Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board member Eric Mahler was discussing the potential for disparate impacts on different populations as a result of service changes. (Photos by the writer.)

The issue of the May 6 millage vote came up during public commentary. In addition, CEO Michael Ford delivered some prepared remarks meant to dispel what he called myths about the AAATA that are being promoted by opponents of that millage. [.pdf of press release from opposition campaign]

One myth is that the AAATA is inefficient, Ford said, when in fact the AAATA has 17% lower cost per passenger and has 18% fewer employees per passenger than its peers. Another myth, Ford said, is that the AAATA has 52 managers. “It’s just simply not true,” he said. Ford explained that the AAATA has 52 employees who are non-union – 11 of whom are managers. That includes administrative assistants, IT staff, customer service, human resources, safety and security personnel, dispatchers and others, Ford said.

The assertion that the AAATA will use millage revenue to fund a train service is untrue as well, Ford continued. The AAATA had intentionally not put rail service in the ballot language. AAATA has been acknowledged in USA Today, by CNN, and by independent transportation associations as one of the nation’s best-in-class in terms of ridership, operational efficiency, fiscal stability, and technological innovation, Ford said. And that’s why he was hopeful that voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township would say yes when they go to the polls on May 6.

The concrete work contract was awarded to Saladino Construction, for a one-year period and the possibility of four one-year renewals. Board members subjected the item to a relatively lengthy discussion as far as AAATA board discussions go – as they had questions about the amount of future work there would be, how workmanship is verified, and how pedestrian flow at bus stops is maintained during the work period.

Also given a fair amount of discussion was the policy on service equity required under Title VI. Board members had several questions, including one about the action that is required if a disparate impact on low-income riders is found as a result of a fare increase. AAATA staff stressed that there is not currently a fare increase on the table.

Small Concrete Work Contract

The board considered a one-year contract with Saladino Construction for small concrete jobs. The contract, which has the option to be extended for four additional one-year periods, will cover work for access walks, shelter and bench pads, sidewalk extensions, curb extensions and bus pullouts.

The one-year contract is expected to be worth about $54,000 a year, which is under the $100,000 threshold requiring board approval. But because the board was approving potentially a five-year period, with the value of the work expected to exceed $100,000, the contract required board approval.

Saladino was selected from four bidders for the work. Even though 445 vendors were sent notice of the RFP, only four bids were received: Audia Concrete Construction of Milford; Hartwell Cement of Oak Park; Luigi Ferdinandi and Son Cement of Roseville; and Saladino Construction of Ann Arbor Township. The AAATA staff analysis indicated that small concrete jobs at multiple locations are not attractive to many contractors.

Small Concrete Work Contract: Board Discussion

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said the committee had discussed one agenda item – the contract for small concrete jobs. Saladino had been chosen, he noted. It was not the low bid, but had the best combination of cost and performance. Saladino has done work for the Washtenaw County Road Commission, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, he said. Kerson called the company very well-qualified with good references.

Kerson characterized the small concrete jobs as basically fixing the bus stops – the sidewalk approaches and the ramps around the stops. The estimate is for $54,000 per year, with a potential renewal up to five years, Kerson said. The committee had given that contract a thumbs up, Kerson concluded.

When the board reached that item on the agenda, Larry Krieg had a question about what the cost figure had been given as an “estimate.” Is that the amount that is budgeted or is that a cap on expenditures? If it turns out that all of the bus stops need to be redone, and it costs twice as much, what would happen?

Chris White, AAATA manager of service development, noted that the request for proposals included unit costs – for linear feet of concrete and for square feet of concrete. In order to compare proposals, AAATA had included an estimated amount of work that would need to be done based on past history. The amounts are not budgeted as part of the operating budget. That’s because grant funding pays for this type of project – as part of the capital and categorical grant program, White explained. AAATA knows roughly how much work there will be in a given year, but it can vary little bit. If a curb needs to be extended to make the bus stop accessible, then that may cost a little bit more, he explained. The estimate is based on previous experience, he reiterated.

AAATA board member Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Gillian Ream Gainsley noted that there was more damage to the roads because of the severe winter. Was there a similar impact on bus stops? Would the AAATA have a greater need for concrete repair at bus stops this year? White described the work covered by this contract as not really repair work. He described it as mostly new work: new shelter pads, and new access sidewalks.

Board chair Charles Griffith indicated that he hoped this cost figure would need to be reevaluated, if the transit millage passes. That’s because the AAATA will have more stops that need to be serviced.

White noted that the AAATA already has agreements for two new shelters on the proposed new Route M – a route that would start operation in August 2014 if the millage is approved. So the AAATA is already doing that kind of preparatory work, he said. The performance monitoring and external relations committee would be receiving the bus stop work plan at its next meeting, White said.

Sue Gott wanted to know what the typical warranty is for work performed under the contracts. She wanted to know who inspects the workmanship when it’s done: Is inspection done by staff within the AAATA’s organization? She was also curious to know how pedestrian circulation is ensured through areas where work on a sidewalk is being done.

On the question of workmanship, White explained that city inspectors are used for jobs that are done inside the city of Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti. Washtenaw County Road Commission inspectors are used for jobs in the townships. That kind of expertise doesn’t exist on staff at the AAATA, he said.

About work zones, White said that one of the reasons Saladino was chosen is that the company has done this kind of work in all the jurisdictions – so they know what is required as far as work zone safety. That includes directing people at the beginning of the block where they need to cross the street and that type of thing, White said. The bus stop coordinator, Jeff Murphy, oversees that element of the work, he said. CEO Michael Ford indicated that information about warranty of the work could be provided as a follow-up.

Eli Cooper stated that he would be supporting the resolution. Although it’s a small amount and the word “small” is in the resolution, he noted, this is a really large improvement for customers. It’s “moving that bus stop out of the proverbial mud puddle,” he explained. It appears to be “small concrete,” but as you consider access to the system, it’s important for people who have mobility challenges, as well as for able-bodied people. Even on a sunny day, if there is difficult terrain to overcome, that’s challenging, he said. Cooper asked staff to continue to review the amount of work – not just based on prior experience, but based on what true needs are, so that the AAATA is doing an appropriate amount of large improvements that need little amounts of resources.

Griffith asked how someone goes about asking for a bench to be installed on a bus stop near one’s own property: “How much money would it cost me if I wanted to take up a collection for it?” White indicated that it would probably cost nothing, pointing out that what the AAATA needs assistance with is maintenance.

If the AAATA can get an agreement from a property owner to do snow removal and maybe empty trash, the AAATA would work on installing a bench. Typically the AAATA prioritizes benches and access improvements at higher-volume bus stops. But the AAATA would bend that policy if there are willing policy partners to help, he said. Jeff Murphy has been active in soliciting adopt-a-stop agreements from adjacent property owners, White said. Many of those property owners are commercial property owners, but some homeowners are also interested enough that they’ve agreed to clear the snow if an access walk is put in.

Cooper noted that the installation of that kind of feature in the public right-of-way should follow city rules. There’s a right-of-way encroachment permit and sidewalk occupancy permits. There are review processes and fees associated with that, Cooper said. If a private property owner wants to install a feature on public property, that would then potentially be reviewed by the city’s planning department.

Cooper appreciated – from the standpoint of transit operations – that it would count as a benefit, but he wanted to make sure that any amenity was put in an appropriate place, in an appropriate manner, and that it be properly reviewed prior to its installation. White noted that the concrete contractor is responsible for obtaining the relevant city permits.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the contract for small concrete jobs with Saladino.

Title VI Policy

On the board’s agenda was a policy on service equity analysis, which is required as part of the authority’s Title VI compliance. Title VI is the civil rights legislation that, in the context of public transportation, requires proof that a service change has no adverse effect on disadvantaged populations. [.pdf of Title VI policy included in April 17, 2014 AAATA board packet]

The policy on equity analysis comes in the context of a 5-year service improvement plan the AAATA hopes to implement if voters approve a millage request on May 6, 2014. The AAATA is required to have such a policy as one element in a Title VI program submitted to the Federal Transit Administration by October 2014.

The policy includes a method of analyzing disparate impacts on different populations for various changes in service, including: fare increases, decreases in frequency of service, decreases in span of service, and reduction in days of service.

Title VI Policy: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Jim Mogensen addressed the board on the topic of the Title VI policy. Mogensen noted that he had just had orthopedic surgery, so he had not been able to comment on the draft policy as early as he wanted to. There were some technical issues, which he had already talked to Chris White about, that he felt should eventually be considered. The first related to some technical issues associated with census data.

Jim Mogensen.

The second point related to the analysis of differential fares. He noted that low-income people who have applied to the AAATA are offered reduced fares – half the cash fare for the general population. That could impact how the analysis is done, Mogensen said. He described a scenario where the basic fare went up to $2 [from its current rate of $1.50], so a half fare would be one dollar. But the effect might not show up if the fare that the University of Michigan pays on behalf of its affiliates – which is $1 – did not go up.

Later in the meeting, AAATA manager of service development Chris White acknowledged Mogensen’s point, saying that fares for UM affiliates are paid by the university – so if UM fares do not go up in connection with a general fare increase, that would certainly make a difference in the impact of a fare increase on low-income people.

Mogensen also ventured that there could be differential impacts on neighborhoods, depending on the service level – which makes a difference when you have what are called “minority routes.” When a route is very long, like Route #6, it might not qualify as a minority route because it is so long, but there is a minority neighborhood on that route that would be impacted. So that kind of situation should also be incorporated into the policy, Mogensen suggested. He described the policy that was on the board’s agenda as “almost there, but not quite.”

Thomas Partridge addressed the board during both opportunities for public commentary. Aside from the Title VI policy, Partridge said, the AAATA needs to analyze the impact of changes that have yet to be made and yet to be proposed – that would ameliorate, if not wipe out discrimination in ride services for the most disadvantaged members of our community. Discrimination still persists, Partridge contended, in terms of ride scheduling and the type of vehicles and drivers who come to pick up people for the senior ride and paratransit program – the A-Ride program.

Partridge was concerned that with all the discussion about the technical aspects of Title VI policy guidelines, it did not touch on the substantial needs of senior citizens and disabled persons. He called for policies that would preclude discrimination in transportation for seniors and disabled persons in the current senior ride program. Current forms of discrimination exist that are particularly odious and particularly harmful to senior citizens and disabled persons, Partridge said, because of lack of adequate funding for vehicles on the road to service A-Ride. There are vehicles that should never be on the road and drivers who are ill-trained to serve handicapped people and senior citizens, he said. Partridge called for a review of the vehicles offered by the AAATA and the SelectRide company for A-Ride service.

Title VI Policy: Board Discussion

Sue Gott reported out from the planning and development committee that the group had spent quite a bit of time on the Title VI policy. The committee had spent a lot of time going back and forth with staff on the policy, she said. She thanked AAATA staff, and Chris White specifically, for the time and effort he had spent listening to a number of concerns and questions. White had also gone back and coordinated with the regional civil rights officer to identify opportunities for some improvements and on clarity in the language. White had also consulted with the AAATA’s legal counsel.

