The council’s action approving the expanded area came at its April 7, 2014 meeting, after a public hearing, during which four property owners in the proposed BIZ area – including BIZ board chair Ed Shaffran – spoke in favor of the council allowing property owners to vote on the issue. Shaffran also fielded questions from councilmembers later in the meeting.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among the owners of more than 60 different parcels in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The total assessment generated by all properties for the first year of the 10-year assessment would be $273,870. To succeed, the vote needs a 60% majority in the combined new BIZ area.

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

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

A BIZ is a self-assessment district that can be established under Public Act 120 of 1961 by agreement of a sufficient number of property owners in the district – to generate sufficient funds to pay for additional services not provided by the city. If it’s established, the South University Area BIZ would be the second such district in downtown Ann Arbor. In 2010 such a district was established for a three-block stretch of Main Street, between William and Huron streets – to provide sidewalk snow clearing, litter pickup and poster removal. [See Chronicle coverage from 2009: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

The Ann Arbor DDA also provided a grant to assist with the formation of the Main Street BIZ, voting on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the BIZ. Those included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

At that time, DDA board members reflected on the fact that they did not necessarily want to be signaling – through their support of the Main Street BIZ – that the DDA would be inclined to support all other subsequent efforts to establish business improvement zones in other areas of the downtown. Partly to address that concern, the board asked that the Main Street BIZ produce a “blueprint” for the formation of a BIZ, which could be used by other groups to help navigate the lengthy required process.

At a May 29, 2013 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd and consultant Betsy Jackson pitched the grant to the committee. Jackson, president of The Urban Agenda Inc., told the committee that while the blueprint was a useful fill-in-the-blank document, it was important to have someone with sufficient expertise to fill in those blanks. Jackson was also the consultant hired for the Main Street BIZ.

At the DDA board’s July 3 meeting, board member Joan Lowenstein also described the considerable legwork that’s required for deciding on the method of assessment for any specific BIZ.

According to the DDA board resolution, South University property owners are contributing a total of $25,000 toward the start-up costs.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301 where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

DDA board members before their meeting began: Bob Guenzel (foreground); John Mouat (arms extended); Sandi Smith (partially obscured); Russ Collins (jacket and tie). Mouat was not demonstrating how a HAWK pedestrian signal flies. (Photos by the writer.)

But board members heard a series of reports, including a look at the financial picture from the first quarter of FY 2010. Fund balances are lower than they’ve been historically – something the board knew to anticipate with the construction of the new underground parking structure along Fifth Avenue. The report from the capital improvements committee indicated that the project is proceeding apace, with headway being made on solving a problem with de-watering the site. During public commentary, the board heard from proponents of putting a community commons on top of the underground parking garage once it’s completed.

At the meeting, the board indicated that they’d take an extended look at their 10-year budget projections at a board meeting in early 2011. Affecting the DDA’s 10-year plan are at least two major items: (1) the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage construction, and (2) ongoing negotiations with the city of Ann Arbor on the amount of “rent” to be paid by the DDA to the city as part of the parking contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system.

Other reports from the meeting with a potential effect on the DDA’s budget included an update on the City Apartments project planned by Village Green and located at First and Washington. The DDA is slated to purchase the parking deck component of the project on its completion – for $9 million. Included with the board’s packet were a series of proposed amendments to the parking agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, Village Green and the DDA. Village Green is scheduled to complete its purchase of the First and Washington parcel in May 2011.

Other potential impacts to the DDA’s budget included a report from the board’s partnerships committee that noted a request for grant funding from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, plus an additional grant funding request from the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County.

The report from the board’s transportation committee included discussion of enhanced service between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, as well as the possibility of adapting the #17 route to serve a partial circulator function for downtown. Also related to transportation, the board received a presentation from Pat Cawley, a city of Ann Arbor traffic engineer, on the installation of a new HAWK pedestrian crossing signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron.

The board also heard from representatives of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone on the delivery of a blueprint for creating other such zones in the downtown.

DDA Finances

The DDA’s financial state was a major theme of the meeting.

DDA Finances: First Quarter Fund Report

Roger Hewitt gave the report from the operations committee meeting. Highlights of that report included an end-of-first-quarter report on the status of the four funds that make up the DDA’s budget: TIF (tax increment financing), parking, parking maintenance, and housing. Hewitt noted that there is some fluctuation based on the payment of construction invoices and reimbursements from the city.

Hewitt pointed out that TIF fund revenues were slightly less than expected. After the first three months of the fiscal year – July through September 2010 – projections are now that $3,850,000 will result from the DDA’s capture of a portion of downtown property taxes. The DDA’s budget calls for $3,935,790 to be collected, or 2.23% more than currently projected. Hewitt noted that this was less than 3% variation. Capital expenses to be paid out of the TIF fund, Hewitt said, would include payments on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements and would at this point be estimated to come to a total of $2 million for the year – the budgeted amount was $2,020,753.

Based on first-quarter reports, parking revenues are now expected to total $14,635,108, or $378,818 less than budgeted. Hewitt noted that the difference between current projections and the budget amount – which is 2.59% – is still less than 3% variation. Hewitt attributed the shortfall to the fact that the budget was made based on an assumption that parking rate increases would be implemented starting July 1, but the increase had been delayed until Sept. 1.

In September 2010, the most recent month for which data is available, the increase in revenue – despite a decrease in hourly patrons at parking structures system-wide – was attributed to the parking rate increase. The number of hourly patrons was also down for the first quarter of the year, July-September 2010. [Hourly patrons are those who park in structures and pay by the hour, as opposed to purchasing a monthly permit.]

Joan Lowenstein asked if they would see an uptick in hourly patrons for holiday shopping. Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, indicated that yes, this is typically the case.

Russ Collins noted that for the first quarter, revenue had shrunk by 1/4 of 1% and hourly patrons had decreased 3%. He concluded that this reflected the fact that there is still demand in the system.

John Mouat was curious to know why the Maynard structure showed an increase in the number of hourly patrons, but a decrease in revenues. The explanation was that Maynard had been used for construction parking for the University of Michigan North Quad, with up to 100 construction workers a day parking there. Construction is now complete, said Hewitt, so it will take a while for people to get used to the increased availability of parking there.

DDA Finances: Village Green

The board received an update on the City Apartments project by Village Green, located at First and Washington. The DDA is slated to purchase the roughly 250-space parking deck component of the project on its completion – for $9 million. Included with the board’s packet were a series of proposed amendments to the parking agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, Village Green and the DDA.

At its Aug. 5 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council authorized an extension to the purchase option agreement with Village Green, and that authorization included a series of milestones, which is intended to result in the completion of Village Green’s purchase of the First and Washington parcel in May 2011. The milestones call for a parking agreement to be executed by the DDA by Nov. 21.

DDA staff have made a number of recommendations for amendments to the parking agreement with Village Green. At Wednesday’s meeting, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, noted that the amendments were intended to ensure that the parking deck would be completed with the specification that it have a 75-year life and that copies of all relevant environmental reports and certifications would be provided to the DDA.

John Splitt encouraged board members to have a look at the draft of the Village Green amendments, saying that he wanted to have as many eyes on it as possible.

DDA Finances: 10-Year Plan

The operations committee report wound up with a discussion of the DDA’s 10-year plan. Russ Collins noted that the document contains the financial projections for the next 10 years and is constantly revised. Roger Hewitt confirmed that it was revised regularly, and he indicated the revision schedule was every three months. Collins noted that the document was not some kind of narrative or mission statement, but rather deals with hard numbers.

The conversation from Collins and Hewitt noted that there would be three or four years in the near future with fund balances that are significantly lower than board members are accustomed to seeing. At the Jan. 5, 2011 board meeting, there will be an extended operations committee report, to walk through the 10-year plan. Joan Lowenstein asked that board members who might not be able to attend on that date – due to the holiday period – let her know so that the meeting could be rescheduled if necessary.

By way of background, the projected fund balances for the DDA were the subject of scrutiny by city of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford in early 2009, when bonds for the underground parking garage were authorized by the city council. His concerns had resulted in the downsizing of the project by 100 spaces – the extension of the underground excavation to William Street was eliminated. The benefit that proponents had claimed for the extension was the ability to create an underground connection from the parking structure to whatever development might be constructed on the Fifth and William street lot [aka the old Y lot] and to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center.

From The Chronicle’s coverage of the Feb. 17, 2009 city council meeting:

[Tom] Crawford reported that on looking at the DDA’s financial picture, he noticed that they don’t have a minimum reserve policy. He said he generally used 15-20% as a minimum reserve. In light of the need to maintain adequate reserves, he said that in his view the project is “not affordable with the plans they have.”

The proposed structure would occupy area under Fifth Avenue. But [Carsten] Hohnke expressed concern that the cost of an extension along Fifth Avenue southward past the southern edge of the library lot all the way to William Street (part of the current plans) didn’t offer commensurate value for the investment. He was concerned that the cost would constrain the DDA in making other needed investments. He said that while there’s no doubt more space is required, he thought that the roughly 770 spaces to be built exceeded what’s required.

Hohnke then proposed an amendment that would slightly reduce the scope of the project, by whittling around 100 spaces off the total through eliminating the Fifth Avenue extension all the way to William Street. Even the reduced number of spaces would represent roughly a 10% increase in the 5,000 spaces currently in the city’s off-street parking inventory, Hohnke said.

…

[Sabra] Briere continued her questions with Crawford.

Q: Would the DDA be able to build the underground parking garage and make bond payments if they didn’t raise parking fees?

Crawford didn’t mince words: “No.”

Q: Is the plan before us – even cut down by $6 million – within reach of currently available funding?

Even with the reduced size, said Crawford, it’s still really unaffordable, but it’s within reach for the DDA to explore other options. Asked by Briere as a followup to that, if the DDA would need to raise parking rates even further, replied Crawford: “That would be up to the DDA.”

In the current version of the DDA’s 10-year plan, the combined fund balances for the parking fund and the TIF fund are shown as negative for FY 2011-13. But combined fund balances for all four funds – including the parking maintenance fund balance and the housing fund balance – would be positive for the 10-year period.

