Illustration by The Chronicle, based on bar chart in a preliminary draft report of a fall 2013 National Citizens Survey conducted among Ann Arbor residents.

Councilmembers have been asked to prepare for the session by thinking about Ann Arbor’s “brand.” Specifically, they’ve been asked to reflect on what “differentiates Ann Arbor from other communities in Michigan” and what “makes Ann Arbor a truly special community to live, work and play.”

Councilmembers will be asked to spend about five minutes each at the start of the session talking about how they see the Ann Arbor “brand.”

The facilitator for the session is Julia Novak of the Novak Consulting Group. In advance of last year’s session, she asked councilmembers to prepare by formulating thoughts that could be summarized as “What I Believe.”

Last year’s homework assignment was, I think, easy compared to this year’s. And I do not envy councilmembers this chore. It sounds hard. I wouldn’t know where to begin. Anytime somebody starts talking about “brands” – especially a brand for a city – my first thought is: “Why, you sound like a charlatan standing there talking to me; why don’t you go off and make something useful, then come back and tell me all about that very useful thing you made instead of blathering on about brands.”

And so, because I am human, and every bit as lazy and ill-tempered as the rest of you, I will not get down to the business of completing the chore … before bitterly lamenting the nature of the chore itself (with all due respect to Julia Novak). I do hereby bitterly lament the branding chore. But I’ll take a shot.

That shot includes quoting a five-year-old interview.

But before delving into the dusty archives, I want to have a look at the preliminary results of a survey that was conducted recently among residents. I think it shows that our self-image as a community valuing public participation is not especially well-founded. So that’s not our brand. Not right now, anyway.

Survey Says: Self-Image Not Supported

First, I think it’s worth distinguishing between self-image and a solid brand. I think that many residents would name “community engagement” or “public participation” as part of Ann Arbor’s brand – a trait that distinguishes Ann Arbor from other cities. For example, Ann Arbor has enacted a “citizen participation” ordinance that requires developers of new projects to accommodate the desire of Ann Arbor residents to participate in local decision-making. According to that local law, developers are supposed to:

… pursue early and effective citizen participation in conjunction with their proposed developments, giving citizens an early opportunity to learn about, understand and comment upon proposals, and providing an opportunity for citizens to be involved in the development of their neighborhood and community;

Yet I would contend this self-image does not translate to an empirically-based brand. And that contention is supported, I think, by the results of a relatively scientific survey conducted in the fall of 2013. [.pdf of draft Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey report] [.pdf of responses, benchmarks, methodology and questionnaire]

The survey measured attending public meetings at just 15% of respondents, and watching a public meeting only somewhat higher, at 19%. The survey measured reading or watching local news at just 75%. But maybe those low numbers still stack up fine against other benchmark communities? Nope. Those light purple bars in the bar graph at the start of this column mean that the numbers are lower (in a statistically significant sense) than in benchmark communities.

Think about that for just a second. According to the result of that survey, 1 in 4 Ann Arbor residents “rarely” or “never” watches or reads local news.

I think at least some of the “community engagement” scores are not as weak as they appear in the draft report. For example, the summary report indicates that only 30% of the 778 Ann Arbor residents who responded to the survey reported talking to or visiting with neighbors more than once a month. But that looks like a simple matter of a failure to tally both categories of responses that fit the summary description “more than once a month.”

The specific “talks to neighbors” question included two categories that reflect ”more than once a month.” Specifically, 30% (N=230) of respondents answered the question about neighbor interactions with “two times a week or more” (dang, I just gave you a cup of sugar, get offa my porch!) and 28% (N=211) said they interacted 2-4 times a month. So that summary report probably should say 58%, not 30%. The last time this survey was done, in 2008, the summary stat for that item was 60%. So instead of dropping by half since the last survey, this stat was likely well within the 4-point margin of error. That’s why it’s labeled as a draft, I think.

On Being That Guy

During his unsuccessful campaign this year to win election to city council representing Ward 2, Kirk Westphal pled with voters to participate in local elections [emphasis added in bold]:

As an urban planner, I know council can and must do better. But to do this, I need you to vote. A friend of mine recently told me: “Kirk, I hate to admit this but I haven’t been voting in local elections. Everything is going great so I feel like I’d just mess things up.” This is not to judge. I’ve been that guy in places I’ve lived before. And Ann Arbor’s been doing well for the past 10 years, despite very low voter turnout. I’m telling you tonight, it’s no longer okay to sit-out local elections.