AAATA board member Sue Gott.

When the board reached the item on its agenda, Gillian Ream Gainsley also noted that the planning and development committee spent a lot of time going back and forth with staff on the policy. She really appreciated the time and effort that Chris White had put into it. She felt that White had been put in a challenging position and had really stepped up to the plate – because the federal requirements in Title VI don’t give you a lot of guidance about how to approach enforcement of the rule, she said.

So she felt that the AAATA was pioneering something in terms of determining exactly how they want to define disparate impact. She did not feel that the policy was going to be set in stone, saying that she felt the policy would a living document. The AAATA would continue to improve on the policy over time, she felt. But she called it an incredibly good start and appreciated that the AAATA was willing to go above and beyond what was required of it. She would be supporting the policy, she said.

Eric Mahler echoed Ream Gainsley’s remarks and appreciated the amount of work that Chris White, as well as the rest of the staff, had done. Mahler had a couple of questions about the policy and the methodology for measuring disproportionate burden in connection with fare increases.

For minority populations, the policy’s definition of disproportionate burden is: If a minority population bears a 5% greater burden from a fare increase than a non-minority population. The policy’s definition of disproportionate burden for the low-income population is: If low-income riders will bear a 10% greater burden from a fare increase. Mahler noted that the fare for low-income persons is half the full cash fare for the general population. And that is a justification for finding a disproportionate burden only if the low-income population would bear 10% more of the burden – as opposed to the 5% threshold used for minority ridership.

Back and forth between Mahler and White ensued on the topic of the interplay between the impact of a fare increase on low-income riders and the fact that the fares for low-income riders are by policy already supposed to be half the full cash fare.

White noted in the course of that back-and-forth that the AAATA has had a half fare for low-income riders for a long time, venturing that the AAATA was fairly unique in having such a program. White added that there’s a choice to make when the fare is an odd number. When the fare was $0.75, the AAATA had a choice to make – between a half fare of $0.35 or $0.40. The board chose at that time to make it $0.35. If the board had chosen to make the low-income fare $0.40, that might have made a difference in the calculation of disproportionate burden.

White stressed at several points that the AAATA is not contemplating a fare increase at this time. The Title VI policy is being put in place to deal with any future situation. For a fare increase, the analysis of disproportionate burden is a little more straightforward than with a service increase, White said – because an actual calculation can be done. The intention is that a chart would be prepared that shows all the fare categories. Because the AAATA collects information on the fare for every rider who boards, the AAATA can compare any proposal for a fare increase and see what additional burden would be carried by low-income persons.

If a disproportionate burden were found, White said, the AAATA would have to go back and revise the fare increase to get rid of that disproportionate burden, or would have to demonstrate that the purposes that the AAATA was trying to achieve were legitimate, and this was the only way to do it. That would be a tough case to make, White felt.

Mahler asked what would happen if the disproportionate burden for low-income riders was only 9% more than for other riders. White replied: “It would be up to the board of directors.” Once the board has the information that shows the effect of the impact, the board would need to make a decision. Board chair Charles Griffith noted that ultimately the board has the final say: If there is some disproportionate impact – even if that disproportionate impact does not exceed the threshold defined in the policy – the board could still decide that it’s more disproportionate impact than the board was comfortable with.

Mahler came back to the policy language that specifies what is to be done if a disparate impact is found. The first step is to “review the objectives of the proposed change to determine if the evidence supports the legitimacy of the objectives.” Mahler was not sure what that meant. What evidence are you looking for? If there’s some evidence out there that could actually trump the disproportionate burden or the disparate impact, are we going to use that? Mahler asked. White replied: “That’s an interesting question to answer.”

The regional civil rights officer had reviewed the AAATA’s draft policy and came back with couple of comments, basically saying that the policy looked pretty good to her, White reported. But she made a very specific comment about wanting that specific language, which Mahler had asked about, inserted in the policy. White allowed that it was not entirely clear to him exactly what the language means. A lot of times a service change is meant to achieve multiple objectives, where some people are impacted negatively a small amount – but other people are impacted positively a large amount, and you have to weigh that without a numerical basis.

Mahler said that the only thing he could think of was if there were some segment of the population that was not being served at all, and that for some reason the AAATA decided there’s some compelling, overwhelming interest in serving the neglected population now and service needed to be extended to that geographic area – that might trump the disproportionate burden threshold.

White noted that they’re dealing with civil rights legislation, so it’s about equal treatment, not about a right to service. White ventured that the federal guidelines themselves were misguided in the following sense: The AAATA does analysis of proposed service changes and fare changes before they are ever made as a proposal. This kind of analysis is part of what the AAATA does initially. So if there is a disproportionate or disparate impact, the AAATA would revise its approach – before ever putting a proposal forward. If the AAATA were ever to propose service changes that had disparate impact, the AAATA would likely already have its arguments in place to defend those changes. In most cases, White felt, the analysis done after the proposal was made would show that the change did not have a disparate impact.

AATA board member Roger Kerson.

Roger Kerson noted that although the AAATA is not contemplating fare increases at this time, it certainly is proposing service changes and has made service changes recently. The major service increases that have been done recently involved Route #4 and Route #5, he said. He did not know if the disproportionate impact analysis had been done for those changes, but ventured that for those routes you’d find the opposite of a disparate impact – in terms of low-income and minority populations.

White told Kerson that the AAATA has the analysis for both of those route service changes and it was provided to the board ahead of time. The difference in the new regulations is that the AAATA had to define a threshold for disparate impact and disproportionate burden. The actual analysis has been done for many years, he said.

White explained that there is a definition of “minority route” and a “low-income route.” When you make a service change on the whole route, that’s the level of analysis you use. But if you’re doing a change on less than a whole route, the fact that it’s a minority route or a non-minority route doesn’t enter into the analysis, White said. The analysis is done on the area that is being affected and the population of that area – not the route as a whole, White explained.

Larry Krieg reiterated the board’s thanks to Chris White for undertaking the analysis. He called it an immensely complex and puzzling thing to work on.

Charles Griffith also appreciated the work that had been done and thanked the committee. He echoed the sentiments of Ream Gainsley, saying that the policy is a step forward: “Let’s think of it as a living document,” he said.

Outcome: The board unanimously to approve the new Title VI policy.

Title VI Policy: More Public Commentary

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen said he would continue to work with Chris White on the Title VI policy. Some of the mysterious language is related to case law, he ventured. That’s why they are so specific about specific phrases. That’s sometimes the case with a 50-year-old law, he noted. Mogensen observed that there are people who think there should not be a Civil Rights Act and that people should be allowed to do what they want to do.

May 6 Millage Vote

The board had no formal business related to the upcoming May 6, 2014 vote on a proposed 0.7 mill tax – to be decided by voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. But the millage vote was touched on during the meeting. The board voted at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting to place the millage on the ballot.

The proceeds of the millage are to pay for a set of service improvements over a period of five years. Those improvements include increased frequency during peak hours, extended service in the evenings, and additional service on weekends. Some looped routes are being replaced with out-and-back type route configurations. The plan does not include operation of rail-based services.

The AAATA has calculated that the improvements in service add up to 90,000 additional service hours per year, compared to the current service levels, which is a 44% increase.

May 6 Millage Vote: Michael Ford’s Remarks

CEO Michael Ford eschewed his typical wide-ranging report of activities for the previous month in favor of some remarks focused on the upcoming May 6 millage vote. Ford reviewed how the AAATA was asking Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township voters to approve a millage of 0.7 mills for five years on Tuesday, May 6.

At the April 16, 2014 mayoral candidate forum, Ward 2 councilmember Sally Petersen said she was still on the fence about the May 6 millage. The other three candidates for Ann Arbor mayor – Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman – have all endorsed it.

The AAATA’s five-year plan is based on overwhelming demand from local residents, businesses and elected officials, Ford said. The millage will help fund transit improvements that will better serve the community, provide 44% more service, and help spur economic activity in the greater Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti area.

For the average household, Ford continued, this millage amounts to less than the cost of a cup of coffee per week: “We think that’s a good value considering the additional 90,000 hours of service it will provide annually.” The response from the community to the AAATA’s proposal has been overwhelmingly been positive, Ford said.

Civic leaders and organizations that often disagree have united to endorse the goals of the AAATA five-year public transportation improvement plan, Ford said. He then ticked through several organizations and individuals who have endorsed the millage. [.pdf of extracted pages from board packet with a list of endorsers]

Ford noted that endorsers included three of the four candidates for Ann Arbor mayor.

By way of background, the candidate who has not yet endorsed the millage is Sally Petersen. At a candidate forum held on April 16, 2014, she stated:

I am leaning towards supporting it right now, but I am a little bit still on the fence. The reason why I would support the millage for the expansion of the five-year plan is because I do believe in the first place that urban core and making the connection between [Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township] easier and expanding those routes so we have fewer cars on the streets is better for the road, better for the environment and it leaves more parking spaces for Ann Arbor downtown. I also think we need a robust transportation system, for those who can’t drive, those who are elderly or have disabilities and I think we need to expand services for that. But I live in a ward where there is quite a bit of opposition to the transit millage and on April 29th, councilmember [Jane] Lumm and I are hosting a Ward 2 meeting … I want to hear from opposition and how TheRide leadership is going to answer some questions before I endorse.

Ford continued by saying there’s a recognition that Washtenaw County urban core communities will benefit from more routes and longer hours of service. Echoing the pro-millage campaign slogan, Ford said “more buses, more places, more often” will help retain talent, jobs and businesses, helping to ensure that the local economy remains vibrant.

But Ford allowed there has been some criticism of the millage proposal. He called it unfortunate that some people have chosen to misinterpret data about public transportation or mislead people into thinking that the public does not want to invest in public transportation. Nothing could be further from the truth, Ford contended.

Ford then addressed some of the specific claims that opponents of the millage have made: “I would like to address some of the myths.” One myth is that the AAATA is inefficient, Ford said, when in fact the AAATA has 17% lower cost per passenger and has 18% fewer employees per passenger than its peers. Another myth, Ford said, is that the AAATA has 52 managers. “It’s just simply not true,” he said. Ford explained that the AAATA has 52 employees who are non-union – 11 of whom are managers, he said. That includes administrative assistants, IT staff, customer service, human resources, safety and security personnel, dispatchers and others, Ford said.

The assertion that the AAATA will use millage revenue to fund a train service is untrue as well, Ford continued. The AAATA had intentionally not put rail service in the ballot language.

AAATA has been acknowledged in USA Today, by CNN, and by independent transportation associations as one of the nation’s best-in-class in terms of ridership, operational efficiency, fiscal stability, and technological innovation, Ford said. And that’s why he was hopeful that voters in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township would say yes when they go to the polls on May 6.

