Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) a 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent would specify that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of resolution of intent]

Councilmembers had questions about the need to have any resolution of intent, as well as the status of millage revenue use inside the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The resolution of intent would stipulate that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor DDA district will not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

The resolution states that both inside and outside the DDA district (otherwise put, throughout the city), the sidewalk repair millage would be used only to pay for sidewalk repair adjacent to property on which the city levies a property tax. One impact of that resolution of intent, if it’s adopted, is that the city’s sidewalk repair millage will not be used to pay for repairs to sidewalks adjacent to University of Michigan property.

This brief was filed shortly after the city council’s meeting concluded. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Bricks: Part of the new streetscape improvements on Fifth Avenue in front of the DDA offices. Money: New ePark payment kiosks. As part of the Bricks and Money Committee report to the DDA board, John Splitt noted that the new street lights were being "wired as we speak." That was literally true – as evidenced by the yellow-vested, hooded electrician observed an hour before the meeting started. (Photo by the writer.)

The money is offered by the DDA as a challenge to other local organizations to support service enhancements on the route, which are estimated to have a total cost of $180,000. Board member Newcombe Clark described the grant as a great first step, adding “but man, is it a baby one.”

Although the transportation grant was the only vote taken by the board at the meeting, board members entertained discussion on two topics that are likely to receive a great deal of focus in the broader community over the next few months: (1) the future use of the Library Lot; and (2) the “mutually beneficial” discussions between the city and the DDA about the parking contract under which the DDA operates the city’s parking system.

The board also heard the usual range of reports from its committees. No one addressed the board during either of the two slots set aside for public commentary.

Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Buses

Before the DDA board was a resolution that would offer a $14,417 challenge grant to fund service improvements for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Route #4 bus, which runs between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. The dollar figure for the grant is based on a total estimated price tag for the improvements of $180,000 and a Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) computer model, which estimates about 8% of riders on the #4 bus have destinations west of State Street in the DDA district. In response to an email query from The Chronicle, WATS transportation planner Ryan Buck explain some basics of the computer model:

The WATS model is a complex four-step travel demand model. There are two types of inputs to the model, one is the supply of transportation infrastructure which include available roads and transit routes. The second type of input is the demand, or the number and type of trips which are estimated from demographic information such as the number of people per household and the number of vehicles available to a household. We can change either supply side or demand side data and then analyze the impact on the transportation network.  A good example of this is to increase the frequency of a bus route such as the number 4. That increases the supply of available bussing and makes it a more attractive travel option which will likely increase the demand (riders).

This analysis looked at the number of trips for people who live in Ypsilanti and travel to the DDA area. The model estimates the total number of trips between the two areas as well as the percentage of people who will likely use a bus for their trip.  If we look at the riders on the #4 route we see that 8% of those riders are destined for the DDA area.

The DDA hopes the challenge grant will encourage support for Route #4 enhancements by other organizations – like the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University, private property owners, other municipalities, and the AATA. The improvements in service might include: increasing service frequencies to every 10 minutes; reducing travel time from 45 minutes to 38 minutes or less; or inclusion of a stop downtown before continuing to the UM Hospitals.

The resolution was introduced to the board by chair of the DDA transportation committee, John Mouat. He allowed that the dollar amount was “fairly modest” and also explained that the money had been previously budgeted but unused by the getDowntown program. It was a matter, he said, of redirecting previously budgeted funds. The earliest the service enhancements could be implemented would be in May 2011.

Mayor John Hieftje sketched an optimistic future with commuter rail servicing the connection between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor with 10-minute travel times.

Newcombe Clark characterized the grant as a great first step, “but man, is it a baby one.” Clark has championed the idea of enhancing the transit connection between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor since his appointment to the DDA board a year ago. He noted that there is other money in the DDA budget that has been allocated but not spent that is “burning a hole in [his] pocket.” He was alluding to $335,000 earmarked for support of the WALLY north-south commuter rail project. Previously, Clark has suggested redirecting the WALLY allocation to fund the policing of the downtown.

Outcome: The resolution to establish a challenge grant for service enhancements on the Route #4 AATA bus was unanimously approved.