Dude, I have been that guy in Ann Arbor. But I’d go a step further. Before 2005, I wasn’t just sitting things out – I was actively and aggressively not paying attention to local civic life, because I felt I had way more important matters to think about. But around 2005 I more or less accidentally launched a teeter totter interview series. I had no real expectation that anyone would accept an invitation to ride a teeter totter in the middle of winter. But Rene Greff, co-owner of Arbor Brewing Company, wrecked what could have been just a funny joke – by accepting.

From there I felt I needed to get myself up to speed on local affairs so I would at least be marginally conversant in a range of topics – so I could hold up my end of the teeter totter. And frankly, I looked more to local blogs like ArborUpdate and Ann Arbor Is Overrated than I did to the local newspaper. That’s a bit ironic, because I wound up here in Ann Arbor only because I’m married to someone who was offered a job with the local newspaper.

But I also looked to guests who were sitting on the other end of the teeter totter for some insight – insight into this place where I’d accidentally landed.

What I Heard About Branding on the Totter

The precise formulation of the city council’s homework chore includes this question [emphasis added]:

What differentiates Ann Arbor from other communities in Michigan?

That formulation reminded me immediately of a teeter totter interview I did up in Hunt Park back in 2008 – because the guest on that occasion was making the point that Ann Arbor is not competing with other communities in Michigan, so much as the rest of the world. Here’s what John Floyd had to say:

So what does it take for us to attract, and retain, people who could go anywhere to start a business? The university brings a lot of people through – they come, they get their ticket punched, and they go on to the next opportunity. Whether that is because of career advancement, or I’ve got these three options: This one, I don’t have to deal with February …  San Diego. Any of the S-cities, really. Salt Lake, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, or even Seattle doesn’t really have February. They have a little more rain.

They don’t have February the way we have February. I have a buddy who is a venture capitalist in town, Lindsay Aspegren at North Coast, and he has pointed out to me, you guys are crazy if you think that you’re competing with Ohio or Indiana. You are competing with Asia. You’re competing with Tokyo and Shanghai and Singapore and Bangalore – that’s who you’re competing with. Not just Chicago or Minneapolis. So that really is who we have to compete with.

Who is going to come to Michigan? Who is going to help us reinvent this economy? Why would somebody want to stay here? People have heard this argument a lot on their front porches – we don’t have mountains, we’re not on the ocean, the river is not navigable, we don’t have a great venture capital industry. We have a nascent one, and Mr. [Michael] Finney [of SPARK] and other people are working manfully to make that greater. But the fact is there is probably more venture capital in Minneapolis. And their winters are sunny, not cloudy. Even though they’re further north – the snow comes down in November and doesn’t melt until April.

My late wife used to complain, we should be in Minneapolis because there is real winter, and it doesn’t freeze and thaw, and it’s not so depressingly cloudy all winter long. So how are you going to compete with that? And my suggestion is that we are not going to compete with them by going head on. We’re not going to out-urbanize any of those places. We have to find some other things they don’t have, for us to be a place that attracts people. [A small-town feel, big-city vitality] is also our chief economic weapon. But that really has escaped people’s thinking, because they don’t think about it much.

Discussion Prompt

Even if you disagree with Floyd’s conclusion about the (un)desirability of increased urbanization, I think it’s probably fair to grant his basic point – which I’ll paraphrase this way: It doesn’t matter much if Ann Arbor is merely a more attractive place to be than Bad Axe.

But what does it take to attract and retain folks who really do have other options? And how can we make this place more humane and fulfilling for those who don’t have other options, but perhaps just find themselves stuck here?

I’d suggest that part of the answer is grounding Ann Arbor’s brand of “public participation” in actual fact. That would mean more residents attending a public meeting or at least watching one. It would mean more people reading or watching local news.

But it might also mean just more people talking amongst themselves about matters of local interest – without an overt overlay of politics. You don’t have to build a teeter totter to do it. And to its credit, an “Ann Arbor brand” conversation is at least not overtly about politics.

So I’d like to encourage readers to participate in a conversation on Ann Arbor’s brand – but not necessarily by writing a comment online. Turn to an actual human being who’s within arm’s reach and ask that person: What, if anything is Ann Arbor’s brand? If that person turns out to be me, I promise not to call you a charlatan.