May 6 Millage Vote: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a previous candidate for the Michigan state legislature. He called on everyone involved, including the public, to put forward all the positive reasons for voting on May 6 to support the transit millage. Passing the millage would be a positive step toward accomplishing what still needs to be done to develop true countywide transportation. That goal, Partridge said, requires the leadership of the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township. Passing the millage and the expanded service will reduce the amount of traffic on our roads and the amount of rush hour traffic, he contended. It would spur economic development, he continued, and would have a positive impact on the need for affordable transportation for disabled people and senior citizens.

Partridge also addressed the board at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary. He noted that Easter weekend was coming up and this time of year was of significance to most of the major religions of the world. Partridge said we should ask what Christ would advise on the vote to take steps to encompass the city of Ann Arbor, city of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township into an area-wide transportation authority. Better transit would ameliorate the effects of climate change and air and water pollution, he said.

Lloyd Shelton spoke representing those with disabilities in Washtenaw County, saying that he’s also part of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. The Ann Arbor CIL and people with disabilities across Washtenaw County stand firmly in support of this millage, he said. Shelton encouraged everyone to move forward on May 6 and to pass the millage.

Calisa Reid told the board that she’s a person with a disability, and she also lives in a rural area. As she was listening to the discussion of service changes, she hoped for service to the rural parts of Washtenaw County. She lives in Augusta Township and she ventured it would be hard to get a millage passed there. She suggested that maybe two times a month a shuttle could pick up people in rural areas of Washtenaw County so they can pay their bills or go grocery shopping. That might be a stopgap measure that could be implemented before more substantial changes come, she suggested.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its April 17 meeting, the AAATA board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Retreat, Work Plan

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Sue Gott said the committee had spent a lot of time talking about the first draft of a work plan for 2015. She reminded board members that in order for the board to approve the budget for next year, the board first needs to review and approve a work plan – as a basis for putting the budget together.

In discussing the work plan, the committee had gone back and forth on a discussion about the retreat. Last year, she noted, the board had a quite extensive discussion about the work plan at its retreat. One of the questions on the table at the planning and development committee meeting was whether the board should spend as much time at this year’s retreat focusing on the work plan or perhaps keep the discussion of the work plan at a higher level – in order to allow other topics to receive greater time and priority at the retreat.

The outcome of that discussion was a bit of a hybrid, Gott said, in that the committee still wanted to have a review of the work plan at the committee and make it available at the retreat. But they wanted to use the time at the retreat to talk a little bit about the AAATA’s current and future roles and relationships, including what the AAATA’s place is within the region. To allow that topic to go wherever it needs to go during the retreat, the committee wanted flexibility in the retreat agenda, so that topic of future roles and relationships could be explored deeply.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that the committee had met in the meeting room at the newly constructed Blake Transit Center, which is now open. About the BTC, Kerson reported that people are liking it. The final outside work was described as needing another 6 to 8 weeks of work, after the frost laws are lifted.

Comm/Comm: Financial Update

Roger Kerson reported on a financial update that the performance monitoring and external relations committee had received. Revenue is 0.2% under budget, but expenses are 2% under budget. So the budget is in good shape, Kerson said. There’s a surplus of $258,000 so far this year. The fund reserve balance is still under the level it should be based on board policy [three month's worth of operating expenses], because of a van purchase that needed to be made, for which the AAATA could not use federal funds. AAATA controller Phil Webb is hoping that the reserve balance will get closer to the minimum level it’s supposed to be as the year goes forward. Part of that will depend on the outcome of the millage vote, Kerson said.

Kerson also noted that a correction in accounting needed to be made due to a software glitch. The software the AAATA was using did not understand how to depreciate land – which does not depreciate. Because the AAATA had bought a strip of land [from the city of Ann Arbor] in order to construct Blake Transit Center, that had “messed everything up,” Kerson said. The auditor had found that mistake – and that is why you do audits, Kerson said. It has now been corrected.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson reviewed some ridership data. Fixed route ridership was higher in March 2014 compared to March 2013, but it is still down for the year – because January was so severely impacted by the weather, he said.

Comm/Comm: AAATA Website

Kerson reported that the AAATA website still needs some improvements, and ongoing discussions are taking place with the vendor about that. The plan at this stage is to hire a developer in-house, Kerson reported, so that the AAATA has its own capability and is not dependent on the vendor for the ongoing management of the website. Kerson felt that was a very good strategy. He described it as a very key hire, saying it was important to get the right person with the right set of abilities.

Comm/Comm: Onboard Survey

Continuing his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Kerson said the onboard survey of riders has now been completed and the results of that would be released soon. The survey showed overall that customers have a very high satisfaction with the AAATA service, he said.

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council

Cheryl Webber gave the report from the AAATA’s local advisory council – a body that advises the AAATA on issues related to the disability community as well as seniors.

Cheryl Webber of the AAATA’s local advisory council.

She said there was a nice discussion at the LAC’s last meeting about the new Ride Guide and the changes that have been made to it. There was a good discussion also about how the paratransit A-Ride service works – and doesn’t work from time to time. Representatives of SelectRide, the vendor that provides the A-Ride service, were present and were able to respond to people’s concerns, Webber reported.

Two LAC members had expressed some interest in putting the LAC at the board’s disposal – saying that the person who represents the LAC at the board meetings is well-suited to bring back to the LAC any questions the board might have about anything pertaining to paratransit or the accessibility of buses. Members of the LAC have been consumers of the transportation service for a very long time. They’ve also provided input on how transportation service has been provided over a very long time. So LAC members have a unique perspective, Webber said.

Comm/Comm: Meeting Schedule Religious Holidays

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen also told the board that he had left a church event in order to attend the board’s meeting that evening. He asked the board to think about dates of religious holidays when they set the board’s meeting calendar at the beginning of the year. [The meeting fell during Passover and on the Thursday before Easter.] The Interfaith Roundtable of Washtenaw County might serve as a resource for information on that, Mogensen said. Not all religious holidays are the same, he continued, pointing out that some of the holidays are more important than others.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Gillian Ream Gainsley, Larry Krieg.

Absent: Susan Baskett, Anya Dale, Jack Bernard.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Action to approve the contract came at the April 17, 2014 meeting of the AAATA board. The one-year contract is expected to be worth about $54,000 a year, which is under the $100,000 threshold requiring board approval. But because the board was approving potentially a five-year period, with the value of the work expected to exceed $100,000, the contract required board approval.

Saladino was selected from four bidders for the work. Even though 445 vendors were sent notice of the RFP, only four bids were received: Audia Concrete Construction of Milford; Hartwell Cement of Oak Park; Luigi Ferdinandi and Son Cement of Roseville; and Saladino Construction of Ann Arbor Township. The AAATA staff analysis indicated that small concrete jobs at multiple locations are not attractive to many contractors.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AAATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underground Parking Garage

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

Underground Parking Garage: Impact of  Construction on Businesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underground Parking Garage: Construction Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Revenue: go!pass Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Revenues: Status of getDowntown Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular Parking Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Varsity at Ann Arbor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: Retail Recruitment

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Energy Grants

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

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

Comm/Comm: Future Use of City-Owned Lots

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Fruit, Vegetable Bike Racks

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

Comm/Comm: LED Lighting Company

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

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

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

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

Annual Meeting: Officer Elections

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

Gary Boren, newly elected chair of the DDA board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual Meeting: Committee Mergers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual Meeting: Tokens of Appreciation

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Sandi Smith.

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

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

Jeff Irwin, representative for District 53 of the Michigan state House of Representatives, met with constituents at Espresso Royale in downtown Ann Arbor last Saturday. (Photos by the writer.)

In each of the first two months of his term, Irwin has held meetings for constituents in local Ann Arbor coffee houses – Cafe Verde and Espresso Royale. On Saturday, Feb. 26, The Chronicle caught up with Irwin after his talk with constituents and spoke with him for about an hour. The conversation included a discussion of Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed budget overview. [.pdf of budget overview]

In presenting the interview below, The Chronicle’s conversation with Irwin has been reorganized and edited in some places to achieve greater coherence and focus.

Last Saturday, Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-53rd District) entertained questions and concerns from constituents on a variety of topics, including local interest in the future use of the top of the underground parking structure, which is under construction on the city-owned Library Lot between Fifth and Division streets.

Three blocks east from Irwin’s conversation with constituents, a constant parade of concrete mixers on Division Street headed south across Liberty to the east edge of the Library Lot construction site. They dumped their loads into a pump, and through the course of the day, workers poured around 6,300 cubic yards of concrete. Coincidentally, in his subsequent conversation with The Chronicle, Irwin introduced images involving concrete and construction – he was drawing an analogy between teacher contracts and construction contracts.

We’ve chronicled this conversation in a Q&A format, divided into seven sections: (1) a budget bright spot in Medicaid; (2) education as an area of concern; (3) a lack of sufficient, specific goals associated with the budget; (4) labor relations in general; (5) labor relations in Washtenaw County; (6) Irwin’s relationship with former fellow county commissioner Mark Ouimet, a Republican who’s also now a state rep; and (7) a partisan imbalance in committee appointments.

Budget Bright Spot: Medicaid

AAC: In terms of sound, Espresso Royale is really poor for eavesdropping. I was just trying to hang out on the periphery [of your conversation with constituents], and I was basically just able to identify general topics.

But I did hear you say there is one bright spot in the governor’s budget. Which is?

Irwin: Oh, you didn’t hear what I said about that? Basically it’s related to Medicaid. There was a question that came up about Medicaid funding and what the direction was on that. And everything that I have seen in the governor’s budget so far is that he is not looking at hitting Medicaid – which is really good for a number of reasons.

It’s good obviously for the health care community. It’s good for the folks who are receiving the benefit, and it’s also good because every dollar we spend on Medicaid … usually Washington D.C. is sending you two or three dollars to match that. Conversely, every dollar that we cut out of Medicaid, means instead of losing one worker, we are losing three workers. …

Budget: Why Reduce Education Allocations?

Irwin: [The proposed budget] actually has more than a 15% cut [in higher education].

AAC: I thought it was 15%.

Irwin: I have heard an even bigger number recently, but the number I understand is actually 22%. The way they get to the 15% is that it’s a 15% flat cut to everybody, period. Then there is another 7% cut to add up to the total of a 22% cut. The other 7% cut is being put into a best practices thing – sort of like with the local government business. So if you do certain things at the university, you get access to that 7%.

AAC: And when you say the “local government business,” you are talking about taking the statutory state shared revenue, eliminating it, and replacing it with …

Irwin: … a competitive something that no one knows what the details are, yet. Right. And they’re doing the same thing in the university setting with that other 7%. So there is really a 22% cut. Now, the other day I heard a 26% number, but I don’t know where that comes from yet. But truth be told, I’m still trying to make sure that I understand these numbers and what they really mean, because …

AAC: … so it’s too soon to be trying to figure out, “All right, let’s not cut higher education and instead do something else”?

