t. Hieftje says he doesn’t think there’s a case in the data for changing the ordinance.

10:55 p.m. Hieftje talks about a video that the council had been shown years ago that showed pedestrians not using a pedestrian bridge. That’s a response to Petersen’s expression of support to build a pedestrian bridge on Plymouth Road.

10:56 p.m. Hieftje says that education, better signage, and engineering will help. But he doesn’t see how changing the ordinance will help. He doesn’t see the logic of requiring a person in a wheelchair to roll out into the road to see if cars are going to stop.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-4 to change the ordinance. But Hieftje says he will veto the change.

11:00 p.m. DC-1 Establish 2014 city council calendar. In this item, the council is complying with a charter requirement: “The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month.” The pattern of the council’s regular meetings is: First and third Monday of the month with a work session on the second Monday.

11:00 p.m. Briere raises the question of a conflict with Passover.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm its calendar of regular meetings.

11:00 p.m. DC-2 Approve city policy regarding removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. The council is considering establishing a value for on-street parking spaces, in situations where the builder of a project makes a proposal that results in the loss of an on-street metered parking space. The $45,000 proposed amount is based an average of an estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space.

By way of background the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent financial records show that last year on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually. [For additional background, see Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces above.]

11:01 p.m. Taylor says he’s going to ask for a postponement. A public hearing is recommended, he says, for any kind of fee. So he moves to have it postponed until Dec. 16.

11:01 p.m. Briere asks if there’s sufficient time to give notice or a public hearing. There is.

11:02 p.m. Lumm thanks Taylor for bringing it forward. She agrees with the concept. She thanks staff for their answers to questions.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the question of how much it should cost to remove an on-street parking space.

11:03 p.m. DB-1 Approve Running Fit addition site plan. The site plan entails a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. [For additional background, see Running Fit Addition above.]

11:03 p.m. Hieftje says he supports the project.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Running Fit addition.

11:03 p.m. DB-2 Accept donation of 2.2 acres from W. Martin. The council is being asked to consider of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site for Traverwood Apartments. Earlier in the meeting, the council gave initial approval to a zoning change related to the project. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course. [image of map showing location]

11:05 p.m. Briere says she wants to make sure the official record reflects the correct size of the donation.

11:05 p.m. She thanks Martin for the donation.

11:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the acreage as a donation from Bill Martin to the city.

11:05 p.m. DS-1 Approve contract with Emergency Restoration Company ($729,000). The contract is for asbestos abatement in city hall. The council is being asked appropriate $400,000 in funds for the contract.

11:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract for asbestos abatement in city hall.

11:06 p.m. DS-2 Approve contract with Nova Environmental Inc. ($35,600). This is a contract for an air monitoring project during the city hall asbestos abatement project.

11:08 p.m. Anglin wants to know why this contract would not be included in the one for the work itself. Matt Kulhanek explains that this contractor would be overseeing the work of the other contractor. That’s why the items are separate.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the air monitoring contract.

11:08 p.m. DS-3 Establishing a tax abatement district at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Once an industrial development district (IDD) is established, the property owner can apply for a tax abatement. The consideration of the tax abatement is a separate vote, which will be taken at a future meeting.

11:12 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for CFO Tom Crawford. She gets confirmation that the point is eventually to allow for application for a tax abatement. Crawford says that abatements can be requested for any new investment, not just personal property. She wants to know how much the value of the tax abatement would be. She notes that the company, Mahindra Genze, is a large company in India, like GE here. So it’s not really a small start-up. The amount of the investment would be $1.6 million. That’s $25,000 in total tax and the general fund portion of the city would be less, he says.

11:13 p.m. Crawford responds to Kailasapathy by explaining that the question for the council to weigh is whether the company has alternative locations. Kailasapathy wonders if this isn’t just a “race to the bottom” among various communities vying to attract the company.

11:16 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that another consideration was that it would be a manufacturing operation, which is underrepresented in Ann Arbor. The fact that it’s located in an identified important corridor is also important. Kailasapathy gets confirmation that the tax abatement would likely be around three years, but could be up to 12 years.

11:18 p.m. Eaton reports that he’d had the opportunity to sit down with Luke Bonner of Ann Arbor SPARK and Alan Clark of Mahindra Genze. But he’s skeptical about tax abatements. He gets confirmation that the district is attached to the property, not the tenant. Crawford notes that Ann Arbor’s practice is to close the district after the original intent is fulfilled.

11:21 p.m. Eaton says when he looked up the city’s policy, it has a sunset clause. Crawford says that the policy is supposed to be reviewed. Eaton quotes the policy that makes clear that it does end and has already expired. Crawford: “I stand corrected.” Crawford notes that the prior city policy reflects the state’s criteria, so it’s not as if there’s no guidance.

11:23 p.m. Hieftje says that if the investment weren’t made by this company, the city wouldn’t get any tax revenue. Crawford says there’s a history of neighboring jurisdictions aggressively pursuing companies. Hieftje agrees with Kailasapathy’s characterization of the process as a “race to the bottom.” But these are the rules that the state of Michigan has set up, he says.

11:27 p.m. Petersen asks Crawford how common tax abatement is as an economic development tool. Crawford says that very few are done in Ann Arbor – in his nine years, it’s been done for around nine companies, he thinks. Ann Arbor SPARK’s Luke Bonner clarifies that it was a multi-state competition for the location. There were internal forces within Mahindra Genze that would have preferred the manufacturing location to be in a southern state. Previously, Bonner worked in Sterling Heights, where the personal property tax revenue was about $10 million, which he describes as about what all of Washtenaw County generates. That was a function of a policy to grant tax abatements.

11:31 p.m. Petersen supports this as important for economic development, which is a council priority. “I just think this makes sense for us,” she says.

11:31 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to support this, echoing Hieftje’s comments about these being the rules of the game. Lumm says she’s also not crazy about tax abatements because they pit one community against another. But she thinks the addition of jobs and the particular technology is a good fit for Ann Arbor. Kunselman also says he met with the representatives of the company, and he’s excited about the product. It’s located in one of the poorest parts of the city, he says, and he hopes that some of those jobs go to locals.

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to establish the IDD at 1901 E. Ellsworth.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Approve agreement University Of Michigan for municipal parking citation processing, collections and record management services. This is the renewal of an agreement with the University for processing parking tickets.

11:32 p.m. Hieftje says that last Saturday, UM was clocking speeders on Huron Street. He points out that UM does write tickets on city streets.

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the agreement with UM for parking ticket processing.

11:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve six-month extension of installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor to finance purchase of former Y lot. ($3,500,000). In the event that completion of due diligence on the pending sale of the old Y lot is not done by Dec. 16 – the date on which the city’s $3.5 million balloon payment is due – this approval will allow the city to continue the financing arrangement it has with Bank of Ann Arbor for six months. [For additional background, see Bank of Ann Arbor Loan.]

11:34 p.m. Briere says, “It’s my hope we never use this.” City administrator Steve Powers says that next week might be ambitious, but by the end of the year, the sale would almost certainly be completed. Lumm thanks the Bank of Ann Arbor for the terms, which include no prepayment penalty.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension of the financing arrangement with Bank of Ann Arbor on the former Y lot.

11:37 p.m. Communications from council. Warpehoski follows up on Lloyd Shelton’s comment during the crosswalk public hearing. He says that Shelton is right about the accessibility of the council chambers. “We should be doing better as a seat of government for people with disabilities,” he says. People should not face an undue burden to address the council or be employed, he says. The configuration would not allow for a mayor or city administrator who uses a wheelchair. Briere points out that the chambers was built to serve as a courtroom.

11:37 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:40 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He reminds the council of the commitment to put items on the agenda in time for people to read them in advance and be able to comment on those items. The council appointments had not been added in a timely way, he points out. He also points out that the amendment on the crosswalk ordinance was not added until just minutes before the discussion. People would like to see the agenda settled on Friday, he notes.

11:41 p.m. Kathy Griswold says it was a major omission to not have a professional engineer recommendation for the original ordinance change. Having one person veto the revision puts a great burden on that one person, she says.

11:42 p.m. Closed session. The council is asked to go into closed session. The purpose is to discuss a privileged attorney-client memo that will be in writing, says assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to go into closed session.

12:05 a.m. We’re back.

12:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Dec. 2 meeting agenda.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue might be aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus has been rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, in part to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law.

Another topic that could extend the meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the city shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets –  although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules will be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

A pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee, which met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Stephen Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The discussion provided some clarity about what’s feasible with respect to the DDA’s role in enforcing parking regulations. And though parking enforcement appeared ready to slide completely off the table at the last committee meeting due to practical concerns, it appears now that the issue could be back in play, at least from the perspective of technical feasibility.

Concerns of Main Street merchants were also aired at the meeting, with Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, addressing the two committees to suggest that any additional payment by the DDA to the city be partially earmarked for downtown public safety – that is, downtown police patrols.

But the highlight of the meeting was a more fleshed-out version of an outline that DDA executive director Susan Pollay provided, which describes a process by which the DDA would lead the community in comprehensive site-planning for the downtown’s city-owned surface parking lots, based on work that’s been done over the last half-decade – including the Calthorpe process, the A2D2 rezoning process, and the downtown plan.

DDA board member Russ Collins wanted to know if the process addressed any specifics regarding payments from the DDA to the city. Pollay responded to Collins by acknowledging that DDA board member Newcombe Clark – who does not serve on the DDA’s MBC – was keen to see the DDA purchase land from the city as part of the process. She indicated that would be a topic addressed by the DDA at its retreat, scheduled for Sept. 22.

However, the focus for Monday morning’s meeting, said Pollay, was not on the idea of land purchases, but rather on a comprehensive site-planning process: If the process feels like it resonates, she said, then the discussion could move on later to include land purchases. City councilmember Carsten Hohnke then zeroed in on a crucial question: “How do we come to a conclusion it’s resonating?”

DDA-Led Development Process of City-Owned Lots

DDA board member Gary Boren followed up Hohnke’s question – about how to conclude that the process described by Pollay was resonating – with a more specific one: With whom is it resonating? For his part, Hohnke said, “It’s resonating with me!” Hohnke went on to say that he felt it was resonating with councilmember Christopher Taylor, who’d left the meeting shortly before it adjourned. Before he left, Taylor had said that “Broadly speaking, I’m pleased with the direction.” Margie Teall, the third member of the council’s committee, was absent.

What was it that was resonating with Hohnke and Taylor about the proposed DDA-led development process for city-owned surface parking lots? Many of the key features of the plan were provided in outline form at the two committees’ last meeting, on Aug. 23.

One basic theme of the proposal is to start not from scratch, but rather to build on the discussions that have taken place over the last five years in connection with initiatives like the Calthorpe process, the A2D2 rezoning process, and the downtown plan. Another basic theme is a focus on a comprehensive approach to downtown – not every parcel must provide all amenities. The process also stresses the integration of professional expertise.

Pollay walked the two committees through the four-page document.

DDA-Led Development: Overview of Current City-Run Process

The first page of the document is devoted to a sketch of the city’s approach to development of city-owned property downtown, illustrated by examples drawn from the last decade:

• Ashley Mews, a project approved at Main & Packard in 2000 and constructed in 2001.
• A project at First & Washington with Liberty First that was terminated in 2003 despite an approved development agreement.
• William Street Station at Fifth & William, which had a site plan approved and a purchase agreement negotiated, but ended in a lawsuit against the city.
• City Apartments at First & Washington, which is a Village Green project receiving site plan approval in 2008, with a purchase agreement recently extended by the city council to spring 2011.

The two most recent efforts to develop city-owned parcels using an RFP (request for proposals) process are: 415 W. Washington, which generated three local responses, none of which were selected; and the Library Lot on top of the underground parking garage being built along Fifth Avenue – a review committee has winnowed six proposals down to two, with those two currently being evaluated by a consultant.

As described in the document that Pollay provided, the city’s current process begins with city council direction to issue an RFP for city-owned property. The RFP is drafted by city staff, then disseminated via the city’s website or by email. An advisory committee is established by the city council to oversee review, interviews are held, a recommendation is made, and city staff oversee negotiations with the developer.

DDA-Led Development: Background Research – Expertise/Information

The first step the DDA would undertake would be to assemble information and expertise about the whole downtown area, and to integrate it with the city’s existing planning documents: the downtown plan, the central area plan, and the the new A2D2 zoning regulations.

Some of the work would take the form of developing an inventory of sites with detailed physical information about those sites – from square footage to soil conditions. The inventory would also include a breakdown by the city’s planning staff of all the specific zoning requirements for each site – the basic zoning, plus the character district overlays, adjacent historic districts, and the like.

Public services city staff – led by public services area administrator Sue McCormick – would be called upon to provide information on stormwater and sanitary sewage systems, with estimates on upgrades that could be required if parcels were  developed to their maximum density. At Monday’s meeting, McCormick weighed in for the comprehensive approach that’s called for, saying it could allow for costs for infrastructure upgrades to be spread across developments, instead of saddling a single “first-in” development with all the costs. Detroit Edison would be asked to provide information on electric capacity, and Ann Arbor SPARK would be tapped for information on any state and federal grants that could be used for downtown redevelopment.

Expertise from other communities where successful downtown development has occurred – elected officials, developers and others – would be invited to Ann Arbor to explain how that successful development happened.

A real estate consultant would be hired to assist in the process by identifying what current real estate development looks like, what kind of lease rates are prevalent and what prices land is selling for. The real estate consultant would help identify for each specific site the exact set of information that would need to be assembled.

DDA-Led Development: Community Work – Goals Plan

The second section in the development document focuses on integrating previous work done in and by the community with the process of more comprehensive, but detailed, planning of individual sites. At Monday’s meeting, Pollay stressed that “this is not just another planning exercise.” This kind of planning would go beyond the Calthorpe community engagement process done five years ago, which explicitly avoided specific suggestions for individual sites.  It would involve a level of detail far greater than the new A2D2 zoning, character district overlays and design guidelines.

One key part of that community work would be done in the context of a city council work session, in which the council would prioritize its downtown development goals: Optimal purchase price? Catalyst projects? Iconic projects? Projects that maximize pedestrian activity?

Focus groups and other larger community meetings, plus online surveys, would provide additional input. University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University faculty would be looped into the discussion depending on their area of expertise. UM planning staff would be consulted to provide the perspective of future UM projects and goals for the campus.

The outcome of this community activity is to be a detailed “goals plan” for the downtown that is meant to provide for everything that’s needed in the downtown, without insisting that every site provide for each specific need.

DDA-Led Development: How an Individual Site Would Get Developed

How does the DDA envision getting from an assembly of information, expertise and site goals to the development of any one specific site?

Step one would be for the DDA to make specific recommendations for each development site in the downtown that would underpin the expectations and goals for any future requests for proposals (RFPs). The DDA’s recommendations for the sites would be presented to the city council.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council has had general conversations over the last few years focused on the future of city-owned real estate in downtown Ann Arbor – beyond the development of the city-owned Library Lot on top of the underground parking garage currently under construction on Fifth Avenue.

For example, at the Dec. 1, 2008 city council meeting, the council authorized continued interest payments for the property the city had purchased from the YMCA at Fifth and William, the Old Y lot [emphasis added]:

In deliberations, councilmember Sandi Smith said that she would support the continued financing of the property, because they had no other choice, but that she urged her colleagues to begin thinking of master planning the area so that the city could divest itself of the property as soon as possible.

Or, at a February 2010 budget work session, one chunk of the conversation was devoted to downtown real estate, including the lot at Main and William next to Palios restaurant. From The Chronicle’s account of that work session:

An additional land parcel downtown that [Stephen] Rapundalo thought warranted some focus was the parking lot at Main & William, next to Palios restaurant. He noted that there were just 21 parking spaces at the lot, but it was possibly ripe for investment. He wanted to know if it was on the list somewhere. [City administrator, Roger] Fraser told him it was on a list, but not near the top.

Part of the process now being proposed is a systematic way of assembling information about items on the “list” and identifying which site will be the first one to focus on.

So with city council approval, the DDA would then pursue development on that first site, Site #1. The DDA would need to approve incentives funded by the DDA tax increment finance (TIF) capture – like parking, affordable housing or pedestrian improvements.

The RFP for the site would be extremely detailed and specific, with a draft site plan included in the request, that would have undergone the city’s site plan approval process. Here’s how that would evolve: The initial version of the RFP would be drafted by the DDA, with all the information previously assembled attached to it. The RFP would be reviewed by a professional real estate consultant and improved based on their feedback. An architect would then be hired to develop a draft site plan. This draft plan would be submitted to city staff, the city planning commission and the city council for review and approval. The RFP would specify that the draft site plan is not a mandated plan, but that potential developers should be challenged to design and implement a project even better than the draft site plan imagines.

Once the RFP is created, it would then be aggressively disseminated – with the help of the real estate consultant. A pre-proposal meeting would include a tour of the site. At Monday’s meeting, Pollay gave one example of the way the RFP could be marketed: She felt that if potential developers understood how much investment the university made in the community, it would help provide a case to developers to make a response to the proposal.

Once responses are received, they would be reviewed by an advisory committee assembled by the DDA, which will include people who have experience financing successful development projects or who have constructed downtown projects. After an interview process, the advisory committee would make a recommendation, which would then need to be approved by the DDA. The recommendation would be forwarded to the city council. If approved by the city council, the DDA would then proceed with negotiations on land purchase by the developer from the city and other project details, as the developer completes the site plan. The developer’s site plan would then be submitted to the city’s site plan approval process. And on approval, the project would then be constructed.

Reaction to Proposed DDA Process: Land Purchase?

Susan Pollay wrapped up her synopsis of the draft process document by noting that it assigned a lot of responsibility to the DDA, but she said the DDA is set up to take on that kind of responsibility.

Carsten Hohnke’s reaction to the process description was: “It’s fantastic!” He did wish for a presentation that visually contrasts the current timeline of the city’s strategy to develop a parcel side-by-side with the proposed DDA strategy.  He alluded to the fact that councilmember Sandi Smith had pushed the council to have a conversation about more than just the question of what goes on top of the new underground parking garage – other parcels downtown also need to be addressed.

Before departing from the meeting, councilmember Christopher Taylor indicated broad agreement with the basic proposal. However, he also indicated that he’d like to see a more detailed description of where the public conversation fit into the picture, as well as more clarity about the specific points in the process at which a collection of information is reduced to the form of a specific document.

DDA board member Russ Collins raised the money question: Does the process address any specifics of money transfers between the DDA and the city? The short answer is no. But Pollay acknowledged that DDA board member Newcombe Clark – who does not serve on the DDA’s MBC – was keen to see the DDA purchase land from the city as a part of the development process. She indicated that would be a topic addressed by the DDA at its retreat, scheduled for Sept. 22.

The question of money transfers from the DDA to the city is what prompted the city and the DDA to begin the talks about the parking agreement, under which the DDA operates the city’s parking system. The 2005 parking contract calls for $10 million to be paid by the DDA to the city over the course of 10 years – a commitment which the DDA had fulfilled by fiscal year 2010, which ended June 30. Earlier in 2010, the DDA then authorized an additional $2 million for FY 2011, and the city is expecting the DDA to continue $2 million annual payments.

At Monday morning’s meeting, Pollay deflected the question of land purchase by the DDA as part of the development process, suggesting that it would be more suitable for the DDA board to take up the issue at its Sept. 22 retreat. However, she indicated that as she’d consulted with various community members about putting together a proposed process for DDA-led development, what she’d heard was: “You’d be a fool to go through all this without possession [of the land].” Pollay indicated that the 3-Site Plan from 2005 had been thrown at her as an example.

The 3-Site Plan was an attempt by the DDA to develop three sites downtown in a coordinated fashion, in a similar spirit for what is being proposed for all the city-owned surface lots downtown. From The Chronicle’s report of the April 2010 DDA operations committee meeting:

The 3-Site Plan was an effort to develop city surface parking lots, including lots at First & William, First & Washington and the Kline’s lot – on the east side of Ashley Street, between William and Liberty. The concept underpinning of the 3-Site Plan was that parking could be decoupled from development – build a parking structure at First & William and free up the other two sites for development without the constraint of building on-site parking.

The 3-Site Plan was never voted on by the city council: The site at First & William provoked controversy that continued through most of 2005 when supporters of an Allen Creek greenway objected to the use of that parcel for a parking deck.

If the DDA owned the land, then in concert with a developer-partner, the DDA could submit a site plan to the city’s approval process and assure itself that it would at least come to the city council for a vote. And if the site plan conformed to the zoning, the city council would have limited discretion to deny the project. So land ownership is one means by which the DDA could guard against wasted effort.

One possible concern that could be raised about the purchase of city land by the DDA is a passage from page 23 of the DDA’s Renewal Plan, approved in 2003:

At this time the Authority has no plans to sell, exchange or donate property to or from the City. The DDA leases seven parking structures and several parking lots from the City under a management agreement, which will expire in 2012.

Downtown Police Patrols

While a money-for-land deal is one idea that could receive discussion during the Sept. 22 DDA retreat, another idea was floated at Monday’s meeting by executive director of the Main Street Area Association, Maura Thomson. The MSAA is keen to see part of any payment by the DDA to the city earmarked for public safety – that is, police patrols. Thomson heaped praise on the Ann Arbor police and fire departments, saying that they are second to none. She stressed that the downtown is the hub of the city and that there’s relationship between a healthy downtown and a healthy community.

Thomson acknowledged that when measured by statistics, a greater police presence might not be be warranted, but she encouraged the DDA board members and city councilmembers to think about issues that aren’t measured in statistics:

In early August my daughter found a man deceased in a planter bed on Main Street. Later in August I happened upon a man passed out on the sidewalk on the corner of Main and Liberty. Incidents such as these certainly jade the downtown experience. The impact of having dedicated officers in the downtown neighborhoods can not be measured by reported crimes alone – neither of the examples noted were crimes. The lack of police presence in our downtown neighborhoods is contributing to non-crime related issues and if left unchecked, this type of activity will lead to the downfall of our downtown as we know it.

Related to downtown public safety, at the city council’s Sept. 7, 2010 meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) updated her council colleagues on her intention to bring forward a proposal to re-form a task force on panhandling in the downtown.

Parking Enforcement

At the previous meeting of the two mutually-beneficial committees, the discussion of a role for the DDA in parking regulation enforcement appeared to have been pushed to the edge, if not completely off the table as part of the negotiations. The number of logistical and legal hurdles seemed to be accumulating to the point where it appeared that little enthusiasm was left for pursuing the topic. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA Parking Enforcement Prospects Dim"]

At Monday’s meeting, however, a case was made by DDA staff for the technical feasibility of the DDA’s role in enforcement.

