Bob Guenzel chaired his first meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board on Wednesday. (Photos by the writer.)

Those included the monthly parking report, which showed use of the city’s public parking trending upward compared to last year, as well as an annual report on the structure-by-structure breakdown of the parking system.

The reports presented to the DDA board at their meeting – together with a recent report delivered to the city’s environmental commission about parking trends dating back to the mid-2000s – provide reason for some cautious optimism. The number of people getting access to downtown Ann Arbor by driving there and parking suggests an overall slight upward trend, despite a reduced number of number of hourly patrons earlier this year.

Also related to parking, the board received a presentation on a communications plan that the DDA is developing, targeted at downtown evening employees. That communications plan is meant to make sure those employees are aware of low cost alternatives to using on-street parking spaces. The communications strategy would be part of a possible plan to extend enforcement hours for on-street parking meetings past 6 p.m. The DDA will present its tentative proposal for revisions to parking policies to the city council at a joint working session of the board and the council to be held on Nov. 14.

In response to some of the individual success stories that were presented in connection with parking alternatives, DDA board member Russ Collins said, “I wonder how this positive message will play in the media.”

Collins’ remark could have applied to much of the rest of the meeting as well. The board took the report on the basic current financial health of the parking system as an occasion to talk about the overall economic strength of the downtown. Despite the recent closing of some smaller stores, board members gave reports of strong performances by other businesses.

That positive report contrasted with public commentary about ongoing problems with aggressive panhandling and drug dealing and other fringe behavior exhibited downtown. Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, described how some response is being developed by the Ann Arbor police department.

The construction updates on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project and the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue converged on the Ann Arbor District Library. The projects will result in modifying the downtown library building’s front porch, to facilitate access from the new east-west mid-block street – Library Lane – into the library.

As the underground parking garage nears expected completion in the spring of 2012, brief discussion unfolded among DDA board members on the near-term use of the top of that garage. Also related to potential development in the “midtown area” was a report from the partnerships committee. A steering committee comprising DDA board members and community members will be leading the effort to explore alternative uses of specific city-owned parcels downtown, including the top of the underground parking structure (aka the Library Lot).

It was the first board meeting chaired by Bob Guenzel, who was elected to that position at the DDA’s last meeting, which he was unable to attend.

Parking

Roger Hewitt gave the regular report on the parking system. [.pdf of monthly parking report and annual structure-by-structure analysis] He highlighted the annual profit-and-loss statements for each structure for the past year.

Hewitt noted that those parking structures that have paid off their debt service are profitable, and those that still have outstanding debt are less profitable. For example, he said, Liberty Square has no debt service as well as less labor expense, because it’s unattended. Liberty Square has an annual net income of $1,852/space.

From the report, the structures with bond payments still associated with them have the lowest net annual income: Fourth & Washington (-$610/space), Fourth & William ($53/space) and Maynard ($517/space). Last year, the public parking system as a whole showed a net annual income of $3,452,389, which worked out to $508/per space.

Hewitt note that the new underground parking structure is planned to be unattended – but that doesn’t mean there will be no staff on site. There’ll be maintenance people on site, for example, he said. For a parking structure to be “unattended” means that there won’t be cashiers, he explained.

Hewitt said the DDA is also looking at converting other specific parking structures to operation without cashiers. The DDA is looking at various ways to decrease operating expenses. Hewitt noted that on-street meters are profitable because there is no labor attached to them. Overall, Hewitt said, the revenue is quite good.

Although revenues in the public parking system have continued to show increases since the national economic downturn in 2008, Hewitt has often noted on the occasion of his regular updates to the board over the last couple of years, and in a presentation to the city council, that the increase in revenue is either steady or only sightly more than what would be expected, given the rate increases that have been implemented with city council approval over the last three years.

In August 2011, revenues were up by 11.93% and the number of hourly patrons (as contrasted with those who have monthly permits) were up 4.86% as compared to August 2010. That was a bright point for board members at the Oct. 5 meeting.

In August 2010, the basic rates for structures, surface lots and meters were: $0.90, $1.10 and $1.20 respectively. In August 2011, the rates were $1.00, $1.20, and $1.20, respectively. So the August increase of nearly 12% in revenues outpaced the rate increase.

By way of background on the rate increases, the DDA sent the proposed rate increase to the city council in February 2009, which the city council did not choose to veto. That schedule has been implemented starting in September of each year, after the start of the fiscal year, which begins in July.

             STRUC                  LOT
YEAR          HRLY    PERMIT       HRLY      METER
FY 2009      $0.80      $125      $1.00      $1.00
FY 2010      $0.90      $130      $1.10      $1.20
FY 2011      $1.00      $135      $1.20      $1.20
FY 2012      $1.10      $140      $1.30      $1.40

-

To provide additional perspective on demand for access to downtown Ann Arbor, as measured by use of the parking system, a compilation of monthly year-over-year comparisons from last year’s DDA board meeting information packets yields the following charts:

DDA parking revenue. The red revenue line for the most recent year shows an overall pattern of slight increases compared to the blue bars of the previous year. (Image links to higher resolution file. Any errors are the responsibility of The Chronicle.)

DDA hourly parking patrons. The red parking patrons line for the most recent year shows an early pattern of slight decreases with slight increases more recently, compared to the blue bars of the previous year. (Image links to higher resolution file. Any errors are the responsibility of The Chronicle.)

In addition to the last two years’ worth of DDA revenue and hourly patron data, it’s useful to look at a report that city environmental coordinator Matt Naud recently completed and presented to the city’s environmental commission. The report was conducted as a condition of the settlement of an environmental lawsuit filed against the city in connection with the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue, which is currently under construction. ["City Settles Lawsuit, Must Conduct Study"]

It’s important to note that the report compiled by Naud focuses on “garage parking events,” which are not the same as the statistic the DDA tracks called “hourly patrons.” Naud’s study was confined to parking structures, and counted the entry into a garage by a permit holder as a “parking event.” Use of a surface lot was not counted in Naud’s study as a “parking event.” The focus of that study was on the question of how the construction of additional parking structures impact the number of parking events.

The result of the study on its central question could fairly be described as indeterminate. However, the report shows a steady increase from 2005 to 2009 of parking events in downtown Ann Arbor, despite any number of mitigating factors, such as increased bus ridership:

Parking events in downtown Ann Arbor. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

The demand for access to downtown Ann Arbor as measured by the use of the public parking system is likely to be a point of discussion in connection with two current development projects in and near downtown: The Varsity Ann Arbor and Heritage Row.

Heritage Row is a planned unit development (PUD) located one block south of the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue and outside the DDA district. In connection with Heritage Row, one possibility the city council may be asked to contemplate – at its Oct. 17 meeting – is approval of that project without any on-site parking requirement.

At the Oct. 5 meeting of the DDA board, Roger Hewitt noted that bond costs for the new underground garage will change the revenue and expenditure picture. The underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William is one of two major construction projects currently managed by the DDA.

Construction Convergence: Library Lane

John Splitt reported on the two major construction projects currently being managed by the DDA: Fifth and Division streetscape improvements; and the underground parking garage. Light poles have been installed on the 200 block of South Fifth, Splitt said. That finishes everything connected to the streetscape improvements except for the block of Fifth Avenue between William and Liberty. That will need to wait until the underground parking garage is complete, he said.

For the parking garage, the east leg is now waterproofed and back-filled with pea gravel. For that east leg section, form work is starting for the surface concrete pouring. [The deck is being constructed from east to west.] For the middle of the garage, more concrete will be poured next week. Splitt said that for the phase under Fifth Avenue, it was hoped to be done as soon as possible. The DDA is pushing Christman Company, the construction manager for the parking garage, to complete that phase by Dec. 31 to get the street opened back up, but Splitt said it could be into January.

John Mouat said he felt that the new Library Lane (a newly constructed east-west mid-block connector between Division Street and Fifth Avenue) always gets forgotten in all of the discussion about the parking garage. He noted that the DDA is now involved in a discussion with the Ann Arbor District Library about the connection from the library to Library Lane. Russ Collins quipped that it should be called “Parker Place,” alluding to AADL director Josie Parker, who was in the audience.

Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library, and DDA board chair Bob Guenzel before the Oct. 5 meeting of the Downtown Development Authority.

Parker was asked to come to the podium to update the board on the Library Lane and library building connection. For the moment, she said, because there’s not a new library being built, they’re simply working on redesigning the existing front of the building – which has its public entrance on Fifth Avenue – to get patrons easily from Library Lane to the existing entrance of the building as it is currently located. Part of the plan includes tearing off some elements at the front of the building and redoing them, Parker said. The idea is to reconfigure some of the existing porch area, she said.

When people talk about the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements and finishing up the 300 block of South Fifth Avenue, the library frontage is included in that, Parker said. [The DDA's streetscape project will be paying for this work.] She expressed that the library appreciated very much the library’s inclusion in the planning. The library was grateful for the attention that’s been given, and the effort to accomodate the libary has been tremendous, she said.

The construction work has had a great impact on library workers and patrons, Parker said, but she added that use of the library has not declined during construction on the underground parking garage. Alluding to the downturn in business suffered by nearby businesses like Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden – about which their owners have been vocal – Parker allowed that other neighbors have had a different impact.

John Splitt noted that it might not be possible to finish the sidewalk on both sides of Fifth Avenue before spring, but completion of the east side first – the library side – is the goal.

During the discussion of the underground parking structure, Sandi Smith asked what the plan was currently for the surface of the deck. Would it be surface parking? Splitt clarified that surface parking on top of the underground garage would be located primarily in the center section of the deck [viewed from east to west, not top to bottom] and that section would not be finished until the spring.

The top of the underground parking garage is one of five city-owned parcels that the DDA is currently considering for alternative uses – under the direction of the city council given in April 2011. The others are the former YMCA lot, the Palio lot, the Kline lot, and the bottom floor of the parking structure at Fourth and William.

Future Use of Midtown City-Owned Parcels

Joan Lowenstein reported on the the planning process to frame the redevelopment of five city-owned parcels in the downtown that the DDA will be considering.

The partnerships committee had worked on a goals statement for the midtown planning project, she said. [Midtown is the name of one of downtown's zoning overlay character districts, which includes Fifth Avenue as a civic corridor.] Committee members had discussed the idea of forming a leadership steering committee to shepherd the project. That committee would work directly with DDA staff.

Members of the committee who’d agreed to serve in that capacity include: Brittany Affolter-Caine (Ann Arbor SPARK director of talent enhancement); Ron Dankert (former DDA board member and broker with Swisher Commercial); Bob Galardi (retired Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator); Stas’ Kazmierski (managing parter at ZingTrain); Kirk Westphal (film producer, founder of Westphal Associates and member of the Ann Arbor planning commission); Tony Lupo (formerly director of sales and marketing at Salon Vox, now brand manager at New York-based Oribe Hair Care); Nancy Shore (director of Ann Arbor’s getDowntown program); Hillary Murt (member of Michigan Theater board, and former owner of Pen in Hand); and Bonnie Valentine (director of sales and marketing with the Whole Brain Group).

The first meeting of the steering committee will take place on Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 3 p.m. at the DDA’s offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave. Lowenstein said the meeting will be open to the public. Serving on the committee for the DDA will be Lowenstein, Sandi Smith and John Mouat.

Lowenstein described how the partnerships committee had discussed what the deliverables will be for the planning project, which included a defined role for the area, a framework plan and a set of future goals, and a decision-making matrix, all in one document. The idea is also to look at alternative scenarios for achieving development, Lowenstein said – RFPs (requests for proposals) in addition to other options.

Lowenstein also reported that a communications subcommittee of the partnerships committee had been created, consisting of Russ Collins and Newcombe Clark. The goal of the communications subcommittee is to develop a toolbox of resources to communicate with the public and with each other.

Clark reported out that the communications subcommittee will aim to increase DDA visibility and public awareness of what the DDA does and how it adds value. The approach will be both reactive and proactive, he said. The plan is to involve professionals who know how to do public relations and communications. The initial work plan will be to bring in professionals and see what they think the DDA should do. The subcommittee will report out every month. Once the subcommittee has created a toolbox, staff will use it, he said. Collins said he felt that the subcommittee could make good progress for the benefit of the board and the downtown.

Commenting on the midtown development plan, Sandi Smith allowed that it seemed like it was taking a long time, but she saw no reason to rush. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Planning Poised to Pause"]

Downtown Behavioral Issues

During public commentary John Teeter, manager at First Martin Corp., introduced himself by saying that First Martin managed 10 different properties in the DDA district. He wanted to share with the board some of issues the real estate company has been suffering thorough with respect to crime and panhandling. He stressed the importance of separating perceptions from the reality – perception is actually a separate issue from the actual problem, he said. The problem, he said, is not homelessness. It’s things like urinating and defecating in elevators. He said that compared to the past 13 years, the problem is worse now than it’s ever been.

The problem is not the local homeless population, Teeter said. Rather, the problem is aggressive panhandling and drug dealing. He described the Ann Arbor community as having been generous with its resources for this part of the population. But just because the community offers more robust support services, he cautioned, doesn’t mean this behavior should be tolerated downtown. He said that one solution would be to apply pressure with police, but he recognized the challenge of doing that in the current fiscal climate. The police force needed to be given sufficient tools and manpower. He ventured that maybe some stronger ordinance language would help.

Teeter told the board that he was not there just to complain. First Martin is trying to help things, he said. First Martin takes care of picking up trash at Liberty Plaza six days a week. [The park is immediately adjacent to a First Martin property]. He said that First Martin also takes care of some upkeep at Wheeler Park and the corner at Depot and Main. Because much of the problem is drug- and alcohol-related, Teeter said, First Martin will be donating $1,000 to the Dawn Farm outreach program.

Diana Neering, chief development officer at the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, addressed the board to present the DDA with the annual Robert J. Delonis Community Service award. Neering thanked the DDA for its recent support in the form of a grant. [At the DDA board's Oct. 6, 2010 meeting, a year earlier, a $218,050 grant from the DDA's housing fund was awarded for improvements at the association's Delonis Center on Huron Street. The money was to pay for new washers and dryers, lockers and chairs, an emergency generator, energy conservation measures, medical equipment and software.]

Neering then shared a shelter success story about a man who had come to the Delonis Center shelter and how the shelter staff had helped him.

Also realated to the shelter, in his report out from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter began by saying that the construction of the Delonis Center would not have happened without Bob Guenzel (then Washtenaw County administrator and now chair of the DDA board) and the strong support of Leah Gunn (currently a Washtenaw County commissioner and DDA board member).

As newly elected chair, Guenzel was prepared to proceed with the agenda after public commentary. But mayor John Hieftje interjected that he’d previously suggested adding an agenda item to allow board members to respond to public commentary, and he felt that this was very good time to do that. With Guenzel’s indulgence, Hieftje then reviewed a meeting the day before held by the downtown marketing task force, when Teeter had expressed many of the same sentiments he’d expressed during public commentary.

Chief of police Barnett Jones had been there, Hieftje said, as well as representatives of the downtown merchant associations. He had then met later with the chief and deputy chief of police, and he felt that they’d come up with some good ideas. He indicated that some new things will be announced in the next few weeks.

One strategy will be that community standards officers will be issuing tickets in alleys for dumpster violations. They’ve sent out notice to merchants saying that they’ll be looking for violations starting in November. Also being considered is stepped up enforcement of the city’s graffiti ordinance. Hieftje said he figured that businesses will push back, but that the merchant associations have said they’ll support the city’s efforts at enforcement. Hieftje said he wanted to make sure everybody gets adequate warning of the stepped up enforcement.

Hieftje said the perception is worse than the problem itself, but is equally meaningful. He went on to describe Ann Arbor’s issues as relatively minor compared with other cities. Other than the unsolved sexual assaults, it’s been a good year with respect to crime stats, Hieftje contended.

Guenzel asked Hieftje if the downtown marketing task force was again meeting monthly. Hieftje indicated it was and that they had a schedule of nine times a year with no meetings in the months of July, August, and December. He said it was nice to have city council members (Sandi Smith and Sabra Briere) and DDA members present for the most recent meeting.

Business Climate Downtown

Russ Collins offered a comment on the relative downtown vitality in Liberty-State area. [Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater, located near the intersection of Liberty and State.] In August, Collins noted, systemwide parking use was up significantly over a year ago – revenue was up 12% and the number of hourly patrons was up 5%. Collins added that the Michigan Theater had had an unusually strong August. Roger Hewitt, who owns the Red Hawk Bar & Grill and Revive + Replenish downtown, said his two businesses had also had a strong September. He allowed that five University of Michigan home football games can affect things – positively.

Adding to the positive message, Hieftje reported that during the downtown marketing task force meeting the previous day, South State Area Association president Tom Heywood had said that despite the challenges faced by some smaller establishments, business is booming. Hieftje said Heywood had contended at the meeting that the new CVS pharmacy on South State had generated the highest amount of sales per square foot in that chain.