Irwin: Not necessarily. At the big level of talking about the concepts and not getting into the level of detail about this precise dollar, there has been some thinking put into that. … If you are going to bring in $1.5 billion in revenue – $1 billion in new taxes on pensions and another $330 million in new taxes on the working poor – then there is plenty of money to not cut education.

The reason why the governor’s budget has to cut so deeply in education, even with all that new tax increase, is because he also wants to give a huge tax increase to the corporate community.

So what I would say …  my initial counterproposal is: How will that we fix the Michigan Business Tax in a revenue-neutral way? How do we make it a simpler tax – that’s a good idea. But let’s do it in a way that is revenue neutral. That way we don’t have to pay for it with a $1.5 billion tax cut for the corporate community, and we can use that money to invest in what is really going to drive economic development and jobs in Michigan, which is education. … [Gov. Snyder] campaigned on the idea that we want to create a climate for economic growth, we want Michigan to be a more prosperous place …

AAC: … Michigan is  open for business …

Irwin: … right. We want to create this fertile environment for people to be prosperous, right? And then his first major proposal is to cut the heart out of what is the single most important element of prosperity and economic growth, which is a good education system!

Nobody wants to move to a place, and nobody wants to bring their company to a place, where they are not going to be able to attract talented workers, and where they are not going to have their kids be able to go to good schools and that sort of thing, right?

Now, that’s not true of every industry. There are some industries where a lower tax rate is the only thing. And there are some industries for whom recruiting top talent is the most important thing. Interestingly, I would say that we as a state, our strategy should be to go after as many of those business development and economic opportunities at the end of the scale where top talent is their priority. Because those are the best jobs, and the longest-lasting jobs, and jobs that really relate to the knowledge-based economy and all that kind of stuff, right?

Whereas some of these folks, who care only about what your tax rate is, those are the lowest paying jobs, with the least economic spinoff, without the health benefits – it’s like mining or something where they just want to be able to suck that rock out of the ground at the lowest possible rate, pay the lowest possible royalties, and the lowest possible taxes, and then head back to wherever Rio Tinto’s [a mining company] headquarters is.

AAC: At the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s economic development committee meeting last week on Wednesday, Jennifer Owens from Ann Arbor SPARK gave a presentation to the committee, giving them an overview of what SPARK does. And one of the things they do is they make recruiting visits to convince companies to expand their operations to Ann Arbor.

[Note: In 2010 four such trips were made, which resulted in four companies deciding to expand operations to the Ann Arbor area, which translates into 170 jobs, according to Owens. In addition to the four expansions due to recruitment trips, SPARK also counts an additional 10 expansions to the Ann Arbor area as a part of its recruitment program. ]

And someone asked her, “What is the thing that is the tipping point? What cinches the deal for Ann Arbor, when we manage to cinch a deal?” Her answer was: availability of talent.

But Ann Arbor is way different than the rest of Michigan. … I’m just trying to suggest that perhaps what is self-evidently a good public [education] policy for the Ann Arbor region may not be the best public policy for the entire state.

Irwin: I totally disagree, and here’s why. Because it’s not just about higher ed and universities, it’s also about K-12. People want to live somewhere where they know their kids are going to go to good schools. The decline of Detroit is all wrapped up in racial acrimony and other issues, industrial disinvestment and all that stuff – there’s a lot of things going on in the decline of the city of Detroit. But one of the big things is as you try to attract young professionals back into the city, it’s really hard, because if they want to ever have kids, they don’t want to send their kids to a school district that has the worst statistics in terms of achievement.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the gentleman named Myron Orfield, who was a Minneapolis state senator …  he did some groundbreaking research about 20 years ago. He wrote this book called “Metro Politics” about the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, and he tried to make the argument – very successfully, I think –that schools drive economic development. I think that’s true for K-12, and K-12 is all over the state.

And the other thing is, we’re talking about macroeconomics right now, right? And the goal of the state on one level should be to try to create this macroeconomic climate for growth in Michigan and help everybody be more prosperous, maximize our gross state product – I mean, that is a macroeconomic statement.

But there’s also the microeconomic side of it, right? The state is supposed to be working for the people of the state of Michigan, all of the people of the state of Michigan, and if we provide the people of the state of Michigan individually with education that gives them the training and the skills and knowledge to be successful individually in their lives – both in the job environment and in the home environment, and in every other environment in which they may seek to operate – that’s a benefit to those people individually. … So that’s my argument.

Better Budget Metrics

Irwin: What I think [Snyder] should have done as governor would be to say: “I’ve analyzed the situation in the state of Michigan, and here are our goals, here’s what we’re trying to accomplish, here’s what we think success looks like for the state of Michigan. So as we measure all these metrics that I like to talk about, here’s what’s that is all supposed to add up to.”

He didn’t do that. And I think that if he had done that, he would have been forced to reckon with the value of education in driving prosperity and the value of things like arts and culture.

ACC: When you say “goals,” what are some examples of the kind of goals you mean?

Irwin: … We want to graduate X-percent of our people from high school, we’d like to graduate this percent from college and we would like them when they graduate from high school to have this level of proficiency in these basic areas.

AAC: Hasn’t he done that with this budget proposal? Every section has metrics and scores, right?

[Irwin pulls out the budget proposal document. Leafing through it, AAC and Irwin identify the kind of pages mentioned by AAC. Irwin clarifies that 1,2,3 in the lefthand column are not scores, but rather keys to the types of measures: 1 = effectiveness measure; 2 = efficiency measure; 3 = quality measure. The trend arrows indicate a measure that is stable (horizontal, double-ended arrow), going the opposite of the desired direction (downward arrow), or improving (upward arrow).]

Example of metrics included in Gov. Snyder's 2012-13 budget proposal overview. (Image links to .pdf page of Dept. of Corrections metric detail.)

So for each of these items … for the things that are headed in the right direction, I think that implicit in this proposal is that we want to keep those things headed in the same direction. For anything that has performance stable, the goal is to make it better, and for those areas where performance is going down, the goal is to reverse that trend, like this – average cost per prisoner per year, $34,600 …

… so didn’t he already do what you are saying he should have done?

Irwin: What’s missing here is the number of people who are incarcerated. What’s missing here is the number of violent crimes going down. I feel that [Gov. Snyder] picked just a few things for these gigantic issue areas. There could be 200 metrics on this page, easily.

Of course he’s got to pick less than that, because that’s just insane, so he cherry-picked ones that he thinks are going to be easy to demonstrate progress with, rather than picking the important ones. Are these really the most important metrics for prison operations? I don’t think so. Cost is going to be one of the top ones … that’s one of the core ones. But … we’re talking about .07 escapes per 1,000 prisoners? This is not one of the top-line metrics for state government, in my opinion.

[reading aloud] “Prisoners past their earliest release dates who are on waiting lists for assaultive or sex offender therapy programs.” I guess that’s a fine metric, but is that the only quality measure that we’re going to look at?

Maybe they picked this one, because it’s a negative trend and they think they can turn it around by focusing on sex offender therapy programs, which is a tiny part of the budget. We should be talking about reducing recidivism. Reducing recidivism – I mean, that is the game in corrections. The reason why our corrections costs are insane, blowing the budget, is because we have two big problems – it’s not that there’s more crime, it’s not that there’s more violent crime, it’s not that there’s more people entering the criminal justice system. It’s that people stay in the system longer – average length of stay is way up – and the recidivism rate is way up.

So we have the same people revolving through and through for longer and longer. That is the core problem, and it’s not even recognized on his metrics – that’s what I’m talking about. And I think the same thing is true in a number of other areas.

… The metrics that, to me, are the most important in terms of effectiveness in education should be about student achievement, student graduation, class sizes, quality of teachers – if there’s a good way to measure that. Those are the kinds of things we need to measure.

And when you look at his proposal, I don’t see any result – given the money that’s being appropriated to K-12 – other than larger class sizes, and less attention being given to individual students. It’s been proven in study after study that the most important input to student achievement that the government has influence over is the quality of the teachers.

And the Republicans are in open warfare on teachers, across the board.

So this budget proposal is just one manifestation of that. I think that’s backwards. I think the state should be trying to work with teachers, lock arms with them and say, “How can we work together on making our kids be more educated and more successful people as they grow up?”

From Teachers to Labor in General …

AAC: When you say “open warfare on teachers,” what do you mean specifically?

Irwin: There are a number of things. One is gigantic cuts to education, which is going to mean more teachers will lose their jobs.

Two, the emergency financial manager bill, which has the effect of allowing the state to take over a school district, cancel all the union contracts, carte blanche.

Item number three is they’re trying to obviate the collective bargaining agreements, by legislatively requiring public employees in certain areas, including schools, to make certain contributions to their health care or their pension.

For instance, here’s a scenario for you. You and I are teachers. We have negotiated with the Ann Arbor Public Schools district for a certain rate, total compensation that includes benefits, wages, and all the fringes, work conditions, etc. And say it’s on a five-year contract. And then one year into the contract, the state legislature comes along and says, “Sorry, Dave and Jeff, we’ve determined outside of the collective bargaining agreement – that you just hammered out with your local school district – that you’re going to make an additional 20% contribution to your health care costs, because we think your health care costs are too high.”

That’s not a conversation that should be taking place in that way. It’s pulling the rug out from underneath collective bargaining agreements.

The analog to that would be to say if the state had a construction contract with Clark Construction to build a new building and they were submitting receipts to us, right? They build this building for us, and they finish, and they’ve got $1 million in outstanding receipts. And we say, “We don’t really think that concrete was worth $1 million. We think that concrete was worth $800,000, so that’s what we’re paying you, because we just passed a law after you built the building.”

AAC: That would save us a lot of money. [laugh]

Irwin: Wouldn’t it! But no one would ever think of doing that. Because breaking a contract in a private industry kind of relationship, that’s unthinkable.

AAC: … but as I understand the proposal, it’s to go into a collective bargaining contract and say, Okay from this point forward now, you’ll be paying more.

Irwin: Okay, the rest of your contract is void, we’ve replaced it, so a better analogy is …

AAC: … you go in and you say to Clark Construction, “Oh, the concrete you’ve already poured for $100 per yard, you will get paid for that. But for future yards of concrete that you pour, you get $80 a yard.” And Clark could say, “You know what? Screw that. I don’t want to be in this business anymore, or I’ll go pour my concrete someplace else in some other state.”

Irwin: We’ve already promised to pay them the same rate for the rest of the concrete, and we change the deal in the middle of the work?

AAC: Right. So that’s a better analogy than the one you sketched out. It’s one I think I can imagine people at least maybe arguing about, whereas the one you sketched out, you really just can’t argue about.

Irwin: Well, your analogy is better, so let’s use yours. We have a contract with Clark and it’s to pay them $100 per yard of concrete … I still think that there’s a strong analogy there. If we have a contract for $1 million to pour concrete, and they pour half the concrete, and then for the second half we say, “We’re only going to pay you $400,000 for that. You can stop in the middle if you want??”

AAC: Well, that’s not the way contract law works, as I understand it.