Amber Miller, planning and research specialist for the DDA, had compiled research from other cities in Michigan where the DDA in those cities either enforces parking directly or contracts for it: Traverse City, Petoskey and Kalamazoo. The DDAs in those cities write tickets for violations in the Michigan Vehicle Code, but do not have a direct reporting relationship to the chief of police. The lack of a reporting relationship to the police chief had been cited by the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office as a reason that the DDA could not enforce MVC infractions.

Access to information from the Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), which provides vehicle owner information, is achieved in these other three cities via application by the city to the Michigan Secretary of State on behalf of the DDA, so that the DDA can be granted access to the information. Access to repeat-offender information for a subset of certain kinds of parking infractions is key to the Ann Arbor DDA’s intended strategy of having graduated fines based on prior offenses, or forgiveness of first offenses. The ability to filter data for DDA-contracted parking enforcement staff – so that they can view only authorized data – could be managed with the handheld devices used by ticketing officers.

That technological capability here in Ann Arbor was confirmed by Susan Pollay in her description of a meeting she’d had with Sue McCormick and a representative from Complus Data Innovations, the manufacturer of the handhelds used by the city. The CDI representative confirmed that data could be filtered by user login.

Pollay also made a case that the DDA was able to enforce parking regulations outside its tax district by citing local precedent for the city council authorizing the Ann Arbor DDA to act outside its boundary – the original parking agreement and the language of the DDA Renewal Plan – plus the state enabling legislation, which reads in relevant part:

An Authority possesses all the powers necessary to carry out the purpose of its incorporation. The enumeration of a power in this act shall not be construed as a limitation upon the general powers of an authority.

At Monday’s meeting, fresher parking enforcement data was also provided than had been available at the previous meeting. The five-year trend for monthly tickets issued is decidedly downward. Almost five years ago, 11,000 tickets were issued in a month, but in the last year around 6,000 tickets have been issued per month. In the most recent month for which data was available at the meeting, January 2010, only 4,647 tickets were issued.

Fewer tickets means less revenue: In FY 2006 around $2.1 million was collected in parking ticket revenue, but in FY 2010 that fell to around $1.1 million. Commented Russ Collins: “It’s hard to see the business case for the DDA taking this over.” However, Sue McCormick indicated that the lower numbers are due in part to lower staffing levels for community standards officers, who write parking tickets. The city currently has two community standards vacancies, she said.

Next Steps

Towards the conclusion of the meeting, Carsten Hohnke sought to summarize the committee work to date and to identify specific next steps:

• Parking Enforcement: Points made about feasibility of parking enforcement by the DDA at Monday’s meeting will be reviewed by the city attorney’s staff, hopefully by the time the committees meet again, on Sept. 27.
• DDA-led Development of Surface Lots: City council will schedule a working session to discuss the proposal that Pollay had presented to them.
• Affirmation of DDA’s Parking Role: In the new parking agreement, DDA’s role will be based largely on its current, existing role.
• Non-Parking Code Enforcement: This is now off the table – from the start there was little enthusiasm on the part of the DDA for this.
• DDA-Provided Services: This appears now to be practically off the table. It’s received little attention since the very first meetings. Although there was initially some interest on the part of the DDA, that interest was expressed mainly by DDA board member Roger Hewitt, who could not attend Monday’s meeting. Gary Boren suggested that there was real potential for the new Main Street Business Improvement Zone to address the issue of services, if it can be expanded beyond the current, limited area between William and Huron along Main Street.

On Sept. 22, the DDA board will hold a retreat focused on the city-DDA talks. The target date for the signing of a new parking agreement between the city and the DDA is Oct. 31, 2010.

Although they were clearly kidding around, the following exchange could be analyzed by some as an accurate reflection of the reality of the talks:

Russ Collins: “We’re getting nothing of what we wanted and you’re getting everything that you wanted!”

Carsten Hohnke: “So it’s going exactly according to plan!”

What's the relationship of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to the city of Ann Arbor? Ann Arbor DDA offices on Fifth Avenue are on the left. The new city hall building is visible behind the backhoe one block to the north. The construction work is part of the DDA's streetscape improvements for Fifth and Division streets.

At the meeting, the committees focused on the question of how the DDA might take on responsibility for enforcement of parking regulations. The DDA would like the ability to manage parking enforcement, so that it can implement an approach to enforcement that complements a demand management pricing strategy and a customer-service approach to downtown. However, the city has identified a number of ways in which it believes the DDA would be constrained in its ability to enforce parking regulations.

At Monday’s meeting, those constraints had accumulated to the point where it became a fair question: Would the DDA still find parking enforcement an attractive proposition, given the constraints? The meeting did not settle the question, with some hope maintained on the DDA side – by Sandi Smith, specifically – that the DDA might play some role in enforcement.

However, if parking enforcement is not something the DDA takes on, it’s not clear what the basis will be for the additional payments the city would like the DDA to make, beyond what is required by the current parking contract. That contract was renewed in 2005. It required a $1 million per year payment by the DDA to the city, with the provision that the city could request $2 million in any given year, and that the total amount did not exceed $10 million from 2005-2015. The city requested $2 million for the first five years, and the DDA agreed unilaterally this past May to make an additional $2 million payment to the city.

When the discussion at Monday’s meeting moved from parking enforcement – which seemed like it had been pushed to the edge, if not completely off the table – to the calculation of a formula for a DDA payment to the city, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, questioned on three separate occasions: Where is the benefit to the downtown in this?

Also at the meeting, the committees got a preview of an outline sketch regarding how the DDA might play an active role in the development of city-owned downtown surface parking lots.

The committees are scheduled to meet next on Sept. 13. Their twice-monthly meeting schedule was adopted starting in July, when it became apparent that the target date of Oct. 31 for a new contract ratified by the respective bodies would not be achieved with a once-monthly schedule.

Mutually Beneficial Background

Members of the council’s committee are Margie Teall (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Representing the DDA are board members Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Roger Hewitt and Gary Boren. Smith is also a city councilmember, representing Ward 1.

The committees are working from a term sheet for discussion, which contains four main points. The second item, code enforcement, was eliminated early on from further discussion.

• Parking Enforcement: DDA assumes responsibility for enforcement of parking rules.
• Code Enforcement: DDA assumes responsibility for enforcement of other community standards codes (e.g., sign violations).
• Services: DDA assumes responsibility for various services in the downtown.
• Development: DDA assumes responsibility for development of city-owned downtown surface parking lots.

Most recent Chronicle coverage: “City, DDA Parking Talks Gain Tempo”

DDA Responsibility for Parking Enforcement

Carsten Hohnke had been absent from the last two meetings, so he asked to be brought up to speed, by telling the other committee members that his understanding was that significant headway was made in understanding the parking enforcement issue.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, confirmed Hohnke’s understanding by saying that she and Sue McCormick, public services area administrator for the city, had been constantly updating “the matrix” – a grid of all the points of entry into the parking system, with associated policy points and recommendations.

Parking Enforcement: No to DDA Referees

Pollay noted that they’d recognized the difficulty in assigning responsibility to the DDA for parking referees. Referees hear appeals of parking tickets. There are two reasons militating against DDA responsibility for the referees, she said. First, half of the cost for the referees is shouldered by the University of Michigan, because the university refers appeals of tickets written by UM Public Safety to the city’s process. That introduces a complication that would require UM participation in the agreement. Second, there is a “productive distance,” Pollay said, in assigning separate entities to handle enforcement and appeals. Currently that separation is maintained by the city’s assignment of enforcement to its community standards officers – who ultimately report to the chief of police – while appeals are handled through the city treasurer’s office – whose referees ultimately report to the city administrator.

All mentions of “parking referees” in the set of recommendations in the matrix are now struck through.

Parking Enforcement: No to DDA Citing Specific MVC Violations

There’s continued interest on the DDA’s part, said Pollay, in managing enforcement. There are also challenges inherent in that. For example, there are a variety of parking infractions [e.g., no parking in handicap zone without appropriate sticker] that require the enforcing entity to have a reporting relationship to the chief of police, which a potential parking enforcement subcontractor like Republic Parking does not have.

The discussion of these kind of infractions at Monday’s meeting did not come immediately with Pollay’s summary. Sue McCormick picked up the topic later, saying there are certain kinds of Michigan Vehicle Code infractions that require a police officer to write the ticket. As an example she gave handicapped parking. Sandi Smith wanted to know if it was not possible to deputize someone to perform that function. Pollay wanted to know what exactly it meant to have a “reporting relationship” with the police chief. McCormick clarified that if Republic Parking did the enforcement, then there would be no direct line of reporting.

Pollay commented that it appeared the DDA might only be able to write tickets for a couple of different kinds of infractions.

Smith observed that if someone was out writing tickets for over-the-limit infractions, it just made sense from an efficiency point of view for that person to be able to write a ticket for a handicapped parking violation. It didn’t make sense to have to call someone else or have someone else cover the same ground.

McCormick pointed out that to a certain extent there would be people covering the same ground – there would be patrols for vehicle impoundment and patrols for community standards violations. In addition, McCormick stressed, the authority to write over-the-limit tickets would not be exclusively granted to the DDA.

Pollay indicated that she would explore how other communities handled enforcement of the MVC infractions to see if there was a model that would provide for the DDA’s contractor to enforce those infractions.

Parking Enforcement: No to DDA Contractor LEIN Access

The lack of a reporting relationship to the chief of police also prevents a subcontractor like Republic Parking from getting access to the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). That would prevent an enforcement officer from getting the history of infractions incurred by a specific vehicle and taking action calibrated to any previous tickets. For example, a fourth unpaid ticket is supposed to result in the towing of the vehicle.

As Sue McCormick had pointed out at the Aug. 9 meeting of the two committees, monitoring for vehicles that should be towed could be handled fairly efficiently with mobile license plate reading equipment that was paid for through a Department of Justice grant, which was accepted by the city council at their June 15, 2009 meeting. So the issue is not really so much about a general inability to enforce the four-unpaid-ticket rule. However, part of the DDA’s interest in taking responsibility for parking enforcement is based on a desire to implement a system of fines that would escalate the cost of a ticket based on prior tickets, or perhaps provide for first-time forgiveness. Without access to LEIN, such a system would not be possible.

Parking Enforcement: No to DDA Enforcement Outside District

An additional challenge is a dispute between the DDA’s legal counsel, Jerry Lax, and Mary Fales in the city attorney’s office over the question of whether the DDA could be granted the authority to enforce parking rules outside of the DDA tax district. Pollay described Lax’s argument as based on two factors: (i) the precedent of the DDA managing parking facilities outside the DDA tax district, and (ii) the latitude provide by the state enabling statute.

On Monday, McCormick identified the outside-the-district issue as leftover from the Aug. 9 meeting and suggested that what needs to happen is for the two attorneys to meet and to “duke it out.” She suggested that Lax needed to contact Fales.

Pollay responded by saying that Lax had done that and that Fales has not responded. What the DDA would like, Pollay said, is for Fales to lay out why she thinks it’s prohibited for the DDA to enforce parking rules outside of its district.

Christopher Taylor interjected that the question is not as simple as inside versus outside the DDA district, but rather it relates to corridors leading to the DDA. [Apparently, it's Fales' legal opinion that corridors leading to the DDA district, but still outside the district, might be fair game for the DDA management of parking enforcement.]

McCormick described the difference in opinion between the two attorneys as involving a fundamentally different view of the law: Lax is looking for prohibitive language and not finding any; Fales is looking for enabling language and not finding it – except perhaps for corridors.

Pollay then pointed to two occasions on which the city council had approved DDA activity outside the DDA tax district. One was the DDA renewal plan, adopted in 2003, which extended the DDA’s charter for another 30 years to 2033. It explicitly contemplates DDA activity outside the district: “In an effort to accomplish its mission, it is understood that the DDA may elect to participate in important projects outside the DDA District.”

A second set of occasions on which the city council had explicitly acknowledged the ability of the DDA to exercise responsibility outside the district, said Pollay, were the parking agreements that had included provision for the DDA to manage specific parking facilities outside the district.

Responding to the precedents cited by Pollay, McCormick said that Fales had specific views about what was unique to those circumstances that made DDA activity possible outside the tax boundary.

Pollay noted that in any case the conversation between the attorneys did not seem to be moving forward.

Parking Enforcement: No to Local Downtown Bank

A topic of conversation from a previous meeting was the idea of re-bidding the contract for processing payments for tickets, so that a local, downtown bank might do the processing. Pollay reported that Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, had done some background research, and concluded that when the RFP was issued, only two responses had been received, and of those, only one of them had arrangements with the secretary of states of all 50 states. That was a deciding factor in awarding the contract to the Complus Data Innovations Inc., a Tarrytown, N.Y.-based company, because they had the ability to pursue payment in all 50 states. That’s a consideration in a city like Ann Arbor, where a significant percentage of tickets written are to university students who leave the city after a few years.

Some limited discussion unfolded concerning the possibility that Complus might set up a lockbox in Ann Arbor, so that the perception would be conveyed that people are not paying money to an out-of-state firm.

Parking Enforcement: What Do All These Nos Mean?

After discussion of the various challenges that had emerged that are inherent in the DDA’s management of parking enforcement, Carsten Hohnke floated the idea that there might be enough constraints to make it no longer attractive to the DDA to pull parking enforcement “into its fold.”

Sandi Smith was not ready to sign on to the idea that the DDA would give up its pursuit of parking enforcement, saying that she would like to have chief of police Barnett Jones come speak to the committees about how possible communication might work between enforcement personnel contracted by the DDA and the city’s community standards officers.

Roger Hewitt, who arrived at the meeting after the various challenges to DDA enforcement of parking had been discussed in detail, wondered what the DDA was getting out of the “mutually beneficial” arrangement, if parking enforcement were eliminated from it.

Fuller Road Station

Hewitt and McCormick had a brief exchange about Fuller Road Station and how it might fit into a revised parking agreement. [The planned project is a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan parking structure and bus depot, which might eventually include a train station.] Hewitt felt like it should be included as part of the city’s parking system and covered in the agreement. McCormick saw the city’s share of the parking there simply as sufficient to meet the needs of possible future use in connection with the facility as a transit station.

Hewitt allowed that when it is first built, those parking spaces might well reflect simply a “money in, money out” proposition, but he could imagine that eventually those spaces would generate revenue. He cautioned against the creation of two separate parking authorities.

Russ Collins noted that the topic of a parking authority had arisen at previous meetings. The question, Collins said, is how to add parking enforcement to the DDA’s responsibility and have appropriate levels of cooperation between the city and the DDA.

Revenue

If the DDA were to assume responsibility for enforcement of parking regulations, then the city wants to ensure that its revenue from fines is not diminished. The other piece of the revenue equation is the DDA’s revenue currently collected from users of the parking system.

Revenue: Enforcement

One of the principles that is supposed to guide the discussion of the two committees is the idea that the city of Ann Arbor is to be “held harmless” with respect to revenue and costs if the DDA assumes responsibility for parking enforcement. Part of the equation is revenue from parking fines. At Monday’s meeting, Sue McCormick provided a chart of fine revenues broken down by violation code. Expired meter and parking-past-the-allowable-time type violations were easily the highest revenue generators, together accounting for $2.4 million in tickets owed.

Sandi Smith and Susan Pollay both quickly spotted a crucial detail in McCormick’s data set – it was a summary of July 2005 through June 2006. Said Pollay, “This data is four years old!” Smith noted that fine revenues have been declining since then. About the old data, McCormick said, “This is all I got from treasury.” [The city treasurer had given the city council a presentation in November 2009 about more recent parking fine revenues.]

Roger Hewitt wanted to know if there was a proportionate time investment in writing tickets for the top revenue-producing tickets – the answer seemed to be that it was not. Such tickets could be written more efficiently than other types of tickets.

For ballpark purposes, there was a consensus that between $1.5 and $2.5 million could be added to existing parking system revenues for purposes of determining how big a revenue pie was under discussion.

Revenue: Parking System Patrons

Pollay provided pie charts showing how the DDA parking fund revenues were distributed as expenses. For FY 2010, here’s the breakdown:

Ann Arbor DDA
Parking Fund Expenses
FY 2010

$6,337,237  (35.7%) Direct parking expense (Republic)
   441,823  ( 2.5%) Alt transit (go!pass)
 2,093,605  (11.8%) Parking maintenance transfer
 2,825,901  (15.9%) Rent to city plus street fund to city
 1,699,451  ( 9.6%) Down payment on 5th Ave. underground
 3,779,516  (21.3%) Bond payments
   563,635  ( 3.2%) DDA administration

-
Fundamentally, the fourth line is the one under discussion by the two committees.

Structure of DDA Payment to City: Mutually Beneficial?

Roger Hewitt introduced the topic of how to structure the DDA’s payment to the city. If it’s specified as a percentage of the net revenue, then it would not amount to much, no matter what the percentage is, he said.

Although she did not raise the issue on Monday, at the Aug. 9 meeting, Sue McCormick had pointed to the basic notion of the city being held harmless and left “whole” as a result of the agreement, which underpinned the entire conversation. A percentage as opposed to a specified sum, she’d said on that occasion, did not leave her feeling “warm and fuzzy about being whole.”

Mutually Beneficial: Rewind to Aug. 9 Meeting

Also on Aug. 9, Collins had also pointed out there’d been an agreement that the DDA would pay $1 million a year to the city. [Collins was alluding to the 2005 parking agreement, which stipulated $1 million per year, or an option for the city to take $2 million in any given year provided that the total amount over 10 years, from 2005-2015 did not exceed $10 million.]

The agreement was “practically invalidated” said Collins, so it’s not really a hold harmless situation. Rather, it’s how the DDA and the city, with the best interest of the citizens in mind, benefits everybody to the best of their ability. The $10 million was paid in five years, Collins said. Because of the city’s dire financial situation, the DDA had paid another $2 million [in May 2010]. So what the DDA is looking to do, said Collins, is find a way to rationalize that kind of payment to the city annually. At the same time, he said, they were looking for a way to benefit the city, the DDA and citizens by changing the way that parking enforcement is done.

As far as “hold harmless,” Collins said, they had a situation where there is a contract and the DDA has now paid an extra $2 million more than required by that contract. They wanted to do the right thing by the city and by the DDA, but mostly they wanted to do right by the citizens by making the right decisions “in these complicated times,” Collins said. Whatever the mechanism of arriving at the price, he said, it had to be in the spirit of doing the right thing for the citizens. That’s what mutually beneficial means, he concluded.

Gary Boren followed up by saying that before the $2 million was discussed, they already knew that revenues due to fines [collected by the city] would be decreasing and revenues due to compliance [fees paid to park, collected by the DDA] would be increasing. That trend was due to various parking technologies. For that reason, Boren said, it didn’t make sense to think in terms of holding harmless with respect to profit levels at any particular point in time.

Collins then returned to the theme of whose interest they were working for – citizens and the community. He spoke of the disconnect between the nature of the dialog and the nature of the press coverage and the nature of merchant organizations’ response to all of this on the one hand, and a DDA board that he felt was trying to work in the best interests of the community on the other hand.

By doing that, he said, the DDA board was “getting hammered” on all sides: by merchants who think the DDA is trying to “screw their customers;” by the city which needs funds; by themselves due to internal political conflicts within the board. It feels like the DDA is trying to do a good thing for the city, but they’re not getting the “attaboys” for trying, he said. Instead, the reaction from the community was “You guys are all nuts!” Either the DDA was nuts, he said, because the DDA had a contract – why didn’t they just insist that it be adhered to? Or the merchants think the DDA is nuts, he said, because they say they don’t “need this stuff anyway.” In this city, “no” is the easiest thing to say, Collins said, and the DDA is trying to say “yes.”

Mutually Beneficial: Fast Forward Return to Aug. 23

On Monday, Smith identified the expenses the DDA would incur for writing tickets as an unknown that would need to be balanced against the $1.5-$2.5 million in ticket revenue from fines.

At that point, Pollay noted that the discussion had already moved to a calculation for a payment, when the whole nature of the mutually beneficial arrangement appeared to be in question. If the DDA were not to take responsibility for parking enforcement, she said, she asked if the city had any suggestions for a mutually beneficial arrangement on which a payment could be based.

Carsten Hohnke pointed to the history of the development of the term sheet as reflective of the city’s position. He did not, he said, have anything in his “back pocket.”

Hewitt forged ahead with the discussion of the payment mechanism, saying that he was in favor of looking at gross revenue and determining some percentage of that. Smith suggested that it might be truer to the theory of “paying rent” if the formula involved a dollar figure per parking space. That would build in a specific ramification for the removal of spaces from the system’s inventory. [The removal of spaces from the system by the city without appropriate accommodation in the parking agreement has been a point of friction with the DDA.]

Pollay returned to her previous point, this time a bit more forcefully: “Where is the benefit to downtown?” she asked. She said she’d heard the calculation, but not the mutually beneficial part.

Collins observed that the two committees were trying to figure out the cost of a parking authority. It would be easier, he said, if the parking authority were not a part of the DDA.

Hewitt said he wanted a structure where the city council is a partner in the system. What he saw, he said, was continuing pressure from the city to get more and more money out of the parking system. That had been the case, Hewitt said, ever since he’d been on the DDA board.

Collins suggested that part of the pressure for more money could be addressed with the contract they were re-negotiating. He suggested that neither the city nor the DDA had been serious about the agreement as a contract.

[This was apparently a reference to the city's failure to adhere to certain terms of the contract, like the DDA's authority to manage "the" parking system in the city, which seems counter to the city's decision to install its own parking meters outside the DDA district. On the DDA's side, it decided not to cite the contract to challenge formally that city decision, in light of the difficult economic times. At a July committee meeting, Hohnke had attributed the city's actions to "institutional amnesia."]

The pressure from the city for more revenue, said Collins, was attributable to the down economy. Hewitt did not completely agree with Collins, saying there had been a lot of pressure from the city five years earlier as well. Collins identified the key issue as trying to understand the value of the parking system.

Picking up on Hewitt’s comments about five years ago, Smith said that five years ago, the city’s financial situation had been presented as dire, due to the “building located diagonally across from us” – an allusion to the police-courts facility, which is nearing the end of its construction and is visible from the DDA board room window, on the other side of Fifth Avenue, one block north. Now the dire situation, she said, is due to the general fund.

Collins said that no organization of any description ever felt like it had enough money.

Christopher Taylor sought to move the discussion back on the track of the payment by noting that the committees agreed on the broad principle of holding the city harmless and of charging the DDA with as much responsibility as possible for parking enforcement. He asked if the next step would be to come up with a formula.