Update on Dec. 9, 2013 at 1:35 p.m.: The city of Ann Arbor has released the final reports from the National Citizens Survey:

• Dashboard Summary of Findings (PDF): A summary of resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community.
• Trends over Time (PDF): This report compares the 2013 ratings for the City of Ann Arbor to its previous survey results.
• Community Livability Report (PDF): This report captures what makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be.
• Technical Appendices (PDF): Complete survey responses, benchmark comparisons, detailed survey methods and survey materials.
• Open-ended Responses (PDF): Verbatim responses to the open-ended question, “What should be City leaders’ top three priorities to maximize the quality of life in Ann Arbor?”

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

The proposed new Ann Arbor greenbelt logo.

It’s been three years since the strategic plan was last updated. In this latest version, no major changes are being made to the program’s existing priorities: protecting large blocks of farmland as well as natural areas in the Huron River watershed, and building partnerships to leverage other funding sources.

In addition to those, a new priority is being added: Educating Ann Arbor residents about the program’s efforts, and reaching out to landowners in the greenbelt to ensure that the flow of applications continues. [.pdf of revised strategic plan]

Commissioners gave additional feedback at their meeting, and the plan will be sent to funding partners for their input too. The greenbelt advisory commission is expected to vote on the final plan at its Oct. 4 meeting.

The group also weighed in on designs for a new logo to help brand Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The design is intended to show the connection to the city, as well as images representing both farmland and natural area preservation. There’s space for logos of partner entities, and text that indicates what kind of land is being preserved and whether the land is private or public. The intent is to use this image on signs at the properties that are protected by the greenbelt program, and on brochures and other materials.

In updates to the commission, Ginny Trocchio – who is the program’s support staff – highlighted plans to hold another bus tour of greenbelt properties on Saturday, Sept. 22. The trip will focus on the eastern portion of the greenbelt, and its connection to the Superior Greenway. She also noted plans to participate in the Sept. 8 HomeGrown Festival, an event showcasing local food.

In their main action item, commissioners voted to recommend that the city council partner with Washtenaw County and Webster Township, contributing 25.5% toward the purchase of a parcel identified as application number 2005-08. (The first four numbers signify the year in which the application was made.) Tom Bloomer abstained from the vote. He owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, and serves on the township’s farmland and open space board. He did not indicate his reason for abstaining.

Two days earlier, the city council had approved two purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) deals that GAC had previously recommended: the 90-acre Alexander farm in Webster Township, and a 136-acre property owned by Robert H. Schultz in Superior Township. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against both deals, citing concern that no local partners contributed to the land preservation efforts. Both deals include federal grants to cover a significant portion of the costs.

Greenbelt Strategic Plan

A subcommittee of commissioners – Peter Allen, Laura Rubin and Shannon Brines – was formed in May of 2012 to work on updating a strategic plan for the greenbelt program. The first strategic plan had been adopted in 2005, and was most recently updated in 2009 to reflect changing economic conditions and the growing local food movement. [.pdf of 2009 version of Ann Arbor greenbelt district strategic plan]

At GAC’s Sept. 6 meeting, Dan Ezekiel – who chairs the commission – noted that this is the first strategic plan that’s been done without the help of Jennifer S. Hall, so it’s “kind of a maiden voyage.” Commissioners would get a briefing of the proposed changes, but would not take action at that meeting, he said. It will next go out to the greenbelt program’s funding partners for input, with the hope of coming back to GAC for approval at their October session.

Ginny Trocchio discusses the draft strategic plan update at the Sept. 6, 2012 Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staffer who manages the greenbelt program under contract with the city, briefly reviewed the plan’s history. She noted that although several changes are being made, basic priorities haven’t shifted. Those priorities still include protecting large blocks of farmland as well as natural areas in the Huron River watershed, and building partnerships to leverage other funding sources.

Major changes included the addition of a section on education and outreach. In the future, that will be an increasing role of the program as it matures, Trocchio said: Educating Ann Arbor residents about the program’s efforts, and reaching out to landowners in the greenbelt to ensure that applications for land preservation continue to come in.

Another major change is that the updated plan describes the greenbelt program within a larger context of other land preservation efforts, Trocchio said. The greenbelt is just one piece of the puzzle.

Trocchio showed commissioners a couple of maps that are included in the plan indicating land already protected by the greenbelt program, and areas that are considered strategic for future protection. One map also showed an overlay from township master plans, indicating areas that the townships have designated for agricultural use or preservation. “There’s obviously a lot of overlap in what our priority areas are,” she said.