Collins continued with the theme that the right business can succeed in downtown Ann Arbor, by noting that when the John Leidy Shop closed, the Michigan Theater had looked to put a penny candy store in the space – as an extension of something the theater already did, which is to sell concessions. But his organization’s business and market analysis found that such an enterprise was not supportable. He was therefore not surprised when the candy store that set up shop there found it difficult – the Michigan Theater’s business planning would have forecast that outcome, concluded Collins.

Sidewalk, Street Repair Millage

Guenzel asked DDA executive director Susan Pollay if there was an update on the situation with the sidewalk millage. Pollay reviewed how there’d been a general discussion at the operations committee meeting about the two millages on the November ballot: 2 mills for street, and 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair. The DDA’s understanding is that the city will take over repairs previously assigned to property owners, except inside the DDA district, where there will be restrictions. Millage money would be spent on sidewalks inside the DDA district, only if they are adjacent to single-family houses or duplexes. Guenzel confirmed with Pollay that the city’s expectations of the DDA are still being checked out.

Hieftje then commented that he did not feel city councilmembers are out in the community saying that the city absolutely needs the millage or that it’s essential. The sidewalk millage merely offers residents a choice, he contended, of having the city take over the responsibility for sidewalk repair. Everybody who was given notice under the last five-year cycle of the sidewalk repair program will have to pay, Hieftje contended – no one gets a free ride. He reported that the city council’s resolution of intent on the use of the sidewalk and street repair millage funds was still pending before the council.

Public Art, Design

The previous night’s meeting of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, said Detter, had begun with the group’s attendance at the dedication of the new fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl. Detter described how more than 200 people attended to celebrate the water sculpture, where mayor John Hieftje gave a speech. Former chair of the city’s public art commission, Margaret Parker, as well as the current chair, Marsha Chamberlin, had also made remarks, he said. He said the CAC had for years supported the city’s Percent for Art program.

Detter recounted how in the 1990s, three CAC members had worked with Jan Onder and Parker on the downtown public art committee. With guidance from local architect Dick Mitchell, they had injected art into the Fourth and Washington parking structure, he said. Detter described how one of the meetings took place in Espresso Royale, and how a man who’d overheard their conversation about what they wanted to do had come over to say he wanted to give the group $25,000. Detter identified the man as the owner of the Amadeus building. When former DDA chair Reuben Bergman had passed away, Detter said, another $13,000 had been donated. Within a matter of a few month, Detter said, Onder had raised another $85,000.

After the dedication ceremony for the fountain on the municipal center plaza, Detter said, the CAC discussed The Varsity at Ann Arbor project. [The same evening as the dedication, the city planning commission voted to recommend approval of The Varsity; it will now be forwarded to the city council. Detter spoke during public commentary at that meeting.] Detter noted that it was the first project to be reviewed by the newly-established design guidelines board. The board had identified design elements that were present and lacking in the project. The board did a good job, he said. He noted that the review by the design guidelines board is mandatory, but compliance is voluntary. He said the developer did a good job in making improvements to the design.

Detter concluded by saying that the city’s commitment to good building design and public art will make the pedestrian experience better.

New Chair

Bob Guenzel, former Washtenaw County administrator, opened the meeting by saying, “I went away and got elected chair of this group!” He was absent from the board’s Sept. 7, 2011 meeting. Roger Hewitt responded to Guenzel by saying, “That’s how it works, Bob!”

The board had been without a chair because board member Gary Boren, who had been elected to that post by his board colleagues at their July 6, 2011 meeting, was not nominated by mayor John Hieftje for reappointment to the board after his term expired on July 31. Boren was replaced on the board by local attorney Nader Nassif.

Adopting a more serious tone, Guenzel said it’s a great honor to chair the DDA board and said he felt it would be a good year.

On the Horizon

The board’s Oct. 5 meeting included a presentation from DDA planning and research specialist Amber Miller and getDowntown director Nancy Shore on low cost alternatives for evening employees to use on-street parking spaces. At a Nov. 14 joint working session with the Ann Arbor city council, the DDA board will be presenting a proposal to the council for changes to parking rates and policies, which could include extension of enforcement hours past 6 p.m.

The board also received an update on the status of the getDowntown program and the go!pass, which had been presented to the DDA’s transportation, operations and communications committe the previous week. [See Chronicle coverage: "Also Discussed by DDA: getDowntown, Parking"]

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Nov. 2, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

To honor her past year of service as chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, Joan Lowenstein was presented with a plastic bag full of gravel. (That was only part of the token of appreciation.) To Lowenstein's left is Gary Boren, who was elected chair for the next year. (Photos by the writer.)

But during the meeting, parking issues were a focus, as they usually are.

First, board member Roger Hewitt reported to the board that additional data on usage of the city’s public parking system will now be available from Republic Parking. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor – the DDA subcontracts out the day-to-day operations to Republic Parking. The new kind of data measures the number of total parking hours used by parkers against the total number of parking hours that are available in the system. Based on that measure, the parking system has seen a 1.72% increase in usage over the first five months of 2011, compared with the same five months of 2010.

Second, one of the major allocations of public parking revenue the DDA makes is to the getDowntown program, a partnership among the DDA, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the city of Ann Arbor. As part of a three-year funding plan for the getDowntown program approved in June 2010 for fiscal years 2011-13, the program will receive roughly $500,000 from the DDA for FY 2012 and FY 2013, the bulk of which is to subsidize the cost of rides for holders of a go!pass. The go!pass is a card that allows employees of downtown businesses to board AATA buses on an unlimited basis without paying a fare.

The getDowntown program employs two people, including director Nancy Shore. At Wednesday’s meeting, Shore gave the full board the same presentation she’d given the board’s transportation committee earlier in the month. Part of the board discussion involved which of the three funding partners – the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor or the AATA – would employ the two getDowntown staffers in the future. One possibility, which based on Wednesday’s meeting seemed likely, would be for the DDA to add the two getDowntown staffers to its administrative payroll.

At its annual meeting, convened just after the monthly board meeting, the board elected new officers for the coming year, all with unanimous consent: Gary Boren, chair; Bob Guenzel, vice chair; Keith Orr, secretary; and Roger Hewitt, treasurer.

In recognition of her service, outgoing chair Joan Lowenstein was presented with a token of appreciation by the DDA staff: a plastic bag of gravel, and a necklace featuring a lump of gravel as its centerpiece.

The connection to gravel in Lowenstein’s gift was the underground parking structure on Fifth Avenue, which is currently under construction. The board got its regular update on the status of that project, as well as commentary from the owners of two immediately adjacent restaurants – Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar – which have seen their business drop by 30-50% during the construction. 

Underground Parking Garage

The ongoing construction on the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue was a highlight during public commentary. The project also received its usual update out of the bricks and money committee.

Underground Parking Garage: Impact of  Construction on Businesses

Owners of two restaurants along Fifth Avenue, immediately north of the construction site of the new underground parking structure, addressed the board. Ali Ramlawi of Jerusalem Garden and Pushpinder Sethi from Earthen Jar expressed their frustration about the impact the project has had on their businesses.

Ali Ramlawi of Jerusalem Garden (left) and Pushpinder Sethi of Earthen Jar (right) listened to the rest of the board meeting after taking their turns during public commentary.

Ramlawi introduced himself as a resident of Ward 5 and reminded them that he’d addressed the DDA board previously [in October 2010]. He said that the four-minute time allotted for public commentary goes by fast, so he wanted to add to his previous comments.

He noted that his restaurant is located right next door to the construction site and the construction [which broke ground in late September 2009] had been going on for almost two years. He was not coming to the board for a handout, he said. He simply wanted to state a case. He said he did not feel that the DDA board fully considered the ramifications of its decisions on people and businesses.

Fifth Avenue has been closed for nearly a year and would be closed for another six months. The arrangement had not been fully explained at the outset, he said. [Ramlawi was one of the parties to a lawsuit over the parking garage, which was ultimately settled.] He’d been doing business for 18 years in Ann Arbor and the last 12 months have been the hardest. He reported that his customers often ask him about the construction: What is going on? And their followup question is this: What is the city doing for you? People are amazed, he said, that the answer is: nothing.

Ramlawi said he’s been told that it’s like any other project, like a bridge replacement. But it’s not the same, he said. As the DDA considers the future use of other city lots, he said, the DDA needs to take into account the impact of future projects on small businesses. His business has been down 30% for over a year. He pointed to other businesses besides his own in the immediate vicinity, like the Earthen Jar, Herb David’s Guitar Studio, and the Bead Gallery, and ventured that the community might lose one of them.

Ramlawi said when he hears about tax abatements being offered to companies to attract or retain them, he thinks it’s “fine and dandy” but also feels like the city needs to take care of mom-and-pop businesses – like Drake’s Sandwich Shop or The Del Rio. Those businesses disappeared and nobody replaced them. His own utilities – water, phone system, electricity – have been cut off at times due to the project and that has driven up the cost of doing business. He told the board he was upset with the “inaction of the DDA.”

Sethi said he didn’t need to repeat what Ramlawi had said. But he added that his own business was down more like 50% – it’s located immediately next to the project. The slump in business is not due to the recession, he said – that was 2008-2010. He said that the city should help by providing something like tax breaks.

Underground Parking Garage: Construction Update

John Splitt gave the update out of the bricks and money committee on the underground parking garage, which included the fact that mechanical work is starting on the dogleg of the east part of the structure. Some finishing work is also starting on the dogleg, and the top 2-3 feet of the earth retention system is being removed, as it’s no longer needed. In the middle portion, deck slabs are being poured and the structure is almost up to ground level on those pours.

For the third section of the garage, nearest to Fifth Avenue, the final foundation pours have been completed, Splitt said, with two pours of 2,200 cubic yards of concrete. That work has allowed Christman Company  – the contractor for the underground parking garage – to turn off the dewatering system.

The northeast corner of Liberty and Fifth as concrete work progresses on the Fifth & Division streetscape project.

John Mouat said that with the “shell” now done, he wondered if Christman is now looking at being able to “advance the schedule.” Splitt said that he meets weekly for breakfast with the Christman team, and he’s constantly trying to push the schedule. So it’s a weekly if not daily point of emphasis, he said. Obviously, he said, concrete only cures so fast.

Splitt also gave the report on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project. Eastlund Concrete Construction has done some work on Division Street, pouring some crosswalks. They are still doing some brick work too.

Work is progressing on the 200 block of Fifth Avenue – Eastlund was pouring curbs on the east side, and after the art fairs, which runs from July 20-23, they would move to the west side of street.

That will finish Eastlund’s part of the project, Splitt said. Christman will do the streetscape work on the 300 block of Fifth Avenue, after the underground parking garage – which is on that block – has finished construction.

Parking Revenue: go!pass Program

The DDA allocates revenue from the public parking system to support various projects. Some of those revenues support the go!pass program, which is administered by the getDowntown program.

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, was invited to give the same presentation to the full board on Wednesday that she’d made to the transportation committee at its June 8 meeting. The getDowntown program employs two people, including Shore.

By way of basic background, the getDowntown program is a partnership among the DDA, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the city of Ann Arbor. As part of a three-year funding plan for the getDowntown program approved in June 2010 for fiscal years 2011-13, the program will receive roughly $500,000 from the DDA for FY 2012 and FY 2013, the bulk of which is to subsidize the cost of rides for holders of a go!pass.

The go!pass is a card that allows employees of downtown businesses to board AATA buses on an unlimited basis without paying a fare on boarding. Their rides are paid by the DDA out of public parking revenue it receives under its contract with the city of Ann Arbor for managing the public parking system.

By way of technical background, since early February 2009, the AATA has used fare boxes on its buses that allow for riders to swipe different kinds of cards as a way to validate their rides. Two kinds of cards that are now swiped are University of Michigan M-Cards and go!pass cards. Before the new fare boxes were installed, AATA drivers would record those rides with a button press, so some data was being collected about the total number of rides taken by University of Michigan affiliates or by holders of go!passes.

It’s possible, for example, to look at overall ridership on the AATA regular bus system as compared with the ridership of those two affiliate programs dating back at least to 2004. In Chart 1, the top group of lines are overall ridership numbers, the middle band are UM affiliate ridership numbers and the lower band reflect go!pass numbers.

Chart 1. Overall ridership on AATA buses, broken down by UM and go!pass rides by year. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Within each band in Chart 1, separate lines correspond to different years. Generally, ridership across all categories has gone up year over year.

Statistical highlights of Shore’s presentation included the continuing increase in the number of go!passes purchased by downtown employers for their employees, and the number of employers who participate in the program. In 2001-02, 3,913 go!passes were purchased by a total of 239 companies. That compares to 7,157 passes purchased by 506 companies so far this year.

The total number of rides also continues to climb each year, as Chart 2 shows.

Chart 2. go!pass rides by month, charted year by year. (Image links to higher resolution image.)

In the course of the board discussion after Shore’s presentation, board member Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that employers must purchase go!passes for all of their full-time employees in order to participate. The cost to the employer per pass is currently only $5, but Shore is recommending that it be increased to $10 next year.

Clark also drew out the fact that based on the new swipable cards, it’s possible to track the usage of individual cards, not just count the rides taken.

Keith Orr wanted to know if there are people who have go!passes who haven’t used them – yes, said Shore. Summarizing Shore’s data in ballpark form, Russ Collins said it looks like half the people who are given cards by their employers don’t use them at all, and about one-third use them actively. He felt that the cards warranted a larger charge to the consumer – those who use it clearly see the value, he said, and even if you quadrupled the price to $20, it would still be a great benefit to them.

[The cost charged to employers for purchasing the cards, even though many employees do not use the cards, still does not nearly cover the cost of the rides taken. That's why the DDA will be subsidizing the go!pass rides with payments to the AATA of $438,565 for FY 2012 and for $475,571 in FY 2013.]

At Collins’ suggestion to hike the per card cost to employers, Clark hesitated, noting the requirement that cards must be purchased for all full-time employees. That might discourage an employer who had a large number of employees: “I don’t want to knock an employer out who couldn’t afford it,” Clark said.

Orr noted that part of the success of the program is the requirement that you have to buy a card for all full-time employees. In the course of her presentation, Shore explained that the focus on employees [as opposed to other visitors to the downtown] was driven by the fact that employees have the most consistent patterns and when that pattern can be changed, then it changes consistently.

Another highlight of Shore’s presentation was the breakdown by company type for card usage. In terms of number of rides taken, restaurant employees took 46% of the go!pass rides, government workers took 9% of rides and retail employees took 8% of rides.

go!pass usage by industry (Image links to higher resolution file)

Board members were complimentary of the program and of Shore’s work. Mayor John Hieftje noted that the program had won an international award a few years ago and he encouraged Shore to apply for that award again. He pointed to the connection to the city’s affordable housing goals. Not owning a car puts $500 per month back into someone’s budget that they can spend on something else, he said.

Leah Gunn said that since Shore had taken over the getDowntown program, it had really started to soar. Joan Lowenstein said the program was good evidence of how the DDA works in partnership with other organizations.

Roger Hewitt noted that out of 7,000 passes, about 2,400 are used on a regular basis. He wondered if it was possible to find out what percentage of those cardholders who are heavy users also own cars. Shore indicated that she would work on getting that information.

• Google Spreadsheet for data used to display overall AATA ridership broken down by UM affiliates, go!pass rides, by year
• Google Spreadsheet for data used to display breakdown of go!pass rides by weekday
• Google Spreadsheet for data used to display breakdown of go!pass rides by month, charted by year

Parking Revenues: Status of getDowntown Staff

As part of his report from the transportation committee, John Mouat noted that the getDowntown program needs to “find a home.” That’s still an ongoing conversation, he said.

By way of background, the getDowntown program was previously funded in a four-way partnership with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA and the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce (now the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber). In 2009, the chamber essentially withdrew from the partnership, which meant that the getDowntown program needed to find alternate quarters – part of the contribution made by the chamber had been to provide office space. The getDowntown program then moved to offices at 518 E. Washington, with the financial support of the DDA. Brief coverage of the issue is included in The Chronicle’s report on the Dec. 2, 2009 DDA board meeting.

At the Oct. 7, 2009 meeting, Mouat had mentioned the issue as part of his regular monthly committee report to the board. And it came up again at the board’s May 7, 2010 meeting.

A question from DDA board member Leah Gunn clarified that the issue being considered is not the physical location of getDowntown’s offices, but rather the administrative payroll issue: Which organization will formally employ the getDowntown program’s two staff?

Mouat explained that currently the two staff are employees of the AATA. The transportation committee is looking at the possibility of transferring the responsibility to the DDA. Mouat characterized it as a “nice fit” from a funding perspective – both getDowntown and the DDA have a focus on the downtown. The mission of getDowntown is also connected to the planned implementation of transportation demand management in the parking system, Mouat said.