Expressed as a percentage of operating expenses, here’s what can be calculated based on DDA projections:

      COMBINED      BALANCE AS
YEAR  FUND BALANCEs % of EXPENSES

2010 $10,621,218    56%
2011   5,274,003    27%
2012   2,667,637    13%
2013   1,692,514     8%
2014   3,052,667    15%
2015   4,402,736    21%
2016   7,065,031    33%
2017  10,482,627    47%
2018  14,172,518    65%
2019  17,764,457    79%
2020  22,757,279   103%

-
The current 10-year plan assumes a $2 million payment to the city each year – designated as a contingency. It also assumes that the funding of alternative transportation in the form of the getDowntown program’s go!pass would end after 2013 – that’s currently about a $500,000 annual program. The current 10-year plan also does not allow for continuation of the energy saving grant program or any housing grants after 2013.

DDA Finances: Mutually Beneficial Committee Report

The future of DDA finances will be impacted by current negotiations between the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA about the amount of rent the DDA should pay to the city for the use of the parking facilities that it manages for the city.

Roger Hewitt reported that the two mutually beneficial committees – from the DDA and the city council – had met twice in October. The two committees are renegotiating the contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. At this point, he said, they need some feedback from the city council as a group. A work session on the DDA’s proposal for a development process would be held at 6 p.m. before the regular city council meeting the following day, Hewitt said. On Nov. 15, there will be another working session of the council to focus on the parking agreement itself.

Based on The Chronicle’s observation of the October meetings of the mutually beneficial committees, among the central issues now under discussion are (1) whether the DDA should be able to set parking rates without a city council veto, and (2) how the amount paid by the DDA to the city might escalate – to what is now typically described in committee meetings as $3 million. The $3 million figure does not itself reflect an escalation, but rather the inclusion of the $2 million in “rent” plus the roughly $1 million that the DDA pays into the city’s street repair fund.

DDA Finance: Partnerships Grants – Energy Saving

The report out from the partnerships committee was given by Keith Orr, because the two co-chairs of the committee, Russ Collins and Sandi Smith, had been unable to attend their meeting. The report included a discussion of various grants.

The DDA administers a grant program to encourage downtown property owners to invest in energy saving improvements. It includes an audit that’s paid for by the DDA and generally costs $2,000-$5,000. The program also includes a 50% DDA match on implementing recommended improvements – with a maximum payout by the DDA of $20,000 for each building. The audit is Phase I and the implementation is Phase II.

Based on the materials in the board’s packet, the DDA has paid $298,818 since the start of the program in FY 2009. Including the DDA-paid portion, a total of $241,253 has been spent on installation of energy-saving measures.

Orr reported that to date, 71 audits had been approved. Applications are currently available for this year’s program.

DDA Finances: Partnerships Grants – Housing

Orr reported on two housing grants on which no decision had yet been reached. One is for additional money to be granted to the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. At its October meeting, the board had approved $218,050 for various capital investments, while holding in abeyance an additional $113,210 for solar panels. From The Chronicle’s report of the October DDA board meeting:

At the partnerships committee meeting, the consensus reached by members was that they should proceed with the recommendation for the $218,050 worth of improvements, while holding in abeyance the approval of more than $113,210 for installation of solar panels and for computer hardware at the shelter.

Committee members had concerns about the length of the payback period for the solar panels, which appeared to be much longer than the kind of payback on investments the DDA is familiar with in connection with its energy saving grant program.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Orr reiterated the concern that the committee had about approving the grant, noting that it was a projected 29.2-year payback period – relatively long.

Orr also reported that the Ann Arbor housing commission had approached the DDA with a request for a grant. The housing commission, said Orr, maintains 355 low-income housing units across 17 sites in the city. The grant would specifically target Baker Commons, Orr said, which is a building located at the intersection of Packard and Main. The grant would be for a 50% match on $500,000, Orr said, and would be used for window replacement, hallway carpet, and parking lot resurfacing. The committee had not reached a decision about whether to recommend making the grant, Orr reported.

DDA Finances: Partnerships Grants – Solar

The Michigan Theater had made a request for $35,000 to help support a solar demonstration project that would be mounted on the side of the theater. Orr reported that no decision had been made on that proposal. [In August, the city's historic district commission had approved the installation plan: "More Solar Energy Projects In the Works"]

Library Lot

The city-owned parcel known as the Library Lot is the location of an ongoing construction project by the DDA – an underground parking structure that will provide parking for 660 cars.

From the top of the Fourth and William parking deck, this is the view to the east, of the east leg of the underground garage as the first floor of the deck is getting poured.

Library Lot: Construction Update

Reporting out from the capital improvements committee, John Splitt said that 300 yards of concrete had recently been poured for the first floor of the east leg deck. With respect to the de-watering problems that he had noted at the previous month’s meeting, Splitt said the water level is now dropping. This had allowed the foundation to be built for the tower crane next to the library. Once the tower crane is built, he said, the pace of the construction would pick up.

Mass excavation is 96% complete, Splitt reported. So far 240,000 cubic yards have been “excavated and removed.” When he stumbled over the word “excavated,” Splitt’s board colleagues kidded him, saying he should just say, “dug up.”

Library Lot: RFP Review Committee

John Splitt reported that the RFP (request for proposals) review committee had not met since the last board meeting. The committee has not met since the spring.

Library Lot: Commons

Two people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of the development of the top of the underground parking garage. Introducing himself by saying, “Hello folks, I think you’ve seen me before!” was Alan Haber. He indicated that he continued to talk to the community about the idea of a community commons on top of the underground parking structure. He was there, he said, to show them some drawings and sketches, made by Stephan Trendov, an architect and urban designer who also addressed the board. Haber stressed the economic benefits of a commons. He said the proposal was to maximize people space and subordinate automobile space.

Trendov described himself as a “conceptualist.” The evolution of a city, he said, is based on water. He said that as he’s lived in Ann Arbor and walked the streets with people like Shakey Jake, he’s noticed that there is a “hardness.” It’s not the kind of city we want, he said. The concept for the top of the underground structure that he had sketched, he told the board, doesn’t interfere with the light wells that are meant to help illuminate the lower floors of the underground garage. His design also does not interfere with access to the underground levels or with future development of the site.

At public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Trendov picked up on the theme of pedestrian amenities that Ray Detter raised in his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council and their concerns about the alley connecting Liberty and Washington streets. Trendov warned that the University of Michigan had its eye on some of Ann Arbor streets – Monroe Street – and that it’s important not to let “the octopus” spread out further.

Transportation

Streets and transportation were another main theme of the board meeting.

Transportation: Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Cut-Through

Ray Detter gave his usual report from the city’s downtown citizens advisory council. They’d received an update on transit issues, he said, from the DDA’s executive director, Susan Pollay, as well as an update from the panhandling task force. They’d also received an update on the status of Courthouse Square, which he described as “not very promising.”

Detter also described how Steve Kaplan had addressed the issue of the alley between Liberty and Washington streets. [The alley has long been the focus of concern – it's part of the public-private partnership connected with the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure. A year ago, the alley was discussed at a Sunday night caucus: "Council and Caucus: A Pedestrian Agenda"]

This was the issue that Trendov had alluded to during his closing public commentary. The current condition of the alley, with the smell of dumpsters placed close to it, was not conducive to use by pedestrians as a mid-block cut-through, Detter said. He stressed the need for all parties to carefully plan the future of the alley, and weighed in against a “helter-skelter” approach where only the developer of  the hamburger joint on the corner played a role.

Transportation: Buses, Bikes

John Mouat reported out from the transportation committee that they’d discussed service improvements between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with Chris White, manger of service development with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The idea is to enhance service for those riders who work in Ann Arbor, but live in Ypsilanti. Route #4, he said, offered some interesting possibilities, including the idea of serving Blake Transit Center first, then the University of Michigan hospitals, instead of first serving UM, then BTC, which is how the current service operates.

Mouat discussed the idea of looping other funding partners, besides the DDA, into the mix by offering challenge grants.

The DDA’s transportation committee has in recent months also discussed the idea of resuscitating The LINK, which was a downtown circulator service jointly funded by the AATA, the DDA, and the University of Michigan. Riders did not pay a fare on boarding the buses. Mouat reported that White had discussed a possibility of altering Route #17 to increase circulation to the downtown area. Route #17 currently runs a loop up Division to the Amtrak station and back up Fifth Avenue.

Mouat also reported that a rental bike company would be offering a demonstration to the committee in late November. Quipped Russ Collins: “Will the bikes have snow tires?”

Mayor John Hieftje remarked that he felt even right-of-center voters were beginning to recognize the importance of transit and that there is a growing recognition that transit is something that southeast Michigan needs.

Transportation: HAWK Traffic Signal

What drivers and pedestrians will see when a HAWK signal is activated. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution images.)

Pat Cawley, traffic engineer with the city of Ann Arbor, appeared before the board to alert them to the installation of a high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron. He described how for the last year or more the city had worked with the Michigan Department of Transportation on the project. It’s considered a pilot project, the first to be installed in Michigan on a state trunk line. He stressed the need for pedestrians and motorists to know what to expect.

When not activated, he explained, motorists would see three black balls – two on top and one on the bottom. When a pedestrian presses a button to activate the signal, he said, there is some lag time for the signal to coordinate with other traffic signals. Then motorists see a flashing yellow, followed by a solid yellow, which is then followed by a twin-red solid stop beacon. Pedestrians get a seven-second white walking signal. That’s followed by flashing red for motorists and a 30-second countdown for pedestrians.

Cawley indicated that the underground construction is done. It’s hoped that the ribbon cutting can take place on Nov. 17, he said.

Asked after the presentation by The Chronicle if there was any potential for people to create mischief by simply standing and pressing the button, causing traffic to stop as a perverse entertainment, Cawley suggested that the delay – after the button press and before coordination with other traffic signals – and the length of the entire cycle would make that kind of mischief unattractive.

Reorganization of DDA Committees

Board chair Joan Lowenstein had indicated the possibility of a committee reorganization at the board’s October meeting. At Wednesday’s meeting, the board considered a resolution to reorganize its committees. The previous committee structure included committees for operations, capital improvements, partnerships and transportation. The new structure merges operations and capital improvements and creates an additional committee with responsibility for economic development and communications issues.