Pollay returned again to her question: How does it benefit the downtown? The goal of the term sheet, she said, had been to establish a mutually beneficial arrangement. However, she said that from the city, with respect to parking enforcement, they’d heard “no, no, no, no” during the committee discussions. She concluded by saying she is still trying to understand how the calculation benefits the downtown.

Hohnke allowed that if parking enforcement is taken off the table, the committees need to talk about what else they might do and to look for “other opportunities for synergy.”

Sue McCormick cautioned that her understanding of the parking enforcement proposal had not been that it was to be “all or nothing.” There is nothing that prohibits the city from going back to look at the “flavor” of how parking is enforced. Even if it’s left out of the discussion of the parking agreement, she said, there are policy decisions about how parking is enforced that can be examined.

Collins stated that what is mutually beneficial is an important issue. He suggested that the city might be responding to the DDA by suggesting there is another way to implement the desired DDA parking enforcement policies other than having the DDA manage enforcement. Perhaps it would turn out that the DDA has input on how existing service is executed.

DDA Does Development

Hewitt drew a parallel between Collins’ concluding sentiments about the DDA having input on an existing mechanism by transitioning to the fourth key point on the term sheet – the DDA having an active role in the development of city-owned surface parking lots downtown.

Collins noted that he knew there is one DDA board member who’d be happy to see parking enforcement taken off the table and to use the purchase of land, which the DDA would then develop, as a mechanism for the DDA to make payments to the city. Collins was alluding to Newcombe Clark. From previous Chronicle coverage “Possible Topic: Should the DDA Develop City-Owned Land“:

The DDA could have said, “Here’s $2 million and we’ll buy two lots,” or one lot – like the Palio’s lot at William and Main, suggested Clark. [The parcel currently serves as a surface parking lot.] Even though the DDA had elected not to do that, and instead decided to renegotiate the parking agreement, Clark said he thought that land purchase was still worth exploring.

Hewitt acknowledged that a land-purchase type approach is another way it could be done, then quipped that the city could simply give the DDA the Kline’s lot, which the DDA had bought in the first place.

DDA Development: Pollay’s Outline

As part of the timeline for the two committees’ summer work plan, Pollay is to deliver a plan for what it would mean for the DDA to take an active role in the development of city-owned surface parking lots. She’s due to present that at the committees’ Sept. 13 meeting. On Monday, she handed around a one-sheet double-sided sketch of an outline for what she was working on.

The outline includes a chunk devoted to visioning with multiple and various parties and the public to develop a comprehensive strategy for downtown. The idea is not to start from scratch, but rather to build on work that the community has done for the last five years.

She cautioned against the idea of “master planning by RFP” for a particular site. When there’s a comprehensive strategy in place – as opposed to the “piecemeal” approach that has been taken previously – then it makes sense to begin talking about a request for proposals (RFP) for some specific site that’s been prioritized, she said.

The process for an RFP for the first site includes drafting of the RFP by the DDA, with revision by a professional consultant who would oversee distribution of the RFP to potentially interested parties. An advisory committee to review the responses to the RFP would be selected by the DDA, with members appointed based on strategic strengths – like project financing experience. The advisory committee would move the project through a process of reviewing the responses, interviewing the proposers, and making a recommendation to the DDA. On approval by the DDA board, the recommendation would be forwarded to the Ann Arbor city council. The city council would either approve the project or give some other direction. If the outcome were approval, the DDA, with the aid of a consultant, would do the negotiations with the developer on a specific agreement and forward the plan to the city council for approval.

The idea, said Pollay, was to put the DDA at the “edge of the sword” so that her organization would “take the heat” from the community.

Taylor said he agreed with the “march towards expertise” that Pollay had outlined for the advisory committee membership. However, he cautioned that this kind of expertise should be added to, rather than replace, the kind of participation that has been typical for such committees.

Next Meeting: Sept. 13

As the meeting concluded, Carsten Hohnke wanted to get an idea of what the agenda for the Sept. 13 meeting would be like. At least three points will be covered:

• How are Michigan Vehicle Code infractions handled in other communties?
• What are meter revenues like for the newly-installed city meters outside the DDA district?
• What does “active role” for the DDA mean in development of downtown city-owned surface parking lots?

The two groups are known as the “mutually beneficial” committees, reflecting the language of a January 2009 city council resolution that called upon the DDA to begin a conversation about revising the parking contract in a “mutually beneficial” way.

On Monday morning, for the first time in public view, members of the DDA board and the city council met to discuss the contract.

The two mutually beneficial committees (starting at the far right of the frame, proceeding clockwise around the table): Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall – both city councilmembers; Sandi Smith, city councilmember, but representing the DDA; Christopher Taylor, city councilmember; Roger Hewitt and Russ Collins, both on the DDA board. (Photo by the writer.)

The basis of these further discussions was a term sheet that had been produced in late April by some members of the city council and the DDA working outside of either body’s committee structure.

That term sheet had been the good faith basis on which the DDA board, on a 7-4 vote in May, voted to amend the parking contract. That unilateral amendment amounted to a payment from the DDA to the city of an additional $2 million that had not been required under the existing contract.

The specific outcomes of Monday’s meeting between the two committees were: (i) staff for the DDA and the city would be asked to develop a list of policy points that would need to be addressed in order for the DDA to assume responsibility of enforcing parking rules, but not other codes; and (ii) the DDA would be asked to develop a detailed plan by Sept. 13, 2010 describing the role of the DDA in the development of city-owned surface parking lots within the DDA district.

The planned schedule for meetings between the two committees will be the second Monday morning of each month at 8:30 a.m. at the DDA offices on Fifth Avenue. Members of the council’s committee are Margie Teall (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Roger Hewitt and Gary Boren.

Who Was There

All members of the committees attended except for Gary Boren on the DDA’s committee. Besides The Chronicle, in the audience was Maura Thomson of the Main Street Area Association.

There was no discussion of the objections raised at the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting to Sandi Smith’s participation on the DDA’s committee. Smith serves on both the DDA board and the city council. Those objections had been raised by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). Their objections were countered at that council meeting by mayor John Hieftje and Margie Teall (Ward 4):

Higgins then expressed concern about Smith sitting on another body’s committee that was having discussions with the city council.

Smith was quick to respond to Higgins’ remarks by indicating that if there was a strong feeling on the part of the city council, then she would resign her committee membership on the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee. However, she told Higgins that she’d thought about the issue a lot. Smith said she felt she had an opportunity to provide insight into both organizations. She also said that up to that point, she had helped the two organizations get past some historical hard feelings – she characterized it as a “clash of cultures.”

Smith said the DDA may or may not be interested in doing any of the items listed on the term sheet. Smith then floated the idea that both the city council and the DDA board would meet together as entire bodies.

Higgins picked up on Smith’s offer to resign from the committee by indicating she wanted to request that Smith not be a member of the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee. Rapundalo echoed Higgins’ request, saying he meant no disrespect to Smith. However, he said that if she were removed from that committee, he would be more comfortable.

Hieftje noted that Smith brought a great deal of knowledge to the work.

And Teall echoed Hieftje’s sentiments that Smith’s skills and knowledge would be useful. Hieftje also suggested that the work going forward should not be thought of as a negotiation but rather a conversation.

Teall was appointed to the council’s mutually beneficial committee in summer of 2009 along with Carsten Hohnke and Leigh Greden, who represented Ward 3 at that time. Teall and Hohnke’s appointments to the council’s mutually beneficial committee at the May 17 meeting was thus their second time to be appointed to such a committee.

Not present at the discussion on Monday morning were any staff members from the city or the DDA.

Opening Discussion

The group spent the opening moments of the meeting reciting familiar facts – the term sheet produced by the working group had been acknowledged by both the city council and the DDA board as a basis for further discussions. As chair of the DDA board’s committee, Sandi Smith took the lead in reviewing the results of the recent retreat, which the board had held to discuss the term sheet.

Opening Discussion: Term Sheet

In bullet-point form, the key elements of the term sheet for discussion were these:

• Parking Enforcement: DDA assumes responsibility for enforcement of parking rules.
• Code Enforcement: DDA assumes responsibility for enforcement of other community standards codes (e.g., sign violations).
• Services: DDA assumes responsibility for various services in the downtown.
• Development: DDA assumes responsibility for development of city-owned downtown surface parking lots.

There were some additions to the term sheet at the DDA retreat, Smith reported. But with respect to the items already on the term sheet, she said, there was “not really stomach” to do code enforcement. If the DDA had no ability to establish the code, she said, the sentiment was that the DDA would be set up only to be “the bad guy” – not something the DDA was interested in doing. In addition, she said, she didn’t think there would be a lot of financial savings.

Opening Discussion: No Deals Already Cut

Russ Collins led off his contribution to the discussion by cheerfully saying that he would like to make “a posturing statement for the media and the citizens attending today.” Collins then stressed that the discussion was “an open dialogue” – there were preliminary discussions where the group had been exploring possibilities, but “no deals were cut.”

The idea that no deals had already been cut, Collins continued, was made clear from the fact that when the entire DDA board and the city council had looked at the term sheet, there had been some reaction among other members along the lines of “I don’t know if we want to do that.”

Collins noted that they were just volunteers who were public servants who were trying to do the best job possible for the citizens. [Editor's note: While DDA board members like Collins are appointed and are not compensated financially for their work, city council members are elected and paid an annual salary of $15,913.]

Teall added to Collins’ “posturing statement” that she felt the term sheet was a “great framework” for the discussion.

Opening Discussion: Basic Premise Is that DDA Manages Parking

Hewitt noted that there were not a lot of additional items that came up during the retreat, and there was one item about which there was not a lot of interest in pursuing – code enforcement. He emphasized that something not explicitly discussed – perhaps because everyone just assumed it – was that the DDA would continue to be in charge of management and operations of the parking system throughout the city.

Consolidation of Parking Management, Enforcement

The two committees dove fairly straightaway into discussing the idea that parking enforcement could be added to the existing DDA responsibility of managing and operating the parking system.

Parking Consolidation: DDA Handles Parking

It should be a single entity that handles the management and the enforcement of parking, Hewitt said – that was the basic assumption underlying the idea that the DDA would assume responsibility for both. Teall asked if it meant that parking enforcement would be done throughout the city, not just downtown.

That brought the conversation to a brief halt. Collins responded by saying, “I don’t know that there’s an answer to that.” He said that his understanding was that parking enforcement outside of parking districts would essentially be accomplished by the community standards officers – there are not meter attendants who cover the whole city.

Smith noted that the DDA currently operates parking meters outside of its tax increment finance (TIF) district, so the idea was not that the district would be an absolute boundary. Hewitt gave an example of something that the DDA did not want to pursue: There are “no parking” signs out near West Stadium Boulevard on a side street in the vicinity of the Dairy Queen that’s outside the DDA district – the DDA doesn’t want to go out and write tickets there.

Christopher Taylor’s characterization was accepted by the others around the table: “DDA-managed parking will be enforced by the DDA.” Smith offered the example of residential parking permits as a “gray zone” – community standards were not likely to take that on, she said.

Hewitt reasoned that the DDA was not doing code enforcement inside the DDA district – there was no board support for that. But there would be code enforcement by community standards staff outside the DDA area, so it would be possible for community standards officers to do parking enforcement outside the district too.

Collins noted that the spirit of previous discussions was essentially that neighborhood parking discussions were a complex matter, and it was important to have an opportunity for political input from the citizens. Hewitt labeled the issue as a “question that needs to be answered” and suggested that there was no particular leaning in one direction or the other at this point.

Parking Consolidation: Consolidate, But Separate From the DDA?

Collins then tentatively raised the issue of a general strategic direction – he indicated he was almost hesitant to say it, because it probably wouldn’t come true. The notion of consolidating “the parking world” and then possibly moving that to a separate kind of authority “isn’t a crazy notion” from the DDA’s standpoint, he ventured. He allowed that this was probably a minority opinion on the DDA board at this point.

Smith offered the counterpoint that parking in itself was not the end – it’s a tool in the development toolbox. “Nobody comes downtown to park,” Smith noted, “they come downtown for other reasons.” Parking is something that can be leveraged and made part of a development strategy – she pointed to the fourth item on the term sheet.

Collins said that for the foreseeable future, unifying management and enforcement within the DDA made sense. He reiterated, though, that as a strategic direction – in terms of aligning Ann Arbor with the way that other cities do things – it was worth bearing in mind that it could be separate. Other cities, he said, had parking authorities that handle these kind of things – it would be a good thought experiment. Other cities had already solved these problems of what’s in and what’s out and who enforces what, he noted.

Parking Consolidation: City Council Approvals, Vetoes

Hewitt noted that there were a number of places where the Ann Arbor city council would want to have control in terms of ratification and veto power, as they have now with the parking rates. So he identified as a challenge to specify where the council had input on parking policy. He said he did not expect the city council to say, “Take the parking system and never come and darken our door again.”

On the other hand, Hewitt said, if the parking system were to be a very complex and dynamic system of the kind that transportation demand management calls for, he did not want to have every decision micromanaged by the city council, and he figured that the city council would also not want that. Where the line was drawn – residential permits, fines, rates – those were details that would have to be worked out and clarified.

Smith suggested that on an annual basis the DDA could do an update to the parking plan that it had submitted to the city council in April and make an annual presentation to the city council. It would not make sense, she said, to say to the city council, “On these five blocks we want to raise the rate, and on these five blocks we want to lower the rate.”

That’s why, Hewitt said, he would still like to have a joint working session with the city council to review the parking plan and the complexity of it.

In response to Hewitt, Taylor said he wanted to “push as much of this to staff as possible.” He suggested that the city staff create a chart of policy decision points by July 12 – the next joint meeting of the two committees. Teall noted that there would be city councilmembers who would want to have input on the policy issues, to which Taylor responded, “That is so deeply true.”

Taylor felt that the discussion would be best served, however, by having a pre-existing list to check through. The list/chart would include, for example, all the points of entry into the public parking system, meter location inside and outside the DDA, loading zones, residential parking, fees, fines – what are the city council’s veto, ratification and initiation roles for each of those?

At the mention of rates, Hewitt noted that under a transportation demand management strategy, the rates would be highly variable depending on the time of day and the location. The rates would also vary depending on demand. It would be difficult to express that as something the council could approve or disapprove. To that Taylor suggested that you would use a range of rates – you can charge “up to X.” Teall stressed that she just wanted the rate to be clear.

Hohnke brought the conversation back to the day’s agenda, after the group had drilled down fairly deep into the issue of parking.

Collins said that they needed a significant representative from the city’s and the DDA’s administration at the meetings. Teall asked if there were legal question about what the city council could and could not have veto power over. Collins said he didn’t know that they needed an attorney to sit at the meetings. The legal matters had to get vetted out eventually, and having attorneys present would simply make the meetings longer, he feared. Teall countered that it would be important to get legal advice quickly when a question came up.

Parking Consolidation: But Wait – Separation of Parking From Code Enforcement?

The committee discussion took an arc that included the third term sheet item – services in the DDA area – before Hohnke again brought the conversation back to a substantive issue related to separating parking enforcement from code enforcement.

Based on Hohnke’s query, the conversation circled back around to whether the DDA was interested in code enforcement. Hewitt reiterated that the DDA was concerned that it would wind up being responsible for enforcing codes that it had no input on – it should be eliminated from future discussion.

Taylor observed that the same problem could occur with respect to parking, in view of the city council’s veto power, but said that it was a smaller point. Collins called it a matter of scale. The only reason code enforcement had originally been included as a possible DDA responsibility was that community standards officers essentially enforce the parking, so there was a thought that an efficiency could be gained by consolidating that function.

But Collins said it was complicated by matters of law and politics. It was logical to do from a work-flow dynamic, but not for the public. Teall asked if community standards officers performed code enforcement work inside and outside the DDA district, would they be only looking for code violations and ignore parking violations? Hewitt pointed out that code enforcement throughout the city would be complaint-driven. They only enforce if someone complains. At that point Smith suggested that level of detail would require staff input.

Collins said it didn’t make a lot of sense to take an officer with the responsibility of doing a variety of enforcement and then to exclude certain geographic areas. Taylor suggested that the language of the term sheet adequately addressed the issue by stipulating “primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility.” Collins said that if a community standards officer was downtown in response to a sign problem and noticed a car parked in a no-parking zone, then of course they would write a ticket for that.

Collins allowed that some DDA members would disagree with that kind of scenario. But he said that he thought if someone is told “don’t worry about that area, someone else is doing the work” then it would not get done. Smith noted that she thought there was a difference between parking in a no-parking zone – that’s an illegal act – versus an expired meter, which is a just a ticketable offense, she said. There was a difference between someone who has chosen to park in an illegal spot versus someone whose meter expired, she contended.

Hewitt also raised the question of where the revenue from various citations would go.

Hohnke indicated a desire to have staff input on the question of whether there was any economy of scale and the potential for mutual benefit by having one group of people responsible for parking enforcement and code enforcement. It would be nice, he said, to have staff verify that separating the two kinds of enforcement is not a financial stumbling block.

Taylor noted that it was clear that the DDA board was not interested in taking on code enforcement. He said that at least some councilmembers had also expressed concern about it. Asking staff if separating the two would cause difficulty would be a good idea, said Taylor. The question to staff should be along the lines of: Right now it looks like we’re going to separate these two – tell us if we should change our minds.

Provision of Services in DDA Area

The third item on the term sheet was the possibility that the DDA would provide various maintenance type services in the downtown area.

Services: Enhancement, Calculation of Cost Savings

Hewitt moved the conversation to the topic of the DDA providing some types of services in the DDA district currently done “occasionally” by the city – in the area of trees and parks.

Smith gave a somewhat more complex representation of the DDA view on services. First, she said, there was a question of whether it was an enhancement of what was supposed to be done. The second issue, she said, related to possible cost savings. If the DDA hired a company to do all the tree trimming, that would have a cost to the DDA, but the cost saved by the city would be different. The city’s crew already existed, she said. So the DDA would not be able to write off the full cost of the tree trimming in any arrangement under the general context of the parking contract.

Collins said there was a two-edged sword with respect to downtown areas and taxation. Yes, he said, we want to have a nice downtown so that people will want to go there. But there was also a view among some DDA board members that downtown was being bled financially for the benefit of the wider city. That was not true, Collins said, but some people had the idea that if the DDA takes responsibility for doing some things downtown, it freed up other money so that leaf collection could happen in Ann Arbor Hills. Collins said he knew that it was not true, but observed that this was the “folk logic” to it.

Smith raised the issue of scale – she’d just visited Austin, Texas, and talked to the director of the downtown development authority there. Based on that conversation, Smith said that 90% of the taxes generated in the Austin district are used throughout the rest of the city, due to the high density. In that case, the amount of taxes generated in a small area suggested that it needed to be disbursed. It was a real question, she said, of how much money generated in the DDA district needed to stay inside the district.

Hohnke asked Hewitt what the level of support on the DDA board was in exploring service levels. Hewitt indicated that there was, in fact, interest in pursuing that as part of the parking contract. There was some discussion about how current the data was that had been included in the chart accompanying the term sheet.

Services: Private Support for Parks

The idea that private companies might adopt certain areas, like parks, in the downtown was not discussed at the committee meeting on Monday.

However, following up on some information from an audience member at the meeting, The Chronicle spoke by phone with John Teeter of First Martin Corp. about First Martin’s current supplement of maintenance in two Ann Arbor parks – Wheeler Park just north of the DDA district, and Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division & Liberty, located squarely in the DDA district.

According to Teeter, First Martin paid for the tree trimming at Wheeler Park this year and is handling the mowing, trimming and edging through this year’s mowing season. They’ve also repaired the steel fence around the playground area. In Liberty Plaza there’s no area to be mowed, but First Martin will be taking care of the tree trimming as soon as the holiday lights are taken down. In addition, the trash collection in the plaza has been added to a First Martin employee’s task list.

The two parks are not accidental choices of First Martin as locations where the real estate company thought about helping to supplement city services. Wheeler Park is located directly across from First Martin offices on Depot Street. And Liberty Plaza adjoins a First Martin property – the Michigan Square Building at 330 E. Liberty. The plaza was built at the same time as the building. First Martin takes an interest in neighborhoods where they operate, Teeter said.

DDA Does Development

Collins described support for parking enforcement by the DDA as strong, but complicated by legal issues, so support wasn’t 100% from the DDA board. Provision of services also had strong support, said Collins, but was work-flow complicated, so also not at 100%.

On the other hand, said Collins, support for the idea of the DDA assuming a leadership role in downtown development might have 100% support from the board. You could make a business case for the parking enforcement, because there are dollars in and dollars out. For services, that was more difficult, there were no dollars in per se, Collins said.

Development: Blueprint for DDA’s Role

Teall asked what staff should be asked for in terms of evaluating development. Hohnke said there was currently a work flow associated with development involving planning staff. He suggested it would be important to look at what currently happens and what a more DDA-driven work flow would look like.

Hewitt characterized current development as “reactive” on the part of city staff. The city council might say that it would like to see a particular lot developed, and staff then reacts to that. A DDA approach would be to look at all the lots in the DDA area and come up with a master plan for those – how they should be used and developed, with timelines.

Hewitt allowed that everything would have to be approved by the council, but it would be a more proactive, comprehensive approach than a one-at-a-time reaction. Smith said she didn’t think it belonged in the parking agreement – it should be a resolution from the city council directing the DDA to create a master plan for “divestment” of the city-owned parking lots over the long term. That would mean gathering input from consultants and the community and presenting it to the city council. Taylor objected to the term “divesting,” saying he’d prefer “optimizing.”

Collins indicated that the reason there was strong DDA support for this fourth point on the term sheet was that it was viewed as the core of the DDA’s mission, so everyone could agree with it. Developing for the benefit of the community was the core of what the DDA was about – parking, trees, community standards were part of the equation, but the development of the downtown was the real core of the DDA mission.

Smith said she didn’t think the city had a great track record recently, and concurred with Hewitt’s characterization of the approach as “reactive.” Hewitt said that with a one-project-at-a-time approach it was hard to maintain expertise among city staff. It was a matter of trying to fit it into people’s responsibilities who had other things to do.

Taylor asked if the Aug. 9 meeting of the committees would be a useful target date for a DDA proposal on how it should work – something fairly detailed. There would need to be appropriate points of city council check-in for the process. Smith noted that the DDA board did not typically meet in August and Hewitt said he’d need to check with staff – the DDA had just recently had its staff develop a parking plan on four months notice. So he wanted to at least consult with DDA staff before pledging them to a certain timeline.

Taylor suggested that at least among the committee members they would hope for a fairly detailed proposed by the Sept. 13 meeting for how the DDA would run development.