Another advantage is that AATA’s contribution via a federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant is administratively easier, if getDowntown is separate from the AATA, Mouat said.

The impact on the DDA, Mouat said, would be that deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse would do the books, executive director Susan Pollay would do the employee evaluations, and the two staff would become employees of the DDA.

Shore indicated that there was no hard and fast deadline, but it would be preferable to have a decision made by year’s end. Bob Guenzel asked what the position of the getDowntown funding partners is on the question of merging getDowntown with the DDA. Citing the views of the getDowntown board, Shore said that everybody is comfortable with it.

Regular Parking Report

Roger Hewitt summarized the regular monthly parking report for his board colleagues.

Total public parking revenues for May 2011 were $1,218,442, based on permit holder fees plus fees paid by 170,471 hourly parkers in structures. That’s an increase from May 2010, which had $1,145,740 in total revenues and 169,466 hourly parkers.

Percentage-wise that’s a 6.35% increase in revenue and an 0.59% increase in the number of hourly parkers, with a total system parking space inventory of 19 additional spaces: 7,149 in May 2011 compared with 7,130 in May 2010.

The board has recognized for some time that this kind of measure for parking demand is somewhat coarse. The number of hourly parkers gives some insight, as does the total revenue, but these data do not provide a direct measure of how much of the system’s capacity is being used.

At the DDA board’s bricks and money committee meeting on Wednesday, June 29, Joe Morehouse – deputy director of the DDA – presented committee members with data showing the percentage of total parking hours sold for parking structures, with 100% corresponding to the (practically impossible) scenario of every spot in every space filled with a car 24/6 (structures are free on Sunday) and no time lost when one car pulls out and another pulls in. Like the standard parking report, the comparison for May 2011 against May 2010 using that metric also showed an increase in demand: 33.22% in May 2010 compared to 34.94% in May 2011. [Ann Arbor public parking efficiency chart]

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Hewitt said that the DDA spent a lot of effort and resources to upgrade software and IT with new equipment, which can now capture enormous amount of data. The board had asked Morehouse and Republic Parking staff to get an idea of total occupancy – the total “car hours.” To generate the percentages, they’d taken as the denominator all the spaces in attended structures and lots for the entire time they charge for spaces. Hewitt said the data was currently only for about a year and a half, but they were working on getting more. At the June 29 committee meeting, Hewitt had described part of the problem as related to a corrupted database.

By way of some additional background, parking data and its accessibility to the public has a contentious recent history. In early 2009, a demonstration application was developed by independent programmers, to use real-time parking space availability provided on the DDA’s website to develop a software application where a phone number could be called and the caller would hear an automated voice give the number of spaces available in a given structure. That led, for a time, to the blocking of access to the DDA website by automated applications, a move that was met with strenuous objections by the local IT community, some members of which attended DDA board meetings to express their concerns.

Objections to the blocking of the parking usage data were amplified by the fact that around that time, the city council was considering approval of bonds for the construction of a new 640-space underground parking garage. The council approved the bonds and the garage is currently under construction along Fifth Avenue, with completion now anticipated in early 2012.

Another part of the context of that time period was the DDA’s recommended series of parking rate increases, which were in part due to the construction of the new garage.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Hewitt noted that the next parking rate increase is due to take effect Sept. 1, 2011. He characterized it as being in the range of 5%. [For metered spaces, it's an increase from $1.10 to $1.20 per hour. The hourly rate for parking in a structure will be increased from $1.30 to $1.40] That was part of a series of annual increases approved in connection with the construction of the underground parking structure, he said.

In the fall of 2011, Hewitt noted, the DDA will need to make a presentation to the city council on parking rates and will need to have some idea of what they plan to do with parking rates a year from now.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor

Ray Detter reported to the board with a summary of the previous night’s meeting of the Downtown Area Citizens’ Advisory Council. Board chair Joan Lowenstein invited Detter to the podium by teasing him to spiff up, because the cameras were back on. [The videotaping system had a glitch at the start of the meeting and were not recording, but they were restored to service.]

Detter said that the advisory council had devoted their entire discussion to The Varsity at Ann Arbor, a proposed residential project planned for 425 E. Washington St., next to the 411 Lofts building. [The site is currently the location of an office building, which formerly housed the Prescription Shop. The Varsity is planned to be a 13-story apartment building with 173 units that would house 418 people. It would include 77 parking spaces.]

Detter said the advisory council felt the project would be a learning experience – with respect to a newly established design review board. Detter noted that in addition to the developer’s meeting with the design review board, which had already taken place, a second required meeting – a citizen engagement meeting – would be held on July 7.

Detter said the design review board had provided feedback and that the advisory council agrees with its suggestions. But the project has a long way to go if it’s going to voluntarily comply with the design guidelines, he said. The building as proposed now is 143 feet tall now, but he would encourage the developer to go higher, if necessary, if it would allow the building to step back more from the property lines.

Detter told the DDA board that his group supported a project now under construction, Zaragon West, because the developer considered the design guidelines as they were emerging, but before they were given final approval by the city council. Fortunately, Detter said, The Varsity’s developer had hired a local architect [Bradley Moore]. The first principle of the design guidelines, Detter said, was to identify and reinforce characteristics of adjacent sites. But The Varsity doesn’t doesn’t do that, he contended. There was no consideration to east or west where two smaller historic properties are located.

Detter also noted the two entrances to parking garages under the building – one on Huron Street and the other off Washington Street. Both of them pose problems for pedestrians and traffic, he said. One possibility is combine them so that only one entrance would be used. The east side of the building, which faces the First Baptist Church, is difficult, he said. One person had described it as a “slab,” Detter said, and another as a “tsunami of uninteresting brick.” That wall could be improved, he said, by reshaping it. The developer has started consulting with stakeholders, like the First Baptist Church, and as a result has added a walkway. Now it’s only five feet wide, but Detter hoped it could be made wider.

Lowenstein indicated she was glad the city council had reduced the proposed design board review fee from $1,000 to $500.

Communications, Committee Reports

In addition to Detter’s report from the citizens’ advisory council, the board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees, as well as public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Retail Recruitment

Joan Lowenstein reported for the economic development committee that they’d explored the possibility of a role for the DDA in retail recruitment by inviting Ed Shaffran [a former DDA board member and head of Shaffran Companies Ltd., which owns several downtown Ann Arbor properties] and Mike Giraud of Swisher Commercial.

Lowenstein reported that the committee learned the DDA has done a lot already: infrastructure improvements have an impact on the ability to recruit retail. However, as far as going out and helping with recruitment directly, she said, they’d heard from Shaffran and Giraud that there’s not a lot you can do without “stepping on toes.” Knowledgeable brokers are already involved, and offering incentives can be slippery slope, she reported.

Where the DDA could help is with the promotion of the downtown and getting Ann Arbor onto the broker map nationally. Shaffran and Giraud also mentioned the need for larger floorplates – something the committee had also heard from representatives of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency. Another theme the committee had heard mentioned before, Lowenstein said, was that regulatory processes are an impediment for developers to get projects approved.

Lowenstein mentioned that the DDA’s annual report is forthcoming for the current year. She characterized it as a statistical analysis and also a promotional document for the downtown.

Comm/Comm: Energy Grants

Russ Collins reported out for the partnerships committee on the DDA’s energy saving grant program. Through the program, downtown business owners can get an energy audit paid for, with matching funds for any recommended improvements that are actually implemented, up to a cap. These steps of the program – audit and implementation – are referred to as Phase 1 and Phase 2 by the DDA. In the past, the per-project cap for Phase 2 has been $20,000 per project. But Collins said that cap has now been reduced to $5,000.

The total project budget for the coming year will be $100,000, compared with $200,000 in previous years, Collins said. A total of $20,000 will be for Phase 1 assessments – they’ll target larger buildings as a part of an attempt to coordinate with the city’s PACE program, which provides a funding mechanism for making energy improvements. The remaining $80,000 will be focused on improvements that are directed toward smaller projects, he said.

Comm/Comm: Future Use of City-Owned Lots

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Russ Collins said the majority of the committee’s last meeting had been spent addressing how to meet the city council’s directive to establish a public process to figure out what to do with some of the city-owned parcels in the downtown: the Library Lot, the former YMCA Lot, Palio’s Lot and Kline’s Lot.

Collins summarized the contributions of several guests at the partnerships committee meeting, including local developer Peter Allen, real estate developer Albert Berriz, AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein, and two University of Michigan faculty members in the college of architecture and urban design – Doug Kelbaugh and Kit McCullough.

Collins’ summary was consistent with The Chronicle’s report from that meeting: “DDA Continues Planning Prep.”

At that meeting, Kelbaugh and McCullough pitched their services to lead the public engagement process that would begin this fall – they were looking for a decision from the DDA about that in July or August. But Collins said the committee had decided to take a step back.

The upcoming partnerships committee meeting on July 13 will be devoted exclusively to how to move forward with that process. Collins noted that Sandi Smith, who co-chairs the committee with Collins and who was absent from Wednesday’s board meeting, is unavailable. Collins added that he would be out of town for the July 13 meeting. However, board member John Mouat, who is an architect, would be there to run the meeting, Collins said.

Comm/Comm: Fruit, Vegetable Bike Racks

As part of his report from the transportation committee, John Mouat said that carrot, apple and cherry bike racks were currently being painted to get them ready for installation at the Farmers Market.

Comm/Comm: LED Lighting Company

Ted Williams and Jaspreet Sawhney, with Falcon Innovations Inc., attended the meeting and addressed the board by way of introducing their company to the board. Sawhney, alluding to Pushpinder Sethi’s turn at the podium just before his own, said he was amazed that two people wearing turbans were addressing the DDA that day.

Jaspreet Sawhney of Falcon Innovations talks with Susan Pollay, the DDA's executive director.

Falcon is an LED lighting manufacturer. They had decided to come address the board when mayor John Hieftje stopped by their booth at the recent Green Fair held on Main Street downtown. Sawhney said that he’d previously met Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, and Dave Konkle, former energy coordinator with the city of Ann Arbor and now consultant with the DDA. Sawhney demonstrated two different products for the board. He told them that the firm’s manufacturing facility is not in Michigan but they are looking to change that.

Board member Russ Collins wanted to know if the lights were dimmable – yes. Board member Newcombe Clark pointed out that Falcon’s offices are located on Main Street, above Conor O’Neill’s.

Annual Meeting: Officer Elections

The main task for the DDA board at its annual meeting was to elect its officers for the next year. Standard practice is for the current vice chair to be elected chair, with the expectation that whoever is elected vice chair will serve as chair the following year.

Gary Boren, newly elected chair of the DDA board.

Roger Hewitt nominated current vice chair Gary Boren to serve as chair.

Newcombe Clark asked if Boren’s term was being renewed – that is, would he be reappointed by the mayor to serve on the board? By way of background, outgoing chair Joan Lowenstein’s term on the board ends on July 31, 2011, as do the terms for Gary Boren and John Mouat. Boren has been a vocal proponent of the idea that the DDA is an independent corporate body and not an arm of the city of Ann Arbor.

Last year, Clark had pointedly abstained from voting in the officer elections over the lack of information about reappointments to the board. From Chronicle coverage of the July 7, 2010 DDA annual meeting:

Abstaining from each of the officer votes was board member Newcombe Clark.

Clark explained to The Chronicle after the meeting that there’d been no indication from the mayor whether the two board members whose appointments are expiring July 31 – Jennifer S. Hall and John Splitt – would be reappointed. Clark said he could thus not be certain of the full range of choices for board officers.

Splitt was reappointed; Hall was not. Bob Guenzel was appointed instead of Hall.

In response to Clark’s question this year, Lowenstein said they did not know that yet. Mayor John Hieftje, sitting at the board table, did not offer any statement about whether he planned to nominate Boren for the city council’s approval for reappointment.

With little further discussion, the remaining officers were nominated and voted on. Leah Gunn, who serves on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, nominated former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel as vice chair. That vote was unanimous. John Splitt nominated Keith Orr as secretary, and that vote, too, was unanimous. Splitt then nominated Roger Hewitt to stay on as treasurer.

In sum, the officer election featured none of the drama of two years ago, when the board initially could not find a consensus about who the next chair would be.

Outcome: All officers were elected by unanimous voice votes: chair, Gary Boren; vice chair, Bob Guenzel; secretary, Keith Orr; treasurer, Roger Hewitt.

Annual Meeting: Committee Mergers

At last year’s annual meeting, the DDA merged its capital improvements and operations committee into a single “bricks and money” committee. At that time, the DDA also had two other committees: the partnerships committee and the transportation committee. The partnerships committee handles issues related to the collaboration of the DDA with other entities like the city council, which appoints two of its members to the DDA’s partnerships committee. Currently those council members are Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The transportation committee, formed two years ago, is a relatively new committee. At last year’s annual meeting, the board decided to add a new committee – the economic development and communications committee.

At Wednesday’s annual meeting, John Splitt led off discussion of the constitution of committees by suggesting that transportation be merged with the bricks and money committee. He reasoned that transportation would be dealing with issues like go!passes and with transportation demand management, which are both ultimately related to parking issues –the domain of the bricks and money committee. He suggested the merger based on overlapping subject matter.

John Mouat, who chairs the transportation committee, agreed that it was a good suggestion. The general consensus was that a new name for the committee was needed. Russ Collins suggested: “Let’s not find a name now, because that’s how we came up with ‘bricks and money.’” Keith Orr offered that the first task of the newly constituted committee should be to find a new name.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to merge the transportation committee with the bricks and money committee.

Mayor John Hieftje then suggested combining the partnerships with the economic development and communications committee. Leah Gunn supported that idea. Newcombe Clark cautioned that that intent of having a communications committee was to recognize that communications is not getting done effectively. It had been as a deficiency, he said, so he didn’t want to fold the subject matter back into another committee, just because it was a new committee.

It was briefly discussed that the motion to merge the committees formally needed a second before Clark could weigh in. With the motion officially seconded, Russ Collins quipped that, even though Clark’s comments were “totally rogue,” having been made before the motion received a second, he agreed with Clark.

Splitt agreed with the point made by Clark and Collins, but noted that participation was a bit lacking. Hieftje stressed that the intention was not that the issues would fall away. The question was whether communications needed a free-standing committee. Joan Lowenstein allowed that there has been sparse attendance at the committee’s meetings and it would be nice to bring everyone together.

Mouat asked for executive director Susan Pollay’s thoughts. Pollay agreed with everything the board was saying. She noted that the board members are volunteers. Having more people attend committee meetings is better, she said, but they can’t drop communications as a topic of concern, even if it’s not a separate committee. Keith Orr indicated he would like to leave it as is for the time being to see if reducing the number of committees from four to three will help improve attendance.

Outcome: The board voted to merge the partnerships committee with the economic development and communications committee, with dissent from Clark, Collins and Orr.

Annual Meeting: Tokens of Appreciation

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, presented outgoing board chair Joan Lowenstein with a token of appreciation.

Joan Lowenstein, outgoing chair of the DDA board, admires the token of appreciation she received from the DDA staff: a necklace featuring a construction pit piece of gravel.

Last year, outgoing chair John Splitt had been presented with a plaque that was fashioned from a piece of the earth retention system lagging. This year Lowenstein’s gift also consisted of artifacts from the construction site of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage: a plastic bag of gravel. The serious part of the gift was a custom piece of jewelry crafted by Schlanderer & Sons and featuring a piece of construction site gravel in a sterling silver setting.

[According the staff of Schlanderer & Sons, it was one of the more unusual requests they've ever received, and they completed the piece with a budget of less than $200.]

Present: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Sandi Smith.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2011, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Last Thursday, news of a breach in the earth-retention system of a downtown Ann Arbor construction site had reached all the way to Detroit’s Channel 4 News. Channel 4 sent a crew Friday evening to file a report. It was tagged on the Channel 4 website with the summary: “An Ann Arbor construction project is sinking, literally.” Chalk that up to the hyperbole of television news.

Top: View to the northeast along Fifth Avenue from Valiant Partners' concept for a conference center and hotel, proposed for the top of the Library Lot underground parking garage. Bottom: Breach in the earth retention system for the underground parking garage currently under construction on the Library Lot.

While the roughly 640-space underground parking garage, being built by Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority, is not sinking in any way, a conference center and hotel proposal for the top of the underground structure might be sinking.

At first glance, the 190,000-square-foot project proposed by Valiant Partners Inc. seems like it’s on a path to approval by the city council. In November 2010, an advisory committee – charged with evaluating responses to a city of Ann Arbor request for proposals issued in late 2009 – finally settled on the Valiant proposal as the best of the six the city had received.