Library Lot

Last year, the city of Ann Arbor issued an request for proposals for the future of the Library Lot – the top of the underground parking garage currently under construction by the DDA. The DDA has representation on the committee charged with review of the responses to the RFP. That committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo and Margie Teall [both on city council], Sam Offen [as a resident, although he is also a member of the city's park advisory commission], Eric Mahler [city planning commission] and John Splitt [DDA board].

Splitt has reported for the past several months that the committee has not met. Since late summer, the committee has been awaiting the completion of a report by The Roxbury Group, which is a consultant hired to help the committee assess the merits of the two finalist proposals from Valiant and Acquest. The DDA provided a grant of up to $50,000 for a consultant, half of which has now been paid to the Roxbury Group.

John Splitt led off the report of the committee by announcing: “We actually had a meeting.”  The meeting took place on Nov. 23, he reported, and the committee had received The Roxbury Group’s report. [.pdf of The Roxbury Group report]

Splitt described how The Roxbury Group had interviewed people who would have some interest in what impact a conference center or hotel could have. [Those interviewed by The Roxbury Group included: Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library; Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau; Mike Finney, president and CEO of  Ann Arbor SPARK;  Jim Kosteva, director of community relations for the University of Michigan; Bill Villisides, conference manager for UM conference services; and Diane Keller, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce.]

The evaluation based on interviews resulted in the conclusion that there’s a consensus about the need for a downtown conference center. Another conclusion related in The Roxbury Group’s report is the importance of synergies that may exist between the Ann Arbor District Library and a conference center, Splitt said. [The library is adjacent to the city-owned property where the underground parking structure is being built.]

Splitt also described how The Roxbury Group had interviewed the two finalist proposers and had recommended the proposal from Valiant as the favored one. One reason Splitt cited for Roxbury’s Group’s preference was that a conference center plus a hotel [as proposed by Valiant ] would have a greater benefit than a hotel alone [as Acquest had proposed – with a conference center possibly to be developed later, possibly at the Fifth & William lot]. The size of Valiant’s proposal was seen as having the potential to be a “game changer.”

A second reason Roxbury favored Valiant was that, while Acquest has more experience developing similar projects, Valiant’s proposal had more specificity and definiteness with respect to the financing.

Splitt reported that the city will now move forward with due diligence and development of a letter of intent.

Leah Gunn added that she thought the most exciting line in The Roxbury Group’s report was that “Valiant was able to strengthen the development’s potential for revenue generation, eliminating the need for any publicly-guaranteed debt.”

Newcombe Clark raised the question of whether it might be appropriate to include the Library Lot process with the ongoing discussions between the city and the DDA regarding “mutually beneficial” outcomes with respect to a renegotiated parking contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. The city-DDA discussions on the parking contract are taking place in parallel with a conversation about a more active role for the DDA in the development of city-owned surface parking lots.

Clark also expressed concern about the way Valiant had eliminated the need for $8.1 million of 30-year bonds to be issued by the city: The Valiant team had decided to add a 48,000-square-foot office space component to the project – reducing the square footage of the conference center from 32,000 to 26,000 square feet and reducing the number of condominium units from 12 to 6. The current market for rents, Clark said, is about half the rate of what would be needed in order to justify new construction.

Responding to Clark’s inquiry about linking the Library Lot project to the current conversation with the city about the DDA’s role in developing downtown city-owned surface lots, Splitt said that the Library Lot project was standing on its own. He expressed some uncertainty about the extent to which the DDA might provide some input on the creation of the letter of intent.

Responding to a query from Bob Guenzel, Splitt said he was not certain if the committee would meet again before the holidays or in January. Board chair Joan Lowenstein indicated that the DDA’s partnership’s committee would review the DDA’s input into the project.

Mutually Beneficial Discussion

Since the early summer of 2010, discussions between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA have been taking place in public on a renegotiation of the parking contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. The existing contract runs through 2015. The city would like to renegotiate the contract so that the city continues to receive a roughly $2 million sum per year from the DDA for the next four years, as it has for the prior six years – it is money that the DDA does not owe under terms of the existing contract.

Each body has assigned a committee to undertake the negotiations. Roger Hewitt reported that the discussions had come to a point where a proposal would be brought to the DDA board and to the city council for reaction and feedback. The idea is to have something concrete to which the two bodies could react, he said.