The resulting structure would be:

• merged operations/capital improvements committee: review financial statements; formulate budget; oversee parking operations; oversee parking agreement with the city; oversee construction.
• transportation committee: review getDowntown projects; personal transportation issues (bicycle parking, scooter parking, walkability); mass transit projects (coordination with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority).
• partnerships committee: oversee DDA projects involving other entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan; housing fund expenditures; energy saving grant program; coordination with city council and the city’s planning commission.
• economic development/communications: background research for downtown redevelopment; inventory of city-owned sites; hiring of real estate experts and other consultants; facilitate process for development (public process and with the city council); assemble information on downtown’s assets for inclusion in promotional efforts of Ann Arbor SPARK, the regional economic development agency.

Asked by Keith Orr when the new committee structure would be implemented, Lowenstein indicated that it would begin right away. Several board members expressed uncertainty about scheduling and their ability to attend a December meeting of the new committee. DDA executive director Susan Pollay suggested that things would “sort themselves out” and that board members with an interest in attending would make that known, and that the meeting time would eventually accommodate the schedules of those who wanted to attend.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a reorganization of its committees to include an economic development and communications committee.

Main Street BIZ Blueprint

Ed Shaffran and Betsy Jackson appeared before the board on behalf of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The DDA had provided start-up support to the MSBIZ initiative – a self-assessment district, which property owners along Main Street, between William and Huron, had voted to approve earlier this year.

Betsy Jackson and Ed Shaffran, who addressed the board on behalf of the Main Street BIZ, relax before the DDA meeting started.

The goal of the district is to provide a high level of services, such as sidewalk cleaning and snow removal. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of the formative stages of the MSBIZ includes "Work Session: Trains, Trash and Taxes," "Business District, Bicycle Parking Get OK" and "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

The DDA’s support of the MSBIZ – in the form of a $75,000 grant with a 10% contingency – had come with the expectation that a blueprint or template would be provided by the MSBIZ that could be used for the creation of other such districts in the downtown, or to expand the MSBIZ itself. From The Chronicle’s coverage of the DDA board’s April 1, 2009 meeting:

What about other downtown areas that might want to form a BIZ? In board discussion of the proposal, Sandi Smith had explained that out of the current proposal the DDA would get a template for creating other areas. In our phone conversation, [Ed] Shaffran suggested that another possibility was that other areas could be added to the Main Street BIZ. [The areas must be contiguous, according to the enabling legislation.] He said that the initial concept was to include the entire DDA district, but that they’d opted to start small and possibly expand.

At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, Shaffran led off by briefly thanking the DDA for their support. He told them that the provision of services had now begun – from 5:30-6 a.m., sidewalks were getting cleaned. He reported that there was already a noticeable difference in the MSBIZ area as compared to the rest of the downtown. He indicated that they were coordinating with the city of Ann Arbor on snow removal and developing procedures for dealing with snowfalls of varying amounts.

Betsy Jackson gave a more detailed presentation on the MSBIZ strategy for providing a blueprint. The goals of the blueprint, she said, included: (1) creating an archive for the first BIZ, (2) providing details of the process for forming a BIZ, and (3) reducing grant requests to the DDA for the formation of future districts.

DDA board chair Joan Lowenstein reiterated that the DDA’s intention in providing support to the MSBIZ was not simply to provide seed money for one BIZ, but rather to help develop a template for the creation of other districts.

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

Absent: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 1, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) explains the work of the RFP review committee for the Library Lot proposals, as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) listens. (Photos by the writer.)

At the same time, the council’s representatives to the RFP committee – Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – told their colleagues that they would bring to the committee the suggestion of re-including two already-eliminated proposals.

That idea will be floated to the committee when it next meets, on Friday, Jan. 8 at 9 a.m.

In other business, councilmembers grilled the city’s transportation program coordinator about revisions to the city’s bicycle and pedestrian ordinances to align with the Michigan Vehicle Code. Despite that, council sent the revisions on to the next step towards final approval.

The council also authorized a vote to be held among property owners to establish a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street between William and Huron streets. That’s the next step in a multi-step process for establishing the BIZ, which allows property owners to levy an additional tax on themselves to use for specific services.

The council also heard a presentation on the city’s snow removal policy from Craig Hupy, who’s head of systems planning for the city. Councilmembers heard little enthusiasm from city administrator, Roger Fraser, for any deer removal program for Ann Arbor.

Fraser also announced that the city’s community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, would be leaving her city post to head up the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, which oversees regional metroparks, sometime in the next month.

Resolution on Library Lot Proposals

At the city council caucus the previous evening, conversation focused almost exclusively on the request for proposals (RFP) process for the city-owned property known as the Library Lot. The focus was on the possibility of gathering additional information from proposers whose projects had been eliminated from consideration.

Two proposals meeting the deadline for submission, but subsequently eliminated by the RFP review committee, both envision the top of the underground parking garage under the Library Lot to be predominantly open space.

Two other proposals did not meet the deadline for submission and are not being considered. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Library Lot: Choice Between Apples and Pears?" and "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"]

The resolution considered by the council on Monday read in its original form as follows:

Whereas, The RFP advisory committee is charged with making a recommendation to the entire City Council about the proposals submitted in response to the RFP involving the “Library Lot”;

Whereas, The City Council has the right to accept any proposal or reject all proposals; and

Whereas, The City Council should therefore have equivalent information about all six proposals;

RESOLVED, That City Council requests that any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee submit all relevant financial information about their projects to the City Council at their earliest convenience; and

RESOLVED, That any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee be prepared to respond to questions from the City Council in advance of City Council’s consideration of any recommendation the RFP advisory committee may make.

Near the start of the council’s Monday meeting, during the communications section, mayor John Hieftje said he’d spoken with Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serve on the RFP review committee.  He reported that they were not averse to the idea of leaving the two previously eliminated proposals in the mix for the 90-minute interviews of each proposer, to be held on Jan. 20. Hieftje said that Teall and Rapundalo would be bringing that idea to the RFP committee when it meets on Friday, Jan. 8.

Public Commentary on Library Lot Resolution

Four people signed up to speak about Library Lot proposals during time reserved for public commentary at the start of the meeting.

Lily Au criticized the idea of building a hotel on the lot when there was no daytime warming center for the homeless. She noted that the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, located next to the Library Lot, was a de facto warming center. Au cited cases of three homeless men who had been arrested on charges of trespassing, when they were simply looking for a place to sleep. [One of the men, Caleb Poirier, had his case dropped by the prosecution on the day following the council's meeting.]

Libby Hunter rendered her commentary in the form of a song with a melody from Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” and lyrics that compared a conference center at the Library Lot location to a “white elephant.”

Jack Eaton, who had attended the previous night’s caucus, encouraged more council members to avail themselves of the opportunity of caucus. [None of the councilmembers up for re-election in November, except for Mayor Hieftje, are regular attendees of the Sunday caucus, which the city's website bills as "meetings of the mayor and members of council to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration."] Eaton said that in light of the mayor’s remarks about Rapundalo and Teall bringing the idea to the RFP committee of re-including the two open space proposals, he’d be abbreviating his comments. He stressed the importance of the parcel to the whole community and the need for a full sense of public participation in the process.

Alan Haber waits his turn to speak at public commentary. Kudos to readers who can identify both blurry city staffers in the background.

Alan Haber greeted the council by saying, “Hello, again!” He’s spoken frequently on the topic and has sent councilmembers many emails. He allowed that the open space proposal he’d helped to draft and submit as a part of the RFP process [one of the proposals that has been eliminated] was “a little informal,” but that it sought to answer the question: “How can the creativity of the community be brought to bear on that space? “That’s the place for the heart of the community to begin beating,” he suggested. There were other places where  high density and affordable housing could be put, he said.

Council Deliberations on Library Lot Resolution

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’d sponsored the resolution, led off by saying she was “very cheered” by the mayor’s remarks earlier in the meeting. The mayor had indicated the willingness of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) to float to the RFP committee – on which they  serve – the idea of re-including the open space proposals in the interview process.

However, Briere said she was not certain that it met the council’s needs. It wasn’t about whether there was a public hearing, or whether a particular proposal was included at a point in the process, she explained. It was about the council having complete information – in the event that the council chose to consider some other proposal than the one eventually recommended by the RFP review committee. The resolution, she said, would provide all councilmembers with an equal amount of information about all the proposals.

In subsequent deliberations, Teall questioned what options the council had in considering the RFP committee’s recommendation. She suggested that the council could only vote the recommendation up or down, and then perhaps start a new RFP process. Briere cited the mayor’s statement at the Dec. 20 caucus that the council could bring back any proposal it wanted, which Hieftje confirmed by saying that a six-vote majority of councilmembers could resolve to undertake what it liked with the various proposals. [Chronicle coverage: "Mayor: 'Council can bring back any proposal it wants.'"]

Rapundalo, who’s chairing the RFP review committee, said he would not be supporting the resolution, though he was quite willing to take the suggestion to the committee of including the two open space proposals in the interview process. The work of the committee thus far, he said, was a straightforward application of best practices as they related to RFP reviews. If the committee had failed anywhere, he said, then it was only in not articulating clearly what the steps were that it had taken.

Among the steps that Rapundalo drew out was the fact that two proposals had been eliminated even before they’d reached the committee – because they failed to meet the deadline. He also pointed out that additional questions had been formulated for each of the proposers, including the two open space proposals, asking for additional clarity on particular elements. The formulation of those questions had taken place, Rapundalo said, in advance of any decision to eliminate the proposals from further consideration.

Later in deliberations, Briere would note that “a question unasked remains unanswered.”

Rapundalo questioned whether it was fair to give certain proposals a “second chance,” saying that it reminded him of how human services money was formerly allocated – when those who did not receive an allocation would come “tugging on a councilmember’s sleeve.” [Rapundalo oversaw a revamping of that process that led to an objective scoring metric to guide those allocations.]

Responding to Briere’s call for “equal” information, Rapundalo said that the equalizer was the RFP itself in the information that it requested.