Development: Ann Arbor as a Suburban Community

At the most recent DDA board meeting, Russ Collins expressed a lament that what a lot of people wanted was acres and acres of parking, and that in general people did not necessarily support the idea of a downtown. He continued with that theme at a couple of points during Monday morning’s committee meeting.

I think that collectively we need to figure out how to deal with this – I’ve said this before so this is not new – but Ann Arbor is bottom line a suburban community where people pull up in their driveways at their house on a lot. So the vast majority of the electorate, of the population, doesn’t relate viscerally to what a downtown is. So consequently, it’s very easy for the NIMBY nature of communities and neighborhoods … to be encouraged to oppose things that are logical and appropriate for a downtown, but are more nuanced, or complicated or even inappropriate in a suburban kind of environment.

Collins said that accounted for the resistance on the part of citizens and the government alike to those things that the downtown needed in order to be vital. There was too much focus on parking as a problem – either as something there was under- or over-capacity for. Parking is something that suburban people worry about, said Collins, it’s not what urban people worry about.

There was a similar over-focus on parks, he continued. In a suburban setting, parks are 100% positive, he said – in an urban setting it’s more complicated and nuanced. When you say, “Parks” and 95% of your voters are suburban people, they go “Yes!” when that could really be a bad idea for a downtown, he said.

Overcoming the complicated dynamic of the electorate and politicians who have to respond to that electorate, said Collins, is going to be critical.

Development: The Politics of Downtown

Hewitt noted that less than 3% of Ann Arbor residents live in the DDA district. If that were 20%, he said, there would be an entirely different political dynamic going on. On that scenario, Hewitt continued, there would be a constituency that viewed the downtown as a downtown that would have political influence. With the current numbers, it was too small a group and it was divided among all the wards.

The shaded areas are Ann Arbor's five wards with the DDA district in red outline. The roughly pie-shaped configuration of the wards is specified in the city charter. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Teall agreed with Hewitt, noting that each ward only had a slice of the downtown. Hewitt continued with the theme by saying there was no constituency that votes in numbers, with enough influence and a stake in downtown. It’s not that people don’t go downtown, he said, it’s just that “They love it in the wrong way.”

Taylor began his response to Collins and Hewitt by saying, “Without agreeing with a good deal of that …” He acknowledged that residents appeared before the city council and expressed opinions about developments. It struck him, however, that there is a strong consensus about density in the non-South-University area of the DDA district.

Development: How Tall Is Tall?

Collins contended that the only way to have a significant impact on density was to put up 20-30 story buildings – because that’s when you get the real estate efficiency and payback. But the citizenry at large, he said, would go “Whoah! Anything more than five stories makes me nervous!”

Taylor pointed to Zaragon Place 2 as an example of a project that enjoyed support. Hewitt allowed that Zaragon Place 2, at 14 stories, did not seem to be getting a lot of opposition at this point – it had not gotten high on the public’s consciousness, yet. The possible acceptance of Zaragon Place 2, he thought, suggested a slow transition was taking place. [The development, proposed for the southeast corner of William and Thompson, received approval from the city's planning commission on Tuesday.]

Hewitt noted that at First & Washington, a project had failed to get support 10 years ago because it was going to be seven stories instead of six stories. So 14 stories in the core of downtown was starting to become acceptable, Hewitt said. But 20 stories probably isn’t acceptable at this point, he said.

In response to an indication from Hohnke that he wanted to get the discussion back to the specific agenda of the DDA assuming responsibility for development, Taylor characterized the discussion to that point as acknowledging the challenges of putting together a proposal by Sept. 13.

Hewitt suggested that the DDA draft something and put it out there – the DDA was aware as well or better than anyone of the opposition. Smith suggested that the DDA board’s partnerships committee would be a good venue to discuss the issue – there was representation from the city council there, as well as the city planning commission, via the council’s representative to the planning commission, Tony Derezinski.

Collins said that from an emotional point of view, he was “about to give up and just say, screw it, bulldoze the downtown.” Everybody loves it to death, he said, and let’s just turn everything into a “strip mall karma,” so that when you’re outside of downtown you have one-story strip malls, and when you’re inside the downtown you have five-story strip malls. People want acres of parking everywhere, he said. “It takes a helluva lot of backbone to not cave in to that,” he concluded.

Hohnke allowed that it was a fair point, but he did not think it was exactly accurate. He then ticked through a list of approved developments:

• 8 stories at First & Washington [Village Green's City Apartments]
• 8 stories at Washington & Ashley [Tierra on Ashley]
• 10 stories at Kingsley & Ashley [Kingsley Lane]
• 5 stories on North Main [Near North]
• 10 stories of development at the Greek Orthodox church [The Gallery]
• 10 stories at Washington & Division [Metro 202]
• 14 stories at S. Forest [601 S. Forest]
• 14 stories at William & Thompson [Zaragon Place 2]

Hohnke concluded that the notion that there isn’t forward movement with development downtown is factually inaccurate.

Collins came back to the complicated nature of the discussions. Any building above five stories and below 20 stories, he said, is inherently inefficient, because above five stories you have to build a skyscraper in terms of the building code. And if you’re going to build that complicated a building, you need to build to 20 stories to get the payback you need to accommodate that.

Collins compared a 10-story building to a car with only two wheels. That was only halfway to where the city needs to go to get the financial incentives that would create density and development. Teall added that the greater height would also allow residential units to be affordable.

Development: City Council Would Retain Approval Power

Smith came back to idea that the DDA would just be creating a blueprint and it would remain 100% within the city council purview to execute the plan. Teall cautioned that she thought the DDA was to execute the plan as well. But Smith stressed that the city would not simply be turning the deeds to properties over to the DDA. And final approval of anything would rest on council, she said.

Taking Kline’s Lot – on Ashley between William and Liberty – as an example, Smith said the DDA could develop a plan, it would be presented to the city council and the council would either say, “You’re crazy!” or “Go for it!”

Teall said she wanted the city administrator, Roger Fraser, to be part of the development of the plan – she felt he had a good feel for the big development picture right now. People came to Fraser to ask about development, she said. Collins said that one of the things he and Teall had talked through with Fraser a few months ago was the idea of an “ombudsman for development” – someone to be an advocate for the developers within the city. Collins noted that obviously the ombudsman would not be able to circumvent the law or the process.

Smith mentioned that in Chicago they’d created a policy whereby green buildings went to the top of the processing pile.

Additional Ideas: Village Green, Bonding, Fees

At the DDA’s May 28 retreat, board member Newcombe Clark had raised a collection of points with hopes of getting some contractual consideration in connection with the $2 million payment the DDA had already agreed to make to the city.

Village Green

Those points included creating a deadline for Village Green, the developer of the City Apartments project at First & Washington, to exercise its option to purchase the land. The city council will vote at its June 21 meeting on extending that option.

At Monday’s meeting, Smith characterized the Village Green City Apartments issue as more of “an FYI” because it was coming before the city council for a possible extension of the deadline.

Hewitt said that from a budgeting point of view, the DDA was reserving a significant chunk of cash and bonding authority to finance the project and it was important to have some clarity.

Bond issuance, Smith said, was a valid point to raise, related to fees that the DDA pays to the city on major projects. Hewitt described the situation with the underground parking garage as paying for the privilege of paying for bonds for a structure that the DDA was giving to the city. “I think you can probably imagine,” Hewitt told the councilmembers present, “that it does grate somewhat.”

Downtown Policing

Clark has also pushed the idea of contracting for downtown police patrols – or some other means of getting “eyes on the street” as part of the possible parking contract discussions.

At Monday’s meeting, Hewitt said that having contracted for downtown beat patrol officers for State Street back in the mid ’90s, he had some clear ideas of how it should be handled. He said the DDA board was not yet ready to determine what their approach would be.

Smith stressed that it was important to inquire of the city staff what the capacity was for community standards officers to provide “eyes on the street.” Can they ask panhandlers to move on? What’s possible and what are the efficiencies? Chief Barnett Jones or the deputy chief will be addressing the DDA board’s partnerships committee next month on safety issues. Collins noted that he’d been reading “Freakonomics” recently, which includes a range of examples illustrating the difference between perception and reality.

The results of the safety survey had come back not as bad she thought they might, reported Teall – the results had been discussed at the last partnerships committee meeting. Hewitt noted there were only three reported crimes in parking structures in 2009 – it was his favorite statistic. Collins addressed the 84% statistic of those who felt the city was safe – what he didn’t know is if 16% considering it unsafe was too high.

Recap

Smith moved the group to wrapping things up and the next two main steps identified were: (i) to ask the staff of both the DDA and the city to identify the key policy decision points for parking enforcement, and (ii) to share with DDA staff the goals of putting together a proposal for the DDA’s role in developing city-owned surface parking lots.

As part of the concluding discussion, Collins noted that it was important to be mindful that using words like “development” already caused a lot of anxiety. He characterized it as a leadership issue – you lead people to what is beneficial without obfuscating. Teall agreed that it was important not to use trigger words.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, erases "code enforcement" from the list of term sheet items the DDA wants to see discussed further. (Photos by the writer.)

And later in the afternoon, the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority met for a retreat to give direction to its own “mutually beneficial” committee.

The two committees are charged with the task of redefining the agreement between the city and the DDA that allows the DDA to manage the city’s parking system.

From the city councilmembers’ perspective, the ball was in the DDA’s court. They were hoping that the DDA’s retreat later in the day would reduce the items on the term sheet that is supposed to underpin the city-DDA conversation.

At their retreat, the DDA board did eliminate an item on the term sheet – code enforcement, other than parking regulations, was not something for which they wanted to assume responsibility. The remaining three term sheet items – parking enforcement, provision of services, and development of city-owned property – stayed on the white board. The clearest consensus among board members seemed to be around the idea that the DDA should focus on development.

But a couple of additional items were added into the mix – issues related to Village Green’s City Apartments project. That project, located at First and Washington, has previously seen its site plan approval option to purchase extended through June 30, 2010. City council action would be required in the next month, if it’s to be extended again.

Downtown police beat patrols were also left on the board as an additional item of discussion.

At Friday’s retreat, the board heard the same message from Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, that she’d conveyed at a partnerships committee meeting two weeks earlier – the reason for the DDA’s existence was to spur private investment in the downtown.

But as a group, there was an uneven embrace of that message. Some board members preferred to identify “development” as meaning something broader than building new infrastructure, suggesting that a more general “economic development” approach might also be appropriate for the DDA.

And one other idea was thrown up on the white board, but did not stick: altering the DDA district boundaries.

Parking Agreement: Term Sheet and Basic Background

The term sheet that the DDA board whittled down at its Friday afternoon retreat is to be the basis of future discussions between the city and the DDA about a revision to the contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. The hoped-for outcome of that discussion is a new parking contract between the two entities, signed by Oct. 31, 2010.

The contract had been revised in 2005 to provide for a $1 million-per-year parking facility rental payment by the DDA from 2005 through 2015. The contract included a provision allowing the city to draw up to $2 million in a given year, provided the total over 10 years did not exceed $10 million. The city elected to draw $2 million in each of the first five years, leaving the city without a right, under that contract, to any payment from the DDA starting next fiscal year (FY 2011), which begins July 1, 2010.

Already in July 2009, both the city and the DDA had created and appointed committees to undertake the discussion that was to result in a new parking agreement. That new revised agreement was intended to be in place in time for the city to plan its FY 2011 budget. No long-term revision was reached by then, but a one-time $2 million payment was authorized by the DDA last month, which allowed the city to incorporate an additional $2 million into its roughly $80 million annual general fund budget for FY 2011.

The committee structure that had been set up to address a revision to the parking agreement was not used, however. Instead, city councilmembers and DDA board members elected to form a group that worked out of public view over the first four months of this year. That group produced a term sheet of items that is intended to underpin more detail-focused conversations on a longer-term contract revision.

The creation of the term sheet was enough to convince a 7-member majority of the 12-member DDA board that it should pay an additional $2 million to the city – effectively a one-time unilateral revision to the parking contract. The language of the DDA’s resolution authorizing the payment, passed in early May, calls on the future conversations to be publicly accessible.

For its part, the city council created its second mutually beneficial committee at the council’s May 17, 2010 meeting, and appointed as members Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). All city committees, including sub-committees of the city council, are required – by city council resolution – to conform to the conditions of the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

Teall and Hohnke were already members of the council’s mutually beneficial committee appointed in July 2009. The third member appointed at that time was Leigh Greden, but he was defeated by Stephen Kunselman in the August 2009 Democratic primary.

Term Sheet Items

Starting with the existing parking agreement as a baseline, the term sheet covers four broad topics as points of discussion for working out details for a contract revision that would provide the city with a continuing revenue stream from the parking system. Over the last five years, that revenue stream has amounted to $2 million each year.

Parking Enforcement [...]
Throughout the City, the DDA will have primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility for enforcement of public-parking-related rules and regulations, including without limitation, expired meters, parking structure rule compliance, loading zones, and established residential parking permit zones (“Parking Codes”). [...]

Community Standards Code Enforcement in the DDA [...]
Within the DDA, the DDA will have primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility for enforcement of City ordinances now generally enforced by community standards officers, including without limitation, ordinances related to sidewalk clearance, debris, graffiti, and alley upkeep (“Community Codes”). [...]

Services in the DDA [...]
Within the DDA boundaries, the DDA will have primary, but non-exclusive, responsibility for delivering the preliminary list of services identified on “Exhibit 1”, attached. The DDA will deliver the identified services with at [sic] the identified service levels and frequencies. Generally, these are all services delivered currently delivered [sic] by the City within the DDA boundaries, excluding public safety, street clearing, and other services as identified in “Exhibit 1”. [...]

Development of City-owned Property Within the DDA District [...]
The working group envisions that the DDA would serve as a visioning, initiation and implementation engine for development of City-owned property within the DDA district. The nature and extent of this role will be discussed, considered and, if approved, implemented in parallel to any omnibus agreement, but would not be part of that agreement. [...]

Since the term sheet has been made public, some negative statements have already been heard from city councilmembers and DDA board members alike about the idea that the DDA would assume responsibility for enforcement of parking or community standards codes. On the city’s side, mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have expressed their confidence that city officers are already able to implement a “customer service” approach to parking enforcement without assigning responsibility to the DDA. Kunselman has expressed his concerns about setting up a “shadow government.”

And at the DDA board retreat on Friday, the overwhelming sentiment was against pursuing DDA responsibility for community standards enforcement. So that won’t, from the DDA’s side, be a topic for future discussions.

In that regard, Friday’s DDA retreat will be counted as progress by the city’s mutually beneficial committee. They were anticipating a reduction of items on the term sheet to help focus the future conversation. [.pdf of complete term sheet]

Friday Morning: City Council Mutually Beneficial Committee

On Friday morning, May 28, the council’s committee – Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall and Carsten Hohnke – discussed little of substance, focusing instead on procedural and scheduling matters.

Public notification of their first meeting experienced a minor glitch. The posted location of the meeting in the lobby of city hall indicated the committee would meet on the second floor, but the city’s online Legistar system indicated it was to be held on the third floor. The meeting turned out to take place on the third floor in the conference room right across from the elevators.

City Council MBC: Hope for a Reduction in Term Sheet Items

Taylor reported that the term sheet had elicited some “atmospheric” discussion from city councilmembers and DDA board members – there’d been satisfaction expressed with some items and dissatisfaction expressed with others.

So Taylor figured there’d be a “winnowing” of issues on the part of the DDA board, just as there would be a similar winnowing on the part of the city council if a conversation like the DDA board’s retreat were to take place. Teall indicated that she was unaware that the DDA was having a retreat. So Taylor introduced the possibility of a city council working session to get a better sense of what city councilmembers felt about the term sheet items.

After the two bodies had reduced the number of issues to be discussed, Taylor said, the two committees would have a better starting point to put together a more formal document. Teall wondered what the three of them could accomplish that morning – she felt like there wasn’t a lot they could do until they heard a response from the DDA.

City Council MBC: Which Term Sheet Items Are Most Challenging?

Hohnke suggested that it might be possible to rank order the issues in terms of how difficult they might be to tackle – based on educated guesses about what the DDA and the council might leave on the term sheet.

For example, services in the DDA area – tree trimming, tree watering, and graffiti removal, he said, would involve small costs. He thought most councilmembers would think it made sense to transfer that to the DDA.

But Hohnke wondered if it would make the most sense to use their fresh energy on the most challenging of the items or to knock out the easiest items first.

Teall characterized the DDA board at their partnerships committee meeting on May 12 as “divided” on many of the issues. With respect to services, for example, there was more of an interest in using the city to provide services on State Street than on Main Street. On Main Street, she pointed out, a business improvement zone (BIZ) has recently been approved [with support from the DDA and approval by the city council] to provide services like graffiti removal and snow clearing.

City Council MBC: Guesses About What the DDA Wants

Within the topic of development, Teall said there was also some division on the DDA board. Executive director Susan Pollay suggested that the DDA should focus on development, but some board members were not certain they wanted to do that, Teall said. For her part, Teall said she felt the DDA had the expertise, energy and drive to push development forward – she favored that.

Teall said she supported an idea that DDA board member Russ Collins had expressed at one of their previous meetings that there should be an “ombuds-person” to guide development. Teall noted that the item addressing the role of the DDA in downtown development hadn’t been fleshed out very much on the term sheet, but that there was considerable interest in that expressed at the May 12 DDA partnerships committee meeting.

As far as trying to rank order the items by how challenging they are, Teall noted that the term sheet itself already reflected a preliminary assessment of difficulty – parking enforcement was estimated to take 6-12 months to transition to the DDA, whereas community standards enforcement was projected to take 12-24 months. But Taylor indicated that this was an estimation of how much effort it would take to implement after an agreement. Hohnke was focused on how much work it would take to reach an agreement.

On the question of parking system responsibility, Taylor cast the issue against the background of the parking meters that the city had proposed to install outside the DDA area as part of last year’s budget proposal for FY 2010. That had happened without – as far as he understood the situation – a fulsome discussion with the DDA. So a hypothetical example of a specific point that could be part of the agreement, Taylor suggested, would be that the DDA would be given the authority to set the times for meter enforcement, with the city council having the authority to override decisions.

After brief speculation about what the DDA board’s retreat might yield in the way of results, Hohnke suggested that really the ball was to some extent in the DDA’s court. Taylor supported that view, saying the ball was “entirely” in the DDA’s court.

City Council MBC: Scheduling, and Does the DDA Have a Committee?

So Taylor suggested that the two bodies – the DDA and the city council – could identify areas of interest on the term sheet that they want to focus on and that there would be areas of overlap for the two committees to take forward. Teall then questioned whether the DDA board had their own “mutually beneficial” committee. Hohnke said he thought that the DDA board had such a committee, with Taylor saying he believed the DDA board had a committee, but he did not know for sure.

The three councilmembers then discussed the scheduling of a possible working session of the council, and considered the usefulness of meeting with the DDA’s committee beforehand to help set the agenda for that working session. Teall said she felt it would definitely be useful to hear from the DDA’s committee about the outcome of the retreat before setting the working session agenda. The outcome of the retreat, she said, could turn out to be that the DDA doesn’t want to do anything except for the development piece.

Hohnke suggested that based on what survived from the term sheet, city staff could be asked to develop presentations for the working session.

Tentatively, the committee decided to try to schedule a “mini working session” for Monday, June 21 starting at 6 p.m., which would provide a fixed end time of 7 p.m. when the council’s regular meeting starts. It would be primarily for information distribution and perhaps some conversation.

They decided that a June 21 working session would mean that a meeting of the two mutually beneficial committees of the DDA and the city should be scheduled for the following week [May 31 - June 4] and that they should try to meet again as a committee before the meeting with their DDA committee counterparts.

Taylor summed up the committee’s work for the morning by declaring, “The meeting to schedule the meetings has occurred.”

DDA Retreat Part I: Structure, Enforcement, Services

Entering the DDA board meeting room on Friday afternoon, Leah Gunn cheerily declared that she’d put two-hours worth of money in a parking meter and that they’d need to wrap things up in under that time. The scheduling of the retreat had been done on short notice, so several board members were not able to be there at the start. Eventually eight out of 12 members appeared. Missing were John Hieftje, Jennifer S. Hall, Gary Boren and Russ Collins. Hieftje and Hall’s attendance was not expected due to family circumstances.

If parking enforcement was effective in downtown Ann Arbor on Friday, then Gunn returned to her car to find a ticket on her windshield – the retreat went roughly two and a half hours. The report below is organized partly based on the term sheet items. But there were other more general topics introduced as well.

In this section we handle all term sheet items other than the assignment of a stronger role for development to the DDA. That includes general issues related to the parking agreement, parking enforcement and community standards enforcement.

DDA Retreat Part I: Overall Parking System, Length of Contract

The overall term of the agreement was not determined, said Roger Hewitt, but he wanted the term of the eventual agreement to be fairly long. That was essential for long-term planning, he said, and would also eliminate the haggling every few years and finally “put things to rest.” He did not want the parking agreement opened up every time there was a budget crisis.

Right out of the gate, however, Newcombe Clark questioned whether that kind of long-term arrangement was possible, given the fact that the city could take revenues from parking facilities not covered in the agreement – the Fifth & William (old YMCA) surface lot and the 415 W. Washington St. lot, for example. In addition, Clark said, the city could take lots currently in the agreement and remove them. How could the DDA runs its budget under those circumstances?

Hewitt clarified that a key idea not necessarily indicated as a separate item on the term sheet was that the DDA would assume responsibility for the entire parking system of the city. The city would not be “in the parking business,” Hewitt said.

There would be a need, Hewitt acknowledged, for the DDA to have more flexibility to adjust parking rates in order to implement the dynamic pricing associated with demand management strategies. There would be different rates for different times of day, varying by location.

As far as the revenue stream to the city from the parking system, Hewitt reported that one way it had been discussed was to make it a fixed percentage of gross revenue, but that there were a variety of ways to approach it. Clark observed that a fixed percentage of gross revenue would be difficult to budget against.

Hewitt suggested putting the issues of money and the length of the agreement aside and focusing on the structure of the agreement. Clark said he wanted to identify the areas of divergence between what the city council was thinking and what the DDA was thinking, and identify them early. He was concerned with the philosophy of the contractual mechanisms that had not been in place up to then, he said.

For example, Clark wanted to know if the mechanism of the payment would be a rental agreement, in which the DDA was paying rent to use city-owned assets – that is, parking structures and lots. Hewitt confirmed that this was his understanding.