Hewitt described the discussions as having been difficult but cordial, and the tentative proposal as “far from perfect.” But he said they now had something that could be discussed.

Before getting into the specifics of the proposal, Hewitt described two different views of the relationship between the DDA and the city. The first view, he said, was a contractual view: The city and the DDA have an existing contract that has four years yet to run, and any modification to that contract should include equal benefit to both sides. The second view, Hewitt said, is of the DDA as a political body made up of an appointed board, so the conversation had a layer of political context.

Hewitt said that because the DDA uses the city’s assets to operate the parking system, it makes sense for the city to have something to say about how the proceeds of the parking system are used. Previously Newcombe Clark has advanced the idea of the DDA purchasing city-owned surface lots as a mechanism for transferring money from the DDA to the city. At Wednesday’s meeting, Hewitt weighed in against that idea by saying that citizens would want some say about what the future use of the land would be, which a strict sale would not necessarily allow. The DDA’s proposal for development of the city-owned downtown surface parking lots, Hewitt said, was focused on generating a lot of input from citizens and from professional consultants.

The part of the conversations through the summer about the parking contract, Hewitt said, had resulted in a proposal with the following key features:

• Parking district: A geographic area would be clearly defined where the DDA would manage parking.
• No city council veto: The DDA would have the authority to set and change parking rates without a veto from the city council, as is currently the case. The rationale for the change is based on an evolution from the three kinds of rates currently charged (metered spaces, surface lots, parking structures) to a more complex system with several kinds of rates that could change dynamically based on time of day and geographic area
• DDA direction of enforcement: The DDA would provide direction to the city’s community standards division on some minimum number of hours in specific regions of enforcement.
• Payment: Instead of using the metaphor of “rent,” the DDA would pay the city a fixed percentage of the gross revenue from the parking system. The basic percentage that had been discussed by the committees was 17.5%. At Wednesday’s meeting the percentage of gross figure for the first two years of the proposed contract, FY 2012 and FY 2013, had been reduced to 16%, with 17.5% stipulated for the following eight years. Hewitt described the rationale as based in part on the desire of the city to mitigate against revenue loss for parking fines as compliance increases. As compliance increases, the thinking is that revenue will increase, and the city would share in the increase. Hewitt also said that there would be less inclination on the part of the city to come back to the DDA in the future to discuss the contract – there is an acceleration of payment built into the agreement.

Mutually Beneficial: Parking District

At the most recent meeting of the city and DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committees on Nov. 22, Amber Miller – the DDA’s planning and research specialist – had presented a methodology for creating a possible parking district that could define where the DDA manages parking in the city. At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, Hewitt described Miller’s presentation as a scientific approach rather than an emotional one. At the Nov. 22 meeting of the committees, here’s the approach Miller took. The starting point was the DDA tax district:

Outlined and shaded red: DDA tax district.

The DDA manages parking meters and structures outside the tax district, so the next step was to add all the areas to the map where the DDA manages parking:

Outlined and shaded red: DDA tax district. Heavy bright red: DDA-managed parking facilities.

Miller took the maximum distance between the tax district and DDA-managed parking, 3,300 feet, and generated a 3,300-foot buffer around the entire DDA tax district as a way of describing a maximum parking district:

Inner outlined and shaded red: DDA tax district. Heavy bright red: DDA-managed parking facilities. Outer outlined and shaded red: Maximum parking district.

Starting with the maximum district, Miller then began a process of chiseling away, based on considerations like streets with residential parking permit programs, but preserving areas with primarily non-residential uses.

Inner outlined and shaded red: DDA tax district. Outer outlined and shaded red: Maximum parking district. White: Streets with residential parking permit programs. Blue: Streets with primarily non-residential uses. Orange: One possible resulting parking district.

Miller also considered current residential land use and the University of Michigan in producing one possibility for a DDA-managed parking district:

Shaded red: DDA tax district. Outlined and shaded green: Possible DDA-managed parking district.