Saying that there had been no predetermination by the committee of what proposal would be selected, Rapundalo allowed that there was something that had been predetermined: that something would be built and that it would not be only open space on the area. On two different occasions, he said, the council had made clear for the record that something would be built.

By way of historical background, one of those occasions was the resolution the council passed on Nov. 5, 2007. That resolution directed the Downtown Development Authority, which is building the underground parking structure, to prepare a written recommendation for its construction at the Library Lot. From the set of “Resolved” clauses:

The underground parking garage shall be designed to support above ground, in the short-term, surface public parking, and in the long-term, development which could include, but is not limited to, a residential, retail, and/or office building(s) and a public plaza along either Fifth Street or the newly constructed street;

The same language was part of the resolution approved four months later, on Feb. 4, 2008, that authorized the DDA to design and construct the parking garage. It was a somewhat different membership of the council then, but there is much overlap. At that time, the council consisted of [those currently serving in bold]: Ronald Suarez, Sabra Briere,  Joan Lowenstein, Stephen Rapundalo,  Stephen Kunselman, Leigh Greden,  Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins,  Christopher Easthope, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje. [Who served when? Try ArborWiki.]

During Monday night’s deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) suggested that if the commitment to build something had been constraining, then it would have been built into the RFP itself. While he said he was glad to see that by casting as wide a net as possible, they’d elicited some exciting proposals, for him, it boiled down to process. And he did not want to make the playing field unlevel, he said, thus he did not support Briere’s resolution.

Teall echoed Rapundalo’s sentiments, saying there was both a need to maintain a sense of objectiveness for the RFP process, plus a need to be efficient with time and resources from the DDA. [The Downtown Development Authority will likely authorize funding for a consultant to help evaluate the proposals at its next meeting, on Wednesday, Jan. 6.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested an amendment to the second “Resolved” clause to make it mirror the first one, which was accepted as “friendly,” thus did not require a vote. Taylor said that he was sensitive to the work done by the committee, and said that the fact that the committee found two of the proposals “wanting” was an important data point. He said the resolution would not override the committee’s work.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she could not support the resolution but appreciated the desire to consider the eliminated proposals – the council had the prerogative, she noted, to do so. She said, however, that the resolution was now premature. She then ticked through the public processes that had included planning for the Library Lot: the Central Area Plan, the Calthorpe process, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan, and the Downtown Plan. “We’ve asked and answered this question,” she said. The conclusion had been, Smith continued, that the lot has to have adequate-sized open space, but that it also had to have buildings on it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) remarked that his opposition to public-private development, which most of the proposals entailed, was well known. As for the resolution, he said, “It’s just information. We don’t need to be fearful of it.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), possibly responding to Smith’s contention that there’d already been public process surrounding the Library Lot, asked when it was that community members had brought forward their ideas – he hadn’t been there, he said. [By this he meant it hadn't happened, not that he was absent.] Anglin stressed that the community owned the property and that citizens needed to be involved in the process.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) focused on the question of process, noting that the RFP review committee included two of the council’s own members, and that changing the process after proposals had been prepared in good faith sent the wrong message.

Mayor John Hieftje essentially echoed the sentiments of Rapundalo in concluding that the information mentioned in Briere’s resolution had been requested in the RFP. Hieftje said he did not see what the resolution did to evolve the council’s understanding of the proposals.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ended deliberations when she called the question [a procedural move to end debate], but not before delivering a lambasting of the proposed resolution. “There are members of council who don’t trust the committee to do its work,” she said. Instead of the resolution the council was considering, Higgins declared, the council should just call it what it was and consider a resolution to disband the committee.

Outcome: The resolution failed to pass, winning support only from Briere, Taylor, Kunselman, and Anglin.

Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Before the council were two resolutions affecting bicyclists and pedestrians. One of them revised city ordinances on bicyclists and pedestrian behavior, while the other revised the bicycle registration fee. This was the first reading of the ordinances, which means that they’ll need to come back to council for final approval.

Public Commentary on Non-Motorized Issues

At the time allotted for public commentary at the end of the meeting, two people spoke on issues related to bicycles and pedestrians. And one of those made comments related, tangentially, to a third public speaker, who’d addressed the council during reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Kathy Griswold told the council that her New Year’s resolution was to speak at every council meeting and to use the full three minutes allotted – that was less time than it took for traffic to clear at the mid-block crossing near King Elementary School, she said. Griswold has spoken at multiple meetings through the fall and early winter on the need to move that crosswalk to the intersection from its current mid-block location. Griswold pointed councilmembers to a website she’d set up – SeeKids.org. The site provides information on steps the city could take to improve Ann Arbor’s current rating by the League of American Bicyclists to the platinum level achieved by Boulder, Portland, and Davis.

Kathy Griswold’s draft of notes for her public speaking turn at the end of the meeting.

Portland and Boulder has also been mentioned by John Floyd during his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting. Floyd thanked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) for clarifying at the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting that Hohnke saw Seattle, Portland and Boulder as models for Ann Arbor to emulate. Floyd then asked Hohnke if he thought that Ann Arbor should change to resemble Seattle and Portland by increasing its population to upwards of half a million people.

During her turn at public comment, Vivienne Armentrout related to the council her experience as a bicycle commuter in Madison, Wisc., where the bicycle registration served as a possible mechanism for enforcement. In Madison, she said, registration included issuance of a small metal license plate, which could be used to help identify a cyclist who’d committed an infraction like sideswiping a pedestrian on a sidewalk.

Armentrout’s comments came partly in response to some pointed questioning from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) of city staff about a perceived failure by the city to educate bicyclists about their responsibilities and the enforcement of laws concerning them.

Council Deliberations on Non-Motorized Issues

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led things off by asking the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to summarize what the council was being asked to consider. Cooper noted that the repeal of multiple city ordinances regulating bicyclist behavior reflected updates to the Michigan Vehicle Code, and was essentially an administrative revision.

Front to back, Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The revision to the pedestrian ordinance extended pedestrian rights from crosswalks at intersections with traffic signals to those without traffic signals, Cooper said.

Hohnke would observe later in deliberations that the city still had work to do on the issue of pedestrian rights – which currently begin only on entering a crosswalk, as opposed to approaching a crosswalk.

The problem had been well-documented, mayor John Hieftje would later add, in a video produced by an Ann Arbor resident [Matt Grocoff's YouTube Video: "Pedestrian Crossings in Ann Arbor"] Hieftje also described plans to begin enforcement of pedestrian rights, but stressed that it was important to lead up to that with adequate education and conversation with the magistrates who’d be asked to uphold the citations.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d like to see an educational outline. She hoped that Ann Arbor could eventually get to the same point as other cities she’d visited where cars stop as soon as pedestrians even think about crossing the street.

The new bicycle registration policy, Cooper explained, would replace an $8 lifetime registration with a $3 fee good for five years, plus one complimentary five-year extension.

Hohnke elicited from Cooper the clarification that bicycles are not “classified as vehicles” under the Michigan Vehicle Code but rather in places are “treated as vehicles.” That explained, Hohnke said, why the wording of the city’s proposed ordinance revision on bicycle lanes made sense: “A person shall not operate a vehicle on or across a bicycle path or a bicycle lane, …”  That is, bicycles are not prohibited on bicycle paths.

The typical pattern for each bicycling ordinance proposed for repeal is that there’s a corresponding section in the Michigan Vehicle Code. An example of such a pair, on brakes:

[City] 10:172. Brakes.
Every bicycle shall be equipped with at least 1 effective brake.
(Ord. No. 46-61, 8-14-61; Ord. No. 26-74, 8-19-74)

[State] 257.662 Bicycles or electric personal assistive mobility device; equipment; violation as civil infraction.
(2) A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

Not included in the council’s meeting packet were the contents of the city’s ordinances and the corresponding Michigan Vehicle Code equivalents. [The Chronicle's set of the respective city-state pairings is available as a text file: statecitybicycle.txt.]

The lack of specificity about the material effect of the proposed ordinance repeals and revisions left some councilmembers wondering what was being proposed.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) led off with an expression of frustration by noting that the set of ordinances were described in the packet as addressing bicycles riding on the sidewalk, but asked: “Where is it?” Cooper summarized the content of the Michigan Vehicle Code requirement by saying that it essentially establishes that “bicycles are guests on sidewalks.” By way of background, the specific language of the MVC reads:

[State] 257.660c Operation of bicycle upon sidewalk or pedestrian crosswalk.

(1) An individual operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
(2) An individual shall not operate a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk if that operation is prohibited by an official traffic control device.
(3) An individual lawfully operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk has all of the rights and responsibilities applicable to a pedestrian using that sidewalk or crosswalk.

Teall told Cooper she still had concerns about bicycles on sidewalks and complained about almost being run over on occasion. Cooper allowed that if she’d almost been run over by a bicyclist, then that fell outside of proper use of a bicycle per the code. Teall replied that by then, it was too late.

Cooper then described some efforts the city would be undertaking, using federal stimulus money, to educate the public on such issues. The implementation would include signage addressed to bicyclists to yield to pedestrians and to walk their bicycles on sidewalks.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) allowed that he was also confused about what was being proposed. “Do I need a brake on my bicycle?” he asked.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then weighed in, criticizing the fact that the information explaining what was being proposed was not in the council’s packet but rather in another document – the Michigan Vehicle Code. She then cited her own experience watching bicyclists weave in and out of cars, then shoot across intersections against the light. She concluded that there was an “educational disconnect.”

Higgins then launched a criticism of a lack of clarity on plans for educating cyclists about their responsibilities, saying she wanted to know how the money was being spent.

Hohnke would later point out that Cooper had previously presented the council with an outline of the educational plan, suggesting that Higgins had perhaps not attended the meeting when that occurred. Higgins rejected Hohnke’s suggestion that she had not attended, saying, “I was there!”

She then complained that the educational efforts always focused on the drivers of cars and that the approach should include everyone. She contended that by now, we should be seeing some kind of shift in behavior. But since they weren’t seeing a shift, she contended, the needed to address the disconnect.

Cooper offered that part of the challenge was the “enormity of the problem.”He then began to describe a program of collaboration with the Washtenaw County Public Heath department, but was cut off by Higgins, who declared, “I’m less interested in the county. What are we doing in the city?”