Peter Allen has often discussed how the greenbelt properties fit in with other recreational opportunities and transit, Trocchio noted. So another map included in the strategic plan shows an overlay of greenbelt parcels with the Washtenaw County map of bike trails. Again, there’s a lot of overlap, she said.

Trocchio also mentioned that in the past, the plan had included a list of goals for the program. The subcommittee decided to remove the goals from the strategic plan, since the goals are also included in the program’s annual report. Often the goals will change from year to year, so it seemed more appropriate to have them in the annual report rather than the strategic plan, she said, which isn’t updated as frequently. The two documents will be linked, she added, because the goals will be based on the strategic plan.

[.pdf of revised strategic plan with changes tracked] [.pdf of revised strategic plan]

Greenbelt Strategic Plan: Commission Response

Shannon Brines, one of the subcommittee members, praised Trocchio’s work on this project, saying she was able to incorporate their thoughts into a “nice, comprehensive document.”

Dan Ezekiel liked the new map overlays, especially the one that showed the township master plans. He hadn’t seen that perspective before, and it was helpful.

Archer Christian clarified with Trocchio that there hadn’t previously been a section on education and outreach. Trocchio noted that until recently, the program has been focused on acquisition. But as the bulk of the program’s funds are spent, there’s a recognition that with fewer acquisitions, it’s important to remind people of the land that’s already protected. They’ve been doing some of those educational activities already, she noted, but this formalizes it in the strategic plan.

Responding to a question about when the strategic plan will next be revised, Trocchio indicated that there’s no specific timeline for updates. It depends in part on whether there’s been a major shift that affects the program, she said. For example, if the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) is eliminated, that would significantly impact the greenbelt program, because the FRPP grants have provided a large amount of funding for the greenbelt. If something like that happens, the strategic plan would need to be revisited.

Dan Ezekiel highlighted a chart that showed other land preservation programs, the amount of revenues from millages or other sources that are generated, and how much of that money has been used in partnership with the greenbelt program. It was helpful to see that information, he said.

Washtenaw County land preservation programs.

Trocchio noted that the chart will be revised to include revenues levied by Webster Township, which has its own land preservation millage. Ezekiel suggested including a chart with the amounts contributed by landowners and the federal FRPP program as well. Trocchio said she could do that, noting that the FRPP funds in particular are significant – the greenbelt program has been granted nearly $7 million to date.

Catherine Riseng raised the issue of not including goals in the strategic plan – saying that’s a significant change. It’s not that she opposes it, but she hoped that the sentence mentioning the goals could be strengthened. She’d like to indicate that specific goals will be identified in the annual report, and that progress toward those goals will also be included in the annual report. Trocchio proposed that the strategic plan can have a separate section discussing how the goals will be handled in the annual report.

Ezekiel concluded the discussion by noting that the commission has had a strong history of leadership on the strategic plan, first with Jennifer S. Hall and now with the current subcommittee members. It’s an active plan, he said, one that informs the greenbelt program’s practices. He’s glad people had the energy to pursue these revisions, and he commended Trocchio, Brines, Allen and Rubin on their work.

Outcome: No vote was taken. The plan will be brought back to the commission for formal approval at a future meeting, likely in October. 

Branding the Greenbelt

A committee of two – Ginny Trocchio and Liz Rother – have been working on a new logo, with the goal of developing a better way to brand the greenbelt program. Some draft designs were presented to commissioners at their June 7, 2012 meeting.

On Sept. 6, Trocchio showed commissioners two final options, and credited Nicole Ray – who works with the city’s communications unit – with the designs. There had been many iterations, as they tried to incorporate several aspects of the program: the connection to the city, as well as images representing both farmland and natural area preservation. She noted that there’s space for logos of partner entities. Also, the text at the bottom can be changed to indicate what kind of land is being preserved, and whether the land is private or public.

The image can be used in a variety of ways, Trocchio said – on promotional brochures, posters, mailings, and posted as signs on the protected property.

Branding: Commission Response

Commissioners generally preferred the logo that they felt had a cleaner design (shown at the beginning of this article). Archer Christian, GAC’s newest member, asked if there had been previous logos or branding efforts. Not specifically for the greenbelt, Trocchio replied. A logo had been designed for Preserve Washtenaw – a consortium of local land preservation groups. [The a prototype of that image had first been presented at GAC's December 2009 meeting.] But everyone has their own sign that reflects their own communities and constituents, she said, so it was felt that the Ann Arbor greenbelt program needed one, too.