Images in this article are not Miller’s originals. They were generated from GIS shape files provided by Miller to The Chronicle and converted by The Chronicle to .kml files at GeoCommons.com. The .kml files were then opened in Google Earth to create the images. Here’s a list of the .kml files:

• DDA tax district
• 3,300-foot buffer around DDA tax district
• Streets with primarily non-residential uses
• DDA-managed parking locations
• Streets with residential parking permit programs
• Possible DDA parking district
• Current land use
• University of Michigan property

Mutually Beneficial: Board Discussion

Bob Guenzel led off the board discussion by getting clarification from Roger Hewitt that the DDA development of downtown surface lots was not proposed to be a part of the parking contract.

Gary Boren began the more substantive discussion by alluding to the two different views that Hewitt had sketched out, saying that he took a more legalistic, contractual view rather than a political view of the situation. Boren expressed some frustration that the $2 million the DDA had authorized for payment to the city in the previous year – money that was not required to be paid under terms of the current contract – was being talked about as if it were ancient history, with the focus now only on the next four years. The DDA, he said, needs to be able to rely on promises from the city.

Boren noted that if the DDA’s mission is political, then that mission is all about the downtown. And he would thus consider a politically-based agreement only if it is mission-based. Boren questioned why profit from the parking system should go to the city’s general fund. Merchants, he said, could fairly ask: What’s in it for me? Boren pointed to the fact that the city and DDA have a monopoly on parking, and suggested that the transportation demand management strategy amounted to a way of maximizing revenues, making parking fees effectively a tax on downtown merchants.

Leah Gunn began by saying she disagreed with Boren. The city, she said, had supported the downtown through the development of the new downtown plan and the A2D2 rezoning initiative. She noted that she is the longest-serving member of the DDA board and recalled a time when the DDA did not receive revenue from the parking meters. When Ingrid Sheldon had been mayor, she said, Sheldon had been resistant to the idea. However, John Hieftje had been more receptive to the idea of the DDA collecting parking meter revenue.

The downtown, Gunn said, is more than merchants and downtown residents – it’s also all of us. She said it is important to give the city credit for cooperating with the DDA and that it’s not fair to say that the city council hasn’t created a mission for the downtown.

Newcombe Clark pointed out that the excess revenue from the parking system is, in fact, a tax. That is why, he continued, he felt he did not want the DDA board, with its appointed, not elected members, to have anything to do with it – it should go to the city. Clark expressed concern that the transportation demand management strategy of raising rates on surface lots to encourage people to park in structures could be affected by the fact that the DDA was simultaneously seeking to help the city develop those lots.

Clark said he is concerned about an expectation on the city’s part that it would be held harmless if parking system revenues declined, due to development of surface parking for other uses. He sought to negate Gunn’s point about meter revenues, saying that there is not a lot of net from the meter revenues.

Clark noted that last year, when the DDA decided to authorize an additional $2 million payment not required by the current contract, the DDA had explicitly decided not to give the city help in the form of a grant, but rather had acted on the advice of its legal counsel to move to a contractual approach. [See Chronicle coverage: "DDA OKs $2 Million Over Strong Dissent"] Clark said he was interested in finding a way to convey excess money to the city of Ann Arbor because it’s not appropriate for the DDA to administer the excess revenue.

Hiefte expressed skepticism about the idea that parking fees could be construed as a tax. He also questioned whether merchants had more ownership of downtown than other citizens.

Keith Orr appealed to the reason that DDAs exist: A strong downtown is good for the city. But he said the converse is also true. Orr drew an analogy between the current city-DDA conversation and the re-opening of a union contract, saying that he’s a card-carrying union member. He said that in a collective bargaining negotiation, there would be two basic points the union would make: (1) Show us your finances, and (2) What’s in it for us?

Orr reiterated a point he’s made before – that he thinks the “mutually beneficial” committees were mis-named. They should be more appropriately called the “shared sacrifice” committees, he said, and they need to find a way to make it a shared sacrifice. With respect to the specific numbers, he said he thinks that a 17.5% of gross payment is perhaps on the high side, but not egregiously so. However, he continued, in the context of re-opening the contract, the 17.5% figure was very high. Orr suggested that something like 13-14% might be more appropriate in terms of a shared sacrifice. When the Ann Arbor housing commission or Avalon Housing comes to the DDA to ask for a grant, Orr said, he wanted the DDA to have funds available. [It was a reference to a recent request from the housing commission to fund improvements for Baker Commons.]