By way of background, if Hohnke meant to reference two meetings of the council in June 2009 when Cooper described the specifics of the educational program, Higgins is correct in saying that she was there. However, those presentations did address – at least in part – the concerns she was raising. From The Chronicle account of the June 1, 2009 meeting:

During the introductions section, Eli Cooper, transportation program manager with the city of Ann Arbor, gave a presentation announcing the launch of a transportation safety campaign. It’s based on the premise that whether we walk, bicycle, ride the bus, or drive, we are all human beings who are entitled to a safe and attractive journey.

From The Chronicle account of the June 15, 2009 meeting:

The campaign itself, which has already been developed, will include brochures, radio spots, and video spots. Higgins noted that there had been an ongoing discussion about how to accomplish the educational component. She noted that deputy chief of police Greg O’Dell had previously worked with bicycling groups on the topic. She wanted to know if the city had ever heard back about how that worked. Hieftje noted that the previous effort had never actually been funded. He cited the statistic that at any given time, the majority of people on the road in Ann Arbor don’t actually live here. So the outreach campaign had a certain challenge in reaching the population. Signage would be key, he said. Higgins stressed that she felt it was important that education be provided for cyclists about their responsibility for using the road.

Hohnke asked Cooper to explain how the various constituencies would be engaged through the campaign. Cooper cited the slogans themselves as reflective of targeting all users of the roadway, not just motorists: “Share the road” and “Same road same rules.” He described the brochure that had been developed as a tri-fold that when opened displayed a motorist on the left and a cyclist on the right.

In reviewing the Michigan Vehicle Code as background for this report, The Chronicle noticed a section that’s tangentially relevant to a possible city ordinance on cell phone use while driving. At the council’s  Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) mentioned  a resolution he and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had asked the city attorney’s office to develop, prohibiting cell phone usage while driving. At the time there was some speculation about whether the new ordinance would apply to bicycles.

There is already a section of the MVC that would seem to preclude cell phone use while bicycling:

257.661 Carrying package, bundle, or article on bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, or motorcycle.

A person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, or motorcycle shall not carry any package, bundle, or article that prevents the driver from keeping both hands upon the handlebars of the vehicle.

Outcome: Both resolutions on bicycle- and pedestrian-related ordinances were approved on first reading.

Business Improvement Zone (BIZ)

Before the city council was a resolution authorizing the city clerk to hold an election among the property owners between William and Huron streets on Main Street to determine if they wanted to establish a business improve zone (BIZ). A BIZ is a mechanism for property owners to levy an additional tax on themselves in order to pay for services that would otherwise not be provided.

During the public hearing on the resolution, two people spoke.

Thomas Partridge said that he hoped such an effort would be coordinated with all other areas needing improvements throughout the city and county.

Lou Glorie said she’d heard that the revenue would be used to employ greeters, Wal-Mart style, and wondered if Ann Arbor citizens could be issued badges identifying them as residents so that they wouldn’t be pestered by the greeters. [No such greeters are identified as a part of the BIZ plan. Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

Glorie asked why Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority funds were not being used for the services that the BIZ was proposed to provide. She said that downtown merchants were already stressed enough, and hoped that the cost of the additional tax levy would not be passed along to merchants.

Outcome: The BIZ was approved unanimously without discussion by council.

Snow Removal

One of the primary services to be offered by the BIZ is snow removal – on downtown sidewalks, which is above and beyond what the city provides. The city council had scheduled a presentation from city staff on snow removal citywide at the start of its Monday meeting, during the introductions section.

Face in the sand. Sand/salt mixture at 721 N. Main maintenance yard, cited by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as a useful resource for residents to maintain their driveways and sidewalks in winter.

The snow removal presentation was handled by Craig Hupy, head of systems planning, and Sue McCormick, public services area administrator.

The presentation generated many questions from the council, some of which are answered in the complete slide presentation, which is available online [Snow Removal Presentation 3 MB .pdf].

Hupy presented a subset of those slides to the council.

We eschew a comprehensive summary in favor of some key points that emerged:

• Safe travel at a reasonable speed, not bare pavement, is the goal.
• 4 inches of snowfall is the threshold for a straight time versus overtime approach.
• Salt is spread only on designated routes; residential streets are sanded only on hills, corners and icy intersections.
• Residents are required to clear sidewalks adjacent to their property. [City of Ann Arbor Sidewalk snow removal regulations]
• It’s illegal for private parties to plow or blow snow into the street.
• Permeable pavement, such as will be installed on Sylvan Avenue, requires less winter maintenance due to thermal gain – water soaks through instead of remaining on the surface and refreezing.

Communications from Council/Administrator

During the agenda slots for communications from councilmembers and the administrator, a few different topics received brief discussion.

Ann Arbor’s Deer Herd

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked city administrator Roger Fraser about an increase in “deer-car interactions.” Fraser indicated that Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had also inquired and that in each of the last two years there had been more than 30 such interactions.

Derezinski reported that he’d looked a bit into the issue and that the nearby village of Barton Hills had some experience through the Department of Natural Resources of culling the herd, but had not done so in the last two years due to complaints about the sound of gunshots.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d inquired with the Humane Society and that birth control for deer had not yet been perfected. She suspected that would be the only effective solution.

This is not the first time deer have come up for discussion in the last year or so. From The Chronicle’s Nov. 30, 2008 caucus report:

Derezinski raised the issue of deer and the possible need to cull the herd. Higgins expressed some skepticism that they were actually a problem, asking if anyone had heard of someone hitting a deer in the city. She said she thought people basically enjoyed looking at them. She said she was not in favor of killing them. Briere said she didn’t want to kill them, either. Derezinski said he wasn’t necessarily in favor of killing them, but thought there were other options like tranquilizing them and relocating them.

Fraser put the problem in perspective for the council. He suggested that while 30 incidents might seem like a lot, in the community where he worked just prior to coming to Ann Arbor – a similar-sized community geographically to Ann Arbor – they had 150 incidents a year. He expressed little enthusiasm for implementing a program to cull the deer herd.

Parking in Parks

Ward 4 representatives Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins indicated that they would be opposing any attempt to allow football Saturday parking in Allmendinger and Frisinger parks. [Chronicle coverage "Parking in the Parks, Art on the River"] That came in response to remarks made during public commentary reserved time by Charlie Cavell, who’s a college student home on winter break.

Cavell lives directly across from Allmendinger Park, he said, and provided evidence of the opposition by neighbors to the idea of football Saturday parking in the park with 160 signatures on a petition. He described how parents of children and other members of the community used the park on football Saturdays and suggested that the estimated additional $30,000 in revenue was not worth it, despite the tough budget times.

City Administrator Announcements

Roger Fraser announced that the city’s community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, would be leaving her city post to head up the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority sometime in the next month.

Fraser told the council that their work session next Monday, Jan. 11, would focus on a briefing on how the city’s Housing Authority would be revamping its business operations.

On Tuesday, Jan. 12, he said, city offices would be closed starting at 9:30 a.m. due to a meeting for all city staff from 10 a.m. to noon at the Michigan Theater. The meeting will focus on the budget.

The layoff of 14 firefighters, which was to have been effective on Jan. 4, Fraser said, had been postponed, with the negotiated agreement with the union to be put to a vote next week. If approved, Fraser said, the council would be asked to approve the arrangement at its next meeting, on Jan. 19. [Note that this is a Tuesday, not the usual Monday meeting day, because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.]

Other Public Commentary

Nine speakers signed up in advance to speak during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Besides those whose remarks are already reflected in other sections of this report, the following people addressed the council.

James D’Amour: D’Amour introduced himself as a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. He expressed opposition to the council’s greenlighting of the Fuller Road Station project, saying that the city land on which the parking structure was to be built was designated as parkland, though it had been used as a parking lot for many years. The arrangement between the city and the University of Michigan, he said, would amount to a permanent lease, which was essentially a sale of the parkland – which required a vote of the people. He also characterized the project as inconsistent with environmental goals, noting that only 200 of the parking spaces had been allocated to a possible train station. [Chronicle coverage of the Fuller Station project: "Trains, Trash and Taxes"]

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz described how he’d been walking with a woman down Ann Street towards Fourth Avenue on Nov. 21, 2009 when they’d been assaulted by a noise so loud that it had caused the woman to grab his arm. It had caused parents to try to reassure their children that things were okay, but the children had been inconsolable. The loud noise, he explained, had come from Michigan National Guard jets that had buzzed Michigan Stadium on the day of the UM-Ohio State football game. He reminded councilmembers that the children of Palestine experience that kind of noise on a daily basis, and that it was causing a psychological crisis in Gaza. That terror, he concluded, continued to be funded by American citizens.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat who was a potential candidate this election year. He called upon other potential candidates and elected officials to put forward a democratic, progressive agenda to advance the causes of human rights, education, housing and transportation. He noted that while the council had heard a presentation on snow removal, there were people in the Ann Arbor area who did not have a place to live.

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

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date] [Note that this is a Tuesday, not the usual Monday meeting day, because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.]

Map of proposed BIZ area: Main Street from William Street in the south to Huron Street in the north. (Image links to complete .pdf file of the Main Street BIZ plan.)

On Wednesday, a cold and rainy evening, a group of downtown Ann Arbor property owners gathered in the city council chambers for a public meeting gaveled to order by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

They were there not to discuss rain, but rather snow. At least in part.

On their agenda was consideration of a plan for a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street – bounded by William Street to the south and Huron Street to the north – which would assess an extra tax on owners of property in the zone.

That plan for the BIZ includes snow removal as one of three main categories of services to be paid for through the BIZ. The other two categories of service in the plan are sidewalk cleaning and landscape plantings.

The plan was approved on a roll call vote of the property owners in attendance on Wednesday night, but not without some dissent. And the approval of the plan on Wednesday is not the final step before the BIZ can be implemented. Still ahead lies a formal public hearing by the city council, a vote by the city council, followed by another vote by property owners – this one by mail.