Dan Ezekiel liked the flexibility of the design. Signs would likely be most visible at natural area preserves, he said, like the Scio Woods Preserve off of Scio Church Road. [That natural area is protected through a partnership of the Washtenaw County natural areas preservation program and Scio Township's land preservation program – both of those entities already have signs at the preserve.]

Catherine Riseng said she was happy with the design, but wondered if they had tried to incorporate water imagery. One of the greenbelt program’s goals is to protect land along the Huron River and its watershed, she noted. Rother said they’d tried to work a water image into the design, but it had proven to be “one element too many.”

Ezekiel asked Tom Bloomer for his opinion, given that Bloomer already has a Preserve Washtenaw sign on his farm in Webster Township. Bloomer felt that the design was a little “busy,” trying to convey a lot. It’s important to have a distinctive sign that people can recognize easily as they drive by, he said, adding that he wasn’t sure it was possible unless it’s a billboard. The best they can hope for is that people see the image repeatedly in different locations. The main thing is to settle on a design and use it universally, he said. Bloomer also felt it was important to indicate whether the land was public or private.

Ezekiel ventured that if people see the image in printed material, perhaps they’ll more easily recognize it when they drive by a sign. He joked that the schoolteacher in him appreciates the period at the end of the text. [Ezekiel teaches science at Forsythe Middle School.] He thanked Rother and Trocchio for their work. It had been a convoluted process, he said, and no one had expected it would take so much time. He looked forward to getting the greenbelt’s brand established so that the public can see and appreciate how that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent appropriately.

Outcome: This was a briefing, and no vote was taken.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission typically include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session.

GAC recommendations on land acquisition are forwarded to the city council for approval.

Land Acquisition: City Council Action

The Ann Arbor city council had two items on its Sept. 4, 2012 agenda that had been previously recommended for approval by the greenbelt advisory commission. Both were for the purchase of development rights, and included grants from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

A total of $394,417 for the Robbin Alexander Trust farm in Webster Township was approved by council. Of that amount, the city’s portion totaled $226,837 with the remaining $167,580 coming from the FRPP grant as a reimbursement. The greenbelt advisory commission had recommended approval of this deal at its June 7, 2012 meeting.

The 90-acre farm is located along Northfield Church Road in Webster Township. According to a staff memo, “the farm is considered large enough to sustain agricultural production and is in a location that will encourage additional farmland preservation activities. The property is surrounded by additional farmland that has been protected by the Greenbelt Program and Webster Township.” [.pdf map showing location of Alexander property]

The second item for consideration by the council was the purchase of development rights for the 136-acre Robert H. Schultz property located along Harris Road and Geddes Road in Superior Township. That deal totaled $523,567, including $294,247 from the city and $229,320 to be reimbursed to the city by an FRPP grant. Like the Alexander property, this land is also considered to be large enough for agricultural production and is located in an area that would encourage other farmland preservation. According to a staff memo, the property is surrounded by additional farmland that’s been protected by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County and the greenbelt program. [.pdf map showing location of Schultz property]

Eight votes are required to pass PDR deals. Both of these items on the council’s Sept. 4 agenda passed on an 8-1 vote, with dissent by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Lumm objected to the fact that there were no local partners in these deals. Webster Township has its own land preservation millage, but did not participate in the Alexander purchase. Superior Township does not have a dedicated millage for land preservation, but has an active volunteer group – the Superior Land Preservation Society.

Land Acquisition: Closed Session

There was no discussion of the council’s action at the open portion of GAC’s Sept. 6 meeting. Commissioners met in a brief closed session, then emerged and voted on a recommendation that will be forwarded to the city council.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of proposed greenbelt acquisitions are not made public, and parcels are identified only by their application number. For the Sept. 6 resolution, commissioners recommended that the city council partner with Washtenaw County and Webster Township, contributing 25.5% toward the purchase of a parcel identified as application number 2005-08. The first four numbers signify the year in which the application was made – this is one of the older applications that have been acted on this year.

Tom Bloomer abstained from the vote. He owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, and serves on the township’s farmland and open space board. He did not indicate his reason for abstaining.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously, with Tom Bloomer abstaining.