At one point, when Sandi Smith mention a $2 million figure, Clark asked if they were now talking about payments in addition to the one they’d just authorized – were they talking about a $10 million deal? Susan Pollay brought that discussion back to the issue of finding a benefit to the downtown in the new agreement. The money that the DDA is paying to the city needs to be connected to some benefit in the downtown. Some operations, Pollay said, that could be performed “better” by the DDA, and which would benefit the downtown. It would be a qualitative benefit rather than a quantitative benefit.

DDA Retreat Part I: (Term Sheet) Parking Enforcement

Roger Hewitt characterized the parking enforcement as the most straightforward of the term sheet elements. It included writing tickets for expired meters, loading zone violations, no-parking violations, fire-hydrants – a function currently performed by the city’s community standards officers. Hewitt said that the idea, which had been discussed for a number of years, was to put the DDA in charge of all that. The idea was that the philosophy of enforcement could transition from revenue generation as a goal, to one where compliance is achieved with “more carrots and less stick.”

Something that really upsets visitors to the downtown, Hewitt said, is getting a parking ticket for an expired meter. Sandi Smith agreed with Hewitt, saying that receiving a parking ticket made people feel like they were breaking the law, when they were not intending to do that. It’s the most frequent time that an average citizen is going to cross with the law, she said, and they don’t need to cross with the law.

Leah Gunn noted that with respect to visitors, the important point was that the city wanted to keep them coming back. Joan Lowenstein pointed out that every place in the whole world has parking tickets, so she suggested it was an over-sensitivity to the idea of getting a parking ticket. Smith suggested it was worth being sensitive to the over-sensitivity, because there are other options to shop and dine, where there are acres and acres of parking with no threat of a parking ticket [Briarwood Mall, for example].

Newcombe Clark suggested that the idea was to transition parking enforcement to a “service.”

With respect to both enforcement issues – parking and community standards codes – John Mouat expressed concern about how the DDA might staff the operation. Smith said the idea was to have a “kinder, gentler approach.” Worrying about who would do it was something that had not been sorted out. Mouat questioned the assumption that the DDA would do it better than the city. Hewitt explained that the key to that was understanding the definition of “better.” For the city, he said, “better” meant more net revenue. For the DDA, he continued, it meant happier people coming downtown and coming back downtown.

Mouat said he questioned the assumption that the DDA could really do a better job than the city at parking enforcement. He said that “Ann Arbor just loves to dump on the city for doing such a bad job at everything,” but that in his experience over the years, the city staff actually did a really good job at most things.

Keith Orr stressed that it was very important that the enforcement and the management of the parking system be coordinated by one entity, so that the goals of demand management could be met. And Hewitt summarized by saying that the DDA would not do a “better” job but rather a “different” job than the city.

Hewitt noted that community standards officers are part of the police department and their concern is primarily public safety. But parking enforcement – aside from parking next to a fire hydrant and the like – was not so much a public safety issue, Hewitt said. He noted that enforcement was a logical piece to fit in with parking management, which the DDA already did.

Smith wondered if there were some sort of hybrid, where the city would provide the service – with the DDA’s input and guidance. Clark expressed some frustration with the level of conversation at that point, saying, “We have to get out of the plane and look at this flood, we can’t just keep circling around.”  The basic issue: They were talking about privatizing enforcement in the same way they already did with other functions through Republic Parking. Can it be competitively bid? Is the DDA even allowed to do that?

Smith acknowledged that there was an AFSCME union concern that had already been expressed to the city about conversion of those enforcement jobs to non-union positions. [The city jobs of collecting the meter money had previously been converted to private jobs, through a contract with Republic Parking, when the city agreed to allow on-street parking revenues to flow to the DDA.] She said it was not possible for enforcement to be transitioned to private positions under the current AFSCME contract.

Smith told Clark the current AFSCME contract ran through June 2011. Clark said the key issue for him was whether the DDA could really run enforcement more efficiently than the city. In addition, he said that as a downtown resident he liked knowing that he could call the police if someone was parked blocking his garage.  Would he need to call Republic Parking in the future?

For Mouat, a key question was whether Republic Parking – or some other private contractor – could be contracted to do the job. He was concerned about implications for staffing at the DDA.

Susan Pollay said it was her understanding that the DDA could contract with Republic to perform parking enforcement – it would not have a dramatic effect on DDA staffing levels, she said.

Hewitt indicated that however the details were worked out, the Ann Arbor police department would still have the authority to issue tickets if they chose to do so. That had been very clear, he said. The city could not give up the right to issue tickets.

Pollay noted that within the city, parking enforcement is under a patrol area within the police department, and that’s under the city administrator, who in turn reports to the city council. That meant a lot of layers between policy and implementation, she said. Gunn echoed Pollay’s sentiment by saying that the DDA would be “closer” to parking enforcement and would thus do a better job.

Sandi Smith, DDA board member and Ward 1 city councilmember, arrived at the meeting on crutches.

Smith went back to the idea that “seaming together” the enforcement with the operation of the parking system was a No. 1 goal. She called for a straw poll on the issue of combining enforcement and operation. Gunn said she supported that idea. And she said there needed to be assurance that the city would suffer no net loss due to the way the parking system is enforced.

Smith suggested that it should be thought of as a “soft landing.” If the demand management strategy works, she said, then there will be fewer and fewer tickets issued, because there will be less opportunity to break the law. It would be a “weaning” process from fines as a revenue source, she suggested.

Hewitt raised the possibility that in the future it might be possible to simply charge people for the time they actually used an on-street spot – through sensor technology – and remove over-the-limit tickets from the set of possibilities. People would pay a graduated rate – it would simply be very expensive past a certain time. The revenues would shift from fines to charges. A ticket upsets people more than a charge on their credit card, Hewitt ventured.

Smith noted that the fine revenues had already shown decreases over the last couple of years.

Clark alluded, however, to a projection that Tom Crawford, the city of Ann Arbor’s CFO, had made that suggested sooner rather than later, parking enforcement would cost more than it generated in revenue through fines.

Clark also came back to the idea that enforcement without the ability to set the fines was “toothless and meaningless” to the DDA.

Smith moved the retreat towards wrapping up the parking enforcement discussion by asking people to reflect on the issue as related to the DDA’s capacity and its mission – did they want to leave it on the board or wipe it off?

The straw poll showing of hands was summarized by Hewitt as “pretty unanimous” for leaving parking enforcement on the board.

The result of a straw poll on the DDA taking responsibility for parking enforcement (from far right, counterclockiwse): John Mouat, Keith Orr, Susan Pollay, Sandi Smith, John Splitt.

A voice of some dissent came from Clark, who said, “Just because I can have a baby, I probably shouldn’t – that’s my concern about all this.” The discussion paused while people got their laughter worked out.

Turning more serious, Clark asked for direction from Pollay: “When do the horns need to be louder? When do we need to say a little louder that parking enforcement might be a good idea, but we have to remember these other mission issues?”

Pollay indicated she’d provide the direction Clark asked for. Parking, she said, had been used up to then to support the mission of the downtown – from supporting development downtown to enabling special events to happen.

Outcome: Parking enforcement stayed on the list.

DDA Retreat Part I: (Term Sheet) Code Enforcement

Roger Hewitt described community standards code enforcement as the “outside codes” – sidewalk ordinances, trash removal, sandwich boards, cafes. It’s now enforced on a complaint basis. The idea is that if the DDA were in charge, there’d be more proactive work to get compliance from business owners instead of just calling them up and telling them they’re going to get a $500 ticket.

Many of the concerns about parking enforcement blended into the discussion about community standards. Joan Lowenstein clarified that even if the DDA took responsibility for community standards enforcement, the city would still need community standards officers for the area outside the DDA district.

Hewitt confirmed that there were certain areas that the DDA had “no desire whatever to be involved in.” For example, if someone doesn’t mow their lawn, the grass gets too tall, and someone calls in a complaint – the last thing the DDA wanted to do was to send someone out to tell them to cut their grass. The DDA would do code enforcement only inside its boundary, Hewitt said.

Keith Orr expressed concerns that the DDA didn’t have a history with the city on code enforcement the way it did with parking system management. Also, he said, code enforcement set up the DDA to be “the bad guy” in ways that were counter to the DDA’s mission. He gave as a specific example the case of sandwich sign boards – the DDA viewed them as positive, but the city’s ordinance prohibited them. [The city's ordinance on sidewalk occupancy was just recently revised to allow sandwich sign boards.]

John Mouat identified as a concern possible confusion among the public about who to call for a code violation. Leah Gunn said she’d prefer to think of the DDA as in the “service business,” not the “enforcement business.” She thought it would be more useful for the DDA to help businesses get their graffiti removed than to write tickets for graffiti.

When the brief discussion on community standards code enforcement looked like it would quickly be moved to a straw poll vote, Hewitt asked for an opportunity to elaborate. He cited his experience as the owner of downtown businesses in the campus area, which have problems that other parts of the downtown don’t have. He identified “eyes on the street” as essential, but that wasn’t happening.

Lowenstein suggested that DDA parking enforcement contractors could call police in the event of code violations, as well as infractions like aggressive panhandling. Code enforcement was much different from parking enforcement, Lowenstein said. In legal terms, she said [Lowenstein is an attorney], you just needed someone to write a ticket, and if somebody doesn’t pay, the fine goes up. With code enforcement, she said, there’s a warning and then a 24-hour period, and they can go to court and challenge it. It starts getting “legally much messier” than the parking enforcement.

Keith Orr mentioned that some of the more ambitious visions of the Main Street BIZ (Business Improvement District), which had included eyes-on-the-street people, had to be scaled back because the size of the district was relatively small.

On the question of code enforcement, there was no support indicated on the DDA board for leaving the item on the white board – Hewitt joked that he’d abstain.

Outcome: Code enforcement was wiped from the list.

Later in the retreat, Newcombe Clark suggested adding downtown police patrols to the list. The ensuing discussion focused on the fact that it might fall into the general category of code enforcement or services. The conversation did not gel around any particular perspective, and it was allowed to stay on the board, but given the unclear status of sentiment on the issue, Keith Orr called it “on the list but in suspended animation.”

DDA Retreat Part I: (Term Sheet) City Services

Roger Hewitt described these services as largely having to do with park-type maintenance activities – tree watering, pruning and the like. These are the kinds of activities that are easy to curtail when budgets are under stress.

Sandi Smith introduced as relevant to the issue of service provision the newly created Main Street BIZ, which would be providing some level of additional service – primarily in the form of sidewalk snow and trash removal, and graffiti removal.

John Mouat wanted to know how much the downtown cost the city for services, compared to other areas of the city. Susan Pollay told Mouat there’d been an effort in 2005 to analyze that – it was the source of the estimates included for various activities on the term sheet. However, Pollay said, it had been asked in terms of cost per area, not cost per resident. The cost for trash pickup – at five days a week – sounds expensive, she allowed, but with 2,800 downtown residents, that was actually less expensive than providing trash pickup once a week out in the area near Weber’s Inn, where she lives.

Leah Gunn noted that it wasn’t just downtown residents who needed to be factored in – there were also commercial establishments who paid taxes as well. Pollay supported Gunn’s point by saying that there were, in addition to 2,800 people who lived downtown, 10,000 people who worked there.

Mouat framed the question as whether the DDA wanted to fight the city to provide the downtown’s fair share of services, or if they wanted to just give up on that and pay for it themselves. He wondered if it meant the DDA would take over the services or “enhance” the services that the city already does.

Hewitt noted the idea was that if there were savings to the city, that amount would be deducted from whatever agreed-upon amount the DDA paid the city as part of the parking agreement.

Noting that the cost of all the services being contemplated was $100,000 a year, Gunn said that as her good friend Karl Pohrt would say, “This is chump change.” If it can be done and done right, is it worth the investment?

John Splitt asked if the idea was to reimburse city staff for doing the work or if they would contract with Republic Parking to do the work. Pollay indicated that she’d have to hire a landscaping contractor. Smith indicated that this, too, would be a union issue, because there were already city workers who performed those tasks. Joan Lowenstein indicated it was a somewhat different issue, and “more surmountable” because the tree trimming activities took place throughout the city.

Mouat asked Pollay directly if she felt that taking on the responsibility was within her world and her staff model. In response, she said the DDA had capacity to do things like install a whole row of new trees. That was something the DDA has capacity to do and they had done it well. Ongoing maintenance, however, was something the DDA had no current capacity for. There is no mechanism in the organization that provides a way  to monitor whether trees are getting watered.

Gunn asked about Republic Parking and their landscaping. Pollay replied that she wrote a check to Republic Parking and she did not do anything beyond that. Lowenstein said that conceivably the DDA could contract with a landscaping company – something that Pollay had already mentioned. Pollay said she was responding to the question that Mouat had asked, which was whether the DDA had the capacity to take on ongoing maintenance.

Pollay said the DDA is far better equipped to take on one-time capital improvements than it is for ongoing maintenance. Gunn didn’t agree, saying they were already doing wonderful landscaping through their parking contractor. Pollay countered by saying this was limited to the areas adjoining the parking structures. Gunn suggested that it would just mean expanding the role of Republic Parking. Pollay replied that she would have to manage it. She indicated that she would do anything the board asked her to, but that managing it, she didn’t feel, was a good use of her time.

Lowenstein pointed out that Pollay didn’t have to worry about the parking, because Republic Parking handled that. Similarly, the landscaping contractor would take care of it and report to the board every month.

Mouat noted that the additional challenge would be to make sure that the contractor was doing its job by walking around and looking at the work.

Lowenstein said she thought that there was some model they could find to make that work. Landscaping was the kind of thing that people mention – dead trees on Washington Street, for example. If it’s feasible, she said, they should find a way to do it.

The issue of the “hold harmless” language for services the DDA would provide generated some discussion. Elsewhere in the term sheet, there’s language that says the city will be held harmless with respect to parking fine revenue – that is, the city wouldn’t receive less than it does now. In the services section, it’s the DDA that is to be held harmless with respect to the cost of the additional services the DDA would provide.

Smith noted that an important question was whether the amount would be calculated based on the cost savings by the city or the cost to the DDA. The city, she said, would argue that their costs wouldn’t go down by as much as the DDA was spending, because the city already had the employees and equipment in place.

Newcombe Clark emphasized it was important that there be some financial consideration established with respect to the amount spent on services subtracted from payments that the DDA makes to the city.

Mouat suggested that it was perhaps not an issue important to the parking agreement, but rather could be added to the DDA’s capital improvements committee work list.

Outcome: The results of the straw poll was to leave services on the white board as term sheet items.

DDA Retreat Part I: Village Green

In addition to the main term sheet items, other items were added to the white board at Newcombe Clark’s request. Clark  noted that the obligation the DDA had to the Village Green City Apartments project at First & Washington – which has not moved forward yet – had a significant impact on their budget. [The DDA is supporting the project with a $9 million bond.] With the need for the city council to extend the site plan approval coming up, there was an opportunity, Clark said, to either abandon or renegotiate the extent of the DDA’s obligation.

In addition, Clark wanted to look at permit fees and bond issuance fees that the city charges the DDA for its projects.

Clark characterized the situation with Village Green as a “grant that doesn’t expire.” He said he was in no way saying “go away” to Village Green – he’d like to see the building built. Right now, however, there was no fire under them to build it. Instead, he said, Village Green was building elsewhere [Minneapolis and Chicago] because they’d not been pushed to build here.

Based on a phone interview with The Chronicle earlier in the week with Village Green, the Minneapolis and Chicago projects could move forward due to the fact that financing is easier there than in Michigan – even factoring in the positive impact Ann Arbor itself has. Village Green will be meeting with city officials in the coming weeks to talk about getting an extension to the City Apartments site plan.

Clark suggested that the money that’s due to come from the DDA could be switched from indefinite status to the DDA’s standard two-year time limit on such grants. The DDA’s contribution supports the construction of a parking deck integrated into the building which will be, in part, accessible to the public.

Clark said the DDA would be building a deck that it didn’t actually like, plus have to bond for the money, plus pay the city’s bond issuance fee, and permitting fees. All that, Clark said, “just gets my goat,” as far as better financial planning. This was a “weird arrangement” that had now been extended a couple of times without adjusting the key element that could be used as a negotiating tactic. It needs some deadline, said Clark.

John Mouat asked what the impact of not having the parking in that part of town would be. Susan Pollay noted that it was a functioning parking area already – the parking structure there had been demolished and is now used as surface parking. A lot of the issue would be that the apartments themselves would create additional demand. She said she did not feel it addressed a critical need for parking in that area of town.

Roger Hewitt said that the west part of downtown was not an area that had any shortage of parking and that he’d personally never been “wild” about building parking there. “We don’t like the design and we’re not in charge of building it,” he said.

Pollay noted that the goal of the parking for Village Green was not parking per se, but rather for the 146 new apartment units with the 250 new downtown residents it would bring.

Pollay said she didn’t see it to be part of the mutually beneficial arrangement, but that given there would be a point of contact between the city and the DDA, it could be brought up.

Clark countered that he felt it was a part of the mutually beneficial conversation, because it would “buy some consideration” for the city to fix the problem of the uncertainty that the DDA had in its budgeting due to Village Green.

Pollay clarified that the issue was to add a deadline.

Mouat noted that there was a lot of interest among property owners along the block to see the whole block redeveloped. He said he felt that there was something better out there than Village Green. Keith Orr commented that there’s no way they could think about something else unless there was a “sunset” on the DDA’s commitment.

Pollay, noting that there were members of the press in the audience, said she wanted to bring the conversation back to what she knew the board members really wanted to say: There’s been a process and a very good developer had been selected from a whole list of others. It is a project with substance and that the neighbors feel good about, with a site plan approval. It was a project the DDA also felt very happy about, she concluded.

Clark confirmed that he wanted Village Green to happen. And Orr concurred, saying it was a matter of a deadline helping to make sure that it did happen.

Outcome: Village Green as an issue stayed on the white board, as did the general issue of how bond issuance fees and construction permitting fees were calculated for DDA projects.

DDA Retreat Part II: General Mission, Boundaries, DDA Role

The item on the term sheet generating the most interest was the part that would establish the DDA as the entity responsible for developing city-owned land in the DDA area. In addition to the term sheet item itself, the board members covered topics like their general mission and where boundaries should be.

DDA Retreat Part II: Mission vs. Capacity

Roger Hewitt suggested that the DDA had the ability to do things in four main areas:

1. capital improvements, construction
2. operational things – e.g., running parking structures
3. grants and organizational support
4. planning and development

Sandi Smith asked: “Is this what we do, or where we’re going?”

Out of some brief conversation emerged the idea that these points described the DDA’s capacity – what it was capable of. That, Susan Pollay said, was different from a description of the DDA’s mission. “‘What is the purpose of us?’ is different than ‘What are we capable of?’” said Pollay. Why were we created? she asked. The answer was to attract new private investment and to strengthen the downtown, she said. She’d printed out the DDA’s mission statement and tacked it to the wall before the retreat had started:

The mission of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is to undertake public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.

Later in the meeting, Pollay said that the DDA had “the capacity to do a whole lot of things,” but she wasn’t sure the DDA should do a whole lot of things. They needed to do everything in connection with the downtown.

Newcombe Clark reacted by saying, “We were created to build One North Main.” Pollay responded to Clark saying, “We also built Tally Hall at the same time, so we’re a lot more than that.” The DDA is here to attract private re-investment, she stressed. The question, she said, was not whether the DDA had the capacity to do code enforcement. The bigger question was why would they do anything of these things. The idea was to get an outcome with a stronger downtown that has more buildings, more people, more businesses, more economic development.

DDA board members Leah Gunn and Roger Hewitt.

Clark suggested that the metric for that was to grow the tax increment finance capture (TIF). Pollay rejected that as the only measure. Investment was the key, she said, which included an existing building that now has a new tenant when it previously sat empty. Clark suggested that it did, however, have to do with growing the value of downtown in a financial sense in a general way, even if TIF was not the measure of that.

Joan Lowenstein characterized the TIF as a “means to an end.”

Clark brought the discussion back to the “hold harmless” language in the term sheet that required the agreement to hold the city harmless with respect to revenues. If the DDA was striking an agreement just to save the city of Ann Arbor some money or to save politicians some political capital, then that did not necessarily grow the financial value of the downtown. Spending more money than they were bringing in was counter to that.

John Mouat said he didn’t think it was as simple as growing the TIF or just economic development. It had to do with vibrancy and attracting young people and making Ann Arbor the best place it can be – a cool downtown, he said.

Mouat suggested that the right focus was to ask what the DDA was able to do and what its strengths as an organization were. He said he felt that the DDA’s strength was that it was a small organization, with a high quality staff and board. He felt that the DDA fit into a niche and the question was how to use that effectively. Leah Gunn picked up Mouat’s thread and said she’d describe the DDA as “nimble.” As an example, she gave the on-street bike racks that the DDA had just done and now they’re jammed full, and “it’s cool, and people like it.” It was a small example, she allowed, but it added to the quality of life downtown.

At one point Pollay characterized as one of the DDA’s strengths that it was a very “flat” organization – there were not layers and layers of bureaucracy.

Mouat echoed Gunn’s idea that the subjective, quality-of-life issues were a big part of what the DDA could address.

But Clark questioned whether the DDA board – as non-elected officials – had the ability to make subjective, quality-of-life judgment calls. It might be more appropriate to approach it objectively: How do you build a building? What do the data show? There are some people, he said, who “like Ann Arbor a little dingy.” So if the downtown is a “whitewashed and Disneyland downtown,” he said, they’ll say that’s not the Ann Arbor they want. He called the claim of responsibility or capacity to make community value judgments “dangerous territory.”

Gunn indicated that was not what she meant. And Pollay noted that the DDA had been around for 20 years and had done things like transition State Street to two-way traffic, put in new sidewalks, and they were currently undertaking the Fifth and Division streetscape renovations. None of that, Pollay said, had taken place in isolation from community conversation and conversation with the city council. If the DDA had not been there, she suggested, downtown Ann Arbor would look a lot like Lowertown does today. [Its significant feature is an empty undeveloped lot.]

DDA Retreat Part II: Change Boundaries?

Clark picked up on the reference to Lowertown by saying that the Ypsilanti DDA looked at its district boundaries every few years to evaluate whether they were in the right place. He asked if Pollay thought the Ann Arbor DDA could re-evaluate its district boundaries. Pollay told Clark that if he felt the DDA was finished with the district it had, then it should absolutely be on the list.

Pollay asked Clark if he wanted the boundary issue added to the white board. Gunn kidded Pollay, “Oh, don’t you dare!” Clark responded immediately by saying, “That’s the problem we have here, right? For the first time in our history, we have tied our zoning to our [TIF] district. And our district was basically made to deal with racial steering issues in the 1970s and what happened in that [northeast] corner up there.”