That decision came with the aid of Roxbury Group, a consultant hired to help evaluate the proposals and to negotiate an agreement with a developer. At an early March meeting of the advisory committee, a Roxbury representative presented a draft letter of intent, which had been worked out by Valiant and Roxbury, to be signed by the city of Ann Arbor and Valiant. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the city council consider the letter of intent.

Then, on March 14, the city council held a work session on the proposed conference center. The council heard essentially the same presentation about the letter of intent that Roxbury had made to the advisory committee. The council is scheduled to consider the letter formally at its second meeting in April, which is now scheduled for Tuesday, April 19, to accommodate the first night of Passover. The letter of intent calls for a development agreement to be presented to the city council within four months of signing the letter of intent – which would mean sometime near the end of August 2011.

But I think it’s clear at this point that a development agreement between Valiant and the city of Ann Arbor to develop the Library Lot would not achieve the necessary eight-vote majority for an actual real estate deal. That’s why I think the city council might vote down the letter of intent – even if there are at least six councilmembers who would support going forward with the letter, which is all it would take for the letter’s approval.

I base that conclusion on remarks made by councilmembers at the March 14 work session, and regular politics as reflected in the council’s history – both recent and ancient. But before considering politics, let’s dig into some really ancient history – the kind measured in geological time – to gain some additional insight into why a pile of dirt spilled unintentionally into the underground parking garage construction pit.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach

On Thursday afternoon, March 24, a sinkhole appeared behind the Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar restaurants, on the north side of the underground garage construction site. Where did that dirt go? It had poured through a small breach in the earth-retention wall about 30-feet below grade.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach: Jerusalem Garden

When I visited Jerusalem Garden on Friday morning, owner Ali Ramlawi was preparing for regular business after the sinkhole had forced the evacuation of his restaurant the day before.

That morning, he seemed even a little more exasperated than he did in October 2010, when he’d addressed a meeting of the DDA board during the time reserved for public comment. On that occasion he’d ticked through a variety of concerns, including the underground parking garage, which he called the DDA’s “civil engineering project.” Ramlawi was also one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in August 2009 over the construction of the garage.

On Friday, Ramwali told me how one of his employees had driven over the spot where the sinkhole opened up, just 10 minutes before the earth gave way. He considered it just lucky that nobody got hurt.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach: Geology – It’s Sand, Man

So how exactly does dirt that far down pour through a gap that appears to be just a few feet wide?

To get a better idea of why that might happen, I talked to Kevin Foye. Foye is a Ph.D who works as a project engineer with CTI & Associates, a civil engineering firm in Wixom, Mich. How earth settles and moves is part of Foye’s specific area of expertise – he recently gave a lecture as part of the University of Michigan’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Seminar Series, called “Differential Settlement of Landfill Foundations Modeled Using Random Fields.”

As it happens, Foye had taken photos of the construction site a few weeks earlier, and was somewhat familiar with the site. He described how not all soil is the same – it’s some combination of sand, silt and clay. The Library Lot site in Ann Arbor, he continued, is a little different – it’s predominantly sand. So it’s going to be more apt to move through a slot like the one that opened up in the retention wall.

The make-up of the soil at the site as predominantly sand was also reported by then-library board member, and geologist, Carola Stearns in a presentation she gave to the board back in September 2010. She described the site as 55 feet of coarse, well-bedded, well-sorted sand and gravel – the product of glacial activity.

And at the end of the day Friday, I spoke with Pat Podges, the Christman Company’s construction manager on site; he also described how the dirt on the site would just run through your fingers when you pick up a handful.

Earth-Retention Wall Breach: Don’t Tear Down that Wall

On Friday, Podges also confirmed that the earth-retention system used at Ann Arbor’s Library Lot site is the same one the Christman Company had previously used in building an underground parking garage in Grand Rapids, as part of the Michigan Street Improvement project. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority awarded the pre-construction services contract to Christman back in August 2009, partly based on the strength of that experience.

Site of the breach in the earth-retention wall at the site of the Library Lot construction. The view is to the north.

The earth-retention system was also familiar to Foye, who described what he’d seen when he’d visited the site a few weeks ago. Visitors to downtown Ann Arbor last summer will likely remember seeing the tall drill operating on the site and the vertical pieces of steel that were then pounded into the holes – down to the silt layer that the water table sits on. Those vertical pieces of steel were subsequently encased in concrete.

Between each pair of steel-beam reinforced concrete columns, additional inner columns were poured – but not reinforced with steel beams. Podges described how for most of the steel-reinforced pairs, two additional columns were poured between them, but for some pairs, three additional columns were poured. The idea is that the columns between the steel beams interlock with each other, wedging against the steel beams.

This specific earth-retention system, called a “tangent wall” system, is used on the north face of the site, but not everywhere. Podges explained it’s used there because it’s better at preventing water from entering the pit than an alternative wood lagging system, which is used in some other locations. In the wood lagging system, heavy timbers span the vertical steel beams.

Chronicle readers might remember that outgoing DDA chair John Splitt received a memento of appreciation for his service, which was fashioned from a piece of timber left over from the wood lagging system.

A bucket is filled with gravel before getting hoisted over to back-fill the sinkhole.

In addition to the structural elements of the basic earth-retention wall, additional supporting elements include: (1) “whalers” – steel beams that are bolted horizontally across vertical members; and (2) “tie-backs,” which are essentially guy wires installed into the face of the wall.

To install tie-backs, Foye explained that a small-diameter hole is drilled from the face of the wall on the pit side, around 30-50 horizontal feet into the surrounding soil. That hole is filled with high-strength grout. A steel rod is inserted into the hole and bolted to a bearing plate on the face of the wall. That rod is then tensioned with a hydraulic jack to the pressure that’s been calculated to be appropriate for that specific location, then locked off at that specified pressure. Foye said in these kinds of applications, the pressure would be in the tens of thousands of pounds.

When construction of the parking garage is complete, the retention wall elements will remain in place, even though they won’t actually be needed to hold back the earth, Podges told me. The floors of the deck, which are braced against each opposing wall, will provide adequate opposing force. The tensioned tie-backs nearer to the surface will likely be de-tensioned, Podges said, because if someone were excavating years from now and hit one of the rods, it would be best for it not to be under tension.

A construction worker prepares to release the load of gravel into the sinkhole. Note the safety tether attached to his harness. In the background is the Ann Arbor District Library building, to the south of the construction site.

It’s apparent, from looking at photos as well as at the site itself, that the element that failed was part of one of the inner columns in the tangent wall system. And it failed at a point just below a horizontal reinforcement (a “whaler”) that was bolted onto the face of the retention system. That whaler spans six of the steel-beam reinforced columns. Foye said that based on photos he’d seen, it appeared that for some reason, there was a loss of the interlock between the inner columns – it would take further investigation to figure out what was different on Thursday from all the days before, during the time the pit has been open.

Podges said that the analysis of why the breach occurred is being done by Soil and Materials Engineers Inc., the company that designed the retention system. But they’ve determined that the problem was isolated. They’ve checked all the motion monitors that are attached to various points of the earth-retention wall, as well as the surrounding buildings – and everything is still in the same place, Podges said. Visual inspection of the perimeter has revealed no obvious other problems.

By Friday morning, a Christman crew had begun filling in the sinkhole with coarse gravel. The night before, a concrete cap had been poured over bags of gravel that had been dropped in to plug the breach from the sinkhole side. Additional repairs will need to be undertaken to the pit side of the wall – they appeared to be partly underway on Saturday morning, when I passed by the construction area. A team of workers on a platform had been lowered by crane to the breach point.

According to a briefing email sent out early Sunday morning by Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, among other measures, ground-penetrating radar will also be used to check for any other voids that might have developed.

What Is the City Council Thinking?

The closest thing we have to ground-penetrating radar to detect any voids in the heads of city councilmembers is simply to pay attention to what they say, when they do their work in public view. And based on that kind of radar, I don’t detect any voids on the conference center issue – but it does look to me like there could be sufficiently solid opposition to doing a real estate deal, that the council could vote down the letter of intent before even getting to that point.

City Council: Work Session – Background

At the city council’s March 14 work session about the conference center proposal, the Roxbury Group’s David Di Rita walked the council through the draft letter of intent. He’d done the same thing for the RFP review committee at its March 8, 2011 meeting. Here’s how the 190,000-square-foot project breaks down, as described in the draft letter of intent:

(i) Core elements:

• 150 hotels units – 87,000 sq. ft.
• Conference center – 26,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant/Retail – 6,000 sq. ft.
• Public space/Plaza

(ii) Additional elements

• Office space – up to 48,000 sq. ft.
• Residential condos – up to 22,000 sq. ft.

That square footage breakdown is slightly different from Valiant’s original proposal, which included 12 condo units compared to the six in its revised proposal. More significantly, the size of the conference center in Valiant’s revised proposal is 6,000 square feet smaller than the 32,000-square-foot facility in the original proposal.

At the March 14 city council work session about the proposed Valiant conference center: (left to right) Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

The reduction in condo units and the size of the conference center is offset by the possible addition of up to 48,000 square feet of office space. [See page 27 of the .pdf for Roxbury Group's report, submitted in November 2010, for a breakdown of the contrast between Valiant's original and revised proposals.]

DDA board member Newcombe Clark has expressed some skepticism to The Chronicle that prevailing rental rates for office space in downtown Ann Arbor would be adequate to support new construction of office space. [Clark has worked in real estate, most recently with Jones Lang LaSalle, but is no longer with that firm.]

But it’s the revised configuration of the square footage that has allowed Valiant to eliminate from its proposal a request that the city of Ann Arbor issue bonds to fund the project’s construction. The use of public bonds as a financing tool has been described as a deal-breaker, even by the chair of the RFP review committee, Stephen Rapundalo, who represents Ward 2 on the city council. And Rapundalo is widely perceived as one of the strongest supporters of a conference center at the Library Lot location.

Remaining in the letter of intent, however, is a requirement that the city of Ann Arbor would own the conference center. Valiant has pitched this as a benefit to the city, but it carries with it potential for liability as well.

City Council: Work Session Views – Legal Ownership

It was the conference center ownership question that drew the specific attention of Sabra Briere (Ward 1) during the work session. She told the Roxbury Group’s David Di Rita that the whole proposal seemed to be predicated on a belief that the city of Ann Arbor wants to own a conference center. Di Rita responded in a way that suggested that the ownership question is not a closed issue and could be subject to further discussion.

Briere’s reply was fairly sharp. She told Di Rita that maybe there is stuff in the letter of intent that doesn’t need to be in there.

The city’s relationship to the conference center, as described in the draft letter of intent, is one of ownership. The city would have an agreement with the developer whereby the developer would manage the center. And just as long as the developer holds that management agreement, the city would not be liable for costs related to operation and maintenance.

The draft letter of intent also describes how the developer could itself use the money being paid to the city for development rights, to develop the conference center. That strategy only makes sense in a scenario where the city owns the center. It reduces to this: At least part of the compensation the city would get for allowing the developer to build the project – instead of a lease payment or property taxes – is ownership of the conference center.

But ownership does not translate directly to a financial benefit to the city, any more than ownership of additional parkland does. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) has frequently pointed out that continued acquisition of additional parkland, without an adequate revenue source for maintenance, has led Ann Arbor to a situation where it can maintain the parkland it has only with great difficulty. And the same principle applies to ownership of a conference center.

So far, Valiant has tried to make its financial offer more attractive to the city by eliminating the need for the city to issue bonds. It’s conceivable that the letter of intent the council considers on April 19 will continue that trend by eliminating the requirement that the city own the center, and that Valiant will find some other way to pay for that part of the deal.

But right now, we’re presented with a tale of a profitable project that even the teller of the tale apparently doesn’t believe. Frankly, I believe that a place where you can host a 1,200-person conference in downtown Ann Arbor without breaking a sweat would be a well-used and welcome facility. You could imagine some kind of center of intellectual inquiry – that’s not necessarily a university – sprouting up in concert with the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location. Indeed, Valiant representatives have talked a lot about their desire to partner with the library.

But I don’t think Valiant really trusts their own narrative. If they did, we would not see a proposal for the city to issue bonds, or for the city to own the conference center, or any other creative approach to financing. Instead, we’d see a straight-up offer to lease or purchase development rights for some dollar figure.

What should that dollar figure be? Before the work session began, local developer Peter Allen told The Chronicle that a rule of thumb for land value would be 10-20% of the total value of the planned development. So if you’re planning to build a $54 million project, then $5.4 million would be a low-end ballpark number for the land value.

You might make a case that the city should accept a somewhat lower offer than Allen’s rule of thumb. An outline of that case might go something like this: (1) Look, this conference center of intellectual inquiry that we’re going to build is not going to be as profitable as, say, a project consisting of mostly residential units, and here’s why; (2) A conference center is going to have a greater positive economic impact to the downtown than just residential units would have, and here’s why; (3) You should be willing to accept a slightly lower direct financial return to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund, in exchange for a greater positive economic impact overall, and here’s what that impact looks like.

If Valiant were inclined to make that kind of offer, however, I think they’d already have done that – between November 2010 and March 2011, when they negotiated the draft letter of intent with the Roxbury Group. But a simple, straightforward lease or purchase of development rights did not emerge from that negotiation.

The letter of intent is to be considered by the council at its April 19 meeting. Among the revisions to be added to the final draft of a letter of intent is language that makes clear that the city of Ann Arbor will not bear any risk. It’s not yet clear what linguistic form those revisions would take.

Work Session: Work Session Views – Ownership of Advocacy

Near the conclusion of the March 14 work session, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who was chairing the session in mayor John Hieftje’s absence, floated a question about who would take responsibility for making revisions to the letter of intent. Here’s how she put it: “Who owns those revisions now?” City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that he felt revisions fell now into the category of “staff work” – the RFP committee’s work was done, he said.

Higgins question about “ownership” of a specific task – like revising a document – could just as well be asked about the entire conference center proposal. Up to now, the project seems to have been owned by Roger Fraser. He first introduced the council to the existence of Valiant’s proposal at the 2009 budget retreat.

Chronicle file photo from the January 2009 Ann Arbor city council budget retreat. City administrator Roger Fraser, left, talks with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They're looking at conceptual drawings for a possible conference center on top of the underground parking garage now being built at the Library Lot between Fifth and Division streets.

On that occasion, he’d announced the existence of a proposal for a conference center, and told councilmembers they could look at the conceptual drawings. But he would not disseminate the proposal publicly – at the request of the proposers.

Later, it was revealed he’d done that against the explicit advice of the council.

With Fraser’s departure at the end of April to become a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan, it’s not clear who might take ownership of Valiant’s proposal on the city’s side to make sure that an acceptable development agreement is struck, based on a letter of intent. Even if Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, might seem a logical candidate to champion the project through to completion, her remarks at the work session suggest she’s not necessarily publicly embracing that kind of role.

Pollay began the work session by telling the council that she was there as a city staffer. The RFP had been issued through the city’s community services area, and only a few months after the RFP was issued, the community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, left the city to take a different position. Because the project was of interest to her, Pollay said, she’d volunteered to help out as needed. But she stressed that the project is not a DDA project – she’s just assisting.

Before the March 14 work session: Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, and David Di Rita of The Roxbury Group, which acted as a consultant for the RFP review committee.

On the council itself, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) might be a logical choice to champion the project through to final approval. In fact, at least as far back as March 2009, Smith has pushed specifically for planning some kind of use on the top of the underground parking structure. On that occasion, she introduced a successful resolution at the DDA’s March 2009 board meeting that articulated the DDA’s readiness to support the planning process for the top of the structure.

But as recently as the March 21, 2011 city council meeting, Smith has demonstrated that she can be a fiscal hard-ass, who might give priority to the city’s near-term bottom line over long-term overall economic impact. At that meeting, she was the sole voice of dissent in voting against an amendment to a state grant application that prioritized support for a skatepark over improvements to the Gallup canoe livery. She had established during deliberations that the canoe livery improvements would necessarily add revenue, whereas the skatepark was a question mark.

With the current murky level of detail available, use of the top of the parking garage as additional surface parking might actually mean more for the city’s bottom line than striking a deal with Valiant. And at the March 14 work session, Smith described the conference center proposal as “one of the largest decisions that I will have had to make in my brief tenure here.”

So I don’t think Smith is likely to pursue the conference center with the single-minded bull-doggedness of purpose that would likely be required for its eventual approval. The project needs someone to champion it who is absolutely dedicated and practically blind to all other options, if it’s to win ultimate approval from the council, and I don’t think Smith is that person.

As chair of the RFP committee, Stephen Rapundalo would also be a logical candidate to take ownership of the project – even if the committee’s work is over. But to be successful, whoever takes ownership of the project will need to enjoy a certain amount of deference from the council as a whole. And based on deliberations at the March 7, 2011 council meeting, his fellow councilmembers aren’t willing to give Rapundalo that deference, even when he clearly has earned it.