Boren responded to Hieftje’s remarks by noting that a merchant selling shoes downtown is competing with stores outside of downtown that have free and easy parking. So parking ease and rates affect the revenues that merchants in the downtown are able to capture, he said. Further, in an allusion to the precedent-setting Bolt v. City of Lansing case, he noted that whether the purpose of a charge is to generate revenue as opposed to regulate use helps to define the difference between a fee and a tax.

John Mouat, noting the implicit link between the DDA’s ratification of a new parking contract and the DDA’s taking greater responsibility for developing downtown surface parking lots, wondered if the additional responsibility is really a “benefit” worth paying for. Mouat expressed some uncertainty about establishing of a parking district.

Russ Collins responded to some of Mouat’s concerns about the significance of a parking district, saying that there is not a lot of street parking to be added. The idea is not to define an area where the DDA would like to put meters, he said. The point is to provide clarity. Collins recognized that Hewitt had put in a lot of work in trying to move the discussion forward. Collins agreed with Orr that there should be shared sacrifice.

Board chair Joan Lowenstein stated that she felt the proposal would be a good framework for the board’s January retreat.

Bob Guenzel characterized himself as “the new kid on the block” – the recently retired Washtenaw County administrator is the newest appointee to the board, joining it in September. He said he had a lot of respect for the two partners in the discussion – the DDA and the city of Ann Arbor. His role was essentially a fiduciary one, he said. A central question he identified was: What really is a fair rent for the city’s parking system assets? Guenzel said the real issue for him was long-term certainty on both sides.

Hieftje came back to the question of why DDAs were created, noting that it was one mechanism for cities to compete against townships. He stated that it’s an extraordinary time. He also stated that the city’s community standards officers had indicated a willingness to be ambassadors and to retrain. He emphasized that the DDA budget is not static – it will increase with the addition of more development in the downtown area, citing specifically Zaragon Place II, which was recently approved, and 601 S. Forest, for which the developer has started pulling necessary permits.

Boren wrapped up the discussion by striking a conciliatory chord, saying that he could get pretty passionate, but he’d always trusted the integrity of those involved and believed that everyone was working for the benefit of the community, even if there were things on which they disagreed.

Communications and Committee Reports

The DDA board meetings typically include reports from its various subcommittees, as well as a report from Ray Detter, on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Citizens Advisory Council

Ray Detter reported that the December meeting of the downtown citizens advisory council was held in the spirit of a holiday gathering with food and drink provided. It was an occasion to review the goals of the advisory council for 2011. He reported that they had been a supporter of the 1992 downtown plan as well as the revised downtown plan approved in the summer of 2009. The advisory council supported the A2D2 rezoning initiative, as well as the design guidelines that are currently in the last phase of development. They support increased density in the downtown area and mixed use development of the Library Lot, Detter reported. The advisory council has a commitment to downtown greenspace, including support for the Allen Creek greenway.

Detter reported that the advisory council is delighted with the recent reconstruction of parts of West Park, which he said some members had suggested be renamed “Central Park West.” Detter also conveyed support for the preservation of the millrace and the pond at Argo, saying that it would only take him five minutes to drop a fishing line in the pond, starting from his downtown home. He allowed that he’d never caught anything, but said that the pond is a major amenity worth emphasizing. The advisory council supports alternative transportation, he said. Detter also expressed the group’s support for the street outreach task force that is taking a look at the panhandling issue in downtown Ann Arbor.

Comm/Comm: Transportation

Besides the resolution on Ypsilanti-Ann Arbor bus service enhancements, John Mouat reported from the transportation committee that the getDowntown Night Ride fare is increasing from $1 to $3. That reflects a reduction – from $4 to $2 – in the getDowntown subsidy to the regular $5 Night Ride fare. Mouat reported that there is some discussion of expanding the area of service for the subsidized Night Ride fares.

Mouat also reported that the latest progress on AATA’s Blake Transit Center (BTC) project has been outreach to Greyhound and the University of Michigan with the idea of bringing a broader range of transportation services to BTC and the Fourth Avenue block between Liberty and William streets.