DDA board member Newcombe Clark.

By way of background, the northeast corner of the Ann Arbor DDA’s TIF district includes the Ann-Ashley parking structure, built in part to provide parking for One North Main residents. Many of the residents who lived in the houses that were removed to make way for the parking structure were African American.

Clark grew up near that neighborhood. He reported at the retreat that he remembered being four years old and watching all his neighbors get kicked out their houses, so that the Ann-Ashley parking structure could be built. He noted that no one remembers that. He called it hurtful and sad – but it had happened and now the city has Ann-Ashley and One North Main, and “… we’ve moved on. Cities rise and fall and shake and burn and flood.”

“Things are better where we spend our money, but when we put [boundaries on the white board list], people are going to freak out,” he said. “Ypsi and other DDAs look at it every couple of years.”

Pollay allowed that it was a valid question. When she’d been in Milwaukee attending a conference, she said that the question had come up: What if the DDA had expanded its boundaries into the Lowertown area? Every wonderful downtown she’d seen lately, she reported, really cherishes its river – the river is a great asset and they’d done a good job with that in Milwaukee. It was a “what if” conversation, she said, and people immediately thought of the controversy that would ensue. Even thinking of expanding boundaries was only possible, she said, because they had been outside of Ann Arbor and were not concerned about the politics.

John Mouat characterized the Lowertown area and the North Main stretch as really exciting from a design point of view. [Mouat is an architect.] He characterized the potential of those areas as unrealized.

The boundary issue came up again when Clark wondered whether providing different levels of service inside the DDA district boundary would prompt property owners to ask to have the boundary lines redrawn, so that their businesses could be included in the district. That was the difficulty, he said, and people would “freak out” if there was discussion about redrawing the boundary.

Gunn addressed Clark’s concern by saying that if the boundary were to be redrawn, then any municipal authority that had its taxes captured by the DDA’s TIF would have to have a new district boundary approved by their governing bodies. Gunn ticked through the other entities whose taxes get captured and when she mentioned the Ann Arbor District Library, she nodded towards Josie Parker, director of the AADL, who was seated in the audience.

Parker’s an interested party to the DDA conversations, not just because of the library’s downtown branch. To the extent that payments by the DDA to the city could involve revenues from the DDA’s tax-increment finance district, Parker told The Chronicle before the meeting, she wanted assurance that any excess TIF revenues were distributed proportionally, according to state statute, to all the taxing authorities whose tax levies were “tiffed” – that is, captured by the DDA. The Ann Arbor District Library is one of those taxing authorities, along with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Gunn said she did not think that the other taxing authorities would embrace the idea in the current economic climate of giving the DDA additional taxes.

DDA Retreat Part II: (Term Sheet) Downtown Development

Roger Hewitt described the section of the term sheet addressing development as purposely vague. But the point there, he said, was to focus on city-owned surface parking lots in the DDA district. There’s a desire on the part of the city and the DDA in seeing those lots developed in some manner or other. The city, however, had not been very successful in doing that, Hewitt said. The reason was that the city did not have the personnel or the expertise to do development, and they wound up reacting to situations. He described the city staff as not having RFP experience in this sort of thing.

The idea on the term sheet was that the DDA would be the primary public entity in charge of ensuring that downtown surface parking lots would be developed. The DDA would be in charge of the planning process, the public hearings, the RFP process. All of this would need the city council’s approval – it was clear, Hewitt said, that the city council was unwilling to just turn over the whole process to the DDA and walk away from it.

The DDA would come up with an overall master plan of what should happen on those lots and what should take place. Over a period of years, they execute that plan – all with city council approval on a step-by-step process. Although the details of how that would work would not be included in the parking agreement, Hewitt said that it could be addressed in the shorter term by an accompanying resolution from the city council requesting that the DDA undertake those activities.

Leah Gunn noted that every idea they’d received from developers over the years had included using either tax money or parking money from that development. When developers come in to build what they want to build, they want to use public money – and that had been a difficulty for her, she said.

Hewitt said that in the past they’d taken a one-site-at-a-time approach. With a master plan for all the sites, it would be possible to distribute the goals for the community across the various sites, instead of cramming everything all on one site – whether those goals are for open space or affordable housing.

Susan Pollay reviewed some of the history related to the DDA’s past role in downtown development when it was far more active than it is today. For the Ashley Mews project, she said, the DDA had facilitated the development of the RFP and the interview process. The city had had a strong interest in redeveloping the property at Main and Packard [site of the Ashley Mews project]. The city had wanted to see a good sale price for the land as well as some affordable housing units. The DDA had played a functional role for process, and towards the end of the process, she said, the DDA had helped with some gap financing to allow the developer to be successful and the city to meet the goals it had set out for the project.

For First and Washington, Pollay said, the DDA had previously developed an RFP that had foundered on height restrictions, and the developer was not able to make the project work on a smaller scale.

The DDA had also played a role in developing the strategic economic modeling that went into the analysis of the Kline lot as part of what’s called the 3-Site Plan. If the DDA wanted to see a ground-level grocery store, what would a developer want to see on the floors above that? At that time [the early 2000s], Pollay recalled, “retail condominiums” were seen as a possibility for keeping rents affordable. That economic modeling went into the formulation of the RFP for the 3-Site Plan.

In the last five years, however, Pollay said that the DDA’s role had been more passive and reactive. She cited several development efforts for city-owned property that the DDA had not led – none of which have resulted in a built project. The DDA had not played a role with 415 W. Washington. They had not played much of a role with the former YMCA lot at Fifth and William [William Street Station – a project that the council eventually pulled the plug on]. And now the DDA was playing a very limited role with the development of the Library Lot. They’d been told that development needed to be a city function – she said she accepted that and called it appropriate.

But what had been lost along the way, she said, was the idea of someone “owning” the process. For the city, it was one of many, many things on their plate, whereas this had been the one thing that the DDA could focus on. “You know how you guys are, ” she said, “you want to build a parking deck, you guys do it.”

What’s been lost in the last five years is someone to follow through and own the outcome of the process, Pollay concluded.

Sandi Smith said she’d like the DDA to map out the critical assets the city has and create a sophisticated set of GIS overlays, that include the historic districts, the public land and all the rest of the information that developers might want to see. Where are transportation nodes and telecommunications fiber conduits? That would be a great tool that would precede readiness, to say to the city that the DDA was ready to look at development. The idea, she said, was to create something publicly consumable by developers. [Some of this mapping material is available as a part of the city's online Data Catalog.]

Newcombe Clark said that his whole head was into that – and the conditions changed every six months, he said. Take the Palio lot, he said. It was currently worthless with respect to the code requirements of an 8,000 square foot lot, which will never be developed, unless it’s subsidized. So an easy way to approach the development issue would be to start buying lots from the city or the county. Just spend DDA money on buying the land and building something, he said. The public process had already determined the zoning for the lots.

Clark suggested that the city council could then just tell the DDA which lots they were willing to sell or which ones would be the most politically tenable. Clark suggested that if the DDA managed to build the Palio lot into “something cool” and put it on the tax rolls, then the city council might say, “Oh, the DDA is actually good at that.” And then maybe the city council would sell the Kline’s lot to the DDA, or the YMCA lot.

Smith questioned whether it was necessary for the DDA to actually own the property.

Clark replied that he was trying to establish financial consideration [in order to create a binding contract between the city and the DDA]. Smith questioned whether financial consideration needed to be a goal. Smith came back to the “mutually beneficial” nature of the arrangement. Financial consideration did not need to come from each and every item on the term sheet list, she said.

Gunn picked up on Smith’s suggestion of mapping data, and summarized it by saying it was an investment in aggregated information, which would not be proprietary: “We would say to one and all, ‘Here it is, bring us your ideas.” If that was what Smith was talking about, Gunn said, she thought it was “brilliant.”

John Mouat said he liked that idea because it took the burden off of each developer to do all the due diligence.

A larger challenge, Mouat said, was the difficulty of undertaking development in Ann Arbor – the community opposition was always a factor. He was skeptical that the DDA could do a better job than the city. He said he felt it was important to approach it in a totally different way. The fundamental flaw was thinking of the parcels in terms of developers – developers were not necessarily the people to get ideas from.

DDA board member John Mouat.

Mouat suggested that they marshal their energies in the area of “economic development” – attracting businesses, attracting the next Google, and other start-up companies. Mouat said he felt like it would be a more exciting and palatable way to approach development. The vision should go beyond a building being built. A developer putting up a building on speculation had not been very successful in Ann Arbor. He suggested banding together with SPARK – the area’s economic development agency – and other organizations and figuring out what niche the DDA might fill in that world.

Gunn came back around to the idea that it would be not just physical assets, but quality-of-life assets that were aggregated into the information set.

Pollay wanted to know if they were talking about just attracting companies to existing buildings or if they saw this as a way of promoting the construction of new buildings. Mouat said it didn’t matter to him if it meant that a property would be occupied or if a new building got built. He saw it as a downtown-centric overlay to what SPARK did.

Pollay characterized that as business recruitment, as opposed to downdown development. At that point, Mouat said that’s what he felt development meant – buildings were simply an outcome of what people want to do. He wanted the DDA to become more people-centric, not infrastructure-centric.

Mouat also said that downtown development in the form of constructing new buildings would happen only when there was demand. Clark assured him that there was plenty of demand – that was a unique “problem” faced by Ann Arbor, that people actually wanted to invest here.

Mouat replied that there would need to be more “sex appeal” to a project than just a building. He came back around to integrating with SPARK’s efforts and included the University of Michigan’s Business Engagement Center as well. Gunn pointed out that SPARK was funded in part through tax money, so they would be a logical partner.

Hewitt said he was favor in doing something fairly dramatic. But whether it’s amassing a large amount of data or partnering with SPARK or developing master plans, it took a huge amount of staff time and effort. The important point, Hewitt said, was that it was a huge new direction – but before he finished that thought, Pollay interjected, “No, it’s an old direction.” The question Hewitt then asked was, “Do we have the capacity?”

Pollay answered Hewitt by saying, “I think that’s what I do best – and I haven’t been doing much of it.” She gave the example of the transportation and parking plan that the city had asked to the DDA to complete recently and which she and her staff had turned around in about four months. It was higher-level work – not walking around making sure that trees were getting watered. That management of higher-level work, and getting the best work out of the board, was the value she felt she added to the organization. The committment of time for working on development did not feel like a burden to her, she said, because it was central to the reason why the DDA existed.

Clark followed up on Pollay’s comments by naming some past board members who were more a part of the development world: “It was a lot easier with [Fred] Beal, [Rob] Aldrich, and [Ron] Dankert, and [Ed] Shaffran, who brought to the table an immense amount of knowledge,” he said. It was not coincidental, Clark said, that it was during their tenure on the board when some buildings got built.

There was no control over the constitution of the board, Clark said, without intense lobbying of city council. [The DDA board positions are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.] Clark said he did not think the current board had the skill set to take on development as a central task.

Pollay suggested that the mayor had a good ear for what was needed. So she felt if they told him that they needed someone with development strengths or a finance background, the board appointments could go in that direction. Gunn rejected the idea that appointments were the approriatate purview of the DDA board – that was the mayor and the council’s decision.

Keith Orr said that the development part of the term sheet was worth everything else. The mechanisms to do that – purchasing land, creating information systems – those are all different aspects of it.

Hewitt came back to the point that the development piece would not be part of the parking agreement contract, but that there was support from city council for the concept.

Joan Lowenstein asked what specficially the DDA was asking for with respect to the development item on the term sheet. The ensuing discussion suggested that it would mean the DDA would be in charge of any RFP process for the development of city property.

Outcome: The result of the straw poll for leaving the development item in the mix for future discussion was a clear consensus to keep it.

Miscellaneous

Some people who attended the DDA board’s retreat but who did not address the board included: Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library; Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city council representative; Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association; and Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs at the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce.

The $2 million payment was based on a term sheet that a “working group” of councilmembers and DDA board members had put together out of public view over the first four months of the year. The term sheet was adequate to convince a 7-member majority of the 12-member DDA board that the $2 million should be paid by the DDA to the city in advance of a long-term revision to the city-DDA contract, under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system.

The parking contract was most recently renegotiated in 2005 and provided for a maximum payment by the DDA to the city of $10 million over the period from 2005 to 2015. The city drew $10 million in the first five years and had requested in January 2009 that the DDA open discussions to renegotiate the contract.

With the term sheet now out in the open, it’s clear that its content is problematic for councilmembers and DDA board members who were not part of the working group that produced it. Several councilmembers and DDA board members alike have expressed strong opposition to one of the key ideas in the term sheet – that the DDA would assume responsibility for parking violations and other code enforcement.

But based on the term sheet discussion at the May 12 meeting of  DDA’s partnerships committee, the piece of the term sheet of most interest to DDA board members is one that is also the most politically controversial: The DDA would be acknowledged as the engine for developing city-owned land in the DDA district.

The DDA partnerships committee conversation on May 12 came against the backdrop of recent questions raised by the mayor and the city council about what kind of legal authority a DDA has in the context of the city’s system of governance.

And the outcome of the partnerships committee meeting was a decision to hold another full board retreat, this one on May 28 at 2 p.m. at the DDA board room. The general topic of the retreat, which is open to the public, will be the term sheet. The DDA already held its semi-annual retreat about two months ago, on March 16.

Before reporting on some of the deliberations at the DDA’s May 12 partnerships committee meeting regarding the term sheet, this article first takes a look at some of the recent local conversation about the legal powers of the DDA. The deliberations at the partnerships committee are divided into a couple of subheadings, covering the public accessibility of the process up to now and in the future, as well as DDA board member views about what the mission of the authority should be: parking or development.

DDA Powers

Over the last year, the status of the DDA in the context of the city’s governance has received active discussion. There are also a couple of precedents for the exercise of city power over a DDA worth considering – one involving the city of Ann Arbor in 2007, and another just a couple weeks ago in Royal Oak. In that context, it’s also worth reviewing some key elements of the state statute that allows downtown development authorities to be created in the first place.

DDA Powers: Discussion

At the May 5, 2010 meeting when the DDA approved the $2 million payment to the city, DDA board member and former city councilmember Joan Lowenstein spoke in general, not legal, terms about the relationship between the city and the DDA. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

[Lowenstein] found it distressing to hear the kind of “us and them” discussion. It’s not us and the city but rather it’s all the city.

At that same meeting, mayor John Hieftje portrayed the idea that the DDA was somehow a separate organization as one that could be traced to the mid-1990s. In rejecting that idea, he introduced the specter of the summary dissolution of the DDA by the city council:

So [Hieftje] wanted to make the point that the city council had the ability to create DDAs with a simple six-vote majority and also had the ability to end DDAs with a simple six-vote majority. It seemed to him that the DDA was indeed an “arm of the city” [...]

The fact that the city council controls the DDA via its confirmation of appointments to the board was a point that Hieftje had also chosen to make at the city council’s May 3, 2010 meeting. On that occasion, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, had appeared before the council to answer questions about DDA bylaws revisions.

Also at the city council’s May 3 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had mooted the question of the DDA’s relationship with the city by asking Pollay if she was a city employee. From The Chronicle’s account of that meeting:

Kunselman asked Pollay if she was a city of Ann Arbor employee. Pollay allowed that it was an interesting question but said she did not believe so. She indicated that she was an employee of the DDA, but all of the DDA staff follow all of the city rules and the paychecks come through the city finance office. She said they actually did not take a lot of time reflecting on the question. They function as if they were a part of one whole organization.

Pollay indicated, however, that she worked at the pleasure of the DDA board. Her job, then, was to make sure that she met their expectations and goals, as expressed in their resolutions. Mayor John Hieftje added that the board of the DDA in a very real way serves at the pleasure of the city council – given that the city council appoints DDA board members. “So you can feel better about that,” he told Kunselman. Quipped Pollay, “I’m not sure I do!”

And a little over a year ago, during the March 1, 2009 Sunday night caucus, Hieftje had compared the DDA to the city’s planning commission, which serves almost exclusively as an advisory body to the city council:

As far as being “a part of the city of Ann Arbor,” Hieftje said the DDA was “no different from planning commission except that they had their own funding stream” – the tax increment financing (TIF) district.

The one situation in which the planning commission stands on equal footing with the city council is the adoption of master plans for the city. The two bodies must adopt the same master plan.

DDA Powers: Recent Examples

Included in The Chronicle’s report on the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting, when it approved the FY 2011 budget, was a question that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised: Did the city council even need a resolution from the DDA to authorize payment of $2 million to the city? Could the city simply move the money from the DDA’s fund to its own fund as part of the budget amendment process?

While there was not a clear answer given to Kunselman’s basic question, The Chronicle’s May 17 meeting report includes a vignette from 2007, when the city council reached into the DDA’s budget with an amendment to the overall city budget:

While the topic of the city’s authority with respect to the DDA budget was not explored further at the council meeting, it’s worth reviewing a piece of history from 2007, when the council passed its FY 2008 budget. That year, one of the budget resolutions approved by the council reached into the DDA’s budget and reduced an allocation for capital expenditures within the DDA’s TIF (tax-increment financing) fund. [The city calls this fund 0003.] From the May 21, 2007 city council minutes:

[FY 2008 budget] Amendment 11
Resolved, that the Downtown Development Authority fund (0003) expenditure budget be decreased by $1,600,000 to reduce the appropriated reserves for future capital construction projects.

On a voice vote, the Mayor [John Hieftje] declared the motion carried with one dissenting vote made by Councilmember [Joan] Lowenstein.

Based on that vote, it appears that the city council has in the past asserted some direct control over the DDA’s budget.

More recently, this month the city of Royal Oak enacted a rule that requires all Royal Oak DDA actions to be subject to approval by the city commission. But that rule may not stand legal scrutiny. From a Crain’s Detroit Business article by Chad Halcom:

Lawyers and Royal Oak officials said a city code amendment approved last month to make all DDA decisions subject to the approval of the City Commission is without precedent and may be open to a legal challenge.

The commission adopted the amendment after the DDA gave a $300,000 tax credit inducement March 24 to Emagine for its $19 million movie theater, bowling alley and entertainment complex proposed at 11 Mile Road and Troy Street. The credit helps the company become eligible for state tax incentives.

DDA Powers: Statutory Authority

The existence of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is based on state level legislation (the “enabling legislation”) that was originally passed in 1975 to allow the creation of such authorities and the tax increment finance districts that fund them. [For background on tax increment finance districts (TIFs) see Chronicle coverage: "Budget Round 5: Economic Development"]

At the May 5 DDA meeting, reacting to Hieftje’s remarks about how the city could dissolve the DDA with a six-vote majority, DDA board member Gary Boren’s response to the mayor was based in part on the Downtown Development Authority Act 197 of 1975. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting.

The state’s enabling act says that when the DDA has completed its mission, the city council shall disband it, Boren stated. It does not say that the city council can for any reason or for no reason disband the DDA.

From the act itself:

Sec. 30. (1) An authority that has completed the purposes for which it was organized shall be dissolved by ordinance of the governing body. The property and assets of the authority remaining after the satisfaction of the obligations of the authority belong to the municipality.

At the May 5 meeting, Hieftje indicated that he has resisted the calls from some in the community to dissolve the DDA. One of those calls came in the form of an email sent May 7 by Ted Annis to multiple parties, including city councilmembers:

Is it time for the DDA to become the DAC (Downtown Advisory Committee), which is to say that its status as an Authority would be eliminated and it would be folded into the City? City Council can do this.

It seems that the Mayor and City Council have enough on their plates without having to deal with an unaccountable, contentious quasi government-within-a-government.

Based on Halcom’s reporting in Crain’s Detroit Business, however, it’s not clear that the city council has the powers Annis claims it does:

Prior case law is unclear on whether a city or township can convert its DDA to a recommending body with no decision-making power of its own, said Michael Bogren, governmental law practice group leader at Bloomfield Hills-based Plunkett Cooney P.C.

Among the key powers that the enabling legislation gives a DDA is the ability to own property as a separate body corporate:

[...] An authority shall be a public body corporate which may sue and be sued in any court of this state. An authority possesses all the powers necessary to carry out the purpose of its incorporation. The enumeration of a power in this act shall not be construed as a limitation upon the general powers of an authority. [...]

The board may: [...] (h) Acquire by purchase or otherwise, on terms and conditions and in a manner the authority considers proper or own, convey, or otherwise dispose of, or lease as lessor or lessee, land and other property, real or personal, or rights or interests in property, which the authority determines is reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of this act, and to grant or acquire licenses, easements, and options with respect to that property.

Partnerships Committee Deliberations

The ability of DDAs to own real estate, as specified in the DDA Act, was a key point made by DDA board member Newcombe Clark during partnerships committee deliberations about the term sheet on Wednesday, May 12. Clark related the question of the DDA buying land to the political realities of the situation – a topic that received a lot of discussion in its own right.

The key element of the term sheet about which there seemed to be consensus among DDA board members who were present at the partnerships committee is a brief one at the end of the document [emphasis added]:

Development of City-owned Property Within the DDA District

The working group envisions that the DDA would serve as a visioning, initiation and implementation engine for development of City-owned property within the DDA district. The nature and extent of this role will be discussed, considered and, if approved, implemented in parallel to any omnibus agreement, but would not be part of that agreement.

Partnerships Deliberations: DDA as Land Owner

It was near the end of the committee discussion when Newcombe Clark addressed the idea of the DDA owning land. He stated that a lot of the wrangling about the parking agreement as a mechanism for transferring the $2 million could have been avoided if the DDA had simply bought land from the city.

The DDA could have said, “Here’s $2 million and we’ll buy two lots,” or one lot – like the Palio’s lot at William and Main, suggested Clark. [The parcel currently serves as a surface parking lot.] Even though the DDA had elected not to do that, and instead decided to renegotiate the parking agreement, Clark said he thought that land purchase was still worth exploring.

Clark contended there were political reasons why that had not happened. The political reality, he said, was that some people are afraid of the idea of the DDA actually developing city-owned lots.

An interaction between Clark and Sandi Smith – who serves on both the DDA board and city council – unfolded about what zoning regulations would apply to parcels that might be sold to the DDA. Clark contended that the city-owned parcels downtown are not zoned according to the recently enacted A2D2 framework. However, he said, in theory you could sell them and say they’re zoned according to the A2D2 framework – and you’d get buildings out of it that conformed to A2D2 zoning. That would make it easier, Clark said, than going through the approval process for a PUD (planned unit development).