Irwin: No, of course not. But that’s what the Republicans are doing.

… and to Labor Relations in Washtenaw County

AAC: Okay, maybe that’s a knuckleheaded way of approaching it. But in the final analysis, the unions do need to make concessions, not just for the health of their unions, but for the health of the communities where they work.

Irwin: And they agree. And they do. Time and time again. That happened at [Washtenaw County when I was a commissioner]. And part of the reason that happened was that we had a respectful management-labor relationship and we said, “Look, the money situation has changed, so we need you to come to the table and renegotiate.” And you know what the unions do? They come to the table and they renegotiate. But when you tell them …

AAC: … in the county, perhaps they do. But in the city of Ann Arbor, I don’t know if you’re familiar with what they’re doing.

What the city is calling it – and I think it’s a fair label to put on their strategy – is to “align the budget strategy with the labor strategy.” They’ve said, “Here’s what we need. We need our open contracts to settle with no wage increases and with an additional contribution to the benefit plan, the same benefit plan that our non-union workers are on – and the same plan that some of our other unions have actually adopted. So we’re not asking you firefighters and police to adopt anything that others haven’t already accepted at the city. … So on that scenario, we still have a 2.5% reduction target.” So every department, their first task is to identify 2.5% in reductions. For departments that have workers not on the new city plan – which has increased contributions from workers to their health care – those departments are given an extra task, possibly up to a 4.0% reduction target. So police and fire … their reduction target is effectively 4.0%.

So that’s where it sits. And if I had to guess, those contracts would not be settled and signed before the city completes its budget process this year, and it’ll be settled by Act 312 arbitration.

Irwin: Probably.

AAC: What’s the difference between the city and the county? Did [recently retired county administrator] Bob Guenzel have a magic wand? And if so, did he hand it off to Verna McDaniel [the current county administrator]?

Irwin: Time will tell on that second question. Did he have a magic wand? No, but I mean, you probably know that before he was county administrator, he was corporation counsel and the lead person on labor negotiations. And before that he was a private attorney who was hired to do labor negotiations for various entities. So Bob came into the role of administrator keenly aware of the benefits of a positive labor-management relationship. And he worked very hard at that for 15 years in maintaining it.

Now will Verna be able to have the relationship with the union leaders? I think there’s a high likelihood of that. That was one of the biggest pluses that she brought to the table – that she had been human resources director, before she was deputy administrator, and she had a lot of experience with the labor-management piece and the human resources piece of the organization. And Washtenaw County, I think, has always had – at least the whole time I was there – a strong ethic of we’re-all-in-this-together, management and labor all work together to serve the people, and transparency and mutual respect.

When you maintain that transparency and mutual respect, when it’s real and not just stated, it makes a difference. Then when you go to a union and you say, “Our revenues are way down, we’re in a tough spot. There’s only so many answers – here’s what we think are the answers. Do you have any other potential answers you’d like to add to the list of answers? Because we’re eventually going to have to pick one of these, and neither of us really love any of these. So let’s work together.” … And after several months of doing that, sometimes you actually get to an amicable solution.

How Do You Have a Conversation?

AAC: So back to the budget, you’ve got 109 other [representatives in the state House] that you’ve got to have a conversation with, if you can. One of those is somebody you served on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners with. How many years were you and Mark Ouimet on the same board?

Irwin: Six.

AAC: So six out of the 12 years you were on the board?

Irwin: I was there for 11, actually. I came in on an odd year, in ’99. And Mark came along, I believe, in 2004.

AAC: So you have six years of experience working with him.

Irwin: And he’s right next door to me, too.

AAC: When you say “next door,” you mean …?

Irwin: Our offices in the House office building. They start out one, two, three all the way up to 110. So…

AAC: … so it goes 52 [Ouimet's district number], 53 [Irwin's district number] …

Irwin: … so we are right next to each other, yeah.

AAC: So if you need to talk to a Republican, there is one right next door, who will actually answer the door when you knock.

Irwin: Yes, he’s willing to have a conversation with me, usually.

AAC: Usually? [laugh]

Irwin: Well, yeah, I mean, sometimes people are busy!

AAC: So Mark is obviously not like an inside man for you in the Republican Party, but  he is somebody who is a Republican. And if there are bridges to be built or foundations to be built on, he would be a logical choice, yes?

Irwin: Yes, of course. Mark is a friend and he is willing to talk with me about these issues and that is valuable. That relationship has value to me.

AAC: Have you seen any ways in which that relationship has benefited citizens of Michigan already?

Irwin: That relationship? I’m not entirely sure, because it’s hard to evaluate, particularly this early. But there have definitely been some issues that we have talked about, where I have expressed some concerns about maybe the process, where I’ve expressed concerns about the details of certain bills that have been going through.

Did that alter his thinking about them? I’m not entirely sure – it’s hard for me to know exactly. But it certainly may have. And I think that one of the things that Mark brings to the table regardless of how he votes on issues and everything is sort of a culture of civility and decency to the loyal opposition. I don’t know for a fact, but I think that internal to his caucus, he’s probably saying, “Well, you know, we want to vanquish our enemies, but we do not need to burn down their villages and take their women.”

AAC: So on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, he was the loyal opposition. [When Ouimet and Irwin served, Ouimet was one of two Republicans on the 11-member board.]

Irwin: I think that is maybe part of it too, that he knows what it’s like to be in the minority. And he knows that sometimes when you’re in the minority, but you have valid points to make, and when the majority actually listens to you and maybe takes some of those valid points, then maybe it’s good for the world, it’s good for public policy. Mark told me that when I was chair of the [Washtenaw County] board, he felt welcomed into the conversation and I certainly worked hard to welcome him into the conversation. Because I think that’s what a good leader does.

Do we still have that relationship? Yeah. Is the shoe on the other foot now? Yeah. Could the goodwill and a good relationship that I have built up with him be somehow helpful on a public policy concern? I certainly hope so. Has it already? I’m not sure that it has. But we have talked about some things.

AAC: Have any of those things been about the budget?

Irwin: No, we haven’t talked about the budget. That budget bomb dropped a week ago now. You know, the numbers themselves didn’t come out until midweek this week … I have not talked to Mark about it at all. I may have talked to him about it in passing, you know, “Holy Cow, the governor is really taking it out on education isn’t he?!” Maybe like the kind of passing shot like that, but no real conversation about that yet.

Stacking the Appropriations Committee

AAC: What is the breakdown of Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee?

Irwin: This is one of the dirty little secrets hasn’t really been talked about statewide…

AAC: … you can talk about it right now.

Irwin: That’s what I’m going to do! When the Republican Speaker [James "Jase" Bolger] assumed the power to populate the committees structure in this latest session …

AAC: … but, to be clear, this is an ordinary power, right? He’s not grabbing power, when he came into this role – it’s the power that anybody as Speaker has …

Irwin: … precisely. This is the normal role of the Speaker, to choose how many Democrats and Republicans are on each committee. And what the Speaker did was he pushed the envelope – further than I have ever seen it, at least, and further than the last Democratic speaker – pushed it in terms of what the balance of Democrats versus Republicans is going to be on all these committees.

So even though there are 47 Democrats and 63 Republicans in the House of Representatives – meaning that the ratio is not even 1.5:1 – the ratio of Republicans to Democrats on the committees across the board is much greater than that – they are often 2:1. So he pushed the partisan makeup of the committees, both in appropriations and elsewhere, to be even more heavily Republican than the actual body itself is.

AAC: But he could appoint only Republicans if he wanted to.

Irwin: I think he could. But I think that would look so bad that they wouldn’t do that. There may be something in the House rules that says you have to have at least one member – I mean, I have read the rules but I don’t remember all the details.

AAC: What is the breakdown [of Democrats to Republicans] for appropriations?

Irwin: The breakdown for the appropriations committee – I don’t know the total breakdown, we would have to look that up. I don’t know off the top of my head. [Note: For the 27-member appropriations committee, the breakdown is 17 Republicans to 10 Democrats. By way of another example,  the agriculture committee consists of 10 Republicans and six Democrats. .pdf of all standing committee assignments]

But on some of the subcommittees, the ones that are smaller, there will be only one Democrat, and usually three Republicans on some of the subcommittees. Now on some of the bigger subcommittees – like school aid, for instance – I think there’s probably like five Republicans and two Democrats, or like six and three, maybe.

But for the most part, Speaker Bolger pushed the envelope on partisanship with respect to committee assignments, and did almost a 2:1 partisan majority for Republicans on the policy committees and the appropriations committee – when really it should’ve been close to 1.5:1. It’s a huge difference, really.

And the other thing that they are saying very publicly: “If you Democrats want to make amendments, you’ve got to do it in committee. We’re not interested in hearing amendments on the floor – that’s too late. Introduce or amend in committees, that’s the way this process is supposed to work – where we have even a greater part of the majority and we can squelch your amendments even more easily!”

AAC: So the budget is essentially chopped apart at the subcommittee level in appropriations, which in a lot of ways makes it bite-sized chunks…

Irwin: … if your mouth really big…. They are still huge. The school aid budget is $14 billion or something like that.

AAC: But it’s a way of dividing things so that people can focus on, say, one or two or three issues as opposed to 12.

Irwin: Precisely.

David Olson, vice president of Granger Construction Co., delivered a letter to the DDA board during public commentary, which questioned the way concrete bids were handled for the DDA's underground parking garage. The garage is currently under construction along Fifth Avenue. (Photos by the writer.)

Though not addressed by the board as business items, two areas of controversy emerged during public commentary.

One involves the award of a bid as part of the DDA’s construction of the underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue. The contract for construction management for the entire project was awarded to The Christman Co. However, under the terms of the contract, Christman must bid out various components of the project, like the concrete work – even though Christman has the capability of doing that work itself.

The low bid for the concrete work was submitted by Granger Construction Co., at $21.5 million. But Christman awarded the contract to Christman Constructors Inc., which had submitted a bid of $22 million. Christman’s selection as construction manager of the project had been finalized at the DDA board’s Nov. 4, 2009 meeting with a guaranteed maximum price of $44,381,573. Representatives of Christman and Granger aired their differing points of view on the concrete bid at Wednesday’s meeting, with DDA board chair John Splitt concluding that he was satisfied the process had been fair.

The other point of controversy arising during public commentary is the probable $2 million payment this year by the DDA to the city of Ann Arbor – which it has no obligation to make under its current parking agreement with the city. The city’s budget book for FY 2011, released on Monday, does not factor in a payment from the DDA. Instead, it shows a $1.5 million shortfall for the year. The DDA’s parking report to the city council hints at the possibility that the DDA would take responsibility for the ticketing of parking violations. That change in enforcement could be included in the renegotiation of the parking agreement.

Other business transacted by the board on Wednesday included a resolution calling on the city council to revise its sign ordinance so that downtown merchants could use sandwich board signs legally. A recent attempt to revise the ordinance by the council was voted down at its Feb. 16, 2010 meeting.

