Comments on: DDA Reviews Mid-Year Financials, Parking

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:19:50 +0000

Re: Previous comment:

Re: [5] previous question about why parking revenues are expected to exceed budgeted amount

I believe that the DDA built its budget last May without assuming the implementation of any parking rate increases or billing method changes during the year. Now that those changes to rates and billing are implemented, the DDA expects to exceed budgeted revenues. I did not follow up with the DDA with that specific question until nearly the end of the day today (Friday) so I don’t have specific confirmation of that.

The explanation from the DDA today [Feb. 13] is that the budget was built without factoring in the February 2012 rate increases or billing change. And the DDA says that the damping of usage it built into the budget due to the rate increases that went into effect in September 2011 was not as much as the DDA allowed for. Those two factors now lead the DDA to expect revenues to exceed the budget by year’s end. So, yes, the billing method change to hourly, implemented in February 2012, does factor into that expectation – as Bean suggested above might be the case.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:38:15 +0000

Re: [5] “not-to-exceed” amount on underground parking garage

The contract with Christman was for a “guaranteed maximum” price of $44,381,573. Will need to follow up on the second part of question.

Re: [5] previous question about why parking revenues are expected to exceed budgeted amount

I believe that the DDA built its budget last May without assuming the implementation of any parking rate increases or billing method changes during the year. Now that those changes to rates and billing are implemented, the DDA expects to exceed budgeted revenues. I did not follow up with the DDA with that specific question until nearly the end of the day today (Friday) so I don’t have specific confirmation of that.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:03:55 +0000

“But capital costs associated with the new Fifth Avenue parking garage construction are anticipated to put the parking fund expenses over budget.”

Dave, wasn’t there a not-to-exceed amount for the structure (or was it a fixed bid)? Is the additional capital cost within that?

Also, any response to my question (just the first one) in #1?

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:08:40 +0000

So did this meeting count as the required public hearing for the change from half-hour to hour billing periods? And was there any discussion about this by the board?

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:59 +0000

Re: [2] DDA and Ann Arbor SPARK Rick, I think it's the performance of the LDFA, not the DDA, that you're dissatisfied with.

By: RICK STEVENS

RICK STEVENS — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:57:01 +0000

Wouldn’t it be nice if the DDA looked this closely at the money it throws to SPARK? And if it would share the audits of SPARK with us taxpayers who pay for their ‘services’ (whatever they are – phony numbers I guess is what they provide) but aren’t allowed to see the super secret audits?

Come on DDA – I DARE YOU TO POST THE AUDITS FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS OF SPARK.

And if you don’t have them then shame on you. Cowardice is the only way to describe, If SPARK has nothing to hide then share them. If they do, then cut them off!

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:26:11 +0000

"Specifically, through December 2011 the system had taken in $8,392,644, but the year-to-date budgeted amount is $8,518,094. …Still, Hewitt said, the DDA expects to finish the year with $16,835,288 in revenue against a budgeted amount of $16,162,752." Dave, do you know or can you find out why this is expected? Is it related to the half-hourly to hourly billing change? Regarding the assumptions for revenue increases from that change, has anyone considered that people adapt? To use your example, while the distribution might initially be even between the two groups, over time it's likely to shift somewhat to the group who parked between (N + 0.5) and (N + 1) hours, mostly toward the short side. Here's an item to follow up my previous comments on the prospects of parking demand changes: [link] While I wouldn't call it a "huge plunge", it's definitely significant. Ann Arbor won't stay "immune" for long.