Smith questioned Clark’s contention that the city-owned parcels downtown were not zoned according to the A2D2 framework – she thought the A2D2 zoning regulations were overlaid on top of the public land designation. If that’s the case, Clark concluded, that would actually make it easier for the city to sell land. [Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle, clarifying that the D1 zoning designation, which is part of A2D2, does not overlay public land designations – but the Palio's lot specifically is zoned D1, not public land.]

If a city-owned parcel is not a PUD that goes through a request for proposals (RFP) process, and the city were to simply sell the land, then maybe the DDA would be the one to buy it, suggested Clark. Or someone else buys a city-owned lot, and rents it until they are ready to develop it – but at least they’d now be paying property taxes.

At the partnerships committee meeting, Clark put the politically-charged issue of the DDA developing city-owned land in the context of the “working group” process that produced the term sheet – it had taken place out of public view. With the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said, if there are things the DDA board is talking about, it’s especially important that it be an open process.

Clark stated that avoiding the political implications of the DDA developing city-owned land was not a good idea. If political implications are a true barrier to moving forward, he contended, then it needed to be discussed openly, like the board discussed everything else – to see if that was a true boundary or if there was perhaps a workaround. Avoidance, Clark concluded, was not helpful.

Clark had been responding, in part, to comments made earlier in the meeting by DDA board member John Mouat, who was absent from the board’s May 5 meeting when it approved the $2 million payment to the city. Earlier in the partnerships meeting, Mouat had lamented what he concluded was an increased “polarization” on the board, based on media accounts he’d read about the meeting. And Mouat further suggested that the board refrain from the sort of politics that he felt those accounts showed.

So in response to Clark’s call not to avoid politically-charged issues and to discuss them openly, Mouat asked, “Did I suggest avoidance?”

Partnerships Deliberations: Politics and Open Discussions

Mouat had not explicitly suggested avoidance of the issue, but did seem to object to the self-described anger that had been conveyed by Jennifer Hall at the DDA’s May 5 board meeting over the fact that the conversations that produced the term sheet had taken place out of public view.

By way of brief background, that renegotiation of the parking agreement was originally conceived to have taken place in a publicly accessible process through conversations between two committees – the two so-called “mutually beneficial” committees – appointed by the city council (on July 20, 2009) and the DDA board (March 4, 2009), respectively, with the explicit charge to take on that task. [More detailed background here: "DDA to Tie $2 Million to Public Process"]

However, the two committees did not renegotiate the parking agreement. Instead, conversations between the city and the DDA took place out of public view through the early part of 2010 in the form of a “working group” – which produced a term sheet as a basis for future negotiations.

At the partnerships committee meeting on May 12, Hall attempted to win the committee’s endorsement of a resolution to be brought before the entire board. The resolution would have given the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee the status of a “standing” committee of the board, in order to provide some assurance that DDA board members and city councilmembers would make their meetings open to the public. The city council, at its May 17 meeting, stripped out language about transparency from its own resolution regarding future conversations with the DDA, with some councilmembers contending that such language was redundant.

The draft resolution circulated by Hall at the partnerships committee meeting received no traction from the committee, which was attended by 10 of 12 DDA board members: Jennifer S. Hall, Gary Boren, Roger Hewitt, John Mouat, Keith Orr, Russ Collins, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Newcombe Clark and Joan Lowenstein. [The only DDA board members not present were Leah Gunn and John Hieftje.] The group was joined by city council representatives to the DDA’s partnerships committee, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Only Clark and Hall raised their hands in response to executive director Susan Pollay’s request for a show of support.

Partnerships Deliberations: What Exactly Does the DDA Want?

Both resolutions passed by the DDA board and the city council specify that there will be monthly meetings and that there will be monthly reports to each body. But independently of the mechanism of the conversations, the central question that the DDA now faces is how to proceed with the substance of the term sheet.

Towards the beginning of the term sheet discussion at the May 12 partnerships committee meeting, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, floated the basic question of what the DDA should be.

Pollay suggested that it was important not just to talk about what was on the list, but also about what was missing from the list. She said she’d had a 14-year tenure at the DDA, and she had come in at a time of crisis – the parking decks were falling apart and the DDA had taken them over from the city, which was how the DDA had gotten into “the parking business.”

The DDA had fixed the decks, continued Pollay, and they had hit a point where they then had asked, Now what do we do? At that point they had gone back to the organization’s fundamental roots, she said. And that was something they should do again, she said. “We are here as a development authority,” she said. “We are not a BIZ (Business Improvement Zone), we are not a merchant association, we are a development authority.”

Pollay reported that she had spent some time in Detroit the previous Friday visiting the Detroit DDA, which is actually doing development. She reported that the Detroit DDA is buying buildings and rehabbing them, or it’s demolishing them and selling them – it’s a development authority.

Pollay said the Detroit DDA was not encumbered by all the things that the Ann Arbor DDA had encumbered itself with. They do development. They are there to encourage development. And what was breathtaking about it, she said, was how unencumbered they are: “They know what they are there to do, and they’re doing it.”

Pollay cautioned that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, through expediency, found itself compromising its way into all sorts of areas. And maybe a place to begin, she said, was to go back and think about why the development authority was there in the first place. “Fundamentally, at the end of the day,” declared Pollay, “our measure of success should be as a development authority.”

Pollay said as she looked around, she did not see anyone redeveloping public land in the city. She said that she saw people doing services and code enforcement, but she saw no one doing redevelopment. She concluded by saying she was throwing that out as an idea for the committee to react to, and to start a dialogue.

Margie Teall said she totally agreed with Pollay. She said that she and Russ Collins had talked to city administrator Roger Fraser about that. Teall felt Collins had some great ideas in this area and that they should move forward. But there were other pieces on the term sheet, she said, that were there because they felt like they could move forward more quickly with those. But development of city property was definitely something she wanted to see the DDA go ahead with.

There was resistance on the part of most DDA board members to the items on the terms sheet that stated the DDA will absorb responsibility for aspects of code enforcement and provide various services downtown. A notable exception was Roger Hewitt, who had been part of the working group that had produced the term sheet.

Keith Orr acknowledged it was important that enforcement be part of the same system. But perhaps long-term, he said, being a parking authority is not part of the DDA’s mission, and maybe that operation gets spun off into a separate parking authority. But he felt it was important to assemble the management and enforcement all in one place.

The least developed part of the term sheet, Orr said, was the part about the development of city-owned land. If there were truly a functional development piece in it, he said, that in itself is worth working on. That was, he felt, the true purpose of the DDA. He said the reason the DDA was building a large underground parking lot was so that the downtown area would not need a lot of surface parking lots – that would be key to creating a vibrant streetscape downtown. He said his first thought on the non-parking code enforcement was, “Oh, well I guess that makes sense because the people who are going around doing the parking enforcement can do other code enforcement, too.”

But the more he thought about it, Orr said, the more he thought how he did not even want that piece. Two reasons he gave for not wanting it were: (i) non-parking code enforcement could not be dealt with in the same customer-service way that the DDA wanted to implement parking code enforcement; and (ii) the DDA had no control over the code – it would make them the “bad guys.” He feared that the DDA might wind up having to enforce ordinances that they not only did not believe in, but also felt counter to what they were doing.

Board member Roger Hewitt – owner of the Red Hawk restaurant as well as Revive and Replenish in the ground floor of the Zaragon Place building – offered a counterpoint. The part about services and code enforcement was something that he invested in for 25 years. He suggested that if you talk to a business owner in the campus area, you would understand the implications. He noted that the city had put in various services – they used to sweep the sidewalks, they used to water plants and trim the trees.  There are lots of things that the city used to do, when they were “flush,” he said.

By “code enforcement,” Hewitt said that he was talking about sidewalk cafes, alleys, trash and those sorts of things that are now handled on a complaint basis – but are frequently not even handled when complaints are made. Particularly in the South University area, he said, there is virtually no code enforcement done. He had personal experience with that, he said. Nobody is responsible for what happens on the sidewalks or in the alleys, Hewitt contended.

There is no person at the city, there is no person at the DDA, who is assigned to be concerned about code enforcement, Hewitt said. There is a gap, he said, between what the police do and what the parking enforcement people do and what needs to get done to make the streets in the alleys and the sidewalks look good and attractive. If it looks good and is attractive to people, they’ll will feel safe.

Aggressive panhandling has been an issue, Hewitt said, ever since he’d been downtown. And it’s mostly an issue in the campus area, he said, because the students are an easier touch than the patrons of Main Street. Now that the panhandling had started to move to Main Street, everyone is starting to talk about it, but in the South University area nearer to campus, Hewitt said, they had been dealing with it for decades.

So the parts about services and code enforcement were in the term sheet, Hewitt said, because nobody else seems to care about it. If the DDA does not care about it, he warned, nobody else is going to. That had been his experience of 25 years, he said, and that’s why those parts are in the term sheet. He said he recognized that it was a change in direction for the DDA and, as such, there would have to be a consensus or a significant majority that would support it. And he allowed that the support on the board might not be there. But he said he wanted to raise the question: If they did not do it, then who would? Or does it simply fall between the cracks as it always has?

Partnerships Deliberations: Beat Cops

At the May 5 DDA board meeting, the board remanded a resolution to the partnerships committee on reserving of funds for a possible contract with the city to provide downtown beat cops. The resolution had been brought to the board by Newcombe Clark via its operations committee.

At the May 12 partnerships committee meeting, Clark said he was content not to press the resolution forward unless there was an attempt to grab the funds for some other purpose. The funds in Clark’s resolution on beat cops would be reallocated in monthly $60,000 increments from the WALLY north-south commuter train project, between Washtenaw and Livingston counties. There is a total of $335,000 reserved in the DDA budget for WALLY.

Outside the DDA: Objections to Term Sheet

Opposition to the focus on parking plus other code enforcement, plus provision of city services by the DDA, is not limited to the DDA board itself. At the city council’s May 16 caucus – as well as at the May 17 meeting – mayor John Hieftje, who also sits on the DDA board, expressed his feeling that the city’s community standards officers could enforce the parking code with the same customer service attitude that the DDA wanted to see.

That point of view was also expressed by the city’s chief of police, Barnett Jones, at the city council’s May 10 meeting on the budget:

Jones said that the DDA wanted to manage the entire parking system, including enforcement, and that they wanted to handle enforcement in their specific way. He said he felt that his department could have handled it in the way that the DDA wanted to handle it. That, however, he characterized as a “business decision.” In response to Kunselman’s question about whether it could legally be done, he stated that it could be.

At the May 16 caucus, Stephen Kunsleman (Ward 3) also stated his opposition to the DDA taking over enforcement, raising the specter of a “shadow government.” At the council’s May 17 meeting, he stated that he would not be voting to abdicate his responsibility to the community’s health, safety and welfare by contracting it out to a third party.

Objections to the idea of the DDA enforcing parking and other codes were also heard at the council’s May 17 meeting from a representative of the AFSCME union – community standards officers are members of AFSCME. They see the city’s transfer of responsibility and jobs related to parking enforcement as a violation of their union contract.

DDA Retreat Redux

One outcome of the partnerships committee meeting was the scheduling of an additional retreat of the full board. It’s to be held Friday, May 28 at 2 p.m. at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. The general topic of the retreat will be the term sheet. The DDA already held its semi-annual retreat about two months ago on March 16. Minutes from that spring 2010 retreat are available from the DDA’s website.

David Olson, vice president of Granger Construction Co., delivered a letter to the DDA board during public commentary, which questioned the way concrete bids were handled for the DDA's underground parking garage. The garage is currently under construction along Fifth Avenue. (Photos by the writer.)

Though not addressed by the board as business items, two areas of controversy emerged during public commentary.

One involves the award of a bid as part of the DDA’s construction of the underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue. The contract for construction management for the entire project was awarded to The Christman Co. However, under the terms of the contract, Christman must bid out various components of the project, like the concrete work – even though Christman has the capability of doing that work itself.

The low bid for the concrete work was submitted by Granger Construction Co., at $21.5 million. But Christman awarded the contract to Christman Constructors Inc., which had submitted a bid of $22 million. Christman’s selection as construction manager of the project had been finalized at the DDA board’s Nov. 4, 2009 meeting with a guaranteed maximum price of $44,381,573. Representatives of Christman and Granger aired their differing points of view on the concrete bid at Wednesday’s meeting, with DDA board chair John Splitt concluding that he was satisfied the process had been fair.

The other point of controversy arising during public commentary is the probable $2 million payment this year by the DDA to the city of Ann Arbor – which it has no obligation to make under its current parking agreement with the city. The city’s budget book for FY 2011, released on Monday, does not factor in a payment from the DDA. Instead, it shows a $1.5 million shortfall for the year. The DDA’s parking report to the city council hints at the possibility that the DDA would take responsibility for the ticketing of parking violations. That change in enforcement could be included in the renegotiation of the parking agreement.

Other business transacted by the board on Wednesday included a resolution calling on the city council to revise its sign ordinance so that downtown merchants could use sandwich board signs legally. A recent attempt to revise the ordinance by the council was voted down at its Feb. 16, 2010 meeting.

DDA Parking Report to the City Council

At its Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution addressing parking revenues. The resolution was brought forward by Sandi Smith, who serves on the city council representing Ward 1, as well as on the DDA board. From The Chronicle’s coverage of that meeting [emphasis added]:

In its original form, the resolution had three key points: (i) net revenues from the Fifth and William (old YMCA) lot would go into city rather than DDA coffers, (ii) downtown parking meters would operate and be enforced until 10 p.m., which is later than their current cutoff of 6 p.m., and (iii) the city would discontinue its plan to install its own parking meters in neighborhoods near the downtown.

With respect to its substance, the part of the resolution generating the most resistance was (ii) with its extended hours of meter enforcement for on-street parking. Smith swapped out that provision for one somewhat more vague, and the council eventually adopted a resolution that requested a report from the DDA on the issue of extended meter enforcement:

RESOLVED, The City requests that the DDA present a plan to Council at its April 19, 2010 meeting for a public parking management plan. The plan should include but is not limited to:

• a communication plan to Downtown patrons, merchants and evening employees
• options for low cost parking for evening employees
• variation of rates and meter time limits based on meter location
• hours of enforcement

It is this plan that the DDA board voted to endorse on Wednesday. Final tweaking will take place at the board’s partnerships committee meeting next week.

The report is structured around eight strategies:

Strategy 1: Downtown curbside public parking should be managed to create turnover at the most convenient, commercial locations so these spaces can be more easily used by a large pool of downtown users.

Strategy 2: A comprehensive TDM [transportation demand management] strategy should be developed and utilized to support the downtown evening economy, including a management strategy for on‐street parking spaces, creation of additional evening employee parking/transportation options and communication strategies.

Strategy 3: Develop new off-street parking strategies to make it more attractive for patrons to park off‐street in public parking facilities, and thus relieve pressure on curbside parking, support downtown commerce and entertainment, and increase patron awareness of their parking use and costs.

Strategy 4: Develop policies and plans to add and subtract public parking downtown based on redevelopment, walkability, and transportation goals.

Strategy 5: Develop additional parking options for personal transportation vehicles, including motorcycles, bicycles, and vehicles using new energy.

Strategy 6: Increase downtown employee use of public transit by expanding AATA service hours, developing a strong Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor transit plan, and making downtown transit stops more user‐friendly.

Strategy 7: Improve communications to downtown business owners, employees, customers and visitors by developing new communication tools and sharing information more broadly.

Strategy 8: Develop a parking and transportation strategy for downtown & near downtown residents

One of the tactics for implementing Strategy 2 is a recommendation to extend time limits on parking spots from two to three hours in certain areas.

Another tactic for implementing Strategy 2 is a recommendation to change meter enforcement hours from 8 a.m.‐6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-9 p.m. This reflects the report’s genesis as a request from the city council to the DDA, when the council was confronted with a resolution that would have extended the hours of meter enforcement. That recommendation will likely generate the most controversy, and this was reflected in public commentary at the DDA’s Wednesday meeting.

Parking Report: Public Commentary

Ray Detter, in his report to the board on the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council‘s meeting the night before, said that DDA executive director Susan Pollay had attended the meeting to give a summary of the parking report. Detter supported the idea that the DDA was the only entity equipped to administer parking operations.

Commenting on behalf of the Main Street Area Association, Tony Lupo took the podium for his allotted four minutes at the start of the board meeting. Lupo indicated that the MSAA had held information meetings and participated in the DDA’s process for receiving public feedback for the report. He reported that there was overwhelming opposition to extending the meter enforcement hours.

However, he allowed that the MSAA understood the context under which extended hours were being considered – the city’s need for revenue. What was important, Lupo said, was to couple any extension of meter enforcement hours past 6 p.m. with some kind of offsetting enhancements like increasing the maximum time to three hours – from its current limit of two hours – and offering free parking during certain hours. Lupo stated that MSAA would like to contribute to the marketing strategy for the plan.

In that context, Lupo suggested that it didn’t make sense to “shift” the time of meter enforcement from its current window of 8 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-9 p.m. That essentially offers a free hour of parking when it’s not in high demand. It would be better, said Lupo, to offer a free hour of parking sometime after 6 p.m. – that’s something it could be headlined as a benefit in a marketing effort. [Lupo is marketing director for Salon Vox on West Liberty Street.]

Parking Report: Transportation/Operations Committee Deliberations

At the board’s joint transportation and operations committee meeting the previous Wednesday, March 31, 2010, committee members hashed through a number of issues related to the parking report. Those ranged from presentational issues to more substantive questions.

Among the presentational issues was the question of whether to include parking rates in the body of the report or put them in an appendix. Putting actual numbers in the body of the report, suggested Newcombe Clark, would make the report immediately dated. Transportation committee chair John Mouat suggested putting the numbers in an appendix. Board chair John Splitt feared that if they did not include the numbers for rates, they would lose control of the discussion: “They’re real numbers, why not put them in there?” The rates will be included in an appendix.

Among the more substantive issues discussed at the joint committee meeting related to control of enforcement. In a section of the report describing benchmarking data from other communities, the following observation is made [emphasis added]:

Through examination of other communities, we learned the following: … Parking enforcement and parking operations are often managed jointly by one agency.

Elsewhere, the report states:

Parking enforcement and parking operations are two halves of the same parking system. Optimally, enforcement and operations strategies are planned and managed together.

In Ann Arbor, parking operations are handled by the DDA through a contract with Republic Parking. Enforcement, on the other hand, is handled by the city of Ann Arbor through police and community standards officers.

At the committee meeting, the question was raised: Why don’t we just say it – we want to take over enforcement. This is an idea that came out of the first meeting that the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee held last year. The DDA and the city have ad hoc “mutually beneficial” committees, charged with renegotiating the parking agreement between the two entities. At the time of that first meeting of the DDA’s committee, the city had not yet appointed a corresponding “mutually beneficial” committee.

Parking Report: Who Enforces Meters, and the City Budget Gap

The key facts about that city-DDA parking agreement were summarized during public commentary at Wednesday’s board meeting by Bob Dascola, who owns Dascola Barbers on South State Street. In 2005, the agreement between the city and the DDA was renegotiated to extend 10 years through 2015, with the annual payment by the DDA to the city in the amount of $1 million.

A provision of that agreement allows for the city to request a payment of $2 million in any given year, with the condition that the total amount over the 10-year period can’t exceed $10 million. Now five years into the contract, the city has requested $2 million each of the first five years. So, for the upcoming year, FY 2011,  the DDA does not owe the city anything under that contract.

Dascola weighed in against the idea that the DDA should voluntarily renegotiate the contract, saying that the DDA was not an ATM.

The DDA “mutually beneficial” committee’s initial discussions, which began last year, centered around the idea of an arrangement that would be more complex than the DDA simply writing an additional check to the city.

From The Chronicle’s report of the April 1, 2009 DDA board meeting [emphasis added]:

[Rene] Greff  [who chaired that committee at the time, but no longer serves on the DDA board] then ticked through what the committee had done. They had: (i) reviewed history of DDA parking agreements with the city, (ii) reviewed TIF (tax increment financing) capture, and (iii) reached a majority view – with dissent from Hewitt – that they should not re-open the discussion of the existing parking agreement. It was not the role of the DDA, Greff said, to cover gaps in the city budget. The committee had given some consideration to taking over city tax-funded activities (e.g., snow removal), and had contemplated purchasing the right to meter enforcement in downtown. The latter would allow the DDA to control a piece of the public’s experience with the downtown area.

Board member Leah Gunn asked about the city’s side of the committee. Greff explained that the city council had not yet seated their committee, and the DDA contingent had met so that they would have something more concrete to bring to the table when the first meetings with the city took place.

The two committees have not, to The Chronicle’s knowledge, ever met. Sandi Smith, who serves on the DDA’s committee, has reported at DDA board meetings for a number of months that there was nothing to report. At the last two DDA board meetings, Roger Hewitt reported only that informal talks had taken place.

The Chronicle noted in its previous coverage that the city’s committee meetings can be expected to be noticed for the public beforehand and made accessible to the public [from "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible" – which also includes a history of the respective "mutually beneficial" committees]:

If and when the two “mutually beneficial” committees from the DDA and the city council meet, it’s reasonable to expect that the meetings will be open to the public and announced in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.

While the committee membership from the city council would not amount to a quorum, a resolution passed at its Nov. 4, 1991 meeting by the Ann Arbor city council expresses the council’s will that its committees adhere, to the best of its abilities, with the requirements of the OMA:

R-642-11-91

RESOLUTION REGARDING OPEN MEETINGS FOR CITY
COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TASK FORCES

Whereas, The City Council desires that all meetings of City boards, task forces, commissions and committees conform to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act;

RESOLVED, That all City boards, task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees hold their meetings open to the public to the best of their abilities in the spirit of Section 3 of the Open Meetings Act; and

RESOLVED, That closed meetings of such bodies be held only under situations where a closed meeting would be authorized in the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.

At the DDA’s joint transportation and operations committee meeting last week, in response to the suggestion that the parking report simply state that the DDA wanted to take over meter enforcement, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, said that would be “presumptuous.”

Responding to Pollay, Newcombe Clark clarified with her that the parking report was to be submitted to the city council on April 19. And the inclusion of meter enforcement by the DDA would be reasonable, Clark said, because it was within a few weeks of an expected compromise between the city and the DDA on the parking deal. Polly replied that she was not aware of a compromise.

Gary Boren then weighed in, saying it was his understanding that the city’s budget was being prepared without an assumption that the DDA would be making a $2 million payment. On the Monday following that March 31 committee meeting, the city released its budget book, which does not assume a $2 million payment from the DDA – it shows a roughly $1.5 million deficit for the year.