DDA Parking Report to the City Council

At its Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution addressing parking revenues. The resolution was brought forward by Sandi Smith, who serves on the city council representing Ward 1, as well as on the DDA board. From The Chronicle’s coverage of that meeting [emphasis added]:

In its original form, the resolution had three key points: (i) net revenues from the Fifth and William (old YMCA) lot would go into city rather than DDA coffers, (ii) downtown parking meters would operate and be enforced until 10 p.m., which is later than their current cutoff of 6 p.m., and (iii) the city would discontinue its plan to install its own parking meters in neighborhoods near the downtown.

With respect to its substance, the part of the resolution generating the most resistance was (ii) with its extended hours of meter enforcement for on-street parking. Smith swapped out that provision for one somewhat more vague, and the council eventually adopted a resolution that requested a report from the DDA on the issue of extended meter enforcement:

RESOLVED, The City requests that the DDA present a plan to Council at its April 19, 2010 meeting for a public parking management plan. The plan should include but is not limited to:

• a communication plan to Downtown patrons, merchants and evening employees
• options for low cost parking for evening employees
• variation of rates and meter time limits based on meter location
• hours of enforcement

It is this plan that the DDA board voted to endorse on Wednesday. Final tweaking will take place at the board’s partnerships committee meeting next week.

The report is structured around eight strategies:

Strategy 1: Downtown curbside public parking should be managed to create turnover at the most convenient, commercial locations so these spaces can be more easily used by a large pool of downtown users.

Strategy 2: A comprehensive TDM [transportation demand management] strategy should be developed and utilized to support the downtown evening economy, including a management strategy for on‐street parking spaces, creation of additional evening employee parking/transportation options and communication strategies.

Strategy 3: Develop new off-street parking strategies to make it more attractive for patrons to park off‐street in public parking facilities, and thus relieve pressure on curbside parking, support downtown commerce and entertainment, and increase patron awareness of their parking use and costs.

Strategy 4: Develop policies and plans to add and subtract public parking downtown based on redevelopment, walkability, and transportation goals.

Strategy 5: Develop additional parking options for personal transportation vehicles, including motorcycles, bicycles, and vehicles using new energy.

Strategy 6: Increase downtown employee use of public transit by expanding AATA service hours, developing a strong Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor transit plan, and making downtown transit stops more user‐friendly.

Strategy 7: Improve communications to downtown business owners, employees, customers and visitors by developing new communication tools and sharing information more broadly.

Strategy 8: Develop a parking and transportation strategy for downtown & near downtown residents

One of the tactics for implementing Strategy 2 is a recommendation to extend time limits on parking spots from two to three hours in certain areas.

Another tactic for implementing Strategy 2 is a recommendation to change meter enforcement hours from 8 a.m.‐6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-9 p.m. This reflects the report’s genesis as a request from the city council to the DDA, when the council was confronted with a resolution that would have extended the hours of meter enforcement. That recommendation will likely generate the most controversy, and this was reflected in public commentary at the DDA’s Wednesday meeting.

Parking Report: Public Commentary

Ray Detter, in his report to the board on the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council‘s meeting the night before, said that DDA executive director Susan Pollay had attended the meeting to give a summary of the parking report. Detter supported the idea that the DDA was the only entity equipped to administer parking operations.

Commenting on behalf of the Main Street Area Association, Tony Lupo took the podium for his allotted four minutes at the start of the board meeting. Lupo indicated that the MSAA had held information meetings and participated in the DDA’s process for receiving public feedback for the report. He reported that there was overwhelming opposition to extending the meter enforcement hours.

However, he allowed that the MSAA understood the context under which extended hours were being considered – the city’s need for revenue. What was important, Lupo said, was to couple any extension of meter enforcement hours past 6 p.m. with some kind of offsetting enhancements like increasing the maximum time to three hours – from its current limit of two hours – and offering free parking during certain hours. Lupo stated that MSAA would like to contribute to the marketing strategy for the plan.

In that context, Lupo suggested that it didn’t make sense to “shift” the time of meter enforcement from its current window of 8 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-9 p.m. That essentially offers a free hour of parking when it’s not in high demand. It would be better, said Lupo, to offer a free hour of parking sometime after 6 p.m. – that’s something it could be headlined as a benefit in a marketing effort. [Lupo is marketing director for Salon Vox on West Liberty Street.]

Parking Report: Transportation/Operations Committee Deliberations

At the board’s joint transportation and operations committee meeting the previous Wednesday, March 31, 2010, committee members hashed through a number of issues related to the parking report. Those ranged from presentational issues to more substantive questions.

Among the presentational issues was the question of whether to include parking rates in the body of the report or put them in an appendix. Putting actual numbers in the body of the report, suggested Newcombe Clark, would make the report immediately dated. Transportation committee chair John Mouat suggested putting the numbers in an appendix. Board chair John Splitt feared that if they did not include the numbers for rates, they would lose control of the discussion: “They’re real numbers, why not put them in there?” The rates will be included in an appendix.

Among the more substantive issues discussed at the joint committee meeting related to control of enforcement. In a section of the report describing benchmarking data from other communities, the following observation is made [emphasis added]:

Through examination of other communities, we learned the following: … Parking enforcement and parking operations are often managed jointly by one agency.

Elsewhere, the report states:

Parking enforcement and parking operations are two halves of the same parking system. Optimally, enforcement and operations strategies are planned and managed together.

In Ann Arbor, parking operations are handled by the DDA through a contract with Republic Parking. Enforcement, on the other hand, is handled by the city of Ann Arbor through police and community standards officers.

At the committee meeting, the question was raised: Why don’t we just say it – we want to take over enforcement. This is an idea that came out of the first meeting that the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee held last year. The DDA and the city have ad hoc “mutually beneficial” committees, charged with renegotiating the parking agreement between the two entities. At the time of that first meeting of the DDA’s committee, the city had not yet appointed a corresponding “mutually beneficial” committee.

Parking Report: Who Enforces Meters, and the City Budget Gap

The key facts about that city-DDA parking agreement were summarized during public commentary at Wednesday’s board meeting by Bob Dascola, who owns Dascola Barbers on South State Street. In 2005, the agreement between the city and the DDA was renegotiated to extend 10 years through 2015, with the annual payment by the DDA to the city in the amount of $1 million.

A provision of that agreement allows for the city to request a payment of $2 million in any given year, with the condition that the total amount over the 10-year period can’t exceed $10 million. Now five years into the contract, the city has requested $2 million each of the first five years. So, for the upcoming year, FY 2011,  the DDA does not owe the city anything under that contract.

Dascola weighed in against the idea that the DDA should voluntarily renegotiate the contract, saying that the DDA was not an ATM.

The DDA “mutually beneficial” committee’s initial discussions, which began last year, centered around the idea of an arrangement that would be more complex than the DDA simply writing an additional check to the city.

From The Chronicle’s report of the April 1, 2009 DDA board meeting [emphasis added]:

[Rene] Greff  [who chaired that committee at the time, but no longer serves on the DDA board] then ticked through what the committee had done. They had: (i) reviewed history of DDA parking agreements with the city, (ii) reviewed TIF (tax increment financing) capture, and (iii) reached a majority view – with dissent from Hewitt – that they should not re-open the discussion of the existing parking agreement. It was not the role of the DDA, Greff said, to cover gaps in the city budget. The committee had given some consideration to taking over city tax-funded activities (e.g., snow removal), and had contemplated purchasing the right to meter enforcement in downtown. The latter would allow the DDA to control a piece of the public’s experience with the downtown area.

Board member Leah Gunn asked about the city’s side of the committee. Greff explained that the city council had not yet seated their committee, and the DDA contingent had met so that they would have something more concrete to bring to the table when the first meetings with the city took place.

The two committees have not, to The Chronicle’s knowledge, ever met. Sandi Smith, who serves on the DDA’s committee, has reported at DDA board meetings for a number of months that there was nothing to report. At the last two DDA board meetings, Roger Hewitt reported only that informal talks had taken place.

The Chronicle noted in its previous coverage that the city’s committee meetings can be expected to be noticed for the public beforehand and made accessible to the public [from "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible" – which also includes a history of the respective "mutually beneficial" committees]:

If and when the two “mutually beneficial” committees from the DDA and the city council meet, it’s reasonable to expect that the meetings will be open to the public and announced in accordance with the Open Meetings Act.

While the committee membership from the city council would not amount to a quorum, a resolution passed at its Nov. 4, 1991 meeting by the Ann Arbor city council expresses the council’s will that its committees adhere, to the best of its abilities, with the requirements of the OMA:

R-642-11-91

RESOLUTION REGARDING OPEN MEETINGS FOR CITY
COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND TASK FORCES

Whereas, The City Council desires that all meetings of City boards, task forces, commissions and committees conform to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act;

RESOLVED, That all City boards, task forces, commissions, committees and their subcommittees hold their meetings open to the public to the best of their abilities in the spirit of Section 3 of the Open Meetings Act; and

RESOLVED, That closed meetings of such bodies be held only under situations where a closed meeting would be authorized in the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.

At the DDA’s joint transportation and operations committee meeting last week, in response to the suggestion that the parking report simply state that the DDA wanted to take over meter enforcement, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, said that would be “presumptuous.”

Responding to Pollay, Newcombe Clark clarified with her that the parking report was to be submitted to the city council on April 19. And the inclusion of meter enforcement by the DDA would be reasonable, Clark said, because it was within a few weeks of an expected compromise between the city and the DDA on the parking deal. Polly replied that she was not aware of a compromise.

Gary Boren then weighed in, saying it was his understanding that the city’s budget was being prepared without an assumption that the DDA would be making a $2 million payment. On the Monday following that March 31 committee meeting, the city released its budget book, which does not assume a $2 million payment from the DDA – it shows a roughly $1.5 million deficit for the year.

The issue of who has responsibility for meter enforcement is not just a matter of which agency – the city or the DDA – can insist on the right to do so. The parking report contains a number of recommendations that would seem to require either an intensely close working relationship between the agencies administering operations and enforcement, or else require that it be a single agency administering both. For example, the recommended tactics to implement Strategy 1 include the following:

• To lessen patron frustration about receiving a ticket, improve information on parking tickets & envelopes, including how to pay online or avoid a ticket in the future.
• Improve website information and provide a feedback mechanism unrelated to contesting parking tickets.
• Pursue ideas that would make it possible to pay for parking tickets and stored value meter cards in one location, providing increased convenience to customers.
• Explore making it possible to pay parking tickets at the epark machines as a way of reducing patron inconvenience and frustration.
• Explore making it possible to pay for parking tickets at banks, thus reducing the number of patrons who feel compelled to come to City Hall for this function. Determine if it is feasible for downtown banks to dispense stored value meter cards.

Counter to the original impetus behind extended hours of enforcement – an effort to generate additional revenue – is a goal of fewer tickets expressed in the report:

… parking operations and enforcement should be managed so that the number of parking tickets eventually decreases and the number of patrons complying with parking regulations increases.