Comm/Comm: Partnerships

The report  from co-chairs of the partnerships committee, Sandi Smith and Russ Collins, summarized the energy-saving grant program through the first two years: 73 energy audits have been completed and the DDA has paid $145,000 towards installation of energy-saving improvements in downtown buildings. A grant to XSeed in connection with a solar panel installation on the Michigan Theater, approved by the city’s historic district commission late this summer, will be contingent on an audit obtained through the energy grant program. At the partnerships committee meeting, when the issue was discussed, Collins – who is executive director of the Michigan Theater – left the room for the duration of the discussion, due to the potential conflict of interest.

There are two grants the partnerships committee is not recommending for approval at this time:  (1) an additional allocation to the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County for solar panels and computers, and (2) a grant to support Baker Commons, an Ann Arbor housing commission building located at the intersection of Packard and Main. The grant would be for a 50% match on $500,000, and would be used for window replacement, hallway carpet, and parking lot resurfacing.

Collins explained that the recommendation at this time against the Shelter Association and the housing commission grants was due to other commitments the DDA currently has. Collins repeated a sentiment that he’d expressed at the partnerships committee meeting when he said that given the nature of the mutually beneficial discussions currently taking place with the city of Ann Arbor, “it wouldn’t be illogical” to put the Baker Commons grant “into the hopper.”

Comm/Comm: Bricks and Money

Roger Hewitt gave the usual update on parking demand, saying that they were not seeing anything he’d characterize as a drop in demand. He reported that the DDA’s audit had given the DDA a clean bill of health, which identified a few technical issues that they’d taken care of. [.pdf of audit].

Hewitt also reported that the DDA had put out an RFP (request for proposals) for financial institutions at the request of a board member, but that they were planning to stay with the Bank of Ann Arbor for the next three years. It emerged that one reason the Bank of Ann Arbor gets the DDA’s business is this: It’s the only bank that can count in house all the coins from the parking meters. Russ Collins quipped that Tim Marshall has calluses on his fingers from all the coin counting – Marshall is president and CEO of the Bank of Ann Arbor.

Hewitt also reported that Mark Lyons, who is general manager for Republic Parking – the firm with which the DDA contracts for parking management – had identified $140,000 worth of savings he’d be able to make by adjusting labor and hours of operation.

John Splitt gave updates on the DDA’s construction projects. The tower crane has been constructed for the underground parking garage. Several concrete pours have taken place and were scheduled. The mass excavation is now 98% complete.

The Fifth and Division streetscape improvement projects are being winterized and work was wrapping up for the season on Friday. Before then, the wiring for the new streetlights would be complete – they were being “wired as we speak,” Splitt said.

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

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Washington & Fifth Avenue, looking northwest. The concrete mixer is parked directly in front of the DDA offices. The entry for the board's Sept. 1 meeting was through the alley and the garage, which makes up part of the ground floor of the Fifth Avenue Building. (Photos by the writer.)

The first issue, handled with relatively little comment, was the report out from the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, given by Roger Hewitt. The committee has been meeting over the course of the summer with a corresponding committee from the Ann Arbor city council to renegotiate the parking agreement under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system.

While board members Newcombe Clark and Russ Collins commented in a general way on the status of the conversations, it did not lead to any specific directive to the DDA’s committee for its next meeting, which will take place on Sept. 13 at 8:30 a.m.

However, at the suggestion of DDA executive director Susan Pollay, the board will schedule a retreat between now and its monthly board meeting in October – but likely after Sept. 13 – to focus on the “mutually beneficial” issue. In the meantime, the DDA’s committee will request of its city council counterparts that they provide their own assessment of the status of the negotiations. The Sept. 13 meeting of the two committees will also be the occasion when Pollay provides a detailed version of the outline, which she’d provided at the last committee meeting on Aug. 23, for a possible role for the DDA in the development of city-owned surface lots.

The second issue dispatched by the board with little overt controversy was a resolution that Newcombe Clark had brought through the operations committee last Wednesday to allocate $50,000 for support of skatepark facilities. Clark himself suggested that the resolution be tabled, alluding to the “prism through which everything is looked at this time of year.” DDA board members went along with that suggestion.