The issue of who has responsibility for meter enforcement is not just a matter of which agency – the city or the DDA – can insist on the right to do so. The parking report contains a number of recommendations that would seem to require either an intensely close working relationship between the agencies administering operations and enforcement, or else require that it be a single agency administering both. For example, the recommended tactics to implement Strategy 1 include the following:

• To lessen patron frustration about receiving a ticket, improve information on parking tickets & envelopes, including how to pay online or avoid a ticket in the future.
• Improve website information and provide a feedback mechanism unrelated to contesting parking tickets.
• Pursue ideas that would make it possible to pay for parking tickets and stored value meter cards in one location, providing increased convenience to customers.
• Explore making it possible to pay parking tickets at the epark machines as a way of reducing patron inconvenience and frustration.
• Explore making it possible to pay for parking tickets at banks, thus reducing the number of patrons who feel compelled to come to City Hall for this function. Determine if it is feasible for downtown banks to dispense stored value meter cards.

Counter to the original impetus behind extended hours of enforcement – an effort to generate additional revenue – is a goal of fewer tickets expressed in the report:

… parking operations and enforcement should be managed so that the number of parking tickets eventually decreases and the number of patrons complying with parking regulations increases.

Parking Report: DDA Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt led off deliberations on the parking plan, saying that it embodies 18 years of experience by the DDA in managing parking operations. It reflected a lot of hard work and public process in a very short amount of time, he said. He noted that it had been reviewed in detail by the transportation and operations committees. The partnerships committee would do the final edit, he said, at its meeting later in the month.

Hewitt stressed that it was not just a parking plan – it’s a transportation management plan. He allowed that some of the recommendations are controversial. However, he noted that the strictly daytime economy in downtown has undergone a shift in the last 20-30 years and that there’s now a nighttime economy. The parking report contains recommendations, Hewitt said, about extended meter enforcement and geographically determined meter rates.

Newcombe Clark also praised the work of the staff. He emphasized that the DDA did not know for sure what would happen when some of the recommendations were implemented – as he put it, “when we start pulling these levers.” Clark said the DDA owed it to itself to do baseline calculations so that it could ascertain whether the demand management measures resulted in a revenue loss, a large surplus, or was simply a wash. He wanted the DDA to start looking at spreadsheets on what might happen.

John Mouat characterized the daytime parking activity in the past as essentially static, in contrast to the more dynamic pattern of nighttime parking. He said the plan itself was dynamic, not set in stone. The plan’s essence was about choices, he concluded.

Keith Orr also gave kudos to the staff, saying they’d done the work “under the gun.” Orr agreed with Clark on the need to model the various impacts of the measures when they are implemented. Responding to Lupo’s public  commentary – when Lupo  expressed some concern that the language in the report used to describe some of the enhancements was not as strong as that describing the extended enforcement – Orr said the DDA was an organization with a good history of testing plans. They’d implemented or tested everything in the Nelson\Nygaard study, he said.

Sandi Smith thanked the staff for their heroic effort. She said that in an informal survey she’d done of nighttime workers, she’d learned that a lot of people don’t realize that parking after 6 p.m. is currently free. So she was cautious about any assumption that extending meter enforcement would have a dramatic change in revenues.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that he didn’t think the document looked like it had been prepared under the gun. He said the idea of extended hours of meter enforcement would be controversial.

Leah Gunn thanked Mouat and Hewitt for chairing the combined committee meetings that worked on the parking plan. She called the plan a “tour de force.” Some things are not knowable, she allowed, but you don’t know until you try.

Outcome: The DDA parking report received the unanimous endorsement of the DDA board.

Parking Report: ParkingCarma

Related to a theme of transportation demand management was a presentation made by Rick Warner of ParkingCarma during public commentary. In discussions on the operations committee report, Leah Gunn also said she was intrigued with ParkingCarma. And Roger Hewitt said he could add ParkingCarma to the next meeting of the operations committee.

What had intrigued Gunn? Warner pitched the idea of a partnership between the DDA and ParkingCarma. He described ParkingCarma’s business, which uses a variety of technologies to make parking easier. Before the meeting, Warner described it for The Chronicle as “like Orbitz for parking.” Warner described how ParkingCarma had already inventoried all the off-street parking in Ann Arbor, and had partnered with Google Local Business Center to provide parking information to Google. That provides a way for potential customers to get information about the closest available parking locations to that business.

Warner also sketched out a way to integrate into a parking system, so that the owner of that system could accept pre-paid reservations for parking. Premiums could be collected for special events, or patrons could be directed to lower-demand spaces to optimize the parking inventory. Warner suggested that launching such a system would be best in connection with a large special event like the Ann Arbor Art Fairs.

Warner described ParkingCarma as a SPARK-incubated company. The company is listed on Ann Arbor SPARK’s website as a “portfolio company,” which refers to companies that “have navigated through the SPARK application and due diligence process and emerged with investments.” SPARK is a nonprofit organization that works on economic development for the Ann Arbor area.

Elizabeth Parkinson, vice president of marketing and communications for SPARK, told The Chronicle in a phone interview that ParkingCarma had gone through Phase I and Phase II of SPARK’s business accelerator, and had received a loan from the Michigan Pre-Seed Capital Fund, which is managed by SPARK’s Skip Simms, as well as from Automation Alley.

Granger and Christman Dispute Concrete Bid

The DDA board got an update on the progress on the underground parking garage currently under construction along Fifth Avenue on the city-owned Library Lot. The update was delivered by Pat Podges, who is vice president for southeast Michigan operations for The Christman Co., which is the construction manager for the job.

Key points of the update included the fact that earth-retention work had been completed on the east and south sides of the project and would be proceeding east to west along the north side of the site. Excavation was continuing along the east leg, near Division Street, Podges reported. A decision had been made to dewater the site by taking water up Liberty Street to South State Street, as opposed to running it to the west down toward the Allen Creek drains.

Podges reported that the result of the returned bids on the project meant that the estimate contingency in the contract would be returned in full, and the risk contingency on the project could be reduced, which resulted in $1 million that the DDA would be getting back.

Then Podges moved into a description of how the concrete package had been handled: “I just want to speak real briefly about the integrity of the process by which we used to establish the subcontractors which we are using on the job – specifically the structural concrete work package, which was the largest package on the project.”

Background on the Construction Contract

Selection of the construction manager for the underground parking garage was done in two steps. First, the job of pre-construction services was awarded. That company’s performance on pre-construction services would determine whether the DDA retained them as construction manager. The expectation was that whichever company was selected for pre-construction would ultimately be selected as construction manager.

The interviews for pre-construction services were described in part in an Aug. 13, 2009 Chronicle article. Stressed throughout the interviews was the idea that construction manager companies that could self-perform various sub-contracted aspects of the job – like pouring the substantial amount of concrete for the garage – would need to compete with other companies for that work. Describing how Barton Malow was not selected for the construction manager job, the article makes clear that Barton Malow could conceivably make money by winning the concrete portion of the job:

Still, Barton Malow and [Neal] Morton could make money on the job – if they’re selected as a concrete subcontractor. The construction manager candidates have their “in house” concrete divisions, and would ordinarily not need to subcontract out that work. But the DDA would like the construction manager for this project to bid out the concrete work. It was a question that DDA board member Leah Gunn put to the construction manager candidates during the interviews: Would they be comfortable having to compete for the concrete work with other bidders? The correct answer was yes.

The candidates for the job emphasized that the close quarters of the site made it a challenge – both logistically and in terms of minimizing impact on the immediately surrounding property. They’d be installing earth retention systems that would minimize vibration impacts, for example.

After performing to the DDA’s expectations in the pre-construction services phase of the project, Christman’s selection as construction manager of the project was finalized at the DDA board’s Nov. 4, 2009 meeting with a guaranteed maximum price of $44,381,573.

The sealed bids for the concrete work were opened on March 4, 2010 at the DDA offices. From Chronicle coverage of the DDA board’s March 3, 2010 meeting:

Bid package #3, [board chair Joan] Splitt reported, which is for the concrete and steel work, would be opened publicly at 2 p.m. in DDA offices the following day. [The bids will first be reviewed for numerical accuracy. Then any conditions specified by the contractors checked, and interviews will be held with the lowest three bidders to review the scope of work – a meeting for that is scheduled on Tues., March 9.]

The base bids were submitted as follows from lowest to highest:

1. $21,499,000  Granger Construction Company
2. $21,980,000  Colasanti Construction
3. $22,025,000  Christman Constructors, Inc.
4. $23,286,000  Spence Brothers Construction
5. $23,980,000  Barton Malow
6. $25,500,000  Walbridge

Note that Christman Constructors Inc. is a subsidiary of The Christman Co., which is the construction manager on the job. The post-bid meetings were held with the three lowest bidders, including  Christman and Granger. Granger’s team left the post-bid interview believing they’d won the job.

Pat Podges described at Wednesday’s board meeting why Granger was not awarded the concrete work. Here’s what Podges reported early in the meeting, after he updated the board on the construction progress :

I just want to speak real briefly about the integrity of the process by which we used to establish the subcontractors which we are using on the job – specifically the structural concrete work package, which was the largest package on the project. We received last month six bidders, that ranged anywhere from $21,449,000 to $25,500,000.

Based on the complexity of the project and the closeness of the second and third low bidder, we elected to bring in the three low bidders for post-bid reviews, which are widely used to determine their understanding of the project, their operational plan for the project, the schedule expectations, the quality and safety. At the end of that we disqualified the low-bidding contractor [Granger] for non-conformance with the bidding documents relative to the schedule and work plan, and also their ability to demonstrate to us their understanding of the operational execution of the work. That left the two remaining bidders, one of which was CCI, a subsidiary of the Christman Co. Each had submitted full documentation – work plan, management plan, and a detailed schedule for the project.

Further analysis of these two bids really revealed that the differential between the two firms was about 2/10 of one percent. We then looked at some other aspects of the work recommendation, including alternates that were required for them to provide as well as voluntary alternates which they offered at bid. And at the end, it was very clear that CCI had provided the best value for the project, and it was a team decision based on their final project cost, provided the best value to the city. In the end CCI’s price was $21,438,000, which was actually less than the original low-bidding contractor.

David Olson, vice president of Granger Construction, saw it differently from Podges. Speaking near the end of DDA board meeting during the time reserved for public comment, his remarks went as follows:

Hi, my name is David Olson, I’m vice president of Granger Construction. And I am here to talk briefly about integrity. As the low bidder of the concrete package on your parking ramp, I take exception to Mr. Podges’ comments about, I guess, our inexperience or lack of knowledge for that project. We’ve got a proven record of accomplishment for delivering these types of projects.

I’m here more just to make a simple public statement about a flawed process. And whether it is your process or their selection process. And make no mistake, this is not about sour grapes, this is about making a public statement about doing the right thing. We worked with these gentlemen for a long time in the same area – we play nice in the sandbox. It’s not about the gentlemen. It’s about the decision that the company made and whether it is their selection process or yours, you guys are complicit, and I just think it’s important to get this out in the public. We talk about money going back and forth – you guys are excited about $1 million that you get – if you go through that contract that’s money that is yours anyway, it’s due to be given back to you.

The process and how they made the selection of jumping from the low bidder, which we were, we won – over the second bidder to themselves, is kind of a shrewdly crafted shell game. I’m here to deliver a letter from our CEO Glenn Granger, which lays out the facts. We don’t expect to get this project, but we want to do the right thing. And doing the right thing is tough, it’s not easy being here today. It’s not about sour grapes – I was a little disarmed when we walked in and you [Leah Gunn] said, you know, ‘I know you’re here to whine about the project.’ We’re not here to whine. We’re here to get the facts on the record and to do the right thing. It’s not easy, but doing the right thing seldom is. So with that here’s a letter I would like to deliver to you, you can read it, certainly if you have any questions our contact information is there. We really appreciate your time. Thank you.

The letter delivered to the board members cited a lack of a rationale for rejecting the low-bidding company for the job. [Complete text of Granger's letter to the DDA] An excerpt:

None of Granger’s references were consulted, and there was absolutely no indication that Granger’s bid lacked a single project scope requirement. lf Christman had concerns, they had a duty to clearly document them in the meeting minutes and/or call us to communicate them. Regrettably, neither was done. The Ann Arbor DDA, and the taxpayers of Ann Arbor deserve the benefit of the lowest qualified bidder. Explaining the $526,000 difference became a shrewdly conducted shell-game, where The Christman Company extracted other savings out of the Guaranteed Maximum Price contract in order to make it appear that they’re serving your organization.

When Granger Construction interviewed for the construction manager’s role, the Ann Arbor DDA made it exceedingly clear that it desired openness, transparency and competitiveness. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Christman’s chief operating officer, Steve Frederickson, took the podium to respond to Olson:

Hi, I’m Steve Frederickson, president and COO of the Christman Company. I just want to be clear – I’m not sure what that letter says – but there’s been a lot of discussion that’s occurred over the past number of weeks relative to the award of the concrete package, and a lot of the discussion has been based on assumptions and conjecture and not on the facts. And so I just wanted to be really clear and really brief on what the facts are.

The facts are that in the bid documents, we described the complexity of this project. It’s underground, it’s cast-in-place concrete, you all know how hard this project is and the level of experience that is required to accomplish a feat such as that. But we were very clear in the documents about how we were going to award the project, and the criteria by which we would award the project: experience, detailed work plan, detailed schedule.

Price was part of it, but it says throughout the bid documents and in the pre-bid meeting that we had with all the bidders that it was not based exclusively on price, because we needed to know that we had a partner that was capable and qualified and knew the job, and put us in a position to be able to succeed as a partnership. The fact is, we were clear on the award criteria. Another fact is that the Granger Company was disqualified very early in the process unanimously by everybody at the post-bid [meeting], including the architect, the engineer, The Christman Company, your project management consultant [Park Avenue Consultants]. Those are the facts.

They didn’t comply with the requirements of the project, they did not display an understanding of the project to the level of comfort that we felt was necessary to be able to serve you and serve the project. Those are the facts. Their project manager had no underground parking deck experience – the full-time on-site project manager. So we were very clear on what the project was to be awarded based on. They did not meet that. So essentially what they have been asking for is a re-do of the process, and we can’t do that. It’s not fair to the other bidders to give one bidder a re-do – why wouldn’t we give the other bidders a re-do, based on what they submitted for a price? It’s unfair to the process.

We have challenged the integrity of the process, with our partners – with the architect, with the engineer, your project manager, with the DDA – and everybody has established hands down that the integrity of the process was maintained throughout the entire process. So we’re confident in that. And we’ve made those details available, and if you look at the details it’s very clear. So I just encourage you to look at facts, and take all of the emotion out of it, and look at the facts and the people that are best qualified to do the job. We’re in a great position to be giving that money back at this point, in moving forward through the project. Everybody’s excited to do it, we’ve got a great team, and we’re out there getting after it as you can see. Thank you.

Dennis Carignan, Granger’s director of pre-construction services, then took the podium:

I really don’t want to belabor this again – Steve [Frederickson] mentioned getting the facts out there. I would encourage you to do that, I would encourage you to look into the facts. You know, he mentioned not being qualified, and I can say personally I’ve been involved in two different parking ramp projects with Granger and we’ve done a dozen throughout the state and we’ve had huge success. And you guys know that – because we were short-listed to do the entire project [the construction manager job].

He also said, you know, that we weren’t compliant with the bid documents. And actually you can take a look at the post-bid interview, and we are compliant – there’s yeses all the way down. And it was kind of a shock to us to find out weeks later that they were going to bypass us. I’m glad to hear that you are saving money. In this economy, that is a big deal. And I think you could be saving more. I think there were some irregularities in the bidding process, that maybe you could have capitalized on some additional savings.

It was an extremely short bid period, you know. Maybe that was a way of ensuring that Christman could get the work. Voluntary alternates were prohibited, and I have never seen that in a set of bid documents. Now, to me, why wouldn’t you want to encourage some ingenuity and get some cost savings there? In fact, we’ve got $300,000 worth of savings to the job that we couldn’t submit on. And I’m happy to share that with you, too. To help the project maybe save more money. Aside from that, you know, I don’t expect anything to change. Again we just want to encourage the facts to come out.

The document referred to by Carignan with all the yeses checked is the post-bid conference summary, which is signed by representatives of Granger and Christman. In addition to the check boxes, the summary contains additional handwritten notations in free response fields. [.pdf of post-bid interview summary]

The language of the contract between Christman and the DDA supports Olson’s contention that the $1 million being returned by Christman to the DDA is contractually required [.pdf of complete contract]:

Upon Substantial Completion of the Project, any unused portion of the GMP [guaranteed maximum price] Estimate Contingency shall be returned to Owner [DDA] for use by Owner as determined by Owner in its sole discretion. Upon the release or return of any portion of the GMP Estimate Contingency to the Owner, the GMP shall be reduced by the amount returned or otherwise released to Owner from said fund.

The contract also specifies that Christman is paid only based on documented invoices for work actually performed – up to the guaranteed maximum price.

In a telephone interview, we asked Podges if he could provide some additional clarity  about the reason that Granger’s bid was rejected after the post-bid conference. Podges said it was not a question of Granger’s general qualifications to do concrete work for parking decks. Rather, it was Granger’s readiness – as reflected in the bid documents and the post-bid conference – to handle the detailed complexity of this specific underground project, with the associated logistical challenges of a tight urban construction site with little or no staging areas for materials.

Podges told The Chronicle that precisely because Granger is known as a competent firm, Christman was disappointed that Granger did not present the kind of detailed scheduling with specific construction activities and an operational plan necessary to give Christman the comfort level they need to award the job to them. Asked to give a specific example, Podges described how the timing of the form-pour sequence for shear walls – walls interior to the structure – was crucial. But when asked for their thoughts on how they’d approach that, Podges said, Granger didn’t provide a detailed answer.

A lot of what Christman knows about building underground parking structures, Podges said, stems from their recent experience on the Michigan Street Development Project in Grand Rapids. Podges said that meant his firm had expertise and experience that allowed them to understand the challenges in more detail than others. The Michigan Street Development Project was a key part of Christman’s presentation to the DDA board when they interviewed for the construction manager job. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA Hires Christman, Bonds Delivered"]

Perspective on Self-Performed Work

Two factors may have led observers of the bidding process to the erroneous conclusion that the concrete work for the DDA’s parking structure was required to go to the lowest bidder. First, the questioning during the construction manager interviews held by the DDA emphasized that the construction manager’s in-house divisions would have to compete with other bidders. Second, the public opening of the sealed bids is often associated with a low-bid requirement.

Christman’s contract, however, specifies a guaranteed maximum price. That’s an arrangement that requires Christman to accept a certain amount of risk – if the cost is more than the maximum, it comes out of Christman’s pocket. In such an arrangement, the final determination of subcontractor selection belongs to Christman.

DDA staff capability does not extend to providing direct oversight of Christman’s selection process for subcontractors – that’s something for which the DDA relies on its construction consultant, Park Avenue Consultants, and the architect on the project, Luckenbach Ziegelman Architects.

In the course of recent reporting on the Humane Society shelter construction project, for which Washtenaw County is providing a certain level of oversight, The Chronicle met Bob Martel, who’s playing the role of construction manager for the shelter project, which is essentially now complete. Martel’s specific expertise is as an owner’s representative for development of medical office building projects in the $15 million to $30 million price range.

So we asked Martel for his thoughts on the general idea of arrangements in which a construction manager has the option of self-performing the work. In a phone interview, Martel said that he favored a practice specifying that a company performing as construction manager for a job could not self-perform any of the subcontracted work.

His rationale behind that, explained Martel, was to remove any possible perception that the construction manager’s in-house division might have an inside track, which could dissuade other companies from bidding. That could lead to a situation where the owner’s price wasn’t as low as it could be.

But Martel allowed that his own approach was not the most common practice. He also added that he’d hired Christman for a couple of projects – they’d done great work, he said.

DDA Board View on the Concrete Bids

At the very end of the board meeting after representatives from Granger and from Christman had all weighed in, John Splitt addressed the issue this way:

I just want to say at this point that as chair of the capital improvements committee and as chair of this board I am satisfied with the integrity of the process that went on. And I think that the committee all agrees that the process was fair.

Misc. Items Discussed by the DDA Board

There were a range of other topics mentioned at Wednesday’s meeting.

Main Street BIZ

In other public commentary before the board, Ed Shaffran appeared in order to thank the board for their support in the establishment of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. Ellie Serras had been listed on the agenda to speak on behalf of the BIZ, so when Shaffran took the podium, he joked that he figured they’d prefer to hear from Serras, which was met with an enthusiastically lighthearted “Yes, we would!” from Leah Gunn and Russ Collins.

The DDA had provided $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street.

Sandwich Board Signs

At the city council’s Feb. 16, 2010 meeting, a revision to the city sign ordinance was unanimously defeated – it would have legalized the common practice of using sandwich board signs on downtown sidewalks. The measure also did not enjoy the support of its sponsor, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had worked with a task force established in October 2009 to address the issue.

At the February meeting, it was indicated that the city attorney was recommending that the ordinance be enforced. Warnings have been issued but no confirmed citations have been made. There is some sentiment among merchants that the sandwich board signs could be subsumed under the sidewalk occupancy ordinance.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Keith Orr gave his colleagues a rundown of the history of the issue. Newcombe Clark emphasized that it was crucial for non-first-floor businesses to get the added exposure that could be gained from sandwich board signs.

Before the DDA board was a resolution calling the city council to take action at its next meeting, on April 19, 2010, to legalize sandwich board signs.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously passed the resolution that called on the city council to revise the ordinance in a way to make sandwich boards legal downtown.

East West Rail

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, local developer Peter Allen said he was troubled to learn from reading the minutes of the DDA board’s retreat that the east-west rail project had been put on hold. He said he felt like the DDA could play a role by stepping up and being a leader on the issue, by standing up and shouting, “It has to get done.” He also pointed to the University of Michigan as an organization that stood a lot to lose, if the project didn’t move forward.

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Allen’s remarks by saying that there was still a whole lot going on and that the recent setback had to do with the failure to win stimulus funds to address siding issues near Detroit. When that was worked out, he said, the project would be back full-bore. He noted that rail cars are being purchased, so the project is still going forward.

Hieftje also said that conversations with Dearborn were happening and that there was some possibility of exploring a connection that would include Dearborn and the airport, but that would not go all the way to Detroit initially. He pointed to the $30 million of stimulus funding that Dearborn had been awarded in order to build a new station.

Commuter Challenge: getDowntown

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, reported to the board that the commuter challenge, which takes place in May every year, could use support from their participation. Just one sustainable commute, she told them, would earn a free ice cream from Washtenaw Dairy. The Bike to Work Day event for this year will fall on May 21.

Present: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat

Absent: Jennifer S. Hall

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]