Background on the Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ

Almost exactly a year ago, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority‘s partnerships committee reported out to the full board at its Dec. 3, 2008 meeting that Ed Shaffran and Ellie Serras had expressed an interest in creating a self-assessment zone centered on Main Street. They’d inquired about start-up funding, which would entail mostly a consultant and some legal work. Shaffran is a local developer and former chair of the DDA board. Serras is former executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Ann Arbor city clerk Jackie Beaudry chaired the public meeting for property owners to vote on the business improvement zone proposed for Main Street between William and Huron. (Photo by the writer.)

And four months later, at its April 1, 2009 meeting, the DDA board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount included roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency. A series of public meetings were held to pitch the idea to downtown property owners, including one at Conor O’Neill’s in June. [Chronicle coverage: "In the Business Improvement Zone"]

The series of public meetings resulted in submittal of a petition to the city clerk supporting the creation of the BIZ, signed by at least 30% of property owners in the district, where each signature is weighted based on the value of the property owned.

That weighting applies to all votes of property owners on matters related to the BIZ. The Ann Arbor city council also heard a presentation at an October work session on the proposed Main Street BIZ. [Chronicle Coverage: "Work Session: Trains, Trash, and Taxes."]

With the 30% petition submitted and a work session under its belt to get familiar with the notion of a BIZ, the city council then voted at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting to move the BIZ along to the next step of its creation: the city clerk provided written notice to property owners of a public meeting to vote on the plan –  which includes the budget and the formula for assessing property owners.

It was this vote that took place on Wednesday evening. It required a majority of property owners in attendance to pass – weighted based on the value of property they own. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961].

Services Planned Through the Main Street BIZ

The services to be paid for through the Main Street BIZ are divided into two categories – those that are analyzed as providing a “direct benefit” to a property owner and those providing a “common benefit” to all property owners. The distinction between direct and common benefit services is important for the calculation of the tax owed by each property owner.

But first, what are the services?

The direct benefit services are sidewalk snow removal (budgeted at $60,000 per year) and sidewalk cleaning (budgeted at $10,000.) The common benefit services are landscape improvements and maintenance (budgeted at $12,000 a year).

Stephen Kelly questioned whether the cost of the snow removal was reasonable. (Photo by the writer.)

In response to a question from property owner Stephen Kelly and other property owners about what they perceived to be the excessively high cost allocated for snow removal, Ellie Serras explained that in getting estimates from potential snow removal contractors – names they had solicited from property owners in the proposed zone – they had specified: “We want Main Street to be like a hospital zone.”

More specifically, the snow removal service is triggered by accumulations of 1 inch or more, with provisions for the  major accumulations of snow to be physically removed from the downtown area, not just shoveled into the street. The budgeted $60,000 covers up to 40 snowfalls per season.

The warm-weather equivalent of snow removal to be provided by the BIZ is sidewalk cleaning – weekly vacuuming of the sidewalks and semi-annual power washing. In addition, handbills will be removed weekly from public surfaces, and graffiti will be removed on demand. [For Chronicle coverage of Ann Arbor's relatively new graffiti ordinance: "Council OKs Graffiti Law, Questions AATA"]

The landscaping services – categorized as a common benefit – consist of contributing funds (budgeted at $12,000 per year) toward the maintenance of the 44 planter boxes within the district.

Calculating the Tax Owed: Direct versus Common Benefit

In addition to the common benefit service of landscaping, in the BIZ plan budget there are organizational expenses also categorized as common benefits to property owners of the district. Those organizational expenses are budgeted at $36,848 per year.

Broken down in terms of common benefit and direct benefit costs, then, the BIZ plan budget looks like this:

Direct Benefit
Snow removal          $60,000
Sidewalk Cleaning     $10,000
Total Direct Benefit:           $ 70,000

Common Benefit
Landscaping           $12,000
Organizational        $36,848
Total Common Benefit            $ 48,848

Total BIZ Budget                $118,848

-

The assessment formula is designed to generate the $118,848 for the BIZ budget by considering the direct benefit costs and the common benefit costs separately.

Despite appearances, this is not a "lineal foot." Its owner did, however, attend the BIZ public meeting and voted yes on the BIZ plan. (Photo by the writer).

Direct benefit costs, so goes the reasoning, is a function of the amount of frontage along the area where the service is performed, measured in lineal feet. So the cost per lineal foot is calculated by taking the $70,000 in direct benefit costs and dividing by the 3,349 lineal feet of frontage in the zone to get an assessment rate of $20.90 per lineal foot.

The organizers of the BIZ reason that the common benefit costs are a function of the square footage of a property. So the cost per square foot is calculated by taking the $48,848 in common benefit costs and dividing by the 575,998 commercial square feet in the zone to get an assessment rate of $0.0848 per square foot.

So to calculate the tax owed by a property owner in the zone, the formula is:

Tax Owed = [Lineal Feet]*$20.90 +[Commercial Square Feet]*$0.0848

The average BIZ assessment of property owners in the zone, said Ed Shaffran, would be around $2,200.

Concerns Expressed by Property Owners

Besides the high costs associated with the snow removal, a concern was raised about the fairness of the distinction between direct costs and common costs. One point of confusion was whether the tax imposed by the BIZ would change based on changes in property value through time – the BIZ is specified to have a term of seven years. The BIZ tax uses the commercial square footage in its calculation, but not the assessed values of that commercial square footage. The role played by the commercial square footage owned by a property owner merely establishes the percentage of the total BIZ burden shouldered by that property owner.

Beyond the actual mechanics of how the BIZ would be administered, the main worry expressed by a few property owners was that the extra tax burden would be passed along to tenants – retailers on Main Street. The retail environment was repeatedly described as “fragile” and the fear was expressed that even a little extra burden could make the difference between surviving and failing.

One Tenant’s View

It was a tenant who actually argued most energetically for the BIZ – Chris DeRuyver of Affinity Wealth Solutions, a commercial tenant at 122 S. Main. DeRuyver would serve on the board of directors of the BIZ.

Chris DeRuyver describes how clients cancel appointments on snowy days. (Photo by the writer.)

He described how snowy days inevitably led to cancellation of appointments – his clients would call to cancel, saying they didn’t want to trudge through the snow.

“Downtown is like a ghost town on snowy days,” DeRuyver said. He compared his previous experience working out of the 777 Building on Eisenhower, saying he never had cancellations due to snow, because the snow was always removed from the parking lot all the way to the door.

So DeRuyver said the BIZ would address a specific obstacle to the economic success of the Main Street area.

As for the concerns that some property owners had expressed about the additional expense of the tax threatening fragile businesses, he offered this advice: “In a down economy, you can’t be expense-driven; you have to be revenue-driven.”

The Vote

The Chronicle scored the roll call vote read out by city clerk Jackie Beaudry as 26 votes for the BIZ plan, with 2 votes against. Given that the votes had to be weighted by the value of property owned, the city assessor, David Petrak, was on hand to verify that the weighted majority had been achieved.

The next step is for the city council to hold a public hearing and a vote again on the BIZ – likely to happen in January 2010. Assuming approval by the city council, a final vote among property owners conducted by mail would then likely happen in February 2010. The first BIZ assessment would then be made in June 2010 and appear with the July tax bill. BIZ operations would commence in July 2010.

The proposed business improvement zone would include Ann Arbor's Main Street from William Street in the south to Huron Street in the north.

Ann Arbor City Council work session (Oct. 12, 2009): It’s a world where you can throw your newspapers, glass bottles and plastic tubs into one single recyclables cart and set it out for morning collection.

It’s a world where you can then board a bus that drops you off at the train station for your morning commute to Detroit.

It’s a world where during the work day you watch a foot of snow fall, but on your return home to Ann Arbor, you see that the snow hasn’t just been plowed on Main Street – it’s been completely removed – along with those handbills you’d noticed plastered on the lightpost.

It’s a world where later at home, you roll your empty recycling cart back to its place. Then you log on to the internet and see you’ve earned $250 worth of points tallied by the weight of the recyclables that the truck has been recording and crediting for the last year.

At its Monday night work session, Ann Arbor’s city council heard presentations on all the discrete elements of that world, which Ann Arbor could start to resemble in a couple of years.

Councilmembers got updates on three proposals they’ll be asked to act on soon: (i) the proposed Business Improvement Zone (BIZ) for Main Street, (ii) the Fuller Road Station, and (iii) a proposal for single-stream recycling.

Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ)

Ellie Serras, the former executive director of the Main Street Area Association, Betsy Jackson, who owns the consultancy The Urban Agenda, and Ed Shaffran, a local developer who owns several downtown Ann Arbor properties, presented the concept of their Business Improvement Zone to councilmembers. The city council will be asked at their next meeting to give their stamp of approval to proceed with the election that’s required in order for the city to assess property owners in the proposed district – on Main Street between William and Huron.

Left to right: Ellie Serras, Ed Shaffran, Betsy Jackson of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone Initiative. (Photo by the writer.)

Business improvement zones were enabled by Public Act 120 of 1961, and allow property owners within a district to assess themselves a higher property tax to be used to promote economic development.

At Monday’s work session, the trio of Shaffran, Serras, and Jackson outlined how in this case economic development consists of funding services above and beyond what regular city services would provide: sidewalk maintenance, snow removal, landscape improvements.

By sidewalk maintenance, they mean to include regular sidewalk vacuuming, power-washing and gum removal, handbill removal, and graffiti removal. The BIZ concept of snow removal would be triggered by snowfalls of 1 inch or more and would include application of snow melter, shoveling from doorway to curb, including curb cuts, and would (if necessary) include the removal of snow from the Main Street area by trucking it out. [In the late 1990s, Shaffran spearheaded the removal of snow in the downtown area, when it had accumulated to an excessive degree – he recounts that episode in this interview.] Landscape improvements would include a four-season program to address tree wells.