On that occasion, the council voted, over his objections as chair of the council’s liquor license review committee, to allow the appointment of a single hearing officer for liquor license non-renewal hearings – Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – instead of appointing the entire committee as the hearing board. Any councilmember who voted with Derezinski on that – which was everyone except for Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – gave little weight to Rapundalo’s record of service on the council’s liquor committee since its very creation back in 2007. So I think the council is unlikely to show Rapundalo any deference when it comes to the conference center development agreement.

Work Session Views: Decision Time?

Historically, the Ann Arbor city council’s inclination has been, whenever possible, not to make a decision at all. The current status of the city’s Argo Dam is a good example of that. In early 2009, the city embarked on a public engagement process about the Argo Dam, which led the community to believe that the city council would be making a major policy decision that summer about leaving the dam in place or removing it.

But the council has never voted on the issue, which formally leaves the question open, though from a practical point of view, the dam is still in place. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) have remained vigilant in making sure that subsequent decisions made the council – like approving construction of a portage-free bypass around the dam – don’t necessarily preclude the dam’s eventual removal.

From the time of the Library Lot RFP issuance, councilmembers were eager to stress that the issuance of the RFP did not represent a decision to develop any of the proposals that might be submitted. After receiving proposals, it was again stressed that the city was under no obligation to accept any of them. And after identifying Valiant as the best of the six proposals received, the RFP review committee stressed that there was no obligation to do a deal with Valiant.

At the work session, councilmembers again appeared eager to downplay the significance of approving a letter of intent. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) characterized it as a “going steady” phase, with a prenuptial agreement to be possibly realized in the form of a development agreement. Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated she was satisfied with David Di Rita’s characterization of the letter of intent as an outline to get to a final deal, but not the deal itself.

But at the RFP committee meeting in early March, Eric Mahler indicated his skepticism that the letter of intent did not place an obligation on the city to see the negotiations through to the proposal of an actual real estate deal. Mahler, an attorney, represented the city’s planning commission on the committee.

And at the council’s work session, the same concern about the contractual nature of the letter of intent was expressed by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who did little at the session to hide his overall displeasure with the whole proposal. He stated flatly that he felt the arrangement being proposed was “very squirrelly,” and offered up his assessment that when the city went fishing for development proposals, “we catch nothing but leeches that want to suck on the public dollar.”

Even if Kunselman’s colleagues on the council may have rolled their eyes at his rhetorical flourish, they likely took to heart his point about the contractual nature of the letter of intent. It’s not “just another step” in the process where the city can take any action, or no action, for any reason at all. This is, in fact, a decision point of some kind that requires a proposal to come before the council.

What kind of decision point does the letter of intent represent? I think it’s somewhat similar to appointing a study committee to make a recommendation on establishing a historic district in a particular area. The council has a recent record to show that appointing a committee does not necessarily result in establishing such a district. At its July 6, 2010 meeting, the council rejected a study committee’s recommendation that a historic district be established along Fourth and Fifth Avenues, just south of the Library Lot. I can imagine that some councilmembers might even draw upon that episode as an analogy: Just as appointing a committee did not obligate us to vote for a historic district, we are not obligated to approve the development agreement that emerges in four months time after the letter of intent is signed.

But I think that for any councilmembers who appeal to that analogy, there will be others who are persuaded by a different historical episode involving the non-appointment of a historic district study committee – at the council’s Oct. 20, 2008 meeting. The committee in question would have studied an existing district, the Old Fourth Ward, to consider removing one property from the district. Then representing Ward 3, Leigh Greden argued against even appointing a committee, independent of what recommendation the committee might eventually make. Here’s how The Chronicle reported Greden’s sentiments:

Councilmember Leigh Greden suggested that if a recommendation came back from the committee to remove the property, he still did not imagine he could vote for its removal – acknowledging that he’d perhaps made that conclusion too soon.

Put coarsely, if you’re going to vote no later, you might as well vote no now.

At the March 14 city council work session: Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

I think some councilmembers might follow that same logic in weighing their vote on the letter of intent between Valiant and the city of Ann Arbor – a letter that is supposed to lead to a development agreement. An additional factor playing into that logic is that the real estate deal associated with the development agreement will need eight votes for approval by the city council.

So even if the letter of intent might have sufficient votes for approval, the real estate deal already looks like it will fall short of the eight-vote requirement.

Based on their remarks at the work session, Briere and Kunselman are likely no votes, as is Mike Anglin (Ward 5). At the work session, Anglin recited a laundry list of criticism of the project, from insufficient public process to the project’s lack of viability.

Anglin’s Ward 5 colleague, Carsten Hohnke, expressed his view at a 2010 Democratic primary election forum that the conversation about what should go on top of the library should start fresh, with a clean slate:

Hohnke said he is not convinced that any of the proposals that had been submitted are good ones, and it’s important to remember that a request for proposals does not need to be acted on by the city. If none of them meet the satisfaction of the community, there’s no need to accept one, he stressed.

Hohnke continued that he would like to see a renewed effort of community conversation – starting from a blank slate, with no preconceptions. What is the best solution for this vital parcel right in the center of our community?

Hohnke’s contribution to the March 14 work session conversation hinted that he was still thinking along the lines of starting fresh. He asked Rapundalo to review for the council how the RFP committee had winnowed down the six proposals to the final two proposals, both of which called for some kind of hotel and conference center. Among the six proposals that did not make the final cut was one for a community commons put forward by Alan Haber and Alice Ralph – who both attended the work session. [Chronicle coverage from January 2010: "Hotel/Conference Center Ideas Go Forward"]

Mayor John Hieftje’s vote could be purely political. It was Hieftje’s penchant for using the privilege of voting last in any roll call vote, to cast such purely political votes, that finally led the council in 2006 to change its rules for roll calls. The start of a roll call vote now rotates among councilmembers.

With four likely votes against the letter of intent – Anglin, Briere, Kunselman, Hohnke – there’s sufficient safety in those numbers that Hieftje could join them. With potentially five votes against the letter of intent, it’s hard to see how Valiant or other councilmembers would want to invest time and energy in putting together a development agreement that’s not going to meet the eight-vote minimum.

Certainly in the past, the council has been reluctant to proceed with only thin majorities. In early 2005, DDA board members were told that there were at least six votes in support of the 3-Site Plan to develop city-owned downtown properties – all the plan needed to go forward. But then councilmembers Leigh Greden and Chris Easthope counseled against placing the 3-Site Plan on the council’s agenda, in order to generate additional support on the city council. By late in 2005, the public engagement process had actually seemed to diminish rather than increase council support, and the 3-Site Plan never made it to the council’s agenda.

Conclusion: Get the Dirt out of the Hole

Besides offering a rule of thumb for calculating land value, at the March 14 work session Peter Allen also told me he thinks the entire Library Lot block needs to be master planned, before trying to develop that individual parcel. For a course he teaches at the University of Michigan, Allen assigned his students in 2009 to complete an exercise like that. [Chronicle coverage: "Column: Visions for the Library Lot"]

Restarting the conversation about the Library Lot – as Hohnke suggested back during his 2010 Democratic primary campaign – is a process that would be consistent with Allen’s suggestion to master plan the whole block. That conversation could take place in the context of a proposal currently being worked out by the DDA and the city that would assign the DDA responsibility to facilitate the development of other uses for downtown city-owned surface parking lots. That proposal, however, is currently stalled.

I think any use of the space above the underground parking garage needs to be considered as a coherent part of the city’s thinking, not just with respect to that entire block, but also in connection with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s countywide transportation plan, the possible construction of a new downtown library – which has been put on hold, but might re-emerge – and even the current discussion of a corridor improvement authority along Washtenaw Avenue.

The sooner the city council votes down Valiant’s specific proposal for its conference center, the sooner we can settle into a process that might well produce a community consensus for a different kind of conference center – one that includes a real vision for the kind of inquiry and collaboration that might take place at the conferences such a center might host.

Valiant’s proposal is, I think, like the pile of dirt that poured through the breach in the retaining wall, piling at the bottom of the underground parking garage site. As a guy in a hardhat told me Thursday morning, the pile of dirt wasn’t hurting anything, but it was in the way. Valiant’s current proposal is like that pile of dirt, because it just needs to be cleaned out of the hole for now. If we need more dirt, there’s plenty more where that came from.

We shouldn’t adopt the attitude that if we let Valiant’s conference center proposal sink out of view, we’ll lose forever the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that a conference facility in downtown Ann Arbor might bring.

Why do I think that? It’s because I believe in second-hand learning. At the DDA’s January 2011 board meeting, management assistant Joan Lyke’s last one before her retirement, she addressed a few remarks to the board, summarizing what she’d learned working at the DDA.

On Lyke’s bulleted list was this: “If an idea is good, it will always resurface.”

Left to right: AATA board members Jesse Bernstein, Roger Kerson and Anya Dale. The group fell one short of the four needed to constitute a quorum. (Photos by the writer.)

A quorum – the minimum number of board members needed in order to conduct business – consists of four members for the seven-member AATA board.

In attendance were Roger Kerson, Anya Dale – who were both recently appointed to the board – plus board chair Jesse Bernstein. The usually cheerful Bernstein seemed a bit glum, when he announced  that no quorum would be achieved.

Bernstein told the handful of people assembled in the room – members of the public and the AATA staff – that he was “sorry and disappointed” and offered his apologies. He noted that it was the first occasion of a meeting scheduled at the library, and that the CTN staff were on hand to ensure the proceedings were videotaped. “See you next month!” he concluded.

At the board’s Feb. 17, 2010 meeting, the question of a change of venue for the board’s meetings was entertained, but not voted on. At the next month’s March 24, 2010 meeting, the board voted to change the bylaws to specify the downtown library as the new meeting location. The rationale was to provide better accessibility to the board’s deliberations by making use of the library board room’s video taping equipment. The AATA board room is not similarly equipped.

The change to the library location for AATA board meetings was delayed until August while physical accessibility issues were addressed, in connection with the construction of the new underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue. From the  June 23, 2010 board meeting:

During public commentary, Clark Charnetski, who was there to deliver the report from AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), noted that the library had been made more accessible, because the removal of the flower box on the Fifth Avenue side had been completed and there is a new ramp to the William Street side. That should make it a lot easier to get from the A-Ride (para-transit) stop on William Street. People could watch for the mini-bus to arrive. He thanked the AATA for any role that they had in helping that process along. Bernstein said that staff had been diligent. Ford indicated that an intercom system would be installed in the library to aid in alerting riders of the para-transit system when their rides were there.

On Thursday, one of the members of the public who appeared at the scheduled meeting, only to be disappointed, was Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She told The Chronicle that although the new ramp was ADA compliant – its shallow slope did not trigger a requirement for handrails – it was dangerous just the same. The danger arises from the side of the ramp opposite the slope, where there is a step. The step is highlighted with yellow marking, but can be missed, she said. Grawi told The Chronicle that the previous Friday, a woman using a walker had fallen off the edge.

Orange cones have now been placed along the edge of the ramp to help prevent future mishaps.

View looking west from the library's entrance on the east side of Fifth Avenue. The construction barrels are part of the street closing in connection with the construction of the underground parking garage.

The fourth-floor library board room affords a spectacular view of the underground parking structure currently under construction. This view looks east. This is the "dogleg" of the structure that extends to Division Street.

This view is to the north from the library board room.

Present: Jesse Bernstein, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Absent: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 16, 2010 at at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

John Splitt holds the commemorative plaque he received last month as outgoing chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development board. It's fashioned from earth retention lumber from the underground parking structure currently under construction along Fifth Avenue.

Splitt strolled into the cafe, having walked from his dry-cleaning business, Gold Bond Cleaners. “It’s located on Maynard Street, just on the other side of the arcade,” he said, motioning toward Nickels Arcade, a covered passage connecting Maynard and State.

State Street holds a special significance for Splitt as the gateway to his community involvement. In 2004, Splitt joined the board of the State Street Area Association, an experience he described as an educational process, that “opens your eyes to some of the larger downtown issues.” Once on the association’s board, his interest in community service continued, and in 2006 he was appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA).

Splitt has served on the DDA board since then and for the past year has served as chair. Joan Lowenstein was elected the new chair at the board’s recent annual meeting, which immediately followed the board’s monthly July meeting.

The view from just outside Gold Bond Cleaners – looking east across Maynard Street to Nickels Arcade, a pedestrian passage leading to State Street.

When asked what issues have been especially memorable during his time on the DDA, Splitt cited the underground parking structure currently under construction on the city-owned Library Lot at South Fifth Avenue. The project, which began construction in October 2009, will include 600 parking spaces. The bond payments for the project are planned to be made out of the DDA’s parking revenues.

The garage includes environmental elements, with the DDA project website touting LED lights and recharging stations for electric cars. The underground parking structure is only part of what the DDA’s website hails as a “new core area redevelopment project,” including “new water mains and electric capacity, a new alley, midblock street and extensive pedestrian improvements.”

The parking structure has been a central focus of Splitt’s time on the DDA, as he is chair of the DDA’s capital improvements committee. Though the underground structure has already begun construction, an ongoing and vibrant discussion remains on what to put on top of the structure once it’s built. During our conversation at Espresso Royale we didn’t discuss that topic explicitly.

However, city officials have been struggling to find an appropriate development proposal for the 1.2-acre lot. In late November last year, six proposals were made for the lot, ranging from an urban park to a hotel and conference center.  By January, the Library Lot Request for Proposal (RFP) Advisory Committee – of which Splitt is a member – had eliminated four of the proposals, leaving two proposals for a hotel and conference center.

Recently, the conversation about what goes on top has been revived as steps are being taken to hire a consultant to evaluate the financial merit of the remaining proposals, using $50,000 provided by the DDA. Stephen Rapundalo, a city council representative for Ward 2, gave an update indicating a re-start to the months-dormant process at a July council council meeting.

As part of current talks, the city and the DDA have been considering how the DDA might take on the primary role in spurring downtown development, specifically that of city-owned surface parking lots within the DDA district boundary. That empowerment of the DDA may impact how future committees similar to the Library Lot RFP Advisory Committee are organized. While Rapundalo chairs the Library Lot RFP Advisory Committee, it’s conceivable that DDA members might chair similar committees in the future.

Though the DDA’s future leadership in downtown development is uncertain, Splitt’s commitment to the DDA has been clear. Before adding community involvement to his list of other obligations, Splitt paused to clear his extracurricular plate. He admitted, “I was pretty involved in my other hobbies and work up until five or six years ago.”

One such hobby: softball. Having grown up playing baseball, Splitt resorted to fastpitch softball due to the lack of opportunity to play baseball as an adult. “It’s amazing how much time that occupied, both in the summer and the rest of the year,” he said. Yet Splitt quit the sport in favor of the State Street Area Association board and, ultimately, the DDA. Splitt describes a simultaneous dry-cleaning decline since 2006, which he said “works out well for the DDA and volunteer work, because I have a little bit more time to devote to that.”

Nevertheless, Splitt said he always finds time to appreciate Ann Arbor.  When asked what it is he enjoys doing downtown, Splitt answered simply, “Walk, eat, and drink,” echoing the State Street Area Association website’s motto: “Shop, eat, live, work, and enjoy entertainment in the heart of Ann Arbor.” Soon, Splitt will find it even easier do just that, as he and his wife are planning to move into the downtown area from one of the leafy neighborhoods near Eberwhite Woods. They’ll relocate to the western edge of downtown, just inside the DDA district.

He explained the decision to move, saying, “I think that we [he and his wife] both are downtown people. We like being close to our businesses, we like the energy of downtown and have grown tired of yard work.” Splitt’s wife, Judy Splitt, is the owner of Salon 344 on the corner of Ashley and William.

Looking west across State Street, through Nickels Arcade. On the other end of the arcade, on Maynard Street is Splitt's dry cleaning business, Gold Bond Cleaners. To the right is Espresso Royal, where the interview for this article took place.

While Splitt’s enthusiasm for his yard might be slack, he is still entirely industrious in his involvement with the State Street Area Association. Most recently, he volunteered at the State Street Art Fair, one of the main events the association runs. When I relayed a personal story of being stuck in the basement of the Michigan Union because of tornado sirens while recently trying to go to the art fair, Splitt eagerly interrupted, adding “A false tornado warning! They sounded the sirens by mistake. That was not a good thing. It hurt sales, certainly.” He continued by saying the State Street Art Fair is especially “cool” because of the mix of artists and merchants.

Splitt’s four-year term on the DDA is done this year, though he has made it clear to the mayor that he hopes to be reappointed. He says with an amiable smile, “So I keep showing up until I’m either reappointed or replaced.”