The prism to which Clark alluded is a political one. Clark is running an independent campaign for the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke. Hohnke has positioned himself as a champion of the skating community’s efforts to construct a skateboarding facility at Veterans Memorial Park, which is in Ward 5.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the newest member of the board, former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, and the member he replaced, Jennifer S. Hall, were acknowledged by chair Joan Lowenstein – but neither was present. The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Hall’s service, and Lowenstein welcomed Guenzel “in absentia.”

Other business at Wednesday’s meeting included the usual updates from the board’s committees. Notable from the transportation committee was an effort to collaborate with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to enhance bus service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. And from the partnerships committee came a summary of a presentation they’d received from the chief of police – there’s a difference between being statistically safe and the perception of safety.

Downtown Development of City-Owned Property

Roger Hewitt gave the update from the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, which is renegotiating the agreement under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. He noted that the committee had been meeting every other week – that’s more frequently than the originally planned once-a-month schedule. He said they’d come up with a matrix of parking issues and had identified various complications that would be involved in the DDA’s possible participation in the enforcement of parking regulations. One of those issues is getting access to records of prior infractions, Hewitt said. Hewitt was complimentary of the efforts of DDA executive director Susan Pollay.

Hewitt also noted that Pollay had created an outline for the DDA’s possible involvement in the development process for city-owned surface lots, which was circulated at the previous week’s committee meeting and was included in the board’s meeting packet for that day. The role of the DDA in downtown development is a key element of the term sheet guiding the committee discussions.

The issue had been discussed by the board’s executive committee, Hewitt said. By way of background, the executive committee of the DDA board is defined in the body’s bylaws as follows:

Article V – Executive Committee: The officers of the Board, including Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer and Recording Secretary shall constitute the executive committee. The last former Chair shall be a non-voting member and the Executive Director shall be a non-voting ex officio member of this committee.

Based on the results of the July annual meeting elections, the current executive committee consists of chair Joan Lowenstein, vice chair Gary Boren, treasurer Roger Hewitt, secretary Russ Collins and former chair John Splitt, along with non-voting member Susan Pollay.

Hewitt reported a desire to have a board retreat to guide how the “mutually beneficial” committee should proceed. Lowenstein called the idea of a retreat a good one, because there might be some ideas that have shifted since those discussions started.

Newcombe Clark asked if it might be reasonable to have the members of the city council’s “mutually beneficial” committee give a status report on the discussions from their point of view. Clark noted that if the reporting on the meetings has been accurate, then there has not been a lot of feedback from councilmembers.

Russ Collins, who serves on the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, said that asking for that kind of feedback was reasonable. He noted that the committee had learned a lot about the bureaucratic and legal issues involved that would make the DDA’s enforcement of parking regulations difficult.

Responding to Clark, Collins allowed that yes, the DDA did need to focus on what the DDA wanted, but that if it’s impossible to get it, then that needed to be recognized. Collins emphasized that the committee had learned a great deal, characterizing the discussions as “productive, but frustrating.”

Clark expressed some frustration by saying, “What we want is irrelevant, because they have what they want.” He was alluding to the fact that the DDA in May had already agreed to pay the city an extra $2 million in FY 2010-11, which was not required by the original parking agreement.

Hewitt indicated that the next meeting of the city and DDA committees would take place on Sept. 13 at 8:30 a.m. – he would not be able to attend. Other members of the DDA’s committee are Gary Boren, Russ Collins and Sandi Smith.

Expected at that meeting is the more fully articulated, detailed plan for the DDA’s role in the development of downtown city lots.

Library Lot RFP Review Committee

If the DDA takes on a more active role in the development of city-owned land downtown, and if a suggestion from Ward 5 councilmember Carsten Hohnke is acted on, the Library Lot could be a parcel on which the DDA eventually leads the development process. Hohnke’s suggestion, made at a Democratic primary election forum, was that consideration of the Library Lot be restarted as a blank slate, with no preconceptions. An underground parking garage is currently under construction on the parcel, and a city-led committee is handling the review of proposals that were submitted for the lot last year. [Chronicle coverage: "Hotel/Conference Center Proposals Go Forward"]

At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, John Splitt reported out from the committee that’s reviewing proposals for development of the parcel above the underground parking garage – he represents the DDA on the committee, which includes city staff as well as councilmembers Margie Teall and Stephen Rapundalo. Rapundalo chairs that committee.