Some key milestones the BIZ proposal has already reached include:

• Formed the Main Street BIZ Initiative Board of Directors: Ed Shaffran (chair), Rob Spears (treasurer), Michael Martin (secretary), James Curtis, Ronald Dankert, Alan Freedman, Jeffrey Harshe, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein.
• Received Downtown Development Authority matching grant [See Chronicle coverage: "DDA: No Character District Zoning, Please"]. The DDA board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount included roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency. It also included an expectation that a “template” will be provided for use by other areas of downtown that might want to form additional business improvement zones.
• Retained a director, consultant and legal counsel.
• Conducted four BIZ forums with more than 75 in attendance [See Chronicle coverage: "In the Business Improvement Zone"].
• Crafted a city council resolution and submitted a petition of support. The petition must be submitted to the city clerk signed by 30% of property owners in the proposed district. Here the percentage reflects a weighting of individuals based on the value of their property. One wrinkle in the weighting is that there’s a maximum weight of 25% for any one individual. After submitting the petition, there’s a required informational meeting, and a vote conducted by mail. To succeed, the vote needs a 60% majority – with the weighting of votes again based on property values. The city can recoup the cost of administering the election from the district.

The next steps outlined for city council are these:

• Oct. 19, 2009: Resolution of approval to proceed from city council.
• November-December 2009: Public meeting to present BIZ to a majority of property owners.
• January 2010: Public hearing.
• February 2010: Property owner election (60% majority required, weighted by taxable value of property).
• June 2010: BIZ assessment with July tax bill.
• July 2010: BIZ operations begin.

Councilmembers seemed on the whole enthusiastic about the BIZ concept. They were curious to know what the ballpark figure might be for the assessment. Shaffran said that with the city council’s resolution of support, they would continue work on the business plan, which would yield a budget that would then give a clearer idea of what the actual assessment would be.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was interested in knowing what the nature of any dissent or hesitations might be on the part of property owners. Serras replied that there were some concerns with the BIZ proposal, as there are with anything new, and that the questions focused on the issue of what the possible cost might be.

Shaffran said that the response to those kinds of doubts was to talk about the return on the investment and the fact that they are not taking risk: the BIZ will lead to an environment that’s more conducive to business, would increase property values and increase tenancy. Shaffran stressed that it was an investment in a management program, not a one-time beautification program. That continued investment, Shaffran said, was appropriate for an asset like Main Street, which was recently recognized by the American Planning Association’s Great Streets program [See Chronicle coverage: "Approved: Earth Retention, Zipcars"]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) was interested in knowing the raw numbers of people who might have qualms about the BIZ, so he asked for the unweighted percentage of property owners who’d signed the petition. In the presentation, the petition – which requires a weighted 30% of property owners to sign, with weight assigned by taxable value – was characterized as having more than 50% support, well more than the minimum threshold. The answer Hohnke eventually got was that the 50% figure held for the unweighted petition signatures as well.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) quizzed Shaffran on the nature of the “supplemental” services. Shaffran allowed that “supplemental” might not be the right word – he joked that Derezinski was trying to trick him. The point about the services, Shaffran said, was that they’d be providing services that the city was not. Derezinski got confirmation from Serras that the BIZ was an expandable notion. It would be possible to add geographic area to the BIZ, but it would require the same steps as with its formation – areas couldn’t be added “higgledy piggledy.”

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) drew out the fact that the DDA financial support was related to a specific plan to share the blueprint with other areas of downtown that might want to form their own BIZ. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was curious to know about the potential for tension between tenant and owner, based on previous experience with BIZ-type programs. [The presentation alluded to 1,200 districts like this in North America.] Serras said that in general that kind of tension had not arisen where renters had pressed for dissolution of a district. She cited one case in Victoria, British Columbia, where the conclusion had been reached that “everything is done,” the district was dissolved, and shortly thereafter, they elected to reinstitute it.

Fuller Road Station (formerly FITS): “It’s a parking structure!”

Eli Cooper, transportation program manager for the city, gave the city council an update on the results of a two-day workshop with stake-holders on the Fuller Road Station proposal and subsequent presentations to the park advisory commission, the city’s planning commission, and a public open house – events that took place through September. [For Chronicle coverage of the presentation to the park advisory commission: "City Seeks Feedback on Transit Center."]

In broad summary strokes, the  Fuller Road Station project is proposed for a three-acre site – currently a surface parking lot – owned by the city of Ann Arbor, nestled just south of Fuller Road and north of East Medical Center Drive and the railroad tracks. It’s billed as a way to link automobiles, east-west commuter rail (demonstration due in October 2010), the north-south Plymouth-State Street corridor (study underway funded by AATA, UM, the  city of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor DDA), buses, and bicycle traffic via the Border-to-Border trail.

At the Ann Arbor city council’s Aug. 17 meeting, UM agreed to pay $327,733 of an estimated $541,717 cost for the initial stage of the project, with the city picking up the rest. The city’s portion of the cost will go toward an environmental impact study – they’d need that environmental impact data if they apply for federal funding. If the project moves ahead, it’s expected to cost roughly $65 million.

Part of UM’s interest in the project stems from a desire to solve a parking demand problem for patient visitors to the medical campus. For now, UM has put on hold plans to build a parking structure on nearby Wall Street. At Monday’s work session, Cooper estimated the total number of spaces at the Fuller facility to be around 1,100.

The major change in concept resulting from the design session with stakeholders, Cooper said, was that the single building had been split into the “intermodal facility” on the eastern part of the site and the train station to the west. He described the plan to divide the project into two phases: Phase I, which would include the parking deck, a bus waiting room, and bicycle hoops; Phase II, which would include the train station and other amenities, possibly including retail wraps.

Zeroing in on the fact that UM patients would be using the facility, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) elicited some assurance from Cooper than the entire facility would be ADA compliant.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) assured Higgins that efforts had been made to notify residents of Maiden Lane and Wall Street about the public forum on the topic of the Fuller Road Station. She also brought out the fact that the planned demonstration service for east-west commuter rail will use the Amtrak station on Depot Street. As that commuter rail service proceeds, Cooper said, the new Fuller station could be there to welcome it. Briere also got a clarification from Cooper that the plan would be for increased AATA bus traffic down Depot Street once the demonstration service launched.

Cooper provided a rough time line, when asked by Briere:

• October-November 2009: City council approval of concept for Phase I.
• Winter 2009-2010: Begin drawings for utilities work and start working with UM on designs for structure.
• End of 2010: Construction begins.
• 2012: Intermodal Facility Phase I complete.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) injected a little bit of levity when he said, “I hate to be too mercenary, but this is a parking deck!” This was the segue into a question about fee structures for the parking spaces. Cooper said that Amtrak was amenable to charging for parking at its stations – if the station were to move from Depot Street to the Fuller Road Station under a Phase II scenario.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to make sure that there would be public input on the design process – there would be.

Alluding to the suggestion made at the park advisory commission that a bar be put in the station, Margie Teall (Ward 4) weighed in for a market so that commuters could buy groceries before heading home. She allowed, though, that this kind of suggestion was at this point premature.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted some clarification on whether UM and Amtrak were actually on board with the concept and asked for a breakdown of money spent to date by the city and the university. Cooper said that he couldn’t speak for the university, but that the correspondence from UM was positive. And Jim Kosteva, who’s director of community relations for UM, nodded in agreement from his seat behind Cooper. Cooper reported that he’d spoken with the Amtrak manager of station development in Washington, D.C. and that Amtrak was interested. As further evidence of support, Cooper cited the fact that the Michigan Department of Transportation had approached the city for support on an application for high-speed rail.

Mayor John Hieftje spoke of the “wonderful synergy” for the project. It positioned the city, he said, to be able to apply for federal funding for high-speed rail.

Single-Stream Recycling

Ann Arbor residents currently enjoy curbside collection of their non-compostable waste in two different ways: (i) automated robot-arm pick-up of trash in blue carts, and (ii) manual dumping of two kinds of recycling tote bins – green for containers and gray for paper products.

Tom McMurtrie, solid waste coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

At Monday’s work session, Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, introduced a plan to convert to a single container for recyclables, which would – like the blue bins – be emptied using an automatic, mechanical arm. That would mean no more curbside collection of batteries, motor oil, or oil filters. But that will be offset, McMurtrie said, by the ability to include additional materials in the recycle bins not previously allowed – basically all plastics except for #3. You could even toss broken plastic lawn furniture in the bin, he said.

To give people an added incentive to recycle, the new automated carts would be equipped with RFID tags, so that the frequency of each household’s recycling efforts could be measured and rewarded through RecycleBank. The rewards would come through coupons and deals offered through national, regional, as well as local business partners. Participants would also have the option of donating their rewards to a nonprofit organization.

In a follow-up interview on Tuesday, McMurtrie clarified that the weight of each household’s recycling wouldn’t be measured individually. Rather, the total recycling load would be weighed at the end of the route, and divided evenly among the number of households who recycled that day, as recorded by the RFID tag on their bin. He said that participation in this kind of route-weight system is almost as good as with an individual-weight approach, but is significantly less expensive to implement. The route-weight system allows for use of the automated pick-up – otherwise, the recycling cart would have to be manually rolled up to the truck to be weighed, an approach that’s much more labor intensive, he said.

According to John Getzloff of RecycleBank, who handled the incentives part of the work session presentation, in other communities, the average annual recycling reward to a household is around $240, with the high end around $540. The incentives, Getzloff said, improved recycling rates in communities with poor rates as well as those that already had high rates.

McMurtrie said that he expected the single-stream recycling effort to increase the amount of the residential waste stream that is diverted from the landfill from its current level of 50% to 70% by the year 2012.

The increase in recycling rates is expected to save money by allowing the elimination of one trash collection route – seven existing routes would reduce to six. How can incremental reductions at each household stop result in elimination of an entire route? After the meeting, McMurtrie explained that one of the main limiting factors on a route was the capacity of a truck – when they get full they have to be emptied out. Fewer trips to the landfill during the day means fewer trucks are needed, and that means fewer routes.

Through automation and elimination of trash routes, the expectation is that the total program operating cost will be reduced by $500,000 to $750,000 per year. Reduced operating costs will help offset the capital start-up costs associated with the program, which include the purchase of carts and trucks as well as upgrades to the city’s Material Recovery Facility. The building is owned by the city of Ann Arbor, but operated by a private company, Casella/FCR.

Estimated payback on the investment, which would be paid out of the $9 million solid waste enterprise fund balance, is projected to be 6.75 years, based on an average market.

The Ann Arbor city council will be asked to at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting to approve: (i) Casella/FCR Contract Amendment (Materials Recovery Facility upgrades), and (ii) Resource Recycling Systems Consulting Contract.