[Editor's note: The city council agenda for Aug. 5, 2010 indicates a nomination of Bob Guenzel to serve on the DDA board. Guenzel retired as Washtenaw County administrator in May 2010. There's no indication if Guenzel is to replace Jennifer S. Hall or Splitt, both of whose terms ended July 31.]

About the author: Hayley Byrnes is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

Before the meeting of the DDA board: Russ Collins and Keith Orr. Collins is not demonstrating to Orr how to snag a foul ball at a baseball game. (Photo by the writer.)

The program is currently in a transition year as the four-way partnership that supports it was reduced to three partners when the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce dropped out last year, citing financial pressures. That leaves the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor DDA as getDowntown funding partners.

In other business, the board approved the application of LEED certification for its underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, currently under construction.

The board began a discussion on a payment-in-lieu program for required onsite parking (PILOP) for downtown developments.

The board also heard a pitch from Tamara Real for additional support for a web portal currently under development by the Arts Alliance.

getDowntown Funding

The main item reported out of the transportation committee from John Mouat was a resolution on the board’s agenda that called for three years of funding for getDowntown and the go!pass program – $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013. The two-person getDowntown program staff consists of director Nancy Shore and employee services coordinator Moira Brannigan.

The go!pass is a bus pass, administered by the getDowntown program, that downtown employers can purchase for their employees for $5 a year. The go!pass allows the holder of the pass to ride all AATA buses without paying a fare upon boarding. The DDA pays the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority the cost of the rides. The bulk of the three-year funding request approved on Wednesday goes to the bus passes:

Request          2010-2011  2011-2012  2012-2013
DDA go!pass      $378,684   $438,566   $475,572
DDA getDowntown   $66,988    $49,488    $64,488
Total Request    $445,672   $488,054   $540,060

-
Mouat noted that the getDowntown program was now a decade old, and was thus well-established. There were plans to implement a swipeable go!pass, he said.

[Last year, the AATA installed fare boxes that are capable of processing swipeable cards. The University of Michigan MCards, which allow UM affiliates to ride AATA buses without paying a fare on boarding, already make use of the technology. Rides taken with go!pass cards are tracked as the MCards were previously – bus drivers manually record the ride in a particular category with a manual button press. Swiping cards allows the ride to be associated with a particular rider. It would eliminate the need to re-issue cards every year.]

Mouat drew the board’s attention to the graph showing go!pass usage over the years, which he quipped showed that their use had literally gone “off the charts”:

go!pass usage graph. (Image links to higher resolution graph)

The number of passes issued this year stands at 6,333, with 467 companies participating. Last year there were a total of 456,547 rides taken with the go!pass.

During deliberations, Jennifer S. Hall said she was glad to see the getDowntown program put on a three-year funding plan, because it added stability to the program.

Russ Collins noted that the 10 years of the program’s existence was actually something of concern to him. “We have a transportation authority [AATA],” he said, and he wondered why there was such reliance on the DDA. Leah Gunn’s explanation was that the program had started as a federal grant and that when it ran out, the DDA had taken up the slack. When Nancy Shore had come on board, Gunn said, the program had really taken off. Gunn stated that she did not think they were going to get money from the AATA for the program.

In terms of the overall budget, Mouat said, the dollar amounts were not all that large:

Allocation of the parking fund, which pays for the getDowntown program funding provided by the DDA – getDowntown and the go!pass come from the green slice.

Roger Hewitt called getDowntown a “great program” and said he supported it. But he wondered how many go!pass users would ride the bus anyway. He raised the question of whether the go!pass was shifting habits or if it amounted to a subsidy. He said he was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a three-year commitment without some idea of the numbers.

Hewitt was making a familiar point. Back on Nov. 26, 2008 at the innaugural meeting of the DDA’s newly formed transportation committee, Hewitt had asked the same question. From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Those two programs (a bus pass program for downtown workers and downtown circulator buses) had been identified at the DDA annual retreat as part of an outcomes analysis of current transportation investments that needed to be undertaken. At the committee meeting, Hewitt said he wanted to know what the DDA’s funding of the go!pass program was actually accomplishing: subsidizing people who would ride the bus anyway (something he said he was not necessarily against), or causing people to ride the bus instead of driving their cars.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Nancy Shore told Hewitt that more than half of go!pass users had indicated in a survey that they thought they used the bus more as a result of the pass.

Hewitt came back around to the idea that he did not think it was necessarily bad if they were subsidizing bus use, but he thought the DDA needed to understand how much the subsidy was.

Hall observed that the amount of money for getDowntown is relatively small. The AATA, she said, is the transit authority and their job is to provide the buses and the drivers. The job of the DDA, she said, is to help market transportation – the DDA was not taking the place of the transportation authority, she said.

Keith Orr commented that it was not just a matter of how many people used the cards – there were some people who couldn’t get to work without the go!pass, he said.

Collins noted that the $5 charge to employers for each card had never been increased. He said it could be doubled and the cost would still be nominal. He’d like to see some strategies explored to start the program towards sustainability.

John Splitt suggested it would be possible to gather more data once the swipeable card was put in place.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that the AATA was investing in the downtown area by using federal funds to help rebuild the Blake Transit Center.

Outcome: The three-year funding plan for getDowntown and the go!pass was unanimously approved.

LEED Certification for Parking Structure

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program. Before the board at its June 2 meeting was a resolution authorizing the Christman Company, which is the construction manager for the underground Fifth Avenue parking garage, to apply to the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) for LEED certification at the Silver level. Among the elements to be cited in the application:

• Reuse of mass excavation materials as part of the structural concrete mix
• Concrete and reinforcing steel will have substantial recycled material content
• Recharging stations for electric vehicles – as well as extensive conduit runs to accommodate future electric car demand increases
• LED lighting, including use of motion-detector technology for low demand time periods
• Natural ventilation (where possible)
• 100% of storm water from the site will have total dissolved solids removed, far exceeding requirements

John Mouat, an architect, said he thought it was great for the parking garage to be constructed as sustainably as possible, but that he did not feel the LEED program was designed to accommodate parking structures. His concern, he said, was from the technical perspective of the LEED program.

Jennifer S. Hall indicated that if a parking structure was going to be built, then it might as well be built sustainably.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize application for LEED certification for the underground parking structure was approved, with dissent from Mouat and Collins.

Parking

Parking as a topic took up a fair chunk of the June 2 meeting. It followed board members out of the offices at the conclusion of the meeting as well, as this vignette illustrates.

After the regular meeting of the DDA board, Joan Lowenstein was standing on the sidewalk outside the Fifth Avenue office building where the DDA is housed, when a car traveling south braked to a halt, earning the driver an angry honk from the trailing traffic: “Excuse me, is there a car park around here?”came the question from the British-accented female passenger.

Lowenstein did not explain that here in America we don’t call them “car parks.” Instead, mindful of the waiting cars behind, Lowenstein gave super-efficient directions: At that intersection, turn right, you’ll see it.

Parking: Monthly Parking Report

In reviewing the monthly parking report from April 2010 compared to April 2009, Roger Hewitt noted that revenue was up 9.5%, which he attributed largely to the rate increases. Hourly patrons were down a “minuscule” amount, he said. Jennifer S. Hall was curious to know if future reports could include the revenue numbers with the average ticket price for hourly patrons separated out, to get some idea of what was going on with that.

Parking: ParkingCarma

At the board’s April 2010 meeting, representatives from a startup company, ParkingCarma, had pitched the idea of an online reservation system for the city’s parking system. They’d been invited back to a subsequent operations committee meeting. However, at Wednesday’s board meeting, Roger Hewitt indicated that the committee had opted not to go forward with that system at this time. He cited the company’s lack of experience in implementing their program in a municipal parking system for use with daily operations.

Hewitt said there was a potential public relations issue as well, with a system possibly indicated as full, but with visible empty spaces due to the fact that they were reserved.

Payment in Lieu of Parking (PILOP)

The draft resolution on payments in lieu of parking arose out of a request from Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, for the DDA to weigh in on the issue. Last year’s passage of the A2D2 rezoning of the downtown area included a provision that allowed for developers to make a payment instead of actually constructing required parking on site. The relevant part of the city code comes from Chapter 59 [emphasis added]:

5:169.  Special parking districts. Lots located in the D1 or D2 downtown zoning districts are considered a special parking district and are subject to the following standards:

(1) No off-street motor vehicle parking is required in the special parking district for structures which do not exceed the normal maximum permitted usable floor area or for structures zoned PUD with usable floor area which does not exceed 300 percent of the lot area. Structures which exceed the normal maximum usable floor area by providing floor area premiums, or PUD-zoned structures that exceed 300 percent of lot area, shall provide parking spaces for the usable floor area in excess of the normal maximum permitted. This parking shall be provided at a rate of 1 off-street parking space for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area. Each parking space reserved, signed and enforced for a car-sharing service may count as four (4) required motor vehicle parking spaces.

[...]

(3) The required bicycle or motor vehicle parking shall be provided on-site, off-site as described in this section, or by the payment of a contribution in lieu of required parking consistent with the formula adopted by City Council, or any combination thereof, consistent with the requirements of this section. The per-space payment shall be that required by Council resolution at the time of payment.

Rampson had asked the DDA to provide a recommendation on the formula for the payment in lieu.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Brad Mikus cautioned board members to look seriously at the payment in lieu of parking (PILOP) draft recommendation, which suggests that a $30 surcharge be placed on monthly permits that would be purchased by developers. Mikus suggested that the $30 surcharge would not be nearly adequate to cover the actual cost of constructing parking spaces elsewhere. If the payments in lieu of parking were not adequate to allow construction of spaces, he said, the system would wind up being a subsidy for developers.

During the board discussion on the draft resolution – no decision was made on it – Roger Hewitt described the surcharge as similar to the arrangement that is already in place with Corner House Lofts, at 205 S. State St. Leah Gunn described it as a very complex issue.

Jennifer S. Hall compared the PILOP to the city’s previous experience with similar programs for affordable housing. Allowing developers to pay into a fund out of which construction would be paid for allowed the benefit of aggregation – building all of the affordable housing in one place. However, she noted that the formula for the affordable housing payments in lieu were a “good deal” for developers who chose to pay rather than build on site, and the resulting funds were not adequate to actually construct affordable housing units. What do you do if you have to build the parking? she wondered.

Russ Collins noted that developers can build anywhere outside of downtown. He shared with the board how he’d recently been standing in the Kmart parking lot out by Maple road. “It was monstrously ugly,” he said. He continued:

But it’s exactly what people want. They want parking. And they don’t care about downtown. And it’s sad. And I’m not saying everybody, but a whole bunch of people. And part of me wanted to just take pictures or film this panning across this acres and acres of asphalt, sitting outside of a 1960s mall, and saying what we’re trying to do downtown is try to create something on a human scale. And we as a DDA, we know that, but we need to think three-dimensionally.

And there’s a whole bunch of people that really just want acres of parking with no vegetation … the only way it looks halfway decent is if you’re driving past it as 40 miles an hour. But that’s how so much of our built environment exists … I think we sometimes get obsessed about what we want to do here, but we’ve got to add that third dimension that there’s a whole bunch, a majority of the population, that really only cares about where they need to park their cars – not the human space, not the walkable environment, not a convenient place for people who are a little disadvantaged to be able to live and thrive. …

It’s so easy to get focused on the narrow dynamics of an exciting downtown, but that’s not what we live in – we live in a suburban environment where we have to remember that most people really don’t care about the downtown. They care about the convenience of their automobile. And that makes it a very complicated calculus. … We need to to preach the virtue of human scale downtowns and walkable environments, of preserving a built environment that’s designed for human beings, not for machines.

Joan Lowenstein brought the discussion back down to the PILOP issue by noting that in most cases the situations they were talking about would be residential or office uses, and “not where people go to get giant bags of kitty litter.” But she said she agreed that it was important to keep that context in mind.

Lowenstein also responded to Hall’s comments about the problems with the affordable housing payment-in-lieu formula, saying that after Hall’s service on the planning commission, the formula had changed. She described it as fairly elaborate. She felt like something could be worked out for parking as well. Lowenstein suggested it was important to make it “a tiny bit punitive” so that you get meaningful dollars out of it, but not so punitive that developers prefer instead to build in the townships.

Lowenstein said she was glad that Rampson had asked the DDA to weigh in on the issue.

Mayor John Hieftje confirmed that the affordable housing payment-in-lieu formula had been changed because it was felt that the amount was not enough. He also countered Collins’ contention that what people want is parking by suggesting that “it’s what’s there for them.” Addressing that issue was why DDAs were created, he said.

Arts Alliance Web Portal

During public commentary, Tamara Real, president of the Arts Alliance, addressed the board to give them an update on the development of a website, a3arts.org, that is meant to be a one-stop online venue for all things art and culture in Washtenaw County. Real had addressed the board at its  Oct. 7, 2009 meeting asking for funding. That request was remanded to the partnerships committee, which eventually suggested that a reduced amount of funding be allocated – up to $10,000 – instead of the $25,000 the alliance had requested.

From The Chronicle’s Dec. 2, 2009 DDA board meeting report:

As for the Arts Alliance request for $25,000 to build a web portal – as part of a $50,000 total budget – [Sandi] Smith said that the partnerships committee had recommended to the alliance that it provide a clearer idea of what the portal would do. If the alliance needed some start-up money to get started so that the idea could be clearer, the committee had suggested to the alliance that the executive director of the DDA had discretionary use of amounts up to $10,000, which they might pursue.

On Wednesday, Real showed the DDA board work that had been done on the website to date, stressing that a countywide survey had revealed 1,174 working artists in Washtenaw County. The website will include examples of artists’ work, a way to purchase their work, event listings, and a platform for artists to share resources like workspaces. The plan is to populate the website’s databases over the summer and to launch it sometime in the fall, she said. That was why they were asking the DDA for additional support, Real said.

Heritage Row, Zaragon Place 2

Ray Detter gave his report out from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, which typically meets on the Tuesday evening before the Wednesday DDA board meetings. Detter said that the council had talked about a broad range of issues, including their commitment to residential development inside the DDA tax capture district. An example of a project the DCAC supported, he said, was Zaragon Place 2.

The previous evening, Detter reported, Alex de Parry had paid a visit to the DCAC to talk about the Heritage Row project, which is proposed for South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street. William is the boundary of the tax district. Detter said that the DCAC does not take positions on projects outside the downtown tax capture district. However, individuals had expressed opinions on the Heritage Row project. Many people were in favor of those aspects of the project that involved restoring the seven houses fronting Fifth Avenue. As for the three buildings proposed for construction behind the houses, Detter noted that the proposed setbacks would not meet the D1 zoning standard for the downtown area if the project were located there.

Retreat, Mutually Beneficial City-DDA Discussions

Roger Hewitt summarized the DDA retreat of eight board members the previous Friday as a “lively discussion.” He said there was unanimous support for the DDA taking responsibility for parking enforcement and virtually no support for the DDA taking responsibility for code enforcement. There was some support, he said, for the DDA providing services in the downtown area.

Hewitt also said there was broad support for the DDA taking responsibility for the development of city-owned surface parking lots, although there was a variation of opinion on what that meant.

Hewitt also reported Village Green’s City Apartments project as a retreat topic, with discussion centering on whether to go forward or to give up on the project – the city may grant an extension for the project’s site plan approval sometime in the next month. The DDA has a $9 million commitment to the project, which Newcombe Clark argued at the retreat should be given a sunset provision. Without an extension to the site plan approval by the city council, due to expire now on June 30, the project would effectively be dead.

The issue of downtown policing and “eyes on the street,” Hewitt said, would be discussed further by the partnerships committee. Over the last month, Newcombe Clark has brought back the issue of downtown beat cops as something the DDA might be interested in seeing restored as part of any agreement between the DDA and the city.

As part of the police department reorganization for the FY 2010 budget, bicycle-mounted dedicated beat patrols were phased out in favor of a strategy of having officers use their one-hour “out of car” time to park in the downtown and walk downtown. As the discussion has evolved over the last few weeks, Clark and Hewitt have expressed a consensus for the need for “eyes on the street,” with the idea that it’s now an open question whether those eyes are most cost effectively provided by sworn police officers.

Part of the partnerships committee discussion on downtown beat patrols will be informed by a collection of broader facts about the issue, including the perception of safety downtown. The DDA has created an online downtown safety survey to collect information about how safe people feel downtown.

Hewitt also announced that the city and the DDA’s respective “mutually beneficial” committees would meet, and that there would be proper notice given.

Jennifer S. Hall asked how it would be ensured that proper notice would be given. Russ Collins assured Hall that everyone was properly informed as to the meetings and that if the meetings were not properly noticed, “I will sit in the rain in West Park with a hairshirt on my back.”