Parking Report: DDA Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt led off deliberations on the parking plan, saying that it embodies 18 years of experience by the DDA in managing parking operations. It reflected a lot of hard work and public process in a very short amount of time, he said. He noted that it had been reviewed in detail by the transportation and operations committees. The partnerships committee would do the final edit, he said, at its meeting later in the month.

Hewitt stressed that it was not just a parking plan – it’s a transportation management plan. He allowed that some of the recommendations are controversial. However, he noted that the strictly daytime economy in downtown has undergone a shift in the last 20-30 years and that there’s now a nighttime economy. The parking report contains recommendations, Hewitt said, about extended meter enforcement and geographically determined meter rates.

Newcombe Clark also praised the work of the staff. He emphasized that the DDA did not know for sure what would happen when some of the recommendations were implemented – as he put it, “when we start pulling these levers.” Clark said the DDA owed it to itself to do baseline calculations so that it could ascertain whether the demand management measures resulted in a revenue loss, a large surplus, or was simply a wash. He wanted the DDA to start looking at spreadsheets on what might happen.

John Mouat characterized the daytime parking activity in the past as essentially static, in contrast to the more dynamic pattern of nighttime parking. He said the plan itself was dynamic, not set in stone. The plan’s essence was about choices, he concluded.

Keith Orr also gave kudos to the staff, saying they’d done the work “under the gun.” Orr agreed with Clark on the need to model the various impacts of the measures when they are implemented. Responding to Lupo’s public  commentary – when Lupo  expressed some concern that the language in the report used to describe some of the enhancements was not as strong as that describing the extended enforcement – Orr said the DDA was an organization with a good history of testing plans. They’d implemented or tested everything in the Nelson\Nygaard study, he said.

Sandi Smith thanked the staff for their heroic effort. She said that in an informal survey she’d done of nighttime workers, she’d learned that a lot of people don’t realize that parking after 6 p.m. is currently free. So she was cautious about any assumption that extending meter enforcement would have a dramatic change in revenues.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that he didn’t think the document looked like it had been prepared under the gun. He said the idea of extended hours of meter enforcement would be controversial.

Leah Gunn thanked Mouat and Hewitt for chairing the combined committee meetings that worked on the parking plan. She called the plan a “tour de force.” Some things are not knowable, she allowed, but you don’t know until you try.

Outcome: The DDA parking report received the unanimous endorsement of the DDA board.

Parking Report: ParkingCarma

Related to a theme of transportation demand management was a presentation made by Rick Warner of ParkingCarma during public commentary. In discussions on the operations committee report, Leah Gunn also said she was intrigued with ParkingCarma. And Roger Hewitt said he could add ParkingCarma to the next meeting of the operations committee.

What had intrigued Gunn? Warner pitched the idea of a partnership between the DDA and ParkingCarma. He described ParkingCarma’s business, which uses a variety of technologies to make parking easier. Before the meeting, Warner described it for The Chronicle as “like Orbitz for parking.” Warner described how ParkingCarma had already inventoried all the off-street parking in Ann Arbor, and had partnered with Google Local Business Center to provide parking information to Google. That provides a way for potential customers to get information about the closest available parking locations to that business.

Warner also sketched out a way to integrate into a parking system, so that the owner of that system could accept pre-paid reservations for parking. Premiums could be collected for special events, or patrons could be directed to lower-demand spaces to optimize the parking inventory. Warner suggested that launching such a system would be best in connection with a large special event like the Ann Arbor Art Fairs.

Warner described ParkingCarma as a SPARK-incubated company. The company is listed on Ann Arbor SPARK’s website as a “portfolio company,” which refers to companies that “have navigated through the SPARK application and due diligence process and emerged with investments.” SPARK is a nonprofit organization that works on economic development for the Ann Arbor area.

Elizabeth Parkinson, vice president of marketing and communications for SPARK, told The Chronicle in a phone interview that ParkingCarma had gone through Phase I and Phase II of SPARK’s business accelerator, and had received a loan from the Michigan Pre-Seed Capital Fund, which is managed by SPARK’s Skip Simms, as well as from Automation Alley.

Granger and Christman Dispute Concrete Bid

The DDA board got an update on the progress on the underground parking garage currently under construction along Fifth Avenue on the city-owned Library Lot. The update was delivered by Pat Podges, who is vice president for southeast Michigan operations for The Christman Co., which is the construction manager for the job.

Key points of the update included the fact that earth-retention work had been completed on the east and south sides of the project and would be proceeding east to west along the north side of the site. Excavation was continuing along the east leg, near Division Street, Podges reported. A decision had been made to dewater the site by taking water up Liberty Street to South State Street, as opposed to running it to the west down toward the Allen Creek drains.

Podges reported that the result of the returned bids on the project meant that the estimate contingency in the contract would be returned in full, and the risk contingency on the project could be reduced, which resulted in $1 million that the DDA would be getting back.

Then Podges moved into a description of how the concrete package had been handled: “I just want to speak real briefly about the integrity of the process by which we used to establish the subcontractors which we are using on the job – specifically the structural concrete work package, which was the largest package on the project.”

Background on the Construction Contract

Selection of the construction manager for the underground parking garage was done in two steps. First, the job of pre-construction services was awarded. That company’s performance on pre-construction services would determine whether the DDA retained them as construction manager. The expectation was that whichever company was selected for pre-construction would ultimately be selected as construction manager.

The interviews for pre-construction services were described in part in an Aug. 13, 2009 Chronicle article. Stressed throughout the interviews was the idea that construction manager companies that could self-perform various sub-contracted aspects of the job – like pouring the substantial amount of concrete for the garage – would need to compete with other companies for that work. Describing how Barton Malow was not selected for the construction manager job, the article makes clear that Barton Malow could conceivably make money by winning the concrete portion of the job:

Still, Barton Malow and [Neal] Morton could make money on the job – if they’re selected as a concrete subcontractor. The construction manager candidates have their “in house” concrete divisions, and would ordinarily not need to subcontract out that work. But the DDA would like the construction manager for this project to bid out the concrete work. It was a question that DDA board member Leah Gunn put to the construction manager candidates during the interviews: Would they be comfortable having to compete for the concrete work with other bidders? The correct answer was yes.

The candidates for the job emphasized that the close quarters of the site made it a challenge – both logistically and in terms of minimizing impact on the immediately surrounding property. They’d be installing earth retention systems that would minimize vibration impacts, for example.

After performing to the DDA’s expectations in the pre-construction services phase of the project, Christman’s selection as construction manager of the project was finalized at the DDA board’s Nov. 4, 2009 meeting with a guaranteed maximum price of $44,381,573.

The sealed bids for the concrete work were opened on March 4, 2010 at the DDA offices. From Chronicle coverage of the DDA board’s March 3, 2010 meeting:

Bid package #3, [board chair Joan] Splitt reported, which is for the concrete and steel work, would be opened publicly at 2 p.m. in DDA offices the following day. [The bids will first be reviewed for numerical accuracy. Then any conditions specified by the contractors checked, and interviews will be held with the lowest three bidders to review the scope of work – a meeting for that is scheduled on Tues., March 9.]

The base bids were submitted as follows from lowest to highest:

1. $21,499,000  Granger Construction Company
2. $21,980,000  Colasanti Construction
3. $22,025,000  Christman Constructors, Inc.
4. $23,286,000  Spence Brothers Construction
5. $23,980,000  Barton Malow
6. $25,500,000  Walbridge

Note that Christman Constructors Inc. is a subsidiary of The Christman Co., which is the construction manager on the job. The post-bid meetings were held with the three lowest bidders, including  Christman and Granger. Granger’s team left the post-bid interview believing they’d won the job.

Pat Podges described at Wednesday’s board meeting why Granger was not awarded the concrete work. Here’s what Podges reported early in the meeting, after he updated the board on the construction progress :

I just want to speak real briefly about the integrity of the process by which we used to establish the subcontractors which we are using on the job – specifically the structural concrete work package, which was the largest package on the project. We received last month six bidders, that ranged anywhere from $21,449,000 to $25,500,000.

Based on the complexity of the project and the closeness of the second and third low bidder, we elected to bring in the three low bidders for post-bid reviews, which are widely used to determine their understanding of the project, their operational plan for the project, the schedule expectations, the quality and safety. At the end of that we disqualified the low-bidding contractor [Granger] for non-conformance with the bidding documents relative to the schedule and work plan, and also their ability to demonstrate to us their understanding of the operational execution of the work. That left the two remaining bidders, one of which was CCI, a subsidiary of the Christman Co. Each had submitted full documentation – work plan, management plan, and a detailed schedule for the project.

Further analysis of these two bids really revealed that the differential between the two firms was about 2/10 of one percent. We then looked at some other aspects of the work recommendation, including alternates that were required for them to provide as well as voluntary alternates which they offered at bid. And at the end, it was very clear that CCI had provided the best value for the project, and it was a team decision based on their final project cost, provided the best value to the city. In the end CCI’s price was $21,438,000, which was actually less than the original low-bidding contractor.

David Olson, vice president of Granger Construction, saw it differently from Podges. Speaking near the end of DDA board meeting during the time reserved for public comment, his remarks went as follows:

Hi, my name is David Olson, I’m vice president of Granger Construction. And I am here to talk briefly about integrity. As the low bidder of the concrete package on your parking ramp, I take exception to Mr. Podges’ comments about, I guess, our inexperience or lack of knowledge for that project. We’ve got a proven record of accomplishment for delivering these types of projects.

I’m here more just to make a simple public statement about a flawed process. And whether it is your process or their selection process. And make no mistake, this is not about sour grapes, this is about making a public statement about doing the right thing. We worked with these gentlemen for a long time in the same area – we play nice in the sandbox. It’s not about the gentlemen. It’s about the decision that the company made and whether it is their selection process or yours, you guys are complicit, and I just think it’s important to get this out in the public. We talk about money going back and forth – you guys are excited about $1 million that you get – if you go through that contract that’s money that is yours anyway, it’s due to be given back to you.

The process and how they made the selection of jumping from the low bidder, which we were, we won – over the second bidder to themselves, is kind of a shrewdly crafted shell game. I’m here to deliver a letter from our CEO Glenn Granger, which lays out the facts. We don’t expect to get this project, but we want to do the right thing. And doing the right thing is tough, it’s not easy being here today. It’s not about sour grapes – I was a little disarmed when we walked in and you [Leah Gunn] said, you know, ‘I know you’re here to whine about the project.’ We’re not here to whine. We’re here to get the facts on the record and to do the right thing. It’s not easy, but doing the right thing seldom is. So with that here’s a letter I would like to deliver to you, you can read it, certainly if you have any questions our contact information is there. We really appreciate your time. Thank you.