In December 2009, the council will be asked to approve remaining elements of the plan: (i) Recycle Ann Arbor Contract Amendment, (ii) RecycleBank Contract, (iii) Automated Recycle Truck Purchases, and (iv) Recycle Cart Purchases.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) stressed that the curb cart collection program was successful financially, but also from a customer service point of view. He said he felt that the same customer service benefit would be found with the single stream recycling program. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) sought clarification that the incentive program would work with multi-family living complexes. The answer is yes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) was concerned about how the materials would eventually be sorted and wondered how people would get their batteries recycled – given that they’d no longer be collected curbside. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also had some concerns about hard-to-dispose-of items – like fluorescent bulbs. McMurtrie said wryly, “Yes, these are compacting trucks, and fluorescent bulbs shouldn’t be compacted.”

He pointed out that Home Depot accepted such bulbs at no cost, as did the Washtenaw County toxics program. He said that the Recycle Ann Arbor drop-off station would accept fluorescent bulbs – for a small charge. [Rates charged at the drop-off station are: fluorescent light tubes (up to 4 feet), $1 each – $10 per dozen if pre-boxed; fluorescent light tubes (8 feet), $2 each; compact fluorescents, $1 each.]

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) saw opportunity for possible excess capacity at the Material Recovery Facility when it’s expanded, which could be sold to surrounding municipalities. McMurtrie confirmed this was the case, and said that it could be operated around the clock with three shifts.

A related question from from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified that Saline, which uses single-stream recycling, currently takes their materials to New Boston. [Taylor had noticed an apparent disconnect between a claim that Ann Arbor's MRF was the only facility from here to points west, and another statement that Saline currently has a single-stream program.]

A sampling of the questions and ideas generated from a recent meeting of Main Street businesses, who gathered to discuss the concept of a Business Improvement Zone for that area. (Photo by the writer.)

About a dozen business owners, managers and others from the Main Street area gathered last Thursday morning at Conor O’Neill’s to talk about an idea being floated for that district – a self-taxing entity called a business improvement zone, or BIZ. It’s a way to pay for services – things like snow or litter removal, or flowerbeds – to make the district more attractive and bring more shoppers downtown.

This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered the Main Street BIZ. In April, the Downtown Development Authority awarded $83,270 to the group – spearheaded by Ellie Serras and Ed Shaffran – to help get it going. Since then, Main Street BIZ has hired a consultant – Betsy Jackson of The Urban Agenda – and is holding meetings with stakeholders to pitch the idea and get feedback.

That’s what was happening on Thursday. The meeting was one of three planned so far: Earlier in the week, organizers met with property owners of buildings along a three-block stretch of Main Street, where the district is proposed. And on Tuesday, June 30, they’ve scheduled a similar presentation for residents and others who patronize Main Street area businesses. That meeting starts at 6 p.m., also at Conor O’Neill’s.

What’s a BIZ?

Michigan law allows property owners within a specified district to tax themselves, with the funds designated for economic development purposes within that district. The proposed Main Street BIZ would stretch from the south side of Huron to the north side of William, and would include a “wrap” down Washington and Liberty on both sides of Main, running to (but not including) the alleys.

Betsy Jackson, the consultant hired for this project, walked The Chronicle through the process required to set up a BIZ – organizers have already taken initial steps, including setting up a nonprofit and forming a transitional board. Next, they’ll need to get 30% of property owners to sign a petition stating their intent to form a BIZ. (That 30% is based on a formula which gives weight to a vote based on the value of an owner’s property. That is, they could reach the 30% mark without getting 30% of the individual property owners. Additionally, there’s a maximum weight of 25% for any one individual.)

After the petition is filed, the city schedules a public meeting of property owners, who will vote on a detailed business plan for the BIZ. The business plan specifies exactly what the collected funds can be used for. (After the BIZ is approved, it would require another vote to spend the money on services not covered by those categories. For example, if snow removal isn’t initially designated as a category for the BIZ funds, then the district can’t spend the money on snow removal.) The business plan would also give details about a budget, frequency of services, a formula for assessment, governance structure and other information.

At the public meeting, if a majority of property owners approve the business plan, then the city schedules a public hearing within 45 days, and the city council votes on the plan. If council approves it, an election is set. The election is administered by the city via mailed ballots. This time, 60% approval is needed – and again, the votes are weighted based on the value of the property. If 60% or more votes approve the BIZ, then all property owners within the district will be assessed, with the exceptions of  nonprofit property owners (like religious organizations or the university), government properties and owner-occupied housing units. The BIZ requires renewal every seven years.

Why Form a BIZ?

At Thursday’s meeting, Ellie Serras said some of the Main Street property owners decided they needed more control over the district’s future. “We want to make this good thing even better,” said Serras, the long-time executive director of the Main Street Area Association who stepped down from the post last year. Her husband, Dennis Serras, is a partner with Mainstreet Ventures, which owns several restaurants in Ann Arbor, including Palio, Gratzi, Real Seafood Co., The Chop House and La Dolce Vita – all operating on Main Street.

Five property owners got this project off the ground: Ed Shaffran of Shaffran Companies, Rob Spears of Cabrio Properties Amvest Properties, Mike Martin of First Martin Corp., Jeffrey Harshe of MAV Development and Jim Curtis of Curtis Commercial. Each of them contributed $5,000 to the effort, which will be repaid from BIZ funds if the entity is formed. They are also part of a transitional board – other board members are Alan Freedman of Four Directions, and Ron Dankert of Swisher Commercial. Keith Orr of the Downtown Development Authority board (and co-owner of the \aut\BAR and Common Language Bookstore in Kerrytown) is a tentative board member. If the BIZ is formed, property owners in the district would elect a new board at their first annual meeting. The city’s mayor would also be entitled to appoint one board member.

In addition to forming a board, organizers plan to use the DDA grant to set up office space, do website design and cover administrative costs, Serras said.

Jackson said that BIZ districts are typically set up in response to dwindling public sector resources. Business districts have special needs that aren’t necessarily covered by the city’s general fund – standard “common denominator” services aren’t sufficient, she said. Downtown shops and restaurants can’t compete on price with big box stores and malls, Jackson added, but what they can offer is a distinctive, positive experience and ambiance – that’s their competitive edge.

Organizers have identified three potential categories for which BIZ funds could be earmarked, Jackson said, though these could change based on feedback. All of them are aimed at improving people’s perception of the Main Street business district – they are the first things people encounter, she said. The potential categories are 1) snow removal from sidewalks and curb cuts, 2) sidewalk cleaning and litter removal, and 3) landscaping/maintenance.

Questions and Concerns

After a presentation by Serras and Jackson, they opened the floor for questions – and there were many. Several people expressed concern that Ann Arbor city council would not provide basic services if they knew that Main Street BIZ had the money to pay for them instead. Jim Beuche, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway who’s doing work for the BIZ, said that while city council is hard to predict, they “can’t foist off more on us than they will on everyone else.” That said, the reality is that the council defines what services are provided in the city, Beuche said, and those can change at any time.

This prompted Newcombe Clark, president of the Main Street Area Association board, to say: “If you pay more for a cabin on the Titanic, you’ll still sink like everyone else.”

Serras responded by saying that the city can – and has – been pulling back services for the past decade. When the city decided to stop taking care of flowerbeds downtown, the Main Street Area Association stepped in to pay for that, she said. A few years ago, the South State Street merchants paid for security because the city removed its beat cops, she said – a scenario that’s playing out again. Having the BIZ in place would make it possible to respond when the city changes its service levels. (Clark later reminded the group that Ann Arbor’s beat cops would no longer be patrolling, as of this week.)

Derek Davis, marketing manager for The Melting Pot restaurant on South Main, wondered how expensive this would be for his business. The Melting Pot pays rent, he said – would the BIZ mean that their rent will be raised?

At this point it’s unclear how much the property owners will be assessed, Jackson said. The business plan would have to specify the formula used to calculate an assessment, likely based on a property’s value and perhaps its streetfront footage. But the BIZ has no authority to prevent landlords from passing along the costs to their tenants, she added.

Davis noted that some landlords do take care of services like sidewalk snow-shoveling and flowerbeds. But for the building his restaurant rents, he said they have to pay for that kind of thing themselves. It sounded to him like within the organization of the BIZ, tenants had little power.

The issue of tenant power came up again in a discussion of the BIZ board, which would be elected by property owners and include one mayoral appointee. Several people suggested that the board include at least one business owner/tenant, to give that group a voice.

Parking was another issue raised during the discussion. Caroline Kaganov, general manager of Conor O’Neill’s and a Main Street Area Association board member, joked that she feels she’s been working for the city – she’d spent the past four days helping people figure out how to use the new parking meters installed downtown. She said the perception is that parking is scarce. Davis said there was plenty of parking, but there needed to be ways to lower the price. Perhaps the BIZ could subsidize customer parking for businesses that can’t afford to comp it on their own, he suggested.

Some people were concerned because alleys aren’t going to be included within the BIZ district – that’s where a lot of the problems are, they said, citing litter and snow removal.

Angela Pierro of Zero Gravity Designs said aesthetics were important, like putting in flowerbeds and cleaning up cigarette butts. She also said sidewalks need to be in better shape – uneven sidewalks, which cause little kids to trip or which make it difficult to push strollers – deter families from wanting to come downtown.

Davis said that in general he felt the city was very safe, but the biggest security complaint he heard from customers related to panhandling. Being approached by panhandlers affects the perception of whether Ann Arbor is a family friendly place, he said.

Next Steps

The goal would be to have a BIZ assessment on the July 2010 tax bills, Jackson said. That means they’d need to have a draft of the BIZ plan adopted by the board and start circulating petitions in September, she said. They hoped to have enough signed petitions to submit to the city clerk in October.

Meanwhile, they’ll be gathering information about similar zones in other cities. More outreach efforts are planned, too, including a website (to be designed by Angela Pierro of Zero Gravity Designs) and online survey to get more feedback about what services the district needs. They’re also working with the city attorney’s office and city clerk to ensure that all the proper steps are taken, since the city hasn’t done anything like this before. “We want to make sure there are no hold-ups related to process,” Jackson said.