Energy Grant Program

Russ Collins reported from the partnerships committee that all except for $18,000 had been spent on the DDA’s energy grant program, with that amount also expected to be paid out as well. The program helps pay for energy audits for downtown buildings and for a portion of the improvements undertaken as a result of the audits. Collins said the basic impact of the program was that it was successful in getting small businesses as well as large buildings to get audits and to follow through on improvements.

Bike Hoops

Russ Collins reported from the partnerships committee that Jeff Irwin – currently a Washtenaw County commissioner representing District 11 in Ann Arbor, and also a candidate for the District 53 state house seat in the Democratic primary – had paid a visit to the partnerships committee to pitch the idea of a bike hoop contest. The idea would be for the DDA to commission a funky bike hoop every year by issuing some kind of request for proposals asking an artist to design a functional and aesthetically pleasing bicycle hoop. The idea, Collins said, had been referred to the DDA’s transportation committee.

Present: Jennifer S. Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat

Absent: Sandi Smith, Newcombe Clark, Gary Boren

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 7, 2010, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

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]

View from the southwest. The Library Lot (construction crane) is immediately to the north of the Ann Arbor District Library (red brick with blue trim). In the foreground is the awning for the Blake Transit Center (bus turning in). (Photo by the writer links to higher resolution image).

That discussion would be focused on parking fines – a topic the Ann Arbor city council was briefed on at its Nov. 9 work session by city financial services staff. That session did not include the DDA, which manages the Ann Arbor’s parking system under a contract with the city. Republic Parking is the company contracted by the DDA for operation of the system. [See Chronicle coverage: "Parking Fines to Increase in Ann Arbor?"]

In the only board resolution considered at the meeting, executive director Susan Pollay was authorized to negotiate easements with property owners adjoining the construction site for the underground parking garage, which is now starting construction.

The audit of the DDA’s books was reported as clean. Compared to the same month last year, the parking system continues to show gains in numbers of hourly patrons and in revenues – a consistent pattern for the last year.

Discussion of future downtown development emerged at several points in the meeting. It included the new downtown zoning package recently approved by the city council, plus design guidelines – which are to accompany the new zoning regulations, but which have not yet been approved.

The future of development atop the new underground parking garage, on the site known informally as the Library Lot, also received brief mention – an announcement of the first meeting of the RFP advisory committee, which will review the six development proposals received by the city. The group meets on Friday, Dec. 4, at 11 a.m. in the conference room on the sixth floor of city hall.

The Library Lot will also be included in a set of projects to be presented by students of Peter Allen, who teaches at the University of Michigan’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Those presentations will be given on Dec. 14, from 7-10 p.m. at the UM Ross School of Business in Room 0240.

The board heard an optimistic report from the Main Street Area Association on its window display contest, which is coordinated with the Friday, Dec. 4 Midnight Madness. And the board heard a report from getDowntown on its new physical location, which included an announcement of new email addresses as well as a new street address.

Hewitt on Parking Fines: “We have a number of thoughts!”

Early in the meeting, Sandi Smith gave what’s become a standard update from the “mutually beneficial” committee: Nothing to report.

The committee was established in early 2009 to meet with a corresponding Ann Arbor city council committee to renegotiate the parking agreement between the city and the DDA. The DDA manages the parking system through a contract with the city. The city of Ann Arbor has penciled in a $2 million payment from the DDA for its FY 2011 budget plan – a payment that the DDA is not required to make under terms of its current contract. Hence the desire on the city’s part to renegotiate the deal.

[For more historical background on the formation of the respective mutually beneficial committees, see previous Chronicle coverage "DDA: Who's on the Committee?" and more recently "Parking Fines to Increase in Ann Arbor?"]

In contrast to the report of inactivity on the parking agreement front – with no forecast for any future activity – there was a hint at Wednesday’s meeting that some kind of conversation might happen between the DDA and the city on the subject of parking violation fines.

In reporting out from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt mentioned that the committee had discussed the presentation on parking violation fines that the city council had received at its November work session. He observed that the DDA, and the operations committee specifically, had a number of thoughts and opinions on the subject, which “we’d be happy to share with city officials if they’d like us to.”

Sandi Smith, who sits on the DDA board as well as the city council, took up Hewitt’s conversational gambit by asking him what his preferred forum would be for the communication. Hewitt suggested that the natural vehicle for the DDA would be the operations committee and that it could include city staff as well as city council members. Smith then turned to Mayor John Hieftje, who also has dual status on the DDA board and the city council, for his thoughts. He offered that the important thing was for councilmembers who wished to attend to be made aware of the meeting date.

It was not clear if the goal is to have the conversation sought by Hewitt at the very next operations committee meeting. That meeting is scheduled for Dec. 16 at 11 a.m. at the DDA offices.

Demand Management: Parking as Part of Transportation

The next meeting of the operations committee on Dec. 16 will overlap with the transportation committee. The transportation committee will start at its usual time at 9 a.m. and go until 10:30 a.m., at which point the transportation and operations committees will meet jointly for an hour, before the operations committee continues at 11:30 for the rest of its regular meeting.

The point of the overlap, as explained by Roger Hewitt, who chairs the operations committee, and Jennifer S. Hall, who gave the transportation committee’s report in John Mouat’s absence, is to focus on transportation demand management (TDM). The goals of TDM, Hall explained, are twofold: (i) promote greater use of sustainable transportation options – bus, bicycle, walking, and (ii) increase the efficiency of the parking system.

The two committees’ subject matter overlaps in the area of TDM, so they’ll be meeting jointly to tackle TDM.

Parking Report

The parking system continues to show gains both in hourly patrons and revenues versus last year. For October 2009, revenues were $1,291,669 – a 3.07% increase compared to October 2008. For October 2009, 203,107 hourly patrons used the parking system, a 13.3% increase.

The roughly 200 spaces lost on the Library Lot, which has become a construction site for the underground parking garage to be built there, were reflected in a 500% increase in number of hourly patrons and a 200% jump in revenue at the Fifth and William surface lot just across the street, which is also commonly known as the site of the old YMCA. In October 2009, the Fifth and William lot generated $26,742 in revenue with 10,423 hourly patrons.

Future Downtown Development

Future downtown development surfaced as a topic at several points during the DDA’s board meeting.

Sites for Development

The Fifth and William site, which is enjoying increased parking usage, is not envisioned long term as a surface parking lot. The old YMCA building that previously stood there was acquired by the city of Ann Arbor in 2003 in order to preserve the 100 units of affordable housing that the building offered. The YMCA had no plans to incorporate residential units at its new site on West Washington, and neither did the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which had contemplated redeveloping the old building as a transit center and office headquarters.

In 2005, the mechanical systems in the old YMCA building failed to such an extent that residents needed to be moved out of the building. Seeing no immediate prospects for redevelopment of the property, the city (in coordination with the DDA) took the first step that any redevelopment would require: demolition of the building. Since the summer of 2008 the site has served as a surface parking lot. At its meeting on Dec. 1, 2008 the city council refinanced the property at the site of the old YMCA, which it purchased for $3.5 million dollars.

A previous private development at that site, William Street Station, was to include some affordable units, but the city council pulled the plug on that project, when the developer failed to meet various deadlines. The developer recently filed suit over that action.

In that context, during public commentary at the DDA’s meeting on Wednesday, Peter Allen, a local developer who teaches at the UM College of Architecture and Urban Planning as well as the business school, told the DDA board he was looking for jurors. The jurors are needed to judge graduate student projects focusing on three different sites in Ann Arbor, not all of them in the downtown: (i) the Library Lot, Fifth and William, (ii) the Fuller Road Station and (iii) the current Amtrak station. Those presentations will be given on Dec. 14 from 7-10 p.m. at the Ross School of Business in Room 0240.

In addition to academic proposals for the Library Lot, the city of Ann Arbor has received six responses to its request for proposals (RFP) for the top of the underground parking structure. Those proposals will be reviewed by the RFP advisory committee on Friday, Dec. 4 at 11 a.m. in the conference room on the sixth floor of city hall. From the DDA, the advisory committee includes current board chair John Splitt and executive director Susan Pollay. Other members are Margie Teall (city council), Stephen Rapundalo (city council), Eric Mahler (planning commission), Sam Offen (park advisory commission), Roger Fraser (city administrator), Jayne Miller (the city’s director of community services) and  Matt Kulhanek (manager of the Ann Arbor municipal airport).

It’s not clear what, if any, outcome might result from the initial meeting, but in his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter suggested that none of the six proposals could be endorsed by the advisory council, and that it might be wise to wait a bit and see if other proposals could be generated.

Zoning and Design Guidelines: Residential Density

While there was no consensus on which of the six proposals for the Library Lot was best, Detter reported, the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council was still commited to residential density.

In reporting out from the A2D2 steering committee on which he serves, Roger Hewitt echoed Ray Detter’s sentiments on residential density. Hewitt noted that city council had approved the recommended new zoning for downtown Ann Arbor at its Nov. 16 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead"] But he expressed his disappointment that the city council had not acted on the DDA’s recommendations for amending the zoning. Specifically, he contended that after five years of a planning process – dating back to the Calthorpe report, which had residential density as a goal – the city had actually gone backwards on residential density.

After the meeting, Hewitt walked The Chronicle through his reasoning. Under the old zoning, Hewitt explained, there was a reward for building residential construction – for every square foot of residential construction that was built, a developer was allowed an additional square foot of residential construction up to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 660%. Under the new zoning, the maximum FAR has increased slightly to 700%. But Hewitt pointed out that the reward is no longer 1-to-1 but rather 1-to-.75. Otherwise put, for every square foot of residential construction built, a developer is rewarded with the ability to build an additional .75 square feet of residential, which actually makes it more expensive to achieve the rewards. As a practical matter, he contended, under the .75 reward system, it was only possible to achieve an FAR of around 600%.

Preparing to Dig, Executive Director Gets Negotiating Authority

As a part of his report out from the capital improvements committee, John Splitt said that earth retention work would begin next week in preparation to dig the hole for the underground garage at the Library Lot. In the context of construction work set to begin in earnest, and at the request of neighbors who wanted clarification, the DDA board considered a resolution that gave the executive director of the DDA authority to negotiate easements with owners of property adjacent to the construction site.

Executive director Susan Pollay clarified for board members what this might entail: If sidewalks were broken in the course of construction, for example, then the DDA would repair them, or if landscaping was damaged, then the DDA would restore it.

Board member Gary Boren wanted to know if the resolution gave Pollay the authority to actually ink a deal, no matter the cost. John Splitt confirmed that it did, but Pollay assured the board that she was keeping the operations committee apprised of all conversations with neighbors. Roger Hewitt further clarified that any cost associated with the negotiations completed by Pollay would fall within the guaranteed maximum construction price.

Outcome: The board approved authority for the executive director to negotiate easements, with dissent from Jennifer S. Hall.

Clarifying her dissent on the vote in an email sent in response to a Chronicle query, Hall wrote:

I had no problem in general with the authority the board was giving to the executive director. However, I am still of the opinion that the more environmentally and economically sustainable decision would have been to invest substantially more resources into transportation demand management and alternative transportation and then evaluate the need to build more parking. I don’t support the parking garage project and cannot support any resolution relating to its implementation.

Grants: Near North and Arts Alliance

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Sandi Smith said that the Near North affordable housing development had asked the DDA for $500,000. Near North, which was approved as a PUD (planned unit development) by the city council at its Sept. 21 meeting, would include 39 total units – with 25 targeting incomes at less than 50% of the area median income (AMI), and 14 units of supportive housing targeting incomes at less than 30% of AMI.

Smith noted that the Near North development was within 1/4 mile of the DDA district, which was within the area where the DDA’s policy supports affordable housing. This was a policy adopted at the DDA board’s March 4, 2009 meeting. It was during that meeting that former board member Dave Devarti was “channeled” in support of the idea of not limiting the range to just 1/4 mile – an idea that ultimately did not win the day.

Smith said that the dialog with Near North had continued and that the partnerships committee expected to make a decision on a recommendation to the full board at the committee’s next meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 9 a.m.

As for the Arts Alliance request for $25,000 to build a web portal – as part of a $50,000 total budget – Smith said that the partnerships committee had recommended to the alliance that it provide a clearer idea of what the portal would do. If the alliance needed some start-up money to get started so that the idea could be clearer, the committee had suggested to the alliance that the executive director of the DDA had discretionary use of amounts up to $10,000, which they might pursue.

The window display at Four Directions on Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

Main Street Windows

During public commentary, Maura Thomson, executive director of Main Street Area Association, expressed her thanks to the DDA board for their help in putting on a store window display contest, which will continue through Friday’s Midnight Madness event.

At its July 1, 2009 meeting, the board had approved $4,000 for each of the downtown’s four merchant associations for a window display contest, for a total of $16,000.

Thomson reported that the window display contest was a success as measured by participation: 30 merchants were participating and to date over 1,200 people had voted on the website. Voting continues until midnight, Friday, Dec. 4.

It was also a success, she said, in terms of the intended impact: to get merchants to think about their windows as a way to tell the story of what’s sold inside. As an example, she gave Seyfried’s Jewelers, which had sold two items from their window display the first day of the contest, and Four Directions, which had sold out its inventory of scarves, after featuring them in their window display created for the contest.

getDowntown

During public commentary, Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, thanked the board for their help with the move from office space previously provided on an in-kind basis by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. The new location at 518 E. Washington includes 260 square feet of office space for getDowntown. Newcombe Clark, who sits on the DDA board as well as the chamber board, and is a principal at Bluestone Realty Advisors, found the new space – a service he reported he’d provided at no charge.

Shore clarified that the two getDowntown staffers would, for the next year, be employees of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority as the future of the organization was planned. The AATA, the DDA, and the city of Ann Arbor continue to provide support to getDowntown. Email addresses have changed to the domain getdowntown.org.

Present: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark, Jennifer S. Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein.

Absent: John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) getting ceremonially sworn in at the start of council's Nov. 16, 2009 meeting. Standing to the left out of frame are Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). (Photo by the writer.)

But it would have been a long meeting even without the downtown planning content, which we’ve summarized in a separate report: “Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead.”

Before postponing the acceptance of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), the council got a detailed update on how things stand on the city’s dispute with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) over Argo Dam.

An agenda item authorizing capital improvements in West Park prompted a lengthy discussion of how the Percent for Art program works.

Some public commentary calling abstractly for greater support for inventors and entrepreneurs was followed later in the meeting by an appropriation from the city’s LDFA to Ann Arbor SPARK to fund more business acceleration services.

A consent agenda item on the purchase of parking meters was pulled out and postponed.

The council also heard a detailed report from the city administrator, which covered emergency response time to a recent house fire, ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps, responses to the library lot Request for Proposals, updates on the task forces for Mack Pool and Ann Arbor’s senior center, staff reductions in planning and development, the East Stadium bridges, as well as the upcoming budget retreat on Dec. 5.

Stephen Kunselman’s (Ward 3) use of attachments to the agenda to document questions for city staff received some critique.

Also worth noting, the five winners of recent council elections were sworn in, and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was elected as mayor pro tem. Those topics in more detail below.

Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan

On the council’s agenda was a resolution to accept the Huron River and Impoundment Mangement Plan (HRIMP) from the HRIMP committee, along with 30 of its 32 recommendations. The HRIMP contains two different resolutions on the disposition of the Argo Dam – one to remove it and the other to maintain it – because the committee could not reach a consensus on that question.

HRIMP Public Comment

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the council’s meeting, Russ Miller acknowledged the HRIMP committee’s hard work, but expressed some concern about the resolution the council was to consider. First there were two different drafts of the HRIMP attached to the resolution – one from April 24, 2009 and the other from Nov. 12, 2009. The more recent version, he said, contained some data that was different. Neither version, he contended, was the version that the city’s park advisory commission, environmental commission, and energy commission had voted on.

A second issue addressed by Miller was the quality of the data in the report. Miller mentioned a list of items identified by Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city, that would cost around $185,000 in order to gather data on – temperature, dissolved oxygen, sedimentation rate and flow fluctuations. Some of that data, he said, already existed at least in pilot form.

Argo Dam and Embankment Update

During communications from council, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – who co-sponsored the HRIMP acceptance resolution along with Margie Teall (Ward 4) – clarified that the costs mentioned by Miller related to costs associated with the management of the dam, and were not part of the consensus recommendations in the report.

Hohnke asked McCormick to give the council a status report on the situation with Argo Dam. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "MDEQ to Ann Arbor: Close Argo Millrace" and "City, MDEQ Agree: Argo Headrace Shut" and "A2: Argo Spillway"]

McCormick ticked through Argo Dam’s recent history. On Aug. 6, 2009, the MDEQ had ordered the city to take certain actions, which included closure of the headrace and dewatering of it by Nov. 1. The order also included a requirement for the city to have evaluated its options by April 30, 2010. If the city opted to keep the Argo Dam in place, then repairs to the adjacent earthen embankment needed to be completed by Dec. 31, 2010. If the city opted to remove the dam, then its removal needed to be completed by Dec. 31, 2012.