Present: Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Archer Christian, Dan Ezekiel, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Tom Bloomer, Carsten Hohnke, Laura Rubin.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 4, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

It's not the final design, but something like this will replace parking meters. Parkers will need to remember their space number so that they can enter it at the E-Park station where payment will be made.

On Wednesday morning, the Downtown Development Authority board operations committee got an update on the new parking payment kiosks which will soon begin replacing downtown Ann Arbor parking meters. The plan to install the devices, which will allow flexibility for payment and for rate-setting, has been reported in The Chronicle at least as long ago as last October.

The bases of the existing meters will remain in place, but they’ll be decapitated, with the coin receptacle to be replaced with a sign indicating a number for each parking space. The numbers are needed when parkers pay for their spaces.

On Wednesday, Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, said that the first of 25 units will be shipped on April 1 for deployment in the State Street and Liberty Street area. The 25 units represent an initial phase of assessment, with the idea that as many as 150-175 of these “smart meters” could eventually be installed.

In the first two paragraphs, we’ve described these parking meter replacements as: “kiosks,” “devices,” “units,” and “smart meters.”

But if Angela Pierro of Zero Gravity Designs is successful in the execution of her identity and branding strategy for the roll-out of these advanced parking payment appliances, Chronicle readers will be calling them “E-Park stations.”

Zero Gravity has been hired by the DDA to handle the promotion and public relations for the  E-Park stations. Pierro walked the operations committee through the considerations that led to the development of the name and logo. Descriptions  like “efficient,” “ease of use,” and “environmentally friendly,” and “innovative” (the E-Park stations are connected wirelessly) played a role in the naming. Important for the logo, Pierro said, was that it should reflect the wireless capability. The E-Park stations’ wireless connectivity not only allows payment with a credit card, but also allows parkers to add money to their payment via cell phone.

Asked by The Chronicle if this would make the feed-the-meter option used by some downtown workers even more attractive, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, pointed out that the two-hour limit will still be in place.

Angela Pierro of Zero Gravity Designs shows the DDA operations committee the logo for E-Park. The top version shows that it works without color. The colors in the bottom version are consistent with the colors in the wayfinding project the DDA is currenlty working on.

An additional benefit from the wireless capability of the E-Park stations is that payment can be made at any station, not just at  the closest one – which might be in the opposite direction of the parker’s destination.

That is, even if there’s an E-Park station 10 yards to the east of a parking space, if a parker is ultimately headed west, that would represent an extra 20 yards of walking, which could be a lot depending on a parker’s circumstances. No need to traverse that extra 20 yards. There’s also no need to return to the vehicle to put a ticket on the windshield. Ann Arbor’s E-Park stations are not a pay-and-display system.

The logo that Pierro showed the operations committee conveys the wireless aspect of the E-Park stations through concentric semi-circles emanating from the top of the “K” in E-Park.

Roger Hewitt, chair of the operations committee, suggested that the signs indicating the number of the spaces needed to clearly indicate that parkers needed to pay at an E-Park station. And alluding to a preceding intense discussion by the committee on the relationship between the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA (to be reported in a separate Chronicle article), board member John Splitt joked that the signs should say that all monies go directly to the city of Ann Arbor general fund.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, shows the operations committee the prototype of the signs that will replace the parking meters when E-Park is rolled out.

Splitt elicited some additional chuckles from his DDA board colleagues when he asked: “What will this [the "E" in E-Park] stand for if it doesn’t go well? Evil?” Board member Russ Collins, in the same spirit, mused, “Take your computer for a walk … to an E-Park.” But board member Leah Gunn, who had to leave a few minutes before the end of the meeting, said in parting: “I like E-Park!”

In response to Pierro’s description of using “ambassadors” (people who would be physically present when the E-Park stations first appear, looking to assist “dazed and confused” parkers and “creating buzz”), Collins seemed a little uncertain.  For the ambassadors, Collins said, he was seeing a sash and a hat, but buzz?? Pierro allowed that by “buzz” she meant positive PR. Part of that effort would include online social networking tools like a Facebook page and a blog, as well as more traditional materials like a brochure.

At the mention of brochures, Mark Lyons, general manager of Republic Parking, suggested that they could be handed to drivers by booth attendants at structures and lots. Lyons, newly arrived in town (two weeks), succeeds Tony Bisesi. Lyons is a native Floridian, but he’s lived in Saline, Mich. previously.