Splitt gave essentially the same kind of update on the committee that Rapundalo has given his city council colleagues at recent meetings. The committee has not met in about four months, Splitt said. A consultant [Roxbury Group] has been hired and is doing due diligence on the two proposals that are still under consideration. The consultant’s meetings with the proposers should be concluded in time for the committee to meet sometime towards the end of September, Splitt said.

Skatepark Support

As chair of the operations committee, Roger Hewitt described to the board a resolution that Newcombe Clark had brought to that committee the previous week that allocated $50,000 of funds “to be used as matching funds for new public or private dollars raised in support of skate facilities and resources to be located and invested in the DDA District or within radial proximity of the DDA District.”

Skatepark: Tabling the Resolution

Hewitt said he didn’t feel the operations committee was the proper committee to review the proposal and said there were a number of problems with it. He thus stated that he did not want to move the resolution, but invited Clark to do so if he wanted to do so.

The proposed skatepark location in Veterans Memorial Park (yellow push pin) is 1.3 miles from the DDA boundary (shown in red.) (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Clark moved the resolution, but in the same breath indicated he was open to the idea of tabling it – Gary Boren and others clarified that the first step was to actually move the resolution. After establishing that the resolution had actually been moved and seconded, Clark described how he was approached by the skatepark supporters – as other DDA board members had been – about possible support from the DDA for their efforts.

Those efforts include a location at Veterans Memorial Park, Clark said, and so he and others were “stretching” to find a way to directly support  their efforts. [The "stretching" to which Clark alluded is a function of the city park's location, which is at the corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads, across from the new Aldi's. That's roughly 1.3 miles away from the DDA tax district boundary.]

Clark noted that the skatepark had gained support from Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, all the merchant associations, the Neutral Zone teen center – “all of our regularly supported friends and neighbors here,” said Clark. They all recognized how giving skaters a proper facility would help make the downtown safe take some of the burden off of downtown infrastructure. So he said he’d come up with the resolution as a way to support the effort with a relatively small amount of money.

But Clark noted that subsequently, he’d understood that there is “a prism that everything is looked through this time of the year,” and that he understood reservations that people might have.

Outcome: The board voted to table the resolution – with two audible votes against tabling from Sandi Smith and John Splitt – and the suggestion to the partnerships committee to take up the issue.

Skatepark: Political Prism

The political prism to which Clark alluded includes the fact that Clark is running an independent campaign for the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke. Hohnke has positioned himself as a champion of the Ann Arbor Skatepark’s efforts to construct a skateboarding facility at Veterans Memorial Park, partly through his drafting of a letter from city councilmembers encouraging the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission to support the skatepark with a $400,000 matching grant. And Hohnke is endorsed by Trevor Staples, who is chair of the board of directors of Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. The race for the Ward 5 seat is a three-way contest between Hohnke, Clark and John Floyd, who is the Republican nominee.

In a post on the Friends of the Skatepark website, Staples wrote about Clark’s resolution:

I feel that it’s important we point out that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark was approached by Newcombe Clark with the resolution for DDA funding that he wanted to bring for a vote before the DDA. The Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark declined to support the resolution because we could not figure out how the dollars could be used for the skatepark, unless the skatepark was moved. This is not an option.

Skatepark: Location, Location, Location

The location issue cited by Staples in his post involves where the DDA can make its investments. When the Ann Arbor DDA was renewed in 2003, the plan included explicit provision for expenditure of funds outside the DDA tax district [emphasis added].

[page 9] In an effort to accomplish its mission, it is understood that the DDA may elect to participate in important projects outside the DDA District.

[page 24] The funds allocated by the DDA are intended to strengthen the downtown area and attract new private investments. This Plan recognizes that solutions to downtown problems (for example, traffic, access, and parking problems) may best be developed by spending funds outside the DDA district. Similarly, this Plan recognizes that a key to the future vitality of the downtown is stable and successful near downtown neighborhoods.

However, the Veterans Memorial Park location is 1.3 miles away from the DDA boundary. While the DDA board has no general policy