McCormick said that calculating backward from those dates left a short time frame in which to work. To issue requests for proposals (RFPs) and to undertake additional studies, she said, would entail a 15-18 month timeline to get the studies done. She characterized the situation as a “conundrum.” That was one reason the city had challenged the order, she explained.

In response to the city’s formal challenge, the MDEQ granted a 90-day stay on all elements of its order except the one to close the headrace. The city has stopped the flow, McCormick said, but has not pumped out the remaining water.

The hope, explained McCormick, is to convince the MDEQ that the earthen embankment is, in fact, stable. Over the 90-day period of the stay, she said, there’d be a technical discussion with the MDEQ. [The city has installed monitoring devices on the earthen embankment to aid in that discussion: "Finally a Dam Decision on Argo?"] And the city hoped that they would be able to restore the flow back into the headrace as a result of that discussion, said McCormick.

Then the city would be able to go through a thorough process for evaluating the dam – a process that could take two years.

To the two-year time frame, Hohnke offered some resistance, saying that he hoped that the list of tasks to be completed could be re-examined in the interest of reducing that time frame.

HRIMP Resolution

When the resolution on accepting the HRIMP report came up for discussion, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) proposed an amendment – which was approved by his council colleagues with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – to revise the language in the resolution so that a councilmember would be appointed at the same time as the other members of the RSC.

The resolution charges with RSC with implementation of the HRIMP, as well as identification of funding sources, including the development of language for a river millage:

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council supports the establishment of a River Stewardship Committee (RSC) to provide oversight to the implementation of the Plan; …

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council directs the RSC to provide an implementation plan with funding needs and proposed funding strategies, including language for a river millage, within 6 months;

[A river millage could possibly make for a ballot with several millages if it's brought forward in November 2010, where it could join a second attempt for the WISD school millage, a county human services millage, and a county transportation millage.]

The resolution references funds in the budget for dam operations, which had prompted Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to ask if the resolution was a budget item requiring an 8-vote majority. The clarification that it was not such an item was based on the fact that it was a recommendation to no longer fund the dam operations from the water fund, not a decision:

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council recommends that operation and maintenance of the recreational dams (Argo and Geddes) not be funded from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund; and

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council recommends that funds currently used for the operation and maintenance of the recreational dams from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund be reallocated to implement the Source Water Protection Plan to protect Ann Arbor’s Drinking Water.

Higgins moved for a postponement until Dec. 7, in light of the documentation issues raised during public commentary.  Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) supported the postponement, saying that it was not clear whether the council was “accepting” the plan or “adopting” it.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also supported the postponement, saying that when they were last confronted with the issue, the council had focused exclusively on the dam-in/dam-out question and may not have given the other 30 recommendations attention.

Hohnke then sought to be recognized to speak again, but was not seen by Mayor John Hieftje. Hieftje asked for the vote, which was taken, with the council approving the postponement. As the vote was taken, Hieftje then noticed Hohnke’s frustration, thus went back to Hohnke for further deliberations on the postponement.

Hohnke said he did not understand the concerns about “accepting” versus “adopting.” He noted that the HRIMP report has “been out there for a long time.” He encouraged his colleagues who had any questions to raise them with the city staff.

As Higgins and Hieftje weighed in on the merits of the resolution and which reports were attached to it, Rapundalo called for a point of order: The deliberations weren’t related to the question of postponement.

Outcome: The acceptance of the HRIMP report was postponed until the council’s Dec. 7 meeting.

West Park Improvements: Percent for Art

The resolution before the council on stormwater improvements generated a lot of discussion, but not on the stormwater improvements per se. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "West Park Improvements Get Fast-Tracked"]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that he’d attached to the agenda questions related to the West Park improvements:

Are funds from the voter approved Park Millage being used for this project? If so:

Are any funds from the Park Millage being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide the voter approved Park Millage language that authorizes said funds to be directed to public art. If such language is not explicit, then, please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that voter approved Park Millage funds can be directed to other uses such as public art by Council majority approval.

If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Are funds from the Stormwater Fund, a utility enterprise fund, being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that utility enterprise funds, including loans from the State, can be directed to public art by Council majority approval. If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Kunselman indicated that he’d received a response to his questions from the city attorney, but that he could not share it with the public – it had been marked confidential.

Abigail Elias, of the city attorney's office, is more likely to be explaining legalities of Percent for Art allocations to Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) than she is to be demonstrating proper technique for fielding a punt. (Photo by the writer.)

However, he did indicate that $16,000 from the park millage and $13,000 from the storm water fund would accrue to the public art fund under the Percent for Art program as a result of the West Park improvements.

Kunselman allowed that he had served on the city council in 2007 when the Percent for Art program had been approved by the council and that he’d voted for it.  But he said that he did not realize at the time that the program would pull money from what he thought were restricted funds. The $16,000 for art that would come out of the parks budget, he said, could pay for a thermal blanket for Mack pool – which is one of the ways the Mack Pool task force has explored to help reduce energy costs.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in, saying that the Percent for Art money that drew from the parks budget would be spent on art in the parks. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) pointed out that art for West Park [the exact art project has not yet been determined] could be a teaching tool to educate people about storm water. The art paid for by the Percent for Art program was meant to serve the purpose of the fund it came from, said Higgins.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) sought clarification on the amount of public art funds that come from the street and road repair millage – was it really the $500,000 that Kunselman had mentioned? Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city, clarified that the figure was actually $285,553.

By way of background, here’s a budget summary as of Oct. 1, 2009 for art in public places:

               Transfers/Revenues  Expenditures   Available Balance
General Fund      $ 12,325         $    804       $  11,520
Street Millage     285,553            9,344         276,208
Parks Millage       20,235              657          19,577
Solid Waste         31,040              331          30,708
Water              289,693            8,459         281,233
Sewer              562,302           24,939         537,362
Stormwater          44,480            2,859          41,622
Airport              6,520              103           6,416
Court/PD Facility  250,000.         109,886         140,114 

Total Available
for Capital /Art  $1,502,150.00    $157,387      $1,344,762

-

As Sabra Briere (Ward 1) brought out later, the $500,000 figure was actually related to the sewer fund. Rapundalo asked McCormick how the principle of the art serving the fund from which it came would apply to something like the street and road repair millage. McCormick said that the art could be incorporated into the streets. She noted that ADA compliance required use of textures on sidewalk ramps, which had potential for art. Use of surface treatments to designate a historic district was another possibility, she said. McCormick also alluded to providing, through art, a visible way of finding the greenway.

Hieftje asked McCormick about the general fund contribution to the art fund, and McCormick said that there was a variance between $850 and $12,000 depending on how Act 51 money was analyzed. The city uses Act 51 money to construct non-motorized facilities, as opposed to just repairing a facility, and as such would fall under the Percent for Art program.

Kunselman concluded that it sounded like the accounting was difficult. He requested in the future that staff provide with each project the contribution that would be made, if any, to the Percent for Art program. McCormick indicated that this would not be possible, because a piece of art was not necessarily associated with a project at the time a project was approved. There was some back and forth between Kunselman and McCormick that ultimately did not appear completely resolved.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the West Park stormwater improvement project.

Increased Budget to Local Development Finance Authority

During public commentary, Kermit Schlansker introduced himself as a former aerospace engineer for Allied Bendix. He contended there was no good avenue for developing good ideas for inventions – he had several but figured he’d die with them. He called for greater support for entrepreneurs and inventors and for local action to fight global warming.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative on the Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA), suggested during his communications to council that there was an agenda item related to Schlansker’s point. The item increased the LDFA budget by $255,000 $205,000 for additional support to Ann Arbor SPARK’s business accelerator. The increased support – which will allow the hiring of a new full-time manager of the business incubator and an additional .75 FTE of Phase II consultants, spread over two people – is contingent on persistence in increased demand for business accelerator services.

When the item came before the council, Skip Simms, who’s the managing director of entrepreneurial business development at SPARK, answered a few questions from councilmembers, including one from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) about how much of SPARK’s business accelerator is funded by the city of Ann Arbor. Simms clarified that the business accelerator is funded solely by the LDFA. [The LDFA is a tax increment financing district, like the Downtown Development Authority, and captures taxes that would otherwise go to the taxing authorities that levy property taxes in the area. In the case of the LDFA, the taxes captured come from Ann Arbor's downtown area.]

At Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) invitation, one of the business accelerator clients, Cesar Nerys, talked a bit about his company Boomdash, which had used SPARK’s incubator services. Nerys described the concept underlying Boomdash’s business, which was to allow local advertisers to take advantage of Boomdash’s online advertising platform, but kept Boomdash’s presence in the background through “white labeling.” [According to a Detroit Free Press article from July 2009, Boomdash closed earlier in the year due to a lack of venture capital: "Boomdash's Dreams Go Bust"]

Outcome: The resolution amending the LDFA budget by $255,000 in order to fund expanded SPARK business accelerator services was approved unanimously.

Parking Meter Purchase

The resolution to purchase parking meters, a part of the consent agenda, was separated out from that group of items at Sandi Smith’s (Ward 1) request. [The consent agenda items are by definition moved and voted together, unless an item is specifically singled out as this one was.]

The parking meters were to be installed along Wall Street as part of an effort to generate up to $380,000 connected with the FY 2010 budget, which the city council adopted earlier in the year.

At Monday’s meeting, Smith expressed skepticism that the projected extra revenues would materialize, even if the meters were installed. [Smith has been working to find revenue replacement, to avoid installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown.]

In her remarks about the parking meters, Smith gave a response to Lynn Meadows, who during public commentary had asked about an email exchange from January 2009 among Smith, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Susan Pollay, the executive director of Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority. That email exchange had been produced by the city as a part of a FOIA request. In the exchange, the three had arranged to take a tour of areas around downtown, with Derezinski driving. Meadows wanted to know what the nature of the trio’s discussion was.

In responding to Meadows, Smith said that the city’s budget proposal – which included the installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown – was exactly why three people might be prompted to get in a car together and drive around to look at the specific areas that would be affected.

With Mayor John Hieftje’s encouragement to postpone the resolution until council’s Dec. 7 meeting, when Smith would be bringing a resolution of her own related to parking revenues, Smith moved the postponement.

Outcome: The resolution to purchase parking meters was postponed.

Updates from the City Administrator

City administrator Roger Fraser gave updates on a range of topics, both during the slot on the agenda labeled for his own communications, as well as when he was called on by councilmembers during the time allotted for their own communications. In response to a question early in the meeting from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) about sidewalk replacement, Fraser quipped, “Thanks for springing that on me!”

Sidewalk Slab Replacement

Higgins reported several phone calls from residents who were curious to know why sidewalk slabs were being replaced by the city at intersection corners, extending as far back as 20 feet from the curb. Fraser explained that the work had been prompted by a settlement reached not just by Ann Arbor, but by many municipalities, with the advocates of people with disabilities –  to bring about ADA compliance with sidewalk ramps at intersections. He said that this would entail replacement of slabs 10 feet back from the curb, but said it typically shouldn’t require 20 feet. However, due to differences between state and federal requirements on accessibility, in some cases the concrete that had been poured as recently as a year ago was being broken up and re-poured.

As a followup, Higgins wanted to know if there was going to be a sidewalk installed around Allmendinger Park. She noted that there were curb cuts being installed, and if there were to be sidewalks installed to accompany them, she wondered who would be responsible for shoveling the sidewalk. For her part, she said, she would not be shoveling it.

Emergency Response Time

A recent house fire at 1710 Waverly, which killed three people, had raised questions among Ward 4 residents, said Higgins, about the emergency response times by the fire department. Fraser reported that the first call had come in at 2:53 a.m. from someone who had smelled smoke, driven into the neighborhood, and identified a house with excessive smoke coming from a chimney on Greenview, which they believed to be the source of the smell. Two trucks were dispatched to the Greenview location.

Meanwhile, a second call came in from a resident who described the fire they’d spotted as “east of” their Waverly location.  The location of the first house reported, on Greenview, was also east of Waverly. The first call with a definitive location of the fire came in at 3:06 a.m., said Fraser, and from that point the police response time was one minute and the fire department response was two minutes. When they arrived, the house was already engulfed in flames.

Library Lot Request for Proposals

Fraser reported that the request for proposals (RFP) for the top of the city-owned underground parking garage, which had a deadline of Nov. 13, had actually yielded eight proposals, but two had been disqualified because they were late.

To clarify when the proposals would be unveiled to the public, Fraser said that before public consumption, they would first be vetted by the technical review committee, then sent to the advisory committee.

Scott Rosencrans, who chairs the city’s park advisory commission, had originally been appointed by city council to the RFP advisory committee. However, he informed the council of a scheduling conflict, and Sam Offen, also of the park advisory commission, was appointed on Monday to replace Rosencrans. The makeup of that review committee is now: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Eric Mahler (planning commission), John Splitt (DDA board), and Sam Offen (park advisory commission).

The technical review committee consists of the following: Jayne Miller (the city’s director of community services), Matt Kulhanek (manager of the Ann Arbor municipal airport), Kevin McDonald (a senior assistant city attorney specializing in planning and development issues), Wendy Rampson (the city’s interim director of planning and development services),  Cresson Slotten (a city senior project manager in systems planning), Alison Heatley (a city senior project engineer), Mike Pettigrew (deputy treasurer for the city of Ann Arbor), Jessica Black (supervisor for the city’s parks and recreation customer service unit) and Susan Pollay (executive director of the DDA, which is building the parking structure).

Stadium Bridges and Task Forces

Fraser also gave updates on the East Stadium Bridge situation, and the task forces charged with studying Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center. [Recent Chronicle coverage of those issues: "State Board: No Funding for Stadium Bridges," "Task Force Floats Ways to Save Mack Pool," and "Seniors Weigh in on Fate of Center"]

Use of Council Communications

During the council communications at the end of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated to his council colleagues that he would in the future be using the agenda attachments to the “communications from council” to record questions on agenda items, as he had for that meeting. He cited the desire to get information out in the open so that it did not need to be requested under the FOIA.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Kunselman that she understood what his intent was, but contended that section of the agenda is not designed for what Kunselman had in mind.

What the council rules actually specify:

Communications from Council

This place on the agenda is reserved for Council Members to make announcements, request reports and speak on subjects, which they deem important, report out on committees and give notice of future proposed business.

Inasmuch as Kunselman’s attached questions can be construed as a request for reports, his use appears consistent with the council rules.

Public Commentary

Public commentary not already mentioned above included the following:

John Floyd: Floyd posed two questions. The first concerned the willingness of Washtenaw County officials to entertain discussions on the lease to the city for housing the 15th District Court: Did the city receive any communication on or around April 17, 2008 from the county concerning the possibility of reopening an extension to the city’s lease for court space, if the city would submit such a request in writing? Floyd’s second question was addressed to Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) in reference to a quote by Mayor John Hieftje in an Ann Arbor News article from two years ago, when he included Hohnke as sharing a “big picture” vision of Ann Arbor. Floyd asked if Hohnke meant that Ann Arbor should emulate other cities like Boulder, Portland, and Seattle, or if there was some other big picture vision he had in mind. Later in the meeting, Hohnke would respond by suggesting that he did look to those cities for inspiration, and cited a specific example of recent work in Ann Arbor to look at the pedestrian right-of-way ordinance, which was being informed by ordinances in those cities.

William Hampton: Hampton congratulated councilmembers who had won election and to Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) for her election as mayor pro tem. He introduced himself as the president of the local chapter of the NAACP, noting that the local chapter was celebrating its 60th anniversary, and the national organization was celebrating its 100th anniversary. He reported on the annual Freedom Fund dinner held recently, which honors students who maintain at least a 3.2 grade point average. [Chronicle coverage of that event: "Ann Arbor NAACP Honors Academic Success"] He thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) for their support, and Mayor John Hieftje for his welcoming address at the Freedom Fund dinner.

Andrew McGill: McGill appeared before the council to thank them, on behalf of the Committee for Preserving Community Quality, for passing the resolution at their previous meeting that called upon the city of Ann Arbor to notify Pittsfield Township of any master plan changes to the Ann Arbor airport, before submitting them to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge called on the mayor, the city council, and the public at large to take cognizance of issues like free and open access to information. He called for integrated countywide public transportation.

City Budget Retreat on Dec. 5

City administrator Roger Fraser announced that the council’s budget retreat would take place on Dec. 5 at the Wheeler Service Center, 4521 Stone School Road. He put it in the context of last year’s two-year plan, which took 10% out of the budget, spread over two years. Now, he said, there needs to be another 11% taken out of the budget on top of that, in order to balance this next year’s budget. He said it would be an “interesting discussion.” The retreat is open to the public.

Present: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Stephen Kunselman, Stephen Rapundalo, Sandi Smith, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 7, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]