The council’s action came at its Sept. 2, 2014 meeting.

Splitt is still within the three-term limit for DDA board members that was included as part of a set of ordinance changes made by the city council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. Some councilmembers had wanted a two-term limit, but the three-term limit emerged as part of a compromise. In addition to board governance, the council amended the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) capture.

Some councilmembers voting against Splitt’s confirmation cited recently reported raises awarded to DDA executive director Susan Pollay for FY 2013 and FY 2014 that appear to have been decided in a way that violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Several others were uncontroversially confirmed to other boards and commissions at the Sept. 2 meeting. Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer had been nominated to fill a vacancy on the commission on disability issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell had been nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus had been nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. All of those nominations were confirmed without discussion.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Guenzel was first appointed to the DDA board in 2010 when mayor John Hieftje chose not to reappoint Jennifer Santi Hall. During her tenure on the DDA board, Hall was on occasion sharply critical of the board as a group – for a lack of commitment to open and transparent governance.

During Guenzel’s first four years of service, board decisions on salary increases for DDA executive director Susan Pollay – in FY 2013 and FY 2014 – were apparently made in a way that violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA). The DDA has not produced minutes of any meeting when the board made decisions to increase Pollay’s salary in those years.

Guenzel is likely more familiar with requirements of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act than typical DDA board members are – through his experience as former Washtenaw County administrator. And though retired, Guenzel is also an attorney who maintains his membership in the Michigan Bar Association (P14457).

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Comparing the periods October 2012 through June 2012 to October 2013 through June 2014 – when rates have been constant – revenue has increased 1.20% to $14,647,274, while the number of hourly patrons has decreased by 1.65% to 1,661,256. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

What if on-street metered rates were raised a dime, and rates across other parts of the parking system were also raised by an equivalent percentage?

Although the DDA operates the parking system, that kind of 6.7% rate increase would directly benefit the city’s general fund. By how much?

First, any increase to the city’s general fund revenue is a function of the contract with the city of Ann Arbor, under which the DDA operates the roughly 8,000-space public parking system. The contract stipulates that the city receives 17% of gross parking system revenues.

Total parking system revenues are budgeted by the DDA for the 2015 fiscal year at about $19.3 million. So in ballpark numbers, the 17% equates to a roughly $3.2 million transfer to the city. Of that $3.2 million, about $2.3 million will go to the general fund, while the remaining amount will go to the fund the city uses to maintain downtown streets. That division of the transfer payment by the city has its historical roots in an arrangement between the city and the DDA that predated the existing contract.

So a 6.7% increase in rates across the parking system – assuming no decrease in the use of the system – works out to something like $150,000 more for the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund.

The city council’s role in setting parking rates is one of oversight, not decision-making. But even that oversight role is structurally somewhat weak – because decisions made by the DDA (to raise parking rates) can make the city council’s annual budget decisions somewhat easier.

The next scheduled opportunity for the Ann Arbor city council to exercise oversight of the DDA will be during a fall joint work session – which is stipulated to occur under terms of the city-DDA parking contract. That session is currently planned for Sept. 8.

The contractually stipulated work session would be a good opportunity for councilmembers to ask for metrics on Ann Arbor’s public parking system. Requested information should include stats that indicate how well Ann Arbor’s public parking system supports three different key user groups: (1) downtown employees; (2) retail/transactional customers and visitors; and (3) downtown residents.

Some data is collected routinely by the DDA from Republic Parking – its contractor for day-to-day operations – and shared publicly. That data is limited to revenue figures and numbers of hourly patrons. The routine data does not include hours parked by different categories of users – monthly permit holders and hourly patrons – which makes it difficult to evaluate the system’s support of different user groups.

Still, it’s possible to discern some patterns and to draw some conclusions about Ann Arbor’s parking system, based on the data the DDA does provide. Charts with commentary are presented below.

Overall Picture

The most recent rate increases in Ann Arbor’s public parking system were implemented in September 2012.

Rates for the roughly 2,000 on-street metered parking spaces are currently $1.50 an hour. Rates at surface lots straddle that $1.50 hourly rate – at $1.40 for the first three hours and $1.60 for the fourth hour and beyond. Hourly parking at parking structures costs $1.20 per hour. Monthly permits – which don’t guarantee a permit holder a specific space, but are tied to a particular structure – cost $145 a month at most structures.

Some, but not nearly all, of the monthly permits sold in the two-year-old underground parking garage at Library Lane were initially sold at a discounted $95 introductory rate, which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures. The discount was offered to employees of “new-to-downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014. Assuming all those discounted Library Lane permit holders retain them after August 2014, revenue per space at Library Lane should show a slight increase.

The most recent revenue data from the Ann Arbor DDA on Ann Arbor’s parking system is through June 30, or the end of the fiscal year 2014. The most recent three fiscal quarters provide the most meaningful year-over-year comparison – because of the rate increase that was implemented in September 2012.

The most recent data is consistent with the parking reports over the last several years, when interpreting the data has required accommodation of rate increases: Revenue has increased even while the number of patrons who pay the hourly rate in structures or on surface lots has decreased. Hourly patrons don’t include those who park at on-street meters. Specifically, comparing the last three quarters of the most recent fiscal year to the last three quarters of the previous fiscal year, revenue has increased 1.20% to $14,647,274, while the number of hourly patrons has decreased by 1.65% to 1,661,256.

In Chart 1 and Chart 2 below, the recently concluded fiscal year 2014 is indicated in dark purple.

Chart 1: Total System Revenue. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 2: Total Count of Hourly Patrons. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Monthly Permits: Are Fewer Hourly Patrons Staying Longer?

The consistent narrative offered by the DDA to account for the increase in revenues – despite a decreased number of hourly patrons – has been told along the following lines: Even though fewer hourly patrons are visiting downtown, they are parking for a longer time.

It’s possible to ask two basic questions about that narrative: (1) Is it meaningful? and (2) Is it accurate?

In order for the narrative to be meaningful, it’s important to understand how hourly patrons are using the parking system. If hourly patrons are exclusively retail shoppers of some stripe, then the fact that retail shoppers are staying in the downtown longer now than they were in the past could be analyzed as good news for downtown retail establishments. On the other hand, if hourly patrons include a significant number of downtown employees – people who would prefer to hold a monthly permit, but who have been languishing on the wait list – then this might indicate that employees are crowding out retail shoppers.

In order test the narrative for accuracy, it’s important to recognize that hourly patrons are not the only source of revenue to the parking system as a whole. For example, on-street metered parking by itself provided about $3 million of revenue in the most recent three fiscal quarters – but that that type of parking does not contribute to the count of hourly patrons. If the revenue from parking meters and bags is subtracted from the total revenue figure, there’s still an increase – in fact, a greater percentage increase than across total revenues. The $11,529,132 collected for the nine months from October 2013 through June 2014 is about 2% more than was collected from October 2012 through June 2013.

Chart 3 below shows clearly that if on-street metered parking is considered as a facility, then it easily generates the highest gross revenue of any facility in the system.

Chart 3: Revenue by Facility. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

It is not as straightforward to test the DDA narrative for accuracy with respect to facilities that offer monthly permits as well as hourly parking – where those hourly patrons are counted. The revenue division between monthly permits and hourly patrons is not reported and apparently not analyzed by the DDA. So some of the total revenue increase might be attributable to increased optimization of the oversell margin for monthly permits in parking structures. Many structures show more monthly permits sold than they have spaces. The number of monthly permits sold in the entire system, as well as the percentage of the total inventory, shows a slight but clear upward trend over the last three years.

The DDA does not report monthly permit data broken down by permit type – regular, evening/overnight or premium – which might otherwise help to identify how well users of the public parking system are being served.

Monthly permit data is presented in Charts 4, 5 and 6 below.

Chart 4: Permits as Percentage of Inventory by Facility. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 5: Total Inventory and Total Permits. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 6: Monthly Permits as Percent of Inventory. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

For some facilities – like the surface lots at Huron/Ashley/First (the Brown Block) and at South Ashley (the Kline Lot) – no monthly permits are sold. So it’s possible to calculate average payments per patron at those facilities. And both of those facilities show evidence that a fewer number of patrons are generating more revenue, and that their average stay has become slightly longer.

Average payments per patron for Huron/Ashley/First and the Kline Lot are presented below in Charts 7 and 8.

Chart 7: Huron/Ashley/First Average Payment Per Patron. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 8: Kline Lot Average Payment Per Patron.  (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Revenue Per Space

The DDA does not calculate revenue-per-space figures. And the DDA has reduced the frequency of its reporting about the number of spaces at a facility – from monthly to quarterly. So the charts below are constructed based on estimates, using previous number spaces. In any case, most facilities have a stable number of spaces and vary at most by a handful, due to special temporary circumstances.

A couple of clear patterns emerge from the plots of revenue-per-space figures. One is that easily the highest revenue per space (though not per acre of land) is generated by the two surface lots on the west edge of downtown – Huron/Ashley/First and the Kline Lot.

Another trend is that the new Library Lane underground parking garage appears to have achieved a kind of equilibrium in its usage. Library Lane has settled in a bit higher than the lowest performing significant facility in the system in terms of the revenue-per-space metric – which is the on-street metered facility. Library Lane achieved what appears to be its current stable level of usage within nine months of opening.

The on-street facility shows a clear bump for April this year. That coincides with the closing of the Fifth and William surface lot, after it was purchased from the city by Dennis Dahlmann. However, it’s not clear what caused the April increase in revenue to the on-street metered system.

Chart 9: Revenue per Space, Focus on Structures. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Chart 10: Revenue per Space, Focus on Surface Lots. (City of Ann Arbor public parking system data from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, charts by The Chronicle.)

Conclusions

Given the kind of parking data currently collected, analyzed and reported by the DDA, it’s not possible to get a very clear understanding of how Ann Arbor’s public parking system is currently supporting three different key user groups: (1) downtown employees; (2) retail/transactional customers and visitors; and (3) downtown residents.

The DDA could improve its understanding of the system by collecting, analyzing and reporting data on hours parked by monthly permit holders as compared to hourly patrons. The hours parked by permit holders should be further broken down by permit type. The DDA could also improve its understanding of the on-street metered system by collecting, analyzing and reporting usage by individual meter – a straightforward possibility at least for those meters that are paid for using the relatively new kiosks.

Certainly there are other fiscal policy issues at stake as the DDA evaluates whether parking rates should be increased. For example, are current revenue levels adequate to pay for existing debt on past construction, the go!pass bus pass program, ongoing maintenance and a possibly $5 million renovation to the Fourth and William Structure? In its oversight role, the city council should certainly include consideration of these basic financial issues.

I’m reasonably confident that the council will exercise appropriate oversight with respect to the purely financial question: Will there be enough money and how much does the city get?

But without a clearer understanding of how the parking system supports different user groups, it will not be possible to measure the impact of a price increase on those user groups.

So at the joint city council-DDA work session on Sept. 8, I hope the city council will include in their oversight role a request for data and metrics that will help answer this question: How does Ann Arbor’s parking system actually work?

The free response portion of a performance evaluation for Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority executive director Susan Pollay. The DDA board appears to have decided her salary increases in FY 2013 and FY 2014 in a way that did not conform with the Open Meetings Act.

The procedure used this year by the board to award Pollay a salary increase appears to have conformed completely with the requirements of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA).

However, that procedure was different from the one used to award raises to Pollay in each of the two previous years.

Those raises worked out to 8% and 6.7%, respectively. In each of the two previous years, the decision to award Pollay those raises appears to have been made in a way that is contrary to the most basic requirement of Michigan’s OMA: “All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public.”

That conclusion is based on records produced by the DDA to The Chronicle in response to requests made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as well as records the DDA was not able to produce.

The analysis below begins with an overview.

Overview

Responding to a request made by The Chronicle under Michigan’s FOIA, the only documentation the DDA produced for board authorization of the two previous years’ raises was two letters. The letters were sent by former board chair Leah Gunn to the city of Ann Arbor’s human resources staff – dated Oct. 9, 2012 and June 27, 2013.

Those letters don’t appear to describe the salary decisions by the board in ways that meet basic OMA requirements. Specifically, OMA requirements do not appear to have been satisfied for either the board as a whole, or for a subquorum committee of the board – which DDA board members may have assumed was acting lawfully on behalf of the entire board.