The letter delivered to the board members cited a lack of a rationale for rejecting the low-bidding company for the job. [Complete text of Granger's letter to the DDA] An excerpt:

None of Granger’s references were consulted, and there was absolutely no indication that Granger’s bid lacked a single project scope requirement. lf Christman had concerns, they had a duty to clearly document them in the meeting minutes and/or call us to communicate them. Regrettably, neither was done. The Ann Arbor DDA, and the taxpayers of Ann Arbor deserve the benefit of the lowest qualified bidder. Explaining the $526,000 difference became a shrewdly conducted shell-game, where The Christman Company extracted other savings out of the Guaranteed Maximum Price contract in order to make it appear that they’re serving your organization.

When Granger Construction interviewed for the construction manager’s role, the Ann Arbor DDA made it exceedingly clear that it desired openness, transparency and competitiveness. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Christman’s chief operating officer, Steve Frederickson, took the podium to respond to Olson:

Hi, I’m Steve Frederickson, president and COO of the Christman Company. I just want to be clear – I’m not sure what that letter says – but there’s been a lot of discussion that’s occurred over the past number of weeks relative to the award of the concrete package, and a lot of the discussion has been based on assumptions and conjecture and not on the facts. And so I just wanted to be really clear and really brief on what the facts are.

The facts are that in the bid documents, we described the complexity of this project. It’s underground, it’s cast-in-place concrete, you all know how hard this project is and the level of experience that is required to accomplish a feat such as that. But we were very clear in the documents about how we were going to award the project, and the criteria by which we would award the project: experience, detailed work plan, detailed schedule.

Price was part of it, but it says throughout the bid documents and in the pre-bid meeting that we had with all the bidders that it was not based exclusively on price, because we needed to know that we had a partner that was capable and qualified and knew the job, and put us in a position to be able to succeed as a partnership. The fact is, we were clear on the award criteria. Another fact is that the Granger Company was disqualified very early in the process unanimously by everybody at the post-bid [meeting], including the architect, the engineer, The Christman Company, your project management consultant [Park Avenue Consultants]. Those are the facts.

They didn’t comply with the requirements of the project, they did not display an understanding of the project to the level of comfort that we felt was necessary to be able to serve you and serve the project. Those are the facts. Their project manager had no underground parking deck experience – the full-time on-site project manager. So we were very clear on what the project was to be awarded based on. They did not meet that. So essentially what they have been asking for is a re-do of the process, and we can’t do that. It’s not fair to the other bidders to give one bidder a re-do – why wouldn’t we give the other bidders a re-do, based on what they submitted for a price? It’s unfair to the process.

We have challenged the integrity of the process, with our partners – with the architect, with the engineer, your project manager, with the DDA – and everybody has established hands down that the integrity of the process was maintained throughout the entire process. So we’re confident in that. And we’ve made those details available, and if you look at the details it’s very clear. So I just encourage you to look at facts, and take all of the emotion out of it, and look at the facts and the people that are best qualified to do the job. We’re in a great position to be giving that money back at this point, in moving forward through the project. Everybody’s excited to do it, we’ve got a great team, and we’re out there getting after it as you can see. Thank you.

Dennis Carignan, Granger’s director of pre-construction services, then took the podium:

I really don’t want to belabor this again – Steve [Frederickson] mentioned getting the facts out there. I would encourage you to do that, I would encourage you to look into the facts. You know, he mentioned not being qualified, and I can say personally I’ve been involved in two different parking ramp projects with Granger and we’ve done a dozen throughout the state and we’ve had huge success. And you guys know that – because we were short-listed to do the entire project [the construction manager job].

He also said, you know, that we weren’t compliant with the bid documents. And actually you can take a look at the post-bid interview, and we are compliant – there’s yeses all the way down. And it was kind of a shock to us to find out weeks later that they were going to bypass us. I’m glad to hear that you are saving money. In this economy, that is a big deal. And I think you could be saving more. I think there were some irregularities in the bidding process, that maybe you could have capitalized on some additional savings.

It was an extremely short bid period, you know. Maybe that was a way of ensuring that Christman could get the work. Voluntary alternates were prohibited, and I have never seen that in a set of bid documents. Now, to me, why wouldn’t you want to encourage some ingenuity and get some cost savings there? In fact, we’ve got $300,000 worth of savings to the job that we couldn’t submit on. And I’m happy to share that with you, too. To help the project maybe save more money. Aside from that, you know, I don’t expect anything to change. Again we just want to encourage the facts to come out.

The document referred to by Carignan with all the yeses checked is the post-bid conference summary, which is signed by representatives of Granger and Christman. In addition to the check boxes, the summary contains additional handwritten notations in free response fields. [.pdf of post-bid interview summary]

The language of the contract between Christman and the DDA supports Olson’s contention that the $1 million being returned by Christman to the DDA is contractually required [.pdf of complete contract]:

Upon Substantial Completion of the Project, any unused portion of the GMP [guaranteed maximum price] Estimate Contingency shall be returned to Owner [DDA] for use by Owner as determined by Owner in its sole discretion. Upon the release or return of any portion of the GMP Estimate Contingency to the Owner, the GMP shall be reduced by the amount returned or otherwise released to Owner from said fund.

The contract also specifies that Christman is paid only based on documented invoices for work actually performed – up to the guaranteed maximum price.

In a telephone interview, we asked Podges if he could provide some additional clarity  about the reason that Granger’s bid was rejected after the post-bid conference. Podges said it was not a question of Granger’s general qualifications to do concrete work for parking decks. Rather, it was Granger’s readiness – as reflected in the bid documents and the post-bid conference – to handle the detailed complexity of this specific underground project, with the associated logistical challenges of a tight urban construction site with little or no staging areas for materials.

Podges told The Chronicle that precisely because Granger is known as a competent firm, Christman was disappointed that Granger did not present the kind of detailed scheduling with specific construction activities and an operational plan necessary to give Christman the comfort level they need to award the job to them. Asked to give a specific example, Podges described how the timing of the form-pour sequence for shear walls – walls interior to the structure – was crucial. But when asked for their thoughts on how they’d approach that, Podges said, Granger didn’t provide a detailed answer.

A lot of what Christman knows about building underground parking structures, Podges said, stems from their recent experience on the Michigan Street Development Project in Grand Rapids. Podges said that meant his firm had expertise and experience that allowed them to understand the challenges in more detail than others. The Michigan Street Development Project was a key part of Christman’s presentation to the DDA board when they interviewed for the construction manager job. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA Hires Christman, Bonds Delivered"]

Perspective on Self-Performed Work

Two factors may have led observers of the bidding process to the erroneous conclusion that the concrete work for the DDA’s parking structure was required to go to the lowest bidder. First, the questioning during the construction manager interviews held by the DDA emphasized that the construction manager’s in-house divisions would have to compete with other bidders. Second, the public opening of the sealed bids is often associated with a low-bid requirement.

Christman’s contract, however, specifies a guaranteed maximum price. That’s an arrangement that requires Christman to accept a certain amount of risk – if the cost is more than the maximum, it comes out of Christman’s pocket. In such an arrangement, the final determination of subcontractor selection belongs to Christman.

DDA staff capability does not extend to providing direct oversight of Christman’s selection process for subcontractors – that’s something for which the DDA relies on its construction consultant, Park Avenue Consultants, and the architect on the project, Luckenbach Ziegelman Architects.

In the course of recent reporting on the Humane Society shelter construction project, for which Washtenaw County is providing a certain level of oversight, The Chronicle met Bob Martel, who’s playing the role of construction manager for the shelter project, which is essentially now complete. Martel’s specific expertise is as an owner’s representative for development of medical office building projects in the $15 million to $30 million price range.

So we asked Martel for his thoughts on the general idea of arrangements in which a construction manager has the option of self-performing the work. In a phone interview, Martel said that he favored a practice specifying that a company performing as construction manager for a job could not self-perform any of the subcontracted work.

His rationale behind that, explained Martel, was to remove any possible perception that the construction manager’s in-house division might have an inside track, which could dissuade other companies from bidding. That could lead to a situation where the owner’s price wasn’t as low as it could be.

But Martel allowed that his own approach was not the most common practice. He also added that he’d hired Christman for a couple of projects – they’d done great work, he said.

DDA Board View on the Concrete Bids

At the very end of the board meeting after representatives from Granger and from Christman had all weighed in, John Splitt addressed the issue this way:

I just want to say at this point that as chair of the capital improvements committee and as chair of this board I am satisfied with the integrity of the process that went on. And I think that the committee all agrees that the process was fair.

Misc. Items Discussed by the DDA Board

There were a range of other topics mentioned at Wednesday’s meeting.

Main Street BIZ

In other public commentary before the board, Ed Shaffran appeared in order to thank the board for their support in the establishment of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. Ellie Serras had been listed on the agenda to speak on behalf of the BIZ, so when Shaffran took the podium, he joked that he figured they’d prefer to hear from Serras, which was met with an enthusiastically lighthearted “Yes, we would!” from Leah Gunn and Russ Collins.

The DDA had provided $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street.

Sandwich Board Signs

At the city council’s Feb. 16, 2010 meeting, a revision to the city sign ordinance was unanimously defeated – it would have legalized the common practice of using sandwich board signs on downtown sidewalks. The measure also did not enjoy the support of its sponsor, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had worked with a task force established in October 2009 to address the issue.

At the February meeting, it was indicated that the city attorney was recommending that the ordinance be enforced. Warnings have been issued but no confirmed citations have been made. There is some sentiment among merchants that the sandwich board signs could be subsumed under the sidewalk occupancy ordinance.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Keith Orr gave his colleagues a rundown of the history of the issue. Newcombe Clark emphasized that it was crucial for non-first-floor businesses to get the added exposure that could be gained from sandwich board signs.

Before the DDA board was a resolution calling the city council to take action at its next meeting, on April 19, 2010, to legalize sandwich board signs.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously passed the resolution that called on the city council to revise the ordinance in a way to make sandwich boards legal downtown.

East West Rail

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, local developer Peter Allen said he was troubled to learn from reading the minutes of the DDA board’s retreat that the east-west rail project had been put on hold. He said he felt like the DDA could play a role by stepping up and being a leader on the issue, by standing up and shouting, “It has to get done.” He also pointed to the University of Michigan as an organization that stood a lot to lose, if the project didn’t move forward.

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Allen’s remarks by saying that there was still a whole lot going on and that the recent setback had to do with the failure to win stimulus funds to address siding issues near Detroit. When that was worked out, he said, the project would be back full-bore. He noted that rail cars are being purchased, so the project is still going forward.

Hieftje also said that conversations with Dearborn were happening and that there was some possibility of exploring a connection that would include Dearborn and the airport, but that would not go all the way to Detroit initially. He pointed to the $30 million of stimulus funding that Dearborn had been awarded in order to build a new station.

Commuter Challenge: getDowntown

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, reported to the board that the commuter challenge, which takes place in May every year, could use support from their participation. Just one sustainable commute, she told them, would earn a free ice cream from Washtenaw Dairy. The Bike to Work Day event for this year will fall on May 21.

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

Absent: Jennifer S. Hall

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]