By way of contrast, this year the board voted on the question of a salary increase for Pollay at its regular meeting of July 2, 2014. That vote, in open session on a written resolution, came after a roughly 15-minute closed session held by the board on Pollay’s performance review. A personnel matter like a performance review – if the employee requests it – is one of the limited number of reasons under Michigan’s OMA that a public body can bar the public from a meeting. That procedure, including the vote in open session by the board, is familiar from The Chronicle’s coverage of other public bodies. It’s a procedure that conforms with the OMA.

However, for neither of the two previous years did the DDA board discuss at any of its meetings the question of salary increases for its executive director. Nor did the board hold a closed session on a personnel matter during that period. Nor did the board vote on those salary increases at any of its meetings.

Some DDA board members might have assumed the board’s executive committee had authority to act on the board’s behalf in deciding executive director salary questions. But in response to a request made under Michigan’s FOIA, the DDA was not able to produce any records with documentation that the performance review of its executive director and recommendations on salary increases have been specified by the board as duties of the executive committee.

And even if the executive committee had been tasked by the board with those duties, the DDA was unable to produce any records of minutes for its executive committee meetings during the relevant time period. Further, it’s not clear that the executive committee posted adequate public notices of its meetings during this period, or that the typical location of executive committee meetings – the executive director’s personal office – can be considered accessible to the public under the definition of the OMA.

Concerns raised by the material that was provided to The Chronicle under Michigan’s FOIA are not limited to questions about the openness of decision-making procedures – as measured against the requirements of the OMA. The written performance reviews of Pollay are heavily weighted towards general expressions of support and commentary on Pollay’s personality, instead of providing important critical feedback on performance.

Laid out in detail below are the arguments that the decisions to award Pollay a raise in two previous years – for FY 2013 and FY 2014 – were made in a way that violated the OMA. The analysis concludes with a note on the oversight role of the city council with respect to the DDA.

Salary Decisions Made: FY 2013, FY 2014, FY 2015

At its July 2, 2014 meeting, the DDA board voted to award its executive director, Susan Pollay, a 5% pay raise for fiscal year 2015, which started July 1. That brought her annual compensation to $114,570. During board deliberations on the resolution, long-time DDA board member Roger Hewitt mentioned that Pollay had received good raises the two previous years.

Those raises were reflected in the salary history that deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse forwarded to current board chair Sandi Smith in late June of this year. That salary history is as follows:

Fiscal YR       Salary   % Increase
FY 2014    $109,114.40   6.70%
FY 2013    $102,263.20   8.00%
FY 2012     $94,689.40   0.00%
FY 2011     $94,689.40   0.00%
FY 2010     $94,689.40   0.00%
FY 2009     $94,689.40   0.00%
FY 2008     $94,689.40   0.00%
FY 2007     $94,689.40   0.00%
FY 2006     $94,689.40   0.00%

-

The July 2, 2014 DDA board deliberations framed that salary history as the equivalent of only a 1.9% annual raise since 2006. Board members indicated an interest in raising Pollay’s salary in future years, to bring it into alignment with the mid-point of the salary range for her city of Ann Arbor “Level 2″ position. That midpoint is $126,000 – in a range from $95,340 to $157,312.

City administrator Steve Powers cast the sole vote of dissent on the board’s July 2 action to increase Pollay’s salary by another 5% in FY 2015. He felt that 3% was more appropriate. He also expressed a desire to see a more robust evaluation process in the future.

Expressed as a percentage, the total amount of Pollay’s pay increases over the last three years comes to nearly 21%. How does that compare to other employees at the city? Powers responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle with the following data:

FY 2015   3%
FY 2014   3%
FY 2013   one-time $1,000
FY 2012   0%
FY 2011   0%

-

Previous Board Action

When Hewitt mentioned at the July 2 DDA board meeting that Pollay had received raises for FY 2013 and FY 2014, that was likely a revelation to anyone outside the DDA board.

The Chronicle’s coverage of the DDA since 2008 – which includes reporting on all DDA resolutions approved by the board – does not reflect any board discussion or votes on pay raises for Pollay during that period. A machine search of the DDA’s board meeting minutes available on the DDA’s website produces a single search result for the phrase “performance evaluation” – from 1997, which is a year after Pollay was hired as DDA executive director.

On July 2, 2014 The Chronicle made a records request under Michigan’s FOIA that included “all records or documentation showing authorization – by the DDA board, a DDA committee, or any member of the DDA board – for adjustments to the Ann Arbor DDA executive director’s salary over the past two years, adjustments referenced by Roger Hewitt at the board’s July 2, 2014 meeting.”

Based on the DDA’s July 10 response to that request, only two records are in the possession of the DDA that document any authorization for Pollay’s salary increases in FY 2013 and FY 2014. The two records are letters sent by the board chair at the time, Leah Gunn, to city of Ann Arbor human resources staff – dated Oct. 9, 2012 and June 27, 2013.

What the DDA did not produce in response to the request made under Michigan’s FOIA were any board resolutions or minutes from board meetings reflecting a decision by the board to increase Pollay’s salary in FY 2013 or FY 2014. The DDA also did not produce any resolutions by a committee with the authority to act on the board’s behalf, or any minutes from such a committee that reflect a committee decision to increase Pollay’s salary in FY 2013 or FY 2014. [.pdf of records from July 2, 2014 FOIA request]

What about Gunn’s letters? They do not indicate in an explicit way when the board as a whole might have made its salary decisions in FY 2013 and FY 2014.

Based on the records that the DDA did not produce, as well as the records that the DDA did produce (Gunn’s two letters), it’s fair to conclude that if the board as a whole did decide to increase Pollay’s salary in the two previous years, then the board made those decisions in a way that did not conform with the most central requirement of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act: “All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public.”

However, the first of Gunn’s letters, written three months after she was elected DDA board chair, refers in a general way to the executive committee of the DDA board, and its role in Pollay’s performance evaluation and salary adjustment. It’s important to consider, for the sake of argument, the possibility that the board’s executive committee might have acted lawfully on behalf of the board, and that the executive committee acted in a manner that was consistent with the OMA.

Previous Executive Committee Action

Some background on the executive committee is presented first, before evaluating possible decisions by the committee – with respect to the OMA and the DDA’s bylaws.

Previous Executive Committee Action: Background

The executive committee of the DDA board is a subquorum subset of its members – the chair of the board, the vice chair, secretary and treasurer. Ex officio non-voting members of the executive committee are the executive director and the immediately preceding board chair.

So during the most recent year in which Leah Gunn chaired the board – from July 2012 through June 2013 – the executive committee consisted of Gunn, Sandi Smith (vice chair), Keith Orr (secretary) and Roger Hewitt (treasurer). The two non-voting members of the executive committee were Pollay and Bob Guenzel.

When a subquorum committee of a public body effectively makes decisions on behalf of the body, then according to a Michigan attorney general opinion from 1998, that committee is itself considered as a public body under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. [.pdf of AG Opinion #7000]

So to the extent that the executive committee might have made the decisions on salary increases for Pollay in FY 2013 and FY 2014, those decisions were required to have been made in accordance with OMA requirements – including those on noticing meetings to the public and on maintaining minutes for its meetings.

Previous Executive Committee Action: OMA Noticing Requirements

The letter from Gunn about the FY 2014 salary increase does not mention the executive committee, but rather only the board. However, Gunn’s letter about the FY 2013 salary increase for Pollay describes a meeting of the executive committee in a way that at least hypothetically could have been held in conformance with the OMA – a meeting at which the committee might have made a decision to authorize a pay increase for Pollay for FY 2013.

From Gunn’s Oct. 9, 2012 letter:

During the course of this work, I spoke with every member of the board and I brought their feedback to the October meeting of our DDA executive committee where we met with Susan to discuss their comments (which by the way were unanimously excellent). We are in complete agreement about adjusting the salary of our executive director to $102,264 from her current salary.

Although Gunn does not give the exact date of the October executive committee meeting, it is possible to infer that it took place on the same date as the DDA board meeting that month, which fell on Oct. 3, 2012.

That inference is based on the kind of posting that the DDA has used this year for its annual meeting calendar of the full board. In that posting about the full board meeting schedule, the executive committee is mentioned. It’s worth noting that in contrast, other DDA board committees have their own separate postings of meeting schedules, with the name of the committee prominently stated in the headline/title of the page. The DDA’s position is that this type of posting of the executive committee meetings complies with the OMA posting requirements. [.pdf of DDA Feb. 25, 2014 response letter from DDA]

The first occasion on which The Chronicle attended a scheduled meeting of the executive committee was March 5, 2014. The meeting was held in Pollay’s office. There is no signage at the DDA offices that would alert someone to the fact that the executive committee meets there, as opposed to the board’s meeting room. The board’s meeting room is immediately apparent on exit from the elevator that opens onto the third floor of 150 S. Fifth, where the DDA rents office space. The DDA’s management assistant, Jada Hohlbrook – who staffs a reception desk – directed The Chronicle to the specific location of the executive committee meeting, which requires a couple of turns to arrive at Pollay’s office at the back of the DDA suite.

The March 5 meeting was attended by only one voting member of the committee – Keith Orr. The following month, on April 2, 2014, attendance was perfect. A member of the public, Changming Fan, attended the April 2 meeting. When he arrived at the doorway to Pollay’s office, executive committee member Roger Hewitt advised him that he could not stay, as it was a meeting only for the executive committee of the board. If Hewitt thought the public could be excluded from the meeting, it’s not clear why he did not attempt to exclude The Chronicle – already sitting in plain view. In any event, Pollay told Hewitt that executive committee meetings were open to the public. Changming Fan and The Chronicle remained through the end of the meeting.

It’s fair to conclude that the conditions under which the executive committee meets are at least somewhat dubious with respect to satisfaction of OMA requirements.

The next part of this analysis focuses on issues that are clearer cut.

Executive Committee Action: OMA Requirements on Minutes

Not in doubt is the fact that no DDA executive committee minutes were kept for the period from February 2010 through February 2014 – the period during which the executive committee might have made decisions on increasing the executive director’s salary. That conclusion is based on the DDA’s response to a FOIA request made by The Chronicle on March 5, 2014. That request asked the DDA to produce, among other items, the executive committee meeting minutes for January 2008 through March 2014. In its March 11 cover letter responding to the March 5 request, the DDA indicated that only the minutes for “2008 to 2010″ were included. The most recent minutes provided were those from January 2010. [.pdf of DDA response to March 5, 2014 FOIA request]

Starting with the April 2, 2014 board meeting, after a gap of more than four years, the DDA began producing executive committee minutes for approval. That’s an implicit recognition, possibly on prompting from The Chronicle, that the executive committee is actually required under the OMA to keep minutes – if it is acting on behalf of the board as a whole. That requirement applies, even though the executive committee is a subquorum set of board members. [.pdf of AG Opinion #7000].

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the DDA’s position is that the executive committee acted twice on behalf of the full board to increase the executive director’s salary during the period of July 2012 through June 2013. On that assumption, the fact that no minutes have been produced for the meetings during which those decisions were made is an ongoing violation of the OMA. And action could be taken in Washtenaw County’s 22nd circuit court to ask that court to enjoin the DDA against this ongoing OMA violation by ordering the DDA to produce minutes for those meetings.

Possibly a more significant question, however, is whether the executive committee of the DDA board is even empowered to act on behalf of the DDA board with respect to executive director salary issues.

Executive Committee Action: Power to Act?

According to the DDA bylaws, the executive committee could be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the board about the executive director’s salary adjustments – if it were a duty specified by the board. From the bylaws:

The executive committee shall fix the hours and place of meetings, make recommendations to the board, and shall perform such other duties as specified in these by-laws or as may be specified by the board.

The bylaws themselves don’t assign the duty of deciding the executive director’s salary to the executive committee. And in a July 18, 2014 response to a July 13, 2014 request from The Chronicle under Michigan’s FOIA, the DDA indicated that it had no records that documented the board’s specification of executive director performance review or salary recommendation as duties of the executive committee. [.pdf of July 18, 2014 DDA response to FOIA request]

So even if the executive committee made two decisions on the executive director’s salary sometime between July 2012 and June 2013 – undocumented by any meeting minutes – it’s not clear that the committee was even empowered under the DDA’s bylaws to make those decisions.

Executive Director Performance Evaluations

Written performance evaluations of Susan Pollay by board members from 2006 to the present were included in the response to The Chronicle’s July 2, 2014 request under Michigan’s FOIA. [.pdf of records from July 2, 2014 FOIA request]

General highlights include the fact that the evaluation form provides suggestions for phrases to be used in open-ended description – all positive:

(sample ideas you can use in your comments:)
• is accountable
• is able to motivate/lead her staff
• is willing to try new ideas, methods
• is an important resource to downtown stakeholders
• is knowledgeable in his/her field
• makes decisions on her own
• completes assignments on time or earlier
• responds accurately/quickly to information requests
• remains cool despite challenges
• maintains appropriate sense of humor
• gives credit to others when deserved
• puts in the extra hours and effort to get the job done
• speaks/communicates well flexibly adapts to changing priorities
• demonstrates dedication to the DDA mission
• effectively uses resources/consultants

For the free-response portion of the evaluations, board members in many instances appear to have copy-pasted from that set of suggestions – either wholesale or in part.

With respect to the objective scoring portion of the form, board members have in many cases simply filled in the objective scoring portion of the form with the maximum score for the first few items (15). They have then “auto-filled” the rest of the items – apparently not noticing that the maximum score for items at the end of the list is a different number (10).

It’s also striking that some board members seem to have filled out the forms in an informal manner. One respondent offered “Mary Poppins” as the entire text of the written review; another simply stated “The goddess always does a great job.”

The set of one-page evaluations provided to The Chronicle also includes some that are apparent duplicates with respect to content – even though the sheets of paper that were scanned for The Chronicle are different. An example of that is the “goddess” evaluation. That evaluation appears twice in the set – but only one of the two scanned pages includes the handwritten year “2011″ at the top of the page.

In this context it’s worth noting that city administrator Steve Powers’ July 2, 2014 vote of dissent on Pollay’s salary increase included by way of commentary a hope that in the future the evaluation process could be more robust.

City Council Oversight

Ultimately it is the Ann Arbor city council – as the governing body of the municipality where the DDA is established – that has responsibility for oversight of the Ann Arbor DDA board. It is the city council that confirms the appointment of DDA board members. And it is the city council that can potentially remove members from the board for cause.

How well has the Ann Arbor city council exercised its oversight role over the years? On Aug. 26, 2013 a joint meeting of city council and DDA board members was held. At that meeting, Sally Petersen – a first-term Ward 2 city councilmember, now a mayoral candidate – characterized her understanding of the city council’s historical performance in its oversight role. In the following quote, she was commenting on the city council’s oversight of one specific aspect of the DDA’s function – tax increment finance capture [emphasis added]:

And if we talk about goals, my goal – and I think it’s incumbent upon the city council, I don’t think that the DDA has done anything wrong per se, it’s just that the city council historically has not held the DDA accountable in terms of understanding what that is.

Does the Ann Arbor city council have an oversight role in approving the compensation of a downtown development authority executive director? That role appears to be clearly and specifically stated in the state statute enabling the establishment of the DDA [emphasis added]: “The board may employ and fix the compensation of a director, subject to the approval of the governing body of the municipality.”

However, based on the city of Ann Arbor’s response to a request made under Michigan’s FOIA, Ann Arbor’s city council did not explicitly approve Pollay’s initial hire or her compensation level in 1996. Nor has the council approved the new compensation levels in the last two years.

In more detail, on Oct. 18, 2013, The Chronicle made a request to the city of Ann Arbor under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act for all records documenting Ann Arbor city council approval of the employment of Susan Pollay as director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. On Nov. 7, 2013 the city of Ann Arbor responded with copies of all of the Ann Arbor city council’s annual budget resolutions dating from 1997 to the present, which include the DDA budget (as a component unit of the city), but not in line-item detail.

But no record of a council resolution specifically and explicitly approving Pollay’s hire or compensation was produced by the city of Ann Arbor in response to that request.

By way of contrast, when the Grand Rapids DDA hired a DDA executive director recently, the Grand Rapids city commission (analog to Ann Arbor’s city council) passed the following resolution on June 19, 2012:

*81555 Com. Gutowski, supported by Com. Bliss, moved adoption of the following resolution under the Consent Agenda:
RESOLVED:
1. As required by the Downtown Development Authority Act, Act 197 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1975, MCL 125.1561, et seq., and the Rules of Procedure of the City of Grand Rapids Downtown Development Authority (the “DDA”), the selection of Kristopher M. Larson as Executive Director of the DDA is hereby approved.

The Ann Arbor city council might be able to render somewhat moot the OMA questions raised in the analysis above, by taking an affirmative action. That action would be to consider and pass a resolution that approves the pay increases given to Pollay in the last two years, as well as this year. An additional action available to the council would be to pass a resolution requesting that the DDA board produce minutes for the meetings during which executive director salary adjustments were made for FY 2013 and FY 2014.

But given the backdrop of a Democratic primary race for mayor that includes four councilmembers, the politics of those actions could be delicate. In addition to Petersen, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) are also running.

Kunselman has made efforts over the last few years to lead the council to exercise more oversight of the DDA. But those efforts have been fraught with the perception that they are purely political in nature – even when the issues Kunselman has identified have merit independent of their political dimension. DDA board members have on occasion openly criticized Kunselman for his actions, or resorted to anonymous Internet commenting in defense of the DDA’s position.

Sandi Smith, for example, has admitted to The Chronicle that in response to a published Chronicle opinion piece, she left a comment on that op-ed under the screen name “Eco Bruce.” The comment in part attempted to dismiss criticism about the DDA’s apparent failure to adhere to the city’s ordinance on TIF capture – by implicating that this criticism is rooted in “Director K’s [Kunselman's]” desire to be CEO [mayor]. Smith was DDA board vice chair at the time.

With respect to the situation about Pollay’s salary, the politics are especially a challenge – because it would mean approving a nearly 21% increase for Pollay, when computed over the last three years. That’s a period during which other city non-union employees received slightly more than a 6% increase – a $1,000 lump sum in FY 2013, 3% in FY 2014, and 3% for the current fiscal year.

Adding to the political challenge is the fact that it’s Leah Gunn who appears to have led the DDA board effort to increase Pollay’s salary in the two previous years – in a way that escaped public attention. Gunn, a former elected official and long-time Democratic activist, is treasurer for Christopher Taylor’s mayoral campaign.

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!

From left: DDA board members Bob Guenzel, Sandi Smith, John Mouat. Smith officiated her last meeting as chair on July 2, and Mouat was elected to serve as chair for fiscal 2015, which began on July 1. (Photos by the writer.)

The board approved a $390,000 grant related to an extended-stay hotel project on the downtown’s west side. The development is by First Martin Corp. at 116-120 W. Huron – the intersection of Huron and Ashley streets. The grant will be used to pay for a new 12-inch water main, sidewalk improvements along Ashley, and landscape maintenance in the public right-of-way.

This was the first grant awarded after the board adopted a grant policy earlier this year.

The board also gave a one-year extension to a previously-awarded $650,000 brownfield grant for the 618 S. Main apartment complex. It was originally awarded in 2012, but the project is not yet completed – in part because of the recent harsh winter. The funds would help pay for upsizing a water main to 12 inches, as well as streetscape improvements and a rain garden for stormwater management.

Also related to infrastructure, the board established a project budget of $100,000 for tree maintenance and sidewalk repairs in downtown Ann Arbor in fiscal 2015.

Related to personnel issues, the board held a closed session to evaluate Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director. After about 15 minutes, the board emerged and voted to give Pollay a 5% raise, increasing her salary from $109,119 to $114,570.

In describing the rationale for the raise, Roger Hewitt noted that Pollay had received “good raises” in the last two years, but for the six years before that she had not received a raise because of the difficult economy. Her position as a city employee is in the Level 2 category, which has a salary range from $95,000 to $157,000. Several board members indicated a desire to move Pollay toward the midpoint of that range over the next few years. Sandi Smith characterized it as “catch up” to compensate for the years when Pollay didn’t get a raise. Hewitt said the intent is to bring her up to that midpoint salary of $126,000 “within a fairly short time period.”

Casting the sole vote against the 5% increase was city administrator Steve Powers, who said he’d be more comfortable with a 3% raise, and hoped there would be a more robust evaluation process in the future.

Immediately after its regular monthly meeting, the board held its annual meeting to elect officers for the coming fiscal year. John Mouat was unanimously elected to serve as chair of the board. Other officers are Roger Hewitt (vice chair), Rishi Narayan (treasurer), and Keith Orr (secretary). Outgoing chair Sandi Smith was thanked for her service, and received a gift from staff – a small pin from the former Selo/Shevel Gallery, which Pollay indicated evoked a cityscape of tall buildings. Pollay said it was inspired by a trip that several DDA staff and board members took last year to New York City for the International Downtown Association conference.

Also at the July 2 meeting, the board dissolved its two existing committees and created four new committees: (1) marketing, (2) partnerships/economic development, (3) finance, and (4) operations (parking/transportation/construction).

In supporting the idea of a separate marketing committee, Narayan noted that if a staff member is hired to focus on marketing and communications, “this area might become more fleshed out very quickly.” Previously, a marketing subcommittee had been part of the partnerships committee. The new finance committee was created in part in anticipation of the DDA’s growing budget, and a desire for more financial oversight.

During updates, Hewitt reported that work continues on a possible north/south commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell known as WALLY – the Washtenaw and Livingston Line. A recommendation will be coming soon to locate a stop on the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets, opposite of the former city maintenance yard. He stressed that this transportation service is probably a significant way off from being offered. If the project moves forward, the recommended stop wouldn’t be a full station – it would simply be a platform with canopies, and would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way. Hewitt plans to make a short formal presentation about the recommendation at a future DDA board meeting.

Also related to transportation, Orr reported that the new Greyhound ticket office at the Fourth & William structure will be opening next week – ahead of schedule. Next week also will be the grand opening of the nearby Blake Transit Center, operated by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

In other updates, Hewitt noted that members of the DDA’s operations committee continue to work on a downtown ambassadors program, and are likely to bring two potential service providers in for interviews by the end of this summer.

Grants

Grants for two projects appeared on the DDA board’s July 2 agenda: a one-year extension for a previous brownfield grant to the 618 S. Main Street project, and a new grant to the 116-120 W. Huron Street hotel project.

Grants: 618 S. Main

The 618 S. Main project is an apartment complex that Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co. intends to market to young professionals. The 7-story building, between Mosley and Madison, would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

The original $650,000 brownfield grant to the 618 S. Main project was approved by the DDA board at its June 6, 2012 meeting, a week before the city council gave its approval to the project on June 18, 2012.

The $650,000 total breaks down as follows:

 $85,000 Streetscape costs (sidewalk adjacent to project on Mosley/Main)
$384,500 Streetscape costs (sidewalk on west side of Main north of project)
$100,000 Rain garden to infiltrate stormwater, rather than detain and release
$ 80,500 Upsizing the water main under Ashley Street to a 12” pipe

$650,000 TOTAL

-

That total is to be disbursed over four years in the following amounts: $100,000, $225,000, $225,000, and $175,000. None of the money is to be awarded before the taxes are paid each year. The DDA will use the tax increment finance capture from the project to make the grant payments.

In introducing the resolution on July 2, Joan Lowenstein noting that there’s sunsetting language in the DDA’s grant policy:

The DDA’s grant will automatically expire by June 30th at the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year the grant was approved by the DDA if a developer has not requested and received all necessary City construction permits, and the project footings/foundations are not completely installed. The DDA grant will automatically expire by June 30th at the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year the grant was approved by the DDA if construction has not been completed and a CO issued for the project.

The project is underway, Lowenstein said, but it has been delayed by the harsh winter. Without an extension of the grant, it would expire automatically. The length of the extension, to receive all construction permits and to complete the project, is one year. The partnerships committee reviewed the extension and recommended that it be granted.

John Mouat said he’d read that the site next to 618 S. Main, where Happy’s Pizza had been located, is going to be redeveloped. The building where Happy’s Pizza was housed had been destroyed by fire earlier this year. The site is at the southwest corner of Main and Madison.

Mouat said that’s a great sign, because the DDA had hoped that the whole area along South Main “would start to rise.” He called the changes at the Happy’s Pizza site a “fortuitous happenstance, in some ways.”

Keith Orr joked that it was rising from its ashes.

There was no other discussion.

Outcome: The vote on the 618 S. Main grant one-year extension was unanimous.

Grants: First Martin Hotel Project

John Mouat brought forward a proposal for a $390,000 grant related to an extended-stay hotel project. The development is by First Martin Corp. at 116-120 W. Huron, at the intersection of Huron and Ashley streets.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The new building will be an 88,570-square-foot structure with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space. The extended-stay hotel will occupy the upper five levels and will be operated by Marriott. The city council gave approval to the site plan at its June 16, 2014 meeting. The project also had been reviewed and recommended for approval by the city’s planning commission on May 20, 2014.

The grant was recommended by the DDA’s partnerships committee.

Mouat said that First Martin had been very patient while the partnerships committee developed its grant policy over the past few months. The First Martin project will be used as a kind of test for the new policy, he added.

The $390,000 breaks down like this:

$340,000 New 12” water main on Ashley Street, and related hardscape 
$ 10,000 Sidewalk enhancements on Ashley Street 
$ 40,000 Right-of-way landscape maintenance (20-year commitment) 

$390,000 TOTAL

-

The $390,000 amount is to be distributed over three years – $100,000 (Year 1); $145,000 (Year 2); and $145,000 (Year 3).

The maximum amount that can be awarded to a project under the DDA grant policy – adopted by the DDA board at its June 2, 2014 meeting – is 25% of the tax increment capture due to the project that the DDA receives for the first 10 years after the project is built. That amount is about $390,000, according to First Martin Corp. based on an annual figure of $156,515. But the DDA’s resolution indicates the figure has not yet been verified by the city assessor. Grants are not awarded until after the taxes are paid.

Grants: First Martin Hotel Project – Board Discussion

Mouat reported that the partnerships committee had focused on two factors in considering the grant. The first was whether this was an area where the DDA would like to promote development. The committee felt that the area had been lacking, so the project met that criteria, he said. The second factor was whether the grant would result in benefits for the community, he said, such as opportunities for other sites to be developed, or for the street to be improved. It met that criteria, too, he said.

Mike Martin of First Martin Corp.

The public benefits are the new 12-inch water main on Ashley, sidewalk enhancements on Ashley, and right-of-way landscape maintenance for 20 years. Mouat said the bulk of the grant – $340,000 for the water main – isn’t very sexy, but it would help future development in that block.

Regarding the landscape maintenance contract, Mouat said that street trees in Ann Arbor suffer. They aren’t always cared for, and sometimes they die and are unsightly, he said. So the owners of the site will be responsible for those trees and landscape features. Mouat hoped it would serve as a nice precedent for projects in the future.

Board chair Sandi Smith invited First Martin’s Mike Martin and Darren McKinnon to the podium. Martin described the location where improvements are proposed along the street and alley. He highlighted the minimum amount of work that would have been required, compared to what First Martin is actually doing.

Roger Hewitt agreed that the water main and sidewalk improvements are clear public benefits. He expressed caution about the right-of-way landscape maintenance commitment. In this case, he said, he had no concern – because First Martin has a superb reputation for maintaining its properties. But for future grants, unless the DDA has a way to monitor and enforce the agreement, he would be less interested in doing it.

Martin replied that it’s his understanding that there would be an agreement to cover those details and allay Hewitt’s concerns. Hewitt again stressed that he wasn’t worried about First Martin, but “I just don’t know if other developers will be as conscientious.” Smith said she assumed there’d be a remedy for default, if the developer didn’t follow through on maintenance.

Steve Powers said it was a great example of the DDA being part of a public/private partnership that will help improve downtown. He assumed that the partnerships committee was satisfied that the grant meets the criteria that the DDA spent several months developing.

Smith passed out copies of the grant policy. It states that the project should address significant elements of these 12 criteria:

1. Addresses a documented gap in the marketplace or underserved markets of commerce within this sector of downtown.

2. Demonstrated that the project will act as a catalyst for additional revitalization of the area in which it is located which will trigger the creation of additional new tax revenue.

3. Is “connected” to the adjacent sidewalk with uses on the first floor that are showcased using large transparent windows and doorways to give pedestrians a point of interest to look at as they walk by the project.

4. Creates a large office floor plate.

5. Will facilitate the creation of a large number of new permanent jobs.

6. Is a mixed use development, that will encourage activity in the daytime, evening, and weekend, such as a development with a mix of commercial and residential.

7. Adds to downtown’s residential density.

8. Reuses vacant buildings, reuses historical buildings, and/or redevelops blighted property.

9. Number of affordable housing units created on site or funded by the project elsewhere in the community, which are beyond what is required by the City.

10. Environmental design is at or above a Gold LEED certification, or an equivalent environmental assessment.

11. Architecturally significant building or project design.

12. Strengthens Ann Arbor’s national visibility.

Smith said she wanted to review the grant process at the partnerships committee’s July 9 meeting, to make sure everyone is comfortable with it after this first grant has been awarded using the new policy. They wouldn’t change the grant itself, she noted, but they might recommend tweaks to the guidelines.

Bob Guenzel and Keith Orr also supported the grant, saying it benefited that area and the entire downtown. Orr said he was thrilled that the DDA is again awarding partnership grants, saying it’s what the DDA’s mission is about, especially related to infrastructure.

Mouat noted that the project meets all the elements outlined for eligible improvements in the grant policy. The policy states:

To be eligible, the public improvements should include elements that extend beyond the public ROW directly adjacent to the site; this may include streetscape enhancements (and on-going maintenance), street and crosswalk resurfacing, crosswalk and bike lane pavement marking upgrades, innovative public stormwater treatments, and upsizing water, storm or sewer mains. Inclusion of any of the above elements may then allow site adjacent public improvements to be eligible as well.

Mouat also highlighted the fact that the project met 8 out of the 12 elements mentioned in the policy, which he called “quite extraordinary.” Smith said there were two additional elements – adding to the downtown’s residential density, and strengthening Ann Arbor’s national visibility – that could have easily been considered as benefits that the project brought. The partnerships committee discussed whether having a national hotel chain located downtown raises the city’s visibility, she said. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

Martin reported that a lot of people locally are excited about the project. Raising the site’s visibility within the community isn’t part of the DDA’s list, he said, but people locally are excited about having another hotel option for out-of-town guests.

Outcome: On a 9-0 vote, the board awarded the grant to First Martin’s hotel project. Al McWilliams abstained on the vote, but did not indicate why. Russ Collins and Cyndi Clark were absent.

Funds for Sidewalks, Trees

The July 2 agenda included a resolution to establish a project budget of $100,000 for tree maintenance and sidewalk repairs in downtown Ann Arbor in fiscal 2015. The item was introduced by Roger Hewitt, and had been recommended by the DDA’s operations committee.

This list of DDA board priorities is now posted on the boardroom wall.

The work will include repairs like displaced bricks and uneven sidewalk flags, as well as pruning of trees. The money to pay for the work will be drawn from tax increment finance (TIF) revenue, which the DDA is authorized to capture under state statue.

Hewitt noted that traditionally, the DDA has done sidewalk maintenance – things like repairing cracks and replacing slabs. There are numerous trip hazards and other minor maintenance issues for the sidewalks, especially after such a harsh winter, he said. Many of the thousand or so trees downtown are not in good shape, he added, and haven’t been pruned in many years. Some trees are dead and need to be replaced.

There’s money set aside in the DDA’s FY 2015 budget for sidewalk work, Hewitt noted. This $100,000 would be specifically designated for sidewalk repairs and tree maintenance or replacement.

Sandi Smith pointed out that a list of projects generated from DDA board retreats is posted on the boardroom wall, to remind them about their priorities. She said the resolution clearly aligns with some of the priorities that the DDA board has identified.

Al McWilliams stressed that by doing the work now, it will save money in the future – because the problems will only get worse if left unaddressed.

John Mouat asked whether the board could consider approving a budget for a three-year period – $100,000 for each year. Hewitt said the intention is that the DDA will spend at least this much every year. But since they haven’t approved the budgets beyond fiscal 2015, it’s better just to designate the amount for this year. He noted that in the somewhat distant past, the DDA budget had a separate fund for this kind of work, but eliminated it because it was cumbersome from a reporting standpoint, he said.

Mouat observed that one-year timeframes are tight, if the DDA is coordinating with the city for this kind of work. Hewitt again stated that it was the intent to spend money on this kind of thing in the future, and that the $100,000 for FY 2015 wouldn’t address all the problems, because maintenance has been deferred for years. “This will be a first step,” he said.

Outcome: The board vote was unanimous in support of the allocation.

Executive Director Raise

The July 2 agenda included a closed session for “a periodic personnel evaluation.” The agenda also included a resolution regarding compensation for the DDA executive director, Susan Pollay. The resolution for a salary adjustment was drafted prior to the closed session, and included this whereas clause: “Whereas, The DDA Executive Committee recommends that Ms. Pollay be provided with a salary adjustment beginning July 1, 2014 to increase her salary from $109,119 to $XXX,XXX; …”

The executive committee members are Sandi Smith (chair), John Mouat (vice chair), Keith Orr (secretary) and Roger Hewitt (treasurer). Pollay serves as a non-voting ex officio member.

Susan Pollay, Mike Martin, Darren McKinnon

Before going into closed session, board member Keith Orr noted that a closed session isn’t required unless the person being reviewed requests it. He said the review was being conducted in closed session at Pollay’s request. The closed session was held in Pollay’s office.

The board emerged after about 15 minutes and Roger Hewitt brought forward the resolution for her salary adjustment. Board chair Sandi Smith said the evaluation of Pollay was extremely positive, saying that Pollay worked well with board members, general community entities, and is “a wonderful ambassador for the city.”

Hewitt noted that Pollay’s current salary is $109,119. He said she had received “good raises” in each of the last two years. However, she did not take a raise during the six years before that, he added, and that had been at her request because of the difficult economy. Hewitt said her eight-year average raise comes out to about 1.9% annually, which he said is below the rate of inflation. “It’s actually a losing position versus the cost of living,” he said.

Pollay is a Level 2 in the city’s pay range, Hewitt reported, which has a salary range from $95,000 to $157,000. The midpoint is $126,000 annually, he noted. Given her evaluations, he added, Pollay should be receiving a salary that’s closer to the midpoint.

However, even though Ann Arbor is doing well, the state is still not doing very well, Hewitt said. So he suggested giving her a 5% raise, which would be about $5,456 – bringing her total salary to $114,570. About half of the raise would cover cost of living increases, he said, and the other half would be to move her more toward the midpoint of the Level 2 pay range.

Board chair Sandi Smith said she hoped that future executive committee members would keep that record in mind when they evaluate Pollay’s salary in the coming years, saying there’s some “make up” that needs to happen.

Bob Guenzel asked if there was any consideration given to doing a longer-term look at her salary, for the next two or three years. Hewitt replied that the executive committee didn’t discuss it, but “the intention is that there will be continued raises above the cost of living to bring her up to a level that is appropriate for her responsibilities.” Guenzel said it would be nice to see Pollay reach the midpoint. Hewitt replied that the intention is to bring her up to that midpoint salary of $126,000 “within a fairly short time period.”

From left: DDA board members Steve Powers and Rishi Narayan.

Steve Powers said he would not support a 5% raise. He understood the reasons given for it. He thought the movement of Pollay’s salary to a midpoint level, which is being tied to her performance, needs to be part of a more robust evaluation process. Also, according to a University of Michigan economic report, he noted, inflation has been between 1.7% to 1.9%. Powers said he was more comfortable with a 3% raise.

Smith replied that Pollay hadn’t received a raise in 8 of the past 10 years, “and I think there’s some opportunity for some catch-up.” She characterized a 5% raise as “extremely modest.”

Al McWilliams asked Powers if there were precedent for this raise compared to other positions within the city. Powers replied that the management employees of the city received a 3% increase this year. Last year they also got 3%. Prior to that there’d been a one-time adjustment, he said, and salary freezes during the recession.

The resolution regarding the increase states that “a number of important DDA projects were undertaken in FY 2014 under Ms. Pollay’s leadership, including opening the new First and Washington parking structure, creating a Street Framework planning initiative in partnership with the City, and working with the City Council to approve amendments to the DDA ordinance.”

The resolution also states that board members provided reviews of Pollay’s work in FY 2014, and the reviews “noted how effectively she works with the DDA Board to support board member involvement and effectiveness, how effectively DDA programs and projects are managed, and that Ms. Pollay serves as a vital resource for downtown stakeholders, and the community at large…”

Pollay has served as the DDA’s executive director since 1996.

Outcome: On a 9-1 vote, the board approved a 5% increase to Pollay’s salary, over dissent from Steve Powers. Russ Collins and Cyndi Clark were absent.

Annual Meeting

Immediately after its regular monthly meeting on July 2, the DDA board held its annual meeting to elect officers and form committees.

Annual Meeting: Election of Officers

John Mouat was nominated to serve as chair of the board for the coming fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2014. The nomination of Mouat as chair was made in accordance with the custom of the DDA board over the last several years – to elect the vice chair from the preceding year as chair. Mouat is a partner in the downtown firm of Mitchell & Mouat Architects.

Mouat’s term on the DDA board runs through Sept. 6, 2015. He was first appointed in 2007.

Other officers nominated by the board included Roger Hewitt as vice chair, Rishi Narayan as treasurer, and Keith Orr as secretary. Outgoing chair Sandi Smith was thanked for her service. She presided over the annual meeting until the end, as Mouat’s term began at the conclusion of the meeting.

There were no competing nominations.

Outcome: All officers were elected unanimously.

The executive committee consists of these four officers: chair, vice chair, treasurer and secretary. They serve in those positions for one-year terms. Given the custom of the board, Hewitt is now in a position to become the next chair. He has served on the DDA board since 2004 and his current term runs through Aug. 19, 2016. He owns two businesses in downtown Ann Arbor – Red Hawk restaurant, and Revive + Replenish shop.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure

In other business at the annual meeting, the board discussed what committees it wanted to create or continue in the coming year.

The board’s bylaws state that committees can be created to advise the board. From the bylaws:

Committee members shall be members of the Board, any board member may serve on any committee of the Board. The Chair of the Board shall appoint the members and select the chair of the Board committees and will solicit volunteers to chair the standing committees. The committees may be terminated by vote of the Board. At the annual meeting, the committees will be evaluated and reappointed or dissolved.

Sandi Smith noted that for the last several years, all members of the board served on every committee. That way, she said, everyone got the meeting notices and packets. “I don’t know whether that’s a good practice or a bad practice, but it’s time that we bring that forward,” she said. Smith added that she believed she got the opportunity to appoint the committee chairs, as board chair.

The two existing committees were (1) partnerships/economic development/communications, and (2) operations. The partnerships committee includes a subcommittee on marketing. The board first considered whether to dissolve these committees.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Partnerships, Marketing

Keith Orr advocated for keeping the partnerships/economic development/communications committee as is, with its marketing subcommittee working as needed. He didn’t think there needed to be a separate marketing committee.

Al McWilliams said he tended to agree with Orr. While marketing and communications activity is “picking up steam,” he didn’t think it was mature enough yet to need its own full committee.

The Ann Arbor DDA board.

Rishi Narayan pointed out that the partnerships meetings are getting unwieldy, so it might be better to pull out marketing and communications. If it turns out that a separate marketing/communications committee eventually isn’t needed, the board could dissolve it, he noted. This would allow there to be two separate meetings, each one shorter than the current combined committee.

Orr advocated for keeping it unchanged, and noted that the board can create a separate marketing committee during the year, if they feel they need it.

Joan Lowenstein agreed with Orr, saying she didn’t think the partnerships meeting was unwieldy. She noted that the board members are volunteers, and creating new committees requires yet another block of time to devote to the work. She thought it worked better for people’s schedules to consolidate as much as possible.

McWilliams then suggested creating separate committees, but holding back-to-back meetings.

Narayan said that in the future, if there’s a staff member focused on marketing and communications, “this area might become more fleshed out very quickly.” He noted that there’s been talk about hiring another employee for that purpose in the future, although he characterized that possibility as a “fantasy” at this point.

Smith picked up on McWilliams’ suggestion – having the partnerships meeting run from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., then a marketing committee could meet as needed at 12:30 p.m. People attending the partnerships meeting could stay for marketing if they’re interested, she said.

Mouat encouraged board members to arrive at committee meetings on time, saying it would help save time and make the meetings more efficient.

Steve Powers asked that the DDA board chair or executive director remind the partnerships committee members who represent other taxing jurisdictions about the purpose of the committee and the changes that are being made, “so that their expectations are in line with the DDA board’s expectations for that committee.”

Smith said it sounded like there was consensus for a new marketing committee. She asked that McWilliams serve as chair. She asked anyone who was interested in serving on the committee to raise their hand. She, McWilliams and Narayan raised their hands.

At this point, DDA executive director Susan Pollay asked whether the board was going to vote to dissolve the existing partnerships/economic development/communications committee, and vote to create the marketing committee.

Orr repeated his preference to keep the current committee structure.

Outcome: The board voted to dissolve the partnerships/economic development/communications committee.

Roger Hewitt then moved to create a partnerships committee and a marketing committee. As a friendly amendment, Keith Orr suggested that the partnerships committee be named partnerships/economic development.

Outcome: The board voted to create a partnerships/economic development committee and a marketing committee.

Sandi Smith asked Joan Lowenstein and Al McWilliams to serve as co-chairs of the partnerships/economic development committee. Other board members who volunteered to serve on the committee are Bob Guenzel, John Mouat, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Sandi Smith, John Splitt.

Smith noted that “committee participants” of the partnerships/economic development committee are: Ken Clein (city planning commission); Jane Lumm and Margie Teall (Ann Arbor city council); Charles Griffith (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority); and Jason Morgan (Washtenaw Community College). Based on an emailed response to a Chronicle query to Pollay, the DDA’s position appears to be that historically, membership on the partnerships committee was always restricted to DDA board members – because it has been a “board committee” under the DDA bylaws.

By way of background, however, the DDA bylaws provide for a second committee type – “advisory committees” – that do not have a requirement that members be DDA board members. It’s been assumed by at least some city councilmembers that those who are now being described as “committee participants” have been actual “members” of the partnerships committee and that the partnerships committee has been an “advisory committee” under the bylaws. To the extent that the DDA board committees function without taking formal votes or observing rules on quorum, the issue of committee membership as compared to “participation” could be considered moot.

At the July 2 meeting, Smith added that there was an “ongoing invitation” for representatives from Washtenaw County government and the Ann Arbor District Library to participate. “They know that they’ve been invited to come and share during the update time” during the partnerships meetings, she said.

By way of background, the DDA captures taxes from the following jurisdictions that collect taxes in the DDA district: the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor District Library. The partnerships committee includes representatives from each of those entities, with the exception of the AADL and Washtenaw County. Until last year, county commissioner Leah Gunn was a DDA board member and served on the partnerships committee. Former county administrator Bob Guenzel is on the DDA board and the partnerships committee.

When queried by The Chronicle via email, AADL director Josie Parker stated that she hadn’t been formally invited to join the committee. She said she did participate on the partnerships committee several years ago, but hasn’t been part of it at all in the last few years. That was her choice, she said.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Operations, Finance

Roger Hewitt noted that the DDA has a budget of about $24 million. During the operations committee meetings, there’s a lot going on, he said, and the financial piece tends to not get the attention that it needs, given the size of the budget. Having a separate committee that focuses strictly on the financial aspects of the organization would be beneficial, he said.

DDA board members Roger Hewitt and John Splitt.

So Hewitt preferred two separate committees. He suggested that operations could continue to meet at 11 a.m., then would break for lunch and continue with a meeting of the finance committee. Anyone who’s on operations could attend the finance committee meeting, he said, but it would focus in more detail on the organization’s financial records and reports.

Keith Orr said he thought it made sense to have separate committees for operations and finance. Finance is an important enough subject to warrant its own committee, especially as the DDA’s budget continues to grow, he said. It’s important to develop people on the DDA board who are comfortable with the financial oversight role – especially since there are now term limits, he said. [The city council voted last year to impose a limit of three terms for DDA board members, which amount to 12 years.]

Hewitt then brought forward one resolution to: (1) dissolve the existing operations committee, and (2) form two new committees: the finance committee, and the operations (parking/transportation/construction) committee.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Smith appointed the new board treasurer, Rishi Narayan, as chair of the finance committee. Other board members who volunteered for the committee were Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Splitt and Keith Orr.

Smith then appointed John Splitt as chair of the operations committee. Other board members who volunteered to serve on the operations committee are Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Executive

Sandi Smith noted that the executive committee consists of the board officers: chair John Mouat, vice chair Roger Hewitt, secretary Keith Orr, and treasurer Rishi Narayan. Smith, as the most recent former board chair, is a non-voting member. The DDA’s executive director, Susan Pollay, is a non-voting ex officio member.

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Membership

Committee membership was determined by board members volunteering for the committees on which they wanted to serve. The committee chairs were appointed by outgoing DDA board chair Sandi Smith. The four new committees have the following membership:

• Marketing committee: Al McWilliams (chair), Rishi Narayan and Sandi Smith.
• Partnerships/economic development committee: Joan Lowenstein and Al McWilliams (co-chairs), Bob Guenzel, John Mouat, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Sandi Smith, John Splitt. Listed as “committee participants” of the partnerships/economic development committee on the agenda are: Ken Clein (city planning commission); Jane Lumm and Margie Teall (Ann Arbor city council); Charles Griffith (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority); and Jason Morgan (Washtenaw Community College).
• Finance committee: Rishi Narayan (chair), Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Splitt and Keith Orr.
• Operations (parking/transportation/construction) committee: John Splitt (chair), Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr.

Two board members – Cyndi Clark and Russ Collins – were absent, and will likely be joining one or more of the committees.

Steve Powers noted that he hadn’t volunteered for any of the committees, but he’d try to attend meetings if assistance is needed. He encouraged the committee members to make sure that the purpose of the committees is clearly understood by committee members, staff and the public. It’s important to be aligned regarding the role of the committees, he said, and to maintain the positive relationship between the DDA board, staff, and the other jurisdictions.

Smith agreed, saying that in September each committee should kick off their meeting with a re-introduction of members, and a discussion of purpose.

Powers said he appreciated that the board priorities were posted on the DDA boardroom wall, saying that it’s a powerful reminder about why the DDA is here and what they’re focusing on. He suggested doing something similar for the committees. Smith joked that “it’s easy to be swayed by shiny objects.”

Annual Meeting: Committee Structure – Coda, Future Meetings

The board discussed the possibility of canceling its committee meetings for July. Roger Hewitt indicated a possible need to meet to discuss renovations at the Fourth & William parking structure, but that might be handled by a subcommittee. Sandi Smith wanted to have a partnerships meeting in July but not August. She wanted to evaluate the partnerships grant policy, after awarding its first grant under the new policy. She thought the committee should review the policy while the action was still fresh, rather than waiting until August or September.

After further discussion, the board decided to leave the July committee meetings in place.

According to the DDA’s website, upcoming committee meetings will take place at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth, Suite 301:

• Partnerships & Economic Development: Wednesday, July 9 at 9 a.m.
• Marketing: Wednesday, July 9 at 10:30 a.m.
• Operations: Wednesday, July 9 at 1 p.m. and Wednesday, July 30 at 11 a.m.
• Finance: Wednesday, July 30 at 12:30 p.m.

In addition, the board has scheduled a meeting on Wednesday, July 9 at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the design of the Fourth & William stair tower & elevator tower. All committee meetings are open to the public.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s July 2 meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter said the group recently welcomed two potential new members who live and work downtown. He said the advisory council would welcome the participation of others who live or work in the downtown area and who are interested in shaping developments downtown. There are three more membership openings. The group meets on the first Tuesday of every month except August at 7 p.m. in city hall.

He noted that by next fall, new developments will open that bring hundreds of residential units to the downtown, and “amazingly, our group is in full support of most of them.” Those developments that avoid having a negative impact are being undertaken by local developers, he noted.

But most of the advisory council’s July 1 meeting had been focused on the future of the Library Lane site, Detter reported, where a current surface parking lot is located atop the underground parking structure there. He noted that the city council provided direction to the city administrator to hire a broker to explore selling the development rights for that site, while reserving a portion of the property for a downtown park.

Members of the advisory council strongly support a significantly sized public plaza on the Fifth Avenue side of that location, Detter said. They also support pedestrian walkways to Liberty Plaza, and believe that all future development should take into consideration the needs of the Ann Arbor District Library and possible connections to the Blake Transit Center as well as nearby historic properties, and businesses. They encourage the possibility of a new tax-generating private or public development on the major part of that Library Lane property, he said.

Detter noted that the issue of improving Liberty Plaza has apparently been moved to the city’s park advisory commission. He said most of the citizens advisory council believe that changes to Liberty Plaza should be part of a larger plan for the entire block. The city about a decade ago spent $250,000 on redesigning Liberty Plaza – with $50,000 from the city’s parks department, and the rest provided by the DDA, he said. It’s a beautiful park, Detter added, and he hoped it would be part of a larger plan for the block.

Comm/Comm: Streetscape Framework Project

John Mouat noted that there was no agenda item for an update on the DDA’s streetscape framework project. He asked Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning and research specialist, to provide an update.

Miller said the staff and consultants had done some on-the-ground outreach, getting feedback from people who were using the streets downtown. They heard from over 200 people and got a lot of good feedback. She said they’ve also pulled in an “economics team” that focuses on retail and ground-floor uses, to make sure that any streetscape improvements would benefit those active uses. That team made its visit on July 1 and July 2, she said, meeting with some DDA board members and walking around the downtown district. More information would be provided at the project’s next advisory committee meeting, Miller said.

The next advisory committee meeting is Tuesday, July 8 at 9 a.m. at the DDA’s office, 150 S. Fifth, Suite 301. The meeting is open to the public.

By way of background, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the DDA board authorized the consulting contract SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard to manage the project. According to the project’s website, a “comprehensive set of design, construction, and maintenance standards can enhance and maintain the high quality experience provided by some streets and improve the identity and functionality of others. A framework plan will be a tool to ensure downtown streets provide a high quality of place for all users, while also meeting broader community goals.”

Feedback is also being collected via an online survey and a wiki mapping tool.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt reported on the status of the connector study. [By way of background, an alternatives analysis is currently being conducted by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.]

The technical oversight committee met last week, Hewitt said, and are very close to wrapping up its preliminary conclusions. A public meeting is planned for Sept. 17, he reported. That will take place in the evening at the Ann Arbor District Library to bring the public up to date, with two sessions – at 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.

Hewitt described it as a long and arduous process, going through reams of data. They’re close to making recommendations, depending on public input, he said.

Comm/Comm: WALLY

Roger Hewitt also gave an update on the federally funded study regarding a railroad station for a north/south commuter rail running between Ann Arbor and Howell. [The project is known as WALLY – the Washtenaw and Livingston Line.]

View looking south toward Liberty along the railroad tracks between Washington and Liberty. If the commuter rail project known as WALLY moves forward, a proposed train stop might be located here, in the railroad right-of-way east of the tracks – on the left side of this photo.

Hewitt said this service is probably a significant way off from being offered, but there had been funding for a study to recommend station locations. The consultants evaluated “every possible location” between North Main Street south to where Fingerle Lumber is located, he said.

The final site recommendation for a stop is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets, Hewitt reported – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located [at 415 W. Washington]. He said it wouldn’t be a full station – it would simply be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty.

The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way, he explained – there would be no taking of public or private property.

Hewitt said he’d like to make a short formal presentation about the recommendation at a future DDA board meeting.

Comm/Comm: Communications & Marketing

Rishi Narayan reported that the marketing/communications subcommittee was still collecting data to determine what the DDA’s place might be in marketing the downtown. Traditionally, marketing hasn’t been part of the DDA’s role, he noted, so if they decide to do it, they need to make sure it’s efficient in time, money and staff energy.

Narayan said they’re working with a company, at no cost to the DDA, to develop a plan that would give the DDA some macro-economic data. They’ve also started talking with Republic Parking, which oversees the city’s parking system under contract with the DDA, to see if there’s a way to extract information from Republic’s data.

Because the art fairs are approaching, people don’t have a lot of time to talk about this, Narayan noted. He hoped to come back with recommendations in the coming months. It might mean partnering with the downtown area associations and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau to do more, such as grants for events.

Al McWilliams noted that the CVB is doing data collection during the art fairs, to show what the impact of those events are. The CVB will be sharing that data with the DDA.

Comm/Comm: Fourth & William Renovations

John Splitt reported that the subcommittee for renovations at the Fourth & William parking structure had met with the design team. Construction drawings for the elevator and stair tower are moving forward. By way of background, the board had approved the $5 million project budget at its May 2, 2014 meeting, with Carl Walker Inc. handling the design.

Image from preliminary drawings by the Carl Walker Inc. design team for renovated southwest elevator and stair tower for the Fourth & William parking structure.

The subcommittee is still fleshing out general concepts about the rest of the potential build-out along Fourth and Williams, Splitt said. They want to be as flexible as possible, and would like to see wheelchair access, awnings and ways to break up the horizontal surfaces. Architect Carl Luckenbach has come up with some different concepts that the subcommittee is considering.

They haven’t decided where bathrooms might be installed, and aren’t certain how much space they can build out without triggering city code issues for ventilation and fire suppression, Splitt reported. The subcommittee is meeting with the design team again in the next week, and might emerge with answers to some of these questions.

John Mouat said they’d be reaching out to “our realtor friends” to get advice about what the “white box” might be for this build-out, to make sure that it’s viable for potential tenants.

Roger Hewitt reported that the subcommittee already had one meeting with real estate professionals. The feedback was that there’s big demand for business incubator start-up space, he said.

Keith Orr told the board that construction of the Greyhound ticket office at the Fourth & William structure is underway, and the bus company will be relocating there next week – ahead of schedule. The office was previously located at the site on West Huron where First Martin is now constructing an extended-stay hotel.

Comm/Comm: Ambassadors

Reporting out from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that a meeting had been held with several representatives of local social service agencies, as well as Ann Arbor police chief John Seto and Mary Kerr from the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. They discussed how an ambassador program might be integrated into existing efforts, and complement those efforts.

Now they’re trying to figure out how to frame an RFP (request for proposals), Hewitt said. They’d like to bring the two potential providers here for interviews, he added. A meeting is set for Wednesday, July 9 at 1 p.m. to discuss exactly how to structure the interview process.

Hewitt expected to set up interviews sometime before the end of this summer.

Comm/Comm: Parking Update

Roger Hewitt said there was nothing new to report, other than the monthly permit data that was provided in the board packet.

Comm/Comm: City Updates

City administrator Steve Powers gave a couple of updates that related to the DDA district. The city council, as part of its approval of the fiscal 2015 budget, has authorized hiring three new police officers. Two of the three positions will be community engagement officers who’ll be starting by the end of July, he said. Downtown will be a priority area for their work over the summer.

Sandi Smith asked Powers to elaborate on the nature of the community engagement work. Powers described it as an initiative that police chief John Seto has been advocating since he took that position. Currently there is one officer doing community engagement – Sgt. Tom Hickey. The additional officers will help Hickey engage with three areas of emphasis: downtown businesses, neighborhoods and public schools. Their work will contrast with patrol activity or calls for service, Powers said, in that they’ll be more pro-active.

Powers also noted that during this year’s art fairs, the city’s police, fire and emergency management staff will be using Liberty Plaza – on the southwest corner of Liberty and Division – as staging area and a cooling station for the public. There will be misting and water available, as well as shade, he said. Red Cross will be participating, as will the city’s volunteer community emergency response team (CERT).

Comm/Comm: Real-Time Parking Data

During public commentary, Ed Vielmetti noted that in 2009, he’d approached the board with ideas and a prototype of a system to monitor and provide real-time information about the city parking system. At the time, the DDA board was not interested in supporting it, he said, and the DDA removed access to the real-time information. He said he’s recently spoken to staff at Republic Parking, which manages the city’s parking system under contract with the DDA, and showed them some prototypes. They’d been receptive to some of the ideas, he said, but had made it clear that a good first step would be to talk with the DDA board.

Vielmetti said his system could provide real-time alerts when parking structures are full, for example, among other features. He said he’s built all of this on his own, mostly as a demonstration project. He’d be happy to share the results of the prototype with board members. He’s doing a similar project for a solar energy-monitoring system.

Sandi Smith suggested that Vielmetti talk with DDA executive director Susan Pollay, as well as the board’s operations committee.

Comm/Comm: TiniLite

Changmin Fan introduced himself as the owner of TiniLite World. He said the company is registered in Ann Arbor, and he has a factory in China that’s building a prototype. He’d like to manufacture the product here, however. He said all four mayoral candidates are great, but noted that Sally Petersen has pointed out the city’s economic development needs. The economic ecosystem isn’t very good for him, Fan said. Small businesses and people – not just the University of Michigan – are the engine for economic development in this city. Communications are also important, he added, and there needs to be smart signs on the street. The DDA can take a leadership position on this, he concluded.

Comm/Comm: BTC Open House

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, invited board members to the Blake Transit Center grand opening on Monday, July 7 at 10 a.m. There will be tours, food and “dignitaries aplenty,” she said. The getDowntown office is located on the second floor, and she urged them to drop by.

Shore also reported that there is a community space within that facility where meetings can take place. It might be a nice location for a retreat, she said.

The Blake Transit Center is the downtown hub for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. It’s located north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Comm/Comm: Bill’s Beer Garden

Board chair Sandi Smith noted that the DDA board would be gathering that night at Bill’s Beer Garden at 6 p.m. She joked that the purpose was “to have some very serious discussions about Original Gravity, IBUs and things like that.” She said it would be open to the public, and is a celebration of hard work by a lot of volunteers.

Comm/Comm: Staff Thank You to Board Members

At the end of the annual meeting, executive director Susan Pollay made a presentation to the board, saying it was the staff’s chance to thank the board. DDA board members are volunteers, she said. “I don’t know that that’s widely understood out in the community.” She thanked the board for their service.

Pollay also said that it’s a tradition for the staff to present a small gift to the outgoing board chair. This year, the gift was inspired by a trip to New York, she said. “It was a wonderful moment for many of us to actually be in one of the most fabulous cities in the world.” [The trip was for the International Downtown Association conference in October 2013.] The gift comes from Selo/Shevel Gallery on Main Street in Ann Arbor, which closed earlier this year. It’s a pin that evokes a cityscape of tall buildings, Pollay said.

Smith received a round of applause from staff and the board.

Present: Al McWilliams, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Russ Collins, Cyndi Clark.

Next board meeting: The board does not meet in August. The next board meeting is at noon on Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to 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!

Mouat is a partner in the downtown firm of Mitchell & Mouat Architects.

Other officers elected by the board included Roger Hewitt as vice chair, Rishi Narayan as treasurer, and Keith Orr as secretary. Outgoing chair Sandi Smith was thanked for her service. She presided over the annual meeting until the end, as Mouat’s term began at the conclusion of the meeting.

In other business at the annual meeting, the board dissolved its two existing committees – partnerships/economic development/communications and operations, replacing them with a total of four different committees: (1) marketing, (2) partnerships/economic development, (3) finance, and (4) operations (parking/transportation/construction).

The committees are “board committees” as defined in the DDA’s bylaws:

Committee members shall be members of the Board, any board member may serve on any committee of the Board. The Chair of the Board shall appoint the members and select the chair of the Board committees and will solicit volunteers to chair the standing committees. The committees may be terminated by vote of the Board. At the annual meeting, the committees will be evaluated and reappointed or dissolved.

The four new committees have the following membership:

• Marketing committee: Al McWilliams (chair), Rishi Narayan and Sandi Smith.
• Partnerships/economic development committee: Joan Lowenstein and Al McWilliams (co-chairs),  Bob Guenzel, John Mouat, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Sandi Smith, John Splitt. Listed as “committee participants” of the partnerships/economic development committee on the agenda are: Ken Clein (city planning commission); Jane Lumm and Margie Teall (Ann Arbor city council); Charles Griffith (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority); and Jason Morgan (Washtenaw Community College).
• Finance committee: Rishi Narayan (chair), Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Splitt and Keith Orr.
• Operations (parking/transportation/construction) committee: John Splitt (chair), Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr.

The committee chairs were appointed by outgoing DDA board chair Sandi Smith. Committee members were selected on a volunteer basis. Two board members – Cyndi Clark and Russ Collins – were absent, and will likely be joining one or more of the committees.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings.

The increase, which was recommended by the board’s executive committee, takes effect as of July 1, 2014. Before going into closed session, board member Keith Orr noted that the review was being conducted in closed session at Pollay’s request.

In describing the rational for the raise, Roger Hewitt noted that in 8 of the past 10 years, Pollay received no raise because of the difficult economy. Her position as a city employee is in the Level 2 category, which has a salary range from $95,000 to $157,000. Several board members indicated a desire to move Pollay toward the midpoint of that range over the next few years. Sandi Smith characterized it as “catch up” to compensate for the years when Pollay didn’t get a raise.

Casting the sole vote against the 5% increase was city administrator Steve Powers, who said he’d be more comfortable with a 3% raise, and hoped there would be a more robust evaluation process in the future.

The resolution regarding the increase states that “a number of important DDA projects were undertaken in FY 2014 under Ms. Pollay’s leadership, including opening the new First and Washington parking structure, creating a Street Framework planning initiative in partnership with the City, and working with the City Council to approve amendments to the DDA ordinance.”

The resolution also states that board members provided reviews of Pollay’s work in FY 2014, and the reviews “noted how effectively she works with the DDA Board to support board member involvement and effectiveness, how effectively DDA programs and projects are managed, and that Ms. Pollay serves as a vital resource for downtown stakeholders, and the community at large…”

Pollay has served as the DDA’s executive director since 1996.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings.

The Huron Street project is receiving a $390,000 grant. It’s an extended-stay hotel, which will be built by First Martin Corp. at the intersection of Huron and Ashley streets. The new building will be an 88,570-square-foot structure with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space. The extended-stay hotel will occupy the upper five levels and will be be operated by Marriott. The city council gave approval to the site plan at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

The $390,000 breaks down like this:

$340,000 New 12” water main on Ashley Street, and related hardscape 
$ 10,000 Sidewalk enhancements on Ashley Street 
$ 40,000 Right-of-way landscape maintenance (20-year commitment) 

$390,000 TOTAL

-

The $390,000 amount is to be distributed over three years – $100,000 (Year 1); $145,000 (Year 2); and $145,000 (Year 3).

The maximum amount that can be awarded to a project under the DDA grant policy – adopted by the DDA board at its June 2, 2014 meeting – is 25% of the tax increment capture due to the project that the DDA receives for the first 10 years after the project is built. That amount is about $390,000, according to First Martin Corp. based on an annual figure of $156,515. But the DDA’s resolution indicates the figure has not yet been verified by the city assessor. Grants are not awarded until after the taxes are paid.

Mike Martin and Darren McKinnon attended the meeting and gave a brief presentation about the project.

The 618 S. Main project is an apartment complex that Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co. intends to market to young professionals. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

The original $650,000 grant to the 618 S. Main Street project was approved by the DDA board at its June 6, 2012 meeting, a week before the city council gave its approval to the project on June 18, 2012.

The $650,000 total breaks down as follows:

 $85,000 Streetscape costs (sidewalk adjacent to project on Mosley/Main)
$384,500 Streetscape costs (sidewalk on west side of Main north of project)
$100,000 Rain garden to infiltrate stormwater, rather than detain and release
$ 80,500 Upsizing the water main under Ashley Street to a 12” pipe

$650,000 TOTAL

-

That total is to be disbursed over four years in the following amounts: $100,000, $225,000, $225,000, and $175,000. None of the money is to be awarded before the taxes are paid each year. The DDA will use the tax increment finance capture from the project to make the grant payments.

Without an extension of the grant, it would expire automatically. The length of the extension, to receive all construction permits and to complete the project, is one year. The project has been delayed by the harsh winter.

The vote on the 618 S. Main grant was unanimous. Al McWilliams abstained on the vote for the First Martin project, but did not indicate why.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings.

The work will include repairs like displaced bricks and uneven sidewalk flags, as well as pruning of trees.

The money to pay for the work will be drawn from tax increment finance (TIF) revenue, which the DDA is authorized to capture under state statue.

The project was recommended by the DDA’s operations committee. The board vote was unanimous.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s outgoing public art administrator.

One aspect of that transition is the departure of the part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. His current contract ends on June 30 – the final day of the current fiscal year. Seagraves has been working as the public art administrator on a contract basis since May of 2011.

In addition, one of the art commissioners – Ashlee Arder, who was appointed in March of 2013 – has resigned because of a move to Detroit. She did not attend the June 18 meeting.

Six of the nine commissioners who were present at the meeting approved a resolution about AAPAC’s near-term future. It states that the commission “will not initiate any new public arts projects, nor take any action to seek public or private funds for new projects, until it receives: direction on implementing a transition, a plan to support the Public Art Commission in the furtherance of public art, and guidelines for the funding and management of public art projects…” The resolution also states that AAPAC won’t meet until feedback is needed on the transition plan or for ongoing projects.

AAPAC chair Bob Miller, who introduced the resolution, described it as a way “to tie things up in a neat package for us, until the city has a clear direction for us to move forward.”

In other action, the commission authorized using $10,981 for a project called “PowerArt,” to be administered by the nonprofit Arts Alliance in response to a request by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA is contributing $20,000 to the first phase of the project, which involves wrapping eight traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The expenditure from the city is not from Percent for Art funds, but rather from money donated to the city for public art, and held by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Discussion among commissioners focused on the fact that the Arts Alliance is proposing a roughly 40% project management fee for the first cycle – $9,100 on top of the $23,000 budget for the project expenses. The fee, as a percentage of the project’s later cycles, is expected to decrease in subsequent cycles. If the entire project is completed, an additional 34 boxes would be wrapped.

Commissioners also were updated on several ongoing projects that have been previously undertaken by AAPAC: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; (3) artwork for East Stadium bridges; and (4) Canoe Imagine Art.

Another effort that’s being developed by commissioner KT Tomey – maps for walking, cycling or running self-guided tours of public art – is also moving ahead, though it’s not an official city project. Commissioners intend to continue work on these projects to some degree, despite their decision to hold off on meetings and new initiatives.

Future of Art Commission

AAPAC chair Bob Miller added a resolution at the start of the June 18 meeting regarding the commission’s future. [.pdf of resolution] The item included these three resolved clauses:

RESOLVED, That the public art projects now in progress will be carried through to completion under the oversight of the Public Art Commission working in conjunction with the City of Ann Arbor staff and appointed personnel;

RESOLVED, That the Public Art Commission will not initiate any new public arts projects, nor take any action to seek public or private funds for new projects, until it receives: direction on implementing a transition, a plan to support the Public Art Commission in the furtherance of public art, and guidelines for the funding and management of public art projects; and,

RESOLVED, That the Public Art Commission will not meet until feedback on the transition plan is needed, unless there is required oversight on ongoing public art projects.

By way of background, the former Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. A new approach to public art was established last year on June 3, 2013, when the council eliminated the Percent for Art mechanism from the city’s public art ordinance. The new approach entails including city-funded art when it’s designed with council approval as an integral part of a capital project. Art projects also could be funded through a combination of private and public money.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair.

This approach was part of a set of recommendations made by a council committee more than a year ago. [.pdf of council committee's public art findings and recommendations] The five councilmembers serving on that committee included Margie Teall (Ward 4), as well as all of those who subsequently declared their candidacy for mayor in the 2014 Democratic primary: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). That committee work came in the wake of a failed public art millage that was on the ballot in November 2012 – which would have provided an alternative to the Percent for Art funding mechanism. The millage had been put forward by Taylor, over objections from leaders of the arts community, who wanted more time to prepare for a public vote.

More recently, on March 3, 2014 the city council took three actions: (1) directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for the next two years; (2) transferred $943,005 out of the public art fund; and (3) extended the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through June 30, 2014. The direction in (1) is reflected in the budget that was approved by the city council for FY 2015 – in the form of an $80,000 one-time expense for art administration.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program, has been tasked with delivering a public art transition plan to the council in October.

Uncertainty about the public art program has already affected AAPAC’s work. During the current fiscal year – from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 – AAPAC has canceled five of its monthly meetings: in July, November and December of 2013, and in February and May of 2014.

At AAPAC’s June 18 meeting, Miller noted that the issue of a transition is something he’d spoken to commissioners about in the past. He described the resolution as a way “to tie things up in a neat package for us, until the city has a clear direction for us to move forward.” The city staff is working on a transition plan, he said. And although AAPAC isn’t the entity that will be creating a new plan, he added, they can give advice.

Future of Art Commission: Discussion

KT Tomey asked about the final resolved clause: “That the Public Art commission will not meet until feedback on the transition plan is needed, unless there is required oversight on ongoing public art projects.” She wondered how that might play out in practice.

AAPAC member Connie Brown.

Bob Miller said the intent is to indicate that AAPAC would meet only when requested. The idea is that the city would come to AAPAC if any initiative needed input from the commission.

Connie Brown supported the resolution, but wanted to know what will happen to projects that commissioners are working on now. For example: Who will be publicizing projects like the East Stadium bridges artwork, or the sculptures at the Kingsley and First rain garden?

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said that project management staff have been assigned to these ongoing projects. The communications staff will also be a resource, he said. Specifically, Robert Keller of the communications staff will be helping to publicize these projects and handle the dedication events.

For the rain garden, Jerry Hancock will be handling project management. For East Stadium bridges, the point person is Mike Nearing, the engineer who oversaw the bridge reconstruction. Staff will be identified for other projects as they move forward, including the Coleman Jewett memorial and Canoe Imagine Art.

Miller said that AAPAC would be kept informed and could remain involved in these projects. Hupy told commissioners that he’d serve as the point person between the project management staff and AAPAC.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, who oversees the public art program.

Marsha Chamberlin suggested the possibility of meeting every-other month, as a way to keep commissioners informed.

Brown thought the intent of this resolution is to make clear that AAPAC is available for feedback, but that it’s not leading the administrative effort during this transition. Miller replied that until there’s a new plan in place for AAPAC’s work, “we’re not going to satisfy council, we’re not going to satisfy ourselves, and we’re not going to move forward in a progressive way.” It’s very difficult to keep moving forward on smaller projects in the current environment, he added. “We’re not going down a clear path right now – it’s muddy waters, and I would like to try to define our role.”

Brown said she understood the intent, but because commissioners will still be involved in ongoing projects, “we’re still in that no-man’s land.” Maybe that’s OK, she added, but unless they stopped working on everything, their role would still be a little “muddy.”

John Kotarski said he supported the intent of the resolution. He didn’t think it changed any of the projects that are underway. If a vote is needed on anything, they can reconvene.

Kotarski thought that commissioners who are working on projects should continue their efforts – like Chamberlin’s fundraising efforts for the Coleman Jewett memorial, or Tomey’s work on maps for walking or running routes that highlight public art in Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. Kotarski felt that the resolution clears the path, rather than muddies it.

Tomey noted that her mapping project is much simpler than the Coleman Jewett memorial. There’s no budget, and very little administrative demand, she said, so it would be more flexible to continue working on it compared to other projects that are underway.

Hupy observed that that Tomey’s mapping project isn’t officially a city project at this point – it hasn’t been funded or “officially sanctioned.” It was not on the list of projects that the city council had supported for FY 2015, he added. However, “we can make the mapping happen,” he said.

AAPAC member Devon Akmon.

Chamberlin clarified with Miller that this resolution in effect puts the commission’s business on hold, except for ongoing projects. Hupy added that he’ll be coming back to AAPAC for input as the city staff develops ideas for the future of the public art program.

Devon Akmon asked about the timeline for this transition. Hupy explained that the city council gave a directive to his boss, city administrator Steve Powers, to have staff develop a transition plan that would be delivered to council in October. It’s not that the transition will be complete, Hupy noted, but there will be a plan for moving forward with the city’s public art efforts. “I can’t tell you if [the transition] will be one year or two years, because we haven’t developed fully yet as to which direction we’re going and how we’ll get there,” Hupy said. “But there will be some change. That’s the only thing I can guarantee you – it will change.”

Responding to a query from Miller, Hupy said $80,000 is budgeted in fiscal 2015 for arts administration. Miller noted that the $80,000 will be allocated as Powers and Hupy see fit. Kotarski clarified with Hupy that part of the transition plan will discuss the role of AAPAC.

Hupy said he anticipates that AAPAC will have the opportunity to review the transition plan before it’s presented to city council. “It will not be a surprise,” Hupy said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution regarding future action by AAPAC.

Future of Art Commission: Other Transitions

The June 18 meeting was the last one for Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator. His current contract ends on June 30 – the final day of the current fiscal year. The FY 2015 budget includes $80,000 for public art administration, starting July 1, but Seagraves’ contract is not being renewed. Seagraves has been working on a contract basis since May of 2011.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator who oversees the public art program – indicated that it had not yet been determined how that $80,000 will be allocated.

After the June 18 meeting, Hupy and commissioners took Seagraves out to dinner at Grizzly Peak to say farewell.

In another transition for AAPAC, one of the commissioners – Ashlee Arder, who was appointed in March of 2013 – has resigned because of a move to Detroit. She did not attend the June 18 meeting. Another commissioner, Nick Zagar, hasn’t attended an AAPAC meeting since January – though during that time two meetings have been canceled (in February and May). Like Arder, Zagar was also appointed in March of 2013.

From the bylaws:

Section 8. Members are expected to attend regularly scheduled meetings and to notify the Chair and the Public Art Administrator or other person designated by the Public Services Area Administrator in advance if they expect to be tardy or absent. If a member misses more than three (3) regularly scheduled meetings in a twelve (12) month period, the Chair shall notify the Mayor and may recommend removal of the member.

The nine members of AAPAC are appointed to the city council and serve three-year terms, without compensation. There are no term limits. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

PowerArt

The June 18 agenda included a resolution to grant $10,981 to a project called “PowerArt,” to be administered by the nonprofit Arts Alliance in response to a request by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of resolution] [.pdf of PowerArt proposal]

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance.

These funds represent the entire amount of the balance in a special project fund managed by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, on behalf of the city. However, it’s significantly less than the $20,500 that was originally requested from the city when this project was presented to AAPAC on Sept. 25, 2013.

At that time, Deb Polich – the Arts Alliance’s executive director – described a proposal in which the city would partner with the Ann Arbor DDA to wrap about 40 traffic signal boxes in the DDA district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The city of Boise, Idaho was a case study for this project.

The initial pilot phase was originally intended to focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. That cost included a 30% administrative fee paid to the Arts Alliance, which is based in Ann Arbor. Another $80,000 was anticipated for the final phases.

At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the DDA board voted to commit $20,500 to the project. Although AAPAC also agreed on Sept. 25 to participate in the PowerArt project, that decision was contingent on the city’s legal review of potential funding sources. The city’s public art program is undergoing a transition to its approach to funding, following the city council’s decision last year to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism. Ultimately, the city council did not authorize funding for this project.

So the budget and scope of the project was scaled back to $30,981 – $20,000 from the DDA, and a proposed $10,981 from the city’s account with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The funds in the account had been a donation made several years ago to the city for public art.

The total amount from the city and DDA will fund the wrapping of 8 traffic signal boxes.

Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance was on hand to answer questions at the June 18 AAPAC meeting.

PowerArt: Commission Discussion

Marsha Chamberlin said she thought the proposal was very thorough, and that the project was terrific. She asked how the project management fees were calculated. She confirmed with Buck that the Arts Alliance was proposing a roughly 40% project management cost for the first cycle – $9,100 on top of the $23,000 budget for the project expenses.

AAPAC member Marsha Chamberlin.

Buck said that the percentage cost would decrease in later cycles, because much of the legwork would be done initially. She also noted that the project management fee had initially been a lower percentage in the original proposal, because the overall budget had been higher. The project management fee wasn’t scaled back, she said, so the percentage is higher now.

Some of the other costs are fixed, Buck noted. Those include the artist license fee ($1,450 per box), the vinyl printing and installation ($950 per box), box preparation ($50 per box), the “unveiling celebration” ($500 per cycle) and map printing ($1,000 per cycle).

Chamberlin asked about the “jury hosting” line item, which is listed twice, at $300 each. Buck explained that there will be two juries – a jury panel, and a community jury. The panel will be a group of seven individuals who’ll select artwork for six of the boxes. Artwork for the remaining two boxes will be selected by a public vote (the community jury).

After the first pilot cycle of 8 boxes, additional cycles could cover another 34 boxes. If the additional 34 boxes are completed in these later cycles, the estimated cost for those would be $91,000-$94,000 with an additional management fee of between $16,200-$24,300.

Chamberlin said a 40% management fee is “very high.” Bob Miller noted that this was an issue AAPAC had addressed with the original proposal. Part of the issue is that some of the work for the project manager is the same, no matter how many boxes are completed, he said.

John Kotarski said he appreciated that Chamberlin was “drilling into these numbers.” He thought it was a great project, and it’s admirable that the Arts Alliance stepped up and is willing to do it. It’s something new that’s never been done before in Ann Arbor, he said.

Kotarski thought the costs were reasonable, “and frankly no one else has been willing to take on the administration of this.” He was sure that the DDA board and the Arts Alliance board have “challenged these kinds of numbers” and found them to be reasonable. [At the Oct. 2, 2013 DDA board meeting when this project was approved, there was no board discussion of the management fee. Deb Polich, executive director for the Arts Alliance, is married to Russ Collins, a member of the DDA board. Collins did not attend that Oct. 2 DDA board meeting.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously supported funding the PowerArt project with $10,981 in funds held by the AAACF.

Public Art Maps

At AAPAC’s April 23, 2014 meeting, KT Tomey had brought forward a proposal to develop maps for walking, cycling or running self-guided tours of public art.

AAPAC member KT Tomey.

The idea is to develop routes that would be posted online or printed out and distributed through organizations like the Ann Arbor Visitors and Convention Bureau. A later phase might include developing a mobile app and eventually include clips with artists explaining their work.

As a first step, she’s developed three routes – two downtown and one on the University of Michigan’s north campus – and she’s tested them out with some running groups.

Tomey reported that the wife of AAPAC chair Bob Miller – Debbie Miller, a graphic designer – has volunteered to develop a visual presentation for the maps. When that’s finished, Tomey would bring the maps to AAPAC for feedback.

Tomey said she’s met with city staff members to discuss this project and how it might use the city’s GIS system. She’s also met with Deb Polich and Allison Buck of the Arts Alliance, trying to understand how their existing map resources might be helpful. Both the city staff and Arts Alliance have agreed to incorporate these guided-tour maps into existing mapping resources, Tomey said.

Fellow commissioner John Kotarski had connected Tomey with Anna Ercoli Schnitzer, a disability issues and outreach librarian at the Taubman Health Sciences Library. In turn, Schnitzer connected Tomey to a professor at UM’s School of Information, who might take on the mobile app portion of this effort as a student project in the fall, Tomey said.

Tomey reported that she’s been compiling a database of public and private art in the city and on the UM campus, using internet resources. She hopes to use it as these various materials are developed. [.pdf of updated public/private art database]

Other commissioners recommended existing resources that might help. Miller noted that the university has a database of its public art. Marsha Chamberlin reported that several years ago, an intern for the city put together a list of artwork that the city owns. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, added that the database is part of the city’s GIS system.

Chamberlin also offered to loan Tomey a book by Martha Keller: “Public art in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.”

Connie Brown noted that the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects has developed videos that describe some of the architecture and public art around Ann Arbor. Brown also mentioned a “sound garden” tour of Nichols Arboretum that was developed by the UM Mott Children’s Hospital, narrated by children.

Tomey indicated that she had already included some of these resources in the database she’s compiled. She noted that she’d also discussed with Schnitzer how to make these tours as accessible as possible to people with disabilities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Project Updates

Commissioners were updated on several projects that have been previously undertaken by AAPAC: (1) the Coleman Jewett memorial; (2) sculptures at a rain garden at Kingsley & First; and (3) artwork for East Stadium bridges. Written updates were provided for Canoe Imagine art and a possible project at Arbor Oaks Park.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

AAPAC chair Bob Miller reported that he and vice chair John Kotarski had attended the city council’s June 16 meeting, when Kotarski gave a presentation about the proposed artwork at East Stadium bridges. [Kotarski's roughly 10-minute presentation came at 11 p.m. during a six-hour meeting that lasted until 1 a.m.]

Miller said there were just a few questions from councilmembers, but the council “didn’t really bat an eye” and approved the final funding.

By way of background, a selection panel, and then AAPAC itself, had recommended choosing a proposal from Massachusetts artist Catherine Widgery for artwork at East Stadium bridges. At its June 16 meeting, the council was being asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. On June 16, councilmembers were asked to amend the contract, adding art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

The design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

Fabrication will begin later this year, but installation will likely occur in the spring of 2015.

Project Updates: Kingsley & First Rain Garden

The foundations for sculptures in a rain garden at the southeast corner of Kingsley & First were installed in early June. The rain garden itself is already in place, with the sculptures to be installed in late July.

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] The Denver artist has been working with landscapers to incorporate public art into the new rain garden, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

Wiener’s sculptures show the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. “Pretty soon, there’s going to be a lot of big fish on the site,” Connie Brown told commissioners. She’s spearheading communications about this installation, including an event tied to the completed project, with the artist attending.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 in city funds to the project, which has a total project budget of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.

Logo for the Coleman Jewett memorial.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that as of June 18, the project had raised $26,972 in contributions, including the $5,000 that has been committed by the city. Estimates from three foundries came in at about $25,000, so there’s enough money at this point for the project to move ahead, she said. To raise additional funds, a party was being planned later this month at Bill’s Beer Garden for alums from Tappan Middle School, where Jewett was assistant principal.

Chamberlin and Bob Miller also attended the Juneteenth event at Wheeler Park on June 14, and talked to people there about the project. Solicitations for the project will also be made outside of Kerrytown Market & Shops, next to the farmers market. And Chamberlin is planning to do a spot on Community Television Network to promote the memorial.

The city issued an RFP (request for proposals) on June 11 to select the artist or art foundry that will cast the memorial. Bids are due on Aug. 7. [.pdf of RFP]

Chamberlin said the goal is to raise about $40,000 to cover the cost of the fabrication and installation. There’s been one major gift of $10,000, but most of the contributions have been in the $100 range. “This is not like the money’s just rolling in, in big numbers,” she said. “But we’re diligently working away at it.”

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Canoe Imagine Art, a community art project, is intended as a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation of an estimated 25-30 canoes was expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.

AAPAC originally approved $10,000 in funding for the project, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. It was to be used as a portion of matching funds for the state grant, with the remaining $11,000 in matching funds to be raised through donations. However, the city council voted to allocate the entire $21,000 in city funds to match the state grant. That action came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

A written report – part of the June 18 meeting packet – gave an update. The city has asked the Arts Alliance to administer this project. The Arts Alliance plans to seek an extension of the MCACA grant, to redefine the scope of the project.

The project was not discussed by commissioners on June 18.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

This project is being undertaken in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of artwork. The scope of the work will depend on the availability of funds.

The city applied for a grant from the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation, but it was not awarded to the project. Another grant application was submitted by the Community Action Network to the NEA Challenge America Fast-Track program, but those grants won’t be announced until December. No city public art funds have been allocated.

AAPAC member Nick Zagar is working with the project’s task force, but he has not attended an AAPAC meeting since January.

Donation of Public Art

At AAPAC’s April 23, 2014 meeting, John Kotarski had proposed that the city accept three pieces of donated art from Jim Pallas, an established Michigan artist and friend of Kotarski’s.

AAPAC vice chair John Kotarski.

The pieces were proposed to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center, in the atrium of city hall, and outside of city hall. Other commissioners had seemed supportive of the idea, but some expressed concern that the proposal wasn’t following AAPAC’s guidelines for accepting gifts of art, which include setting up a review committee.

Kotarski had reported that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has offered a $500 honorarium to Pallas for each donated piece. Kotarski said the three pieces have a total estimated value of $100,000. He also mentioned that Pallas’ daughter, a law professor, knows city attorney Stephen Postema and that they had “made arrangement to resolve any legal issues necessary to facilitate this donation.”

After discussing it at length on April 23, commissioners had agreed that AAPAC chair Bob Miller would work with Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to set up a gift selection committee to review this proposal and make a recommendation to AAPAC. Commissioners did not officially vote on the item, however.

The May meeting for AAPAC was subsequently canceled. There was no mention of the donation at the June 18 meeting.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – indicated that no further action would be taken regarding the proposal.

Public Commentary

The only speaker during both opportunities for public commentary was Changming Fan, who in recent months has been attending meetings of many city boards and commissions. He spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc., which is based in Ann Arbor. The firm is the innovator, producer and supplier of new technology called TiniLite, he said. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He called it the light of art, and the art of light, and hoped that the city would use the technology for the public’s benefit. He encouraged the city to pursue the strategy of funding public art through public, private and crowdfunding sources.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin “KT” Tomey. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator and Craig Hupy, public services area administrator.

Absent: Jim Simpson, Nick Zagar.

Next regular meeting: No additional meetings are scheduled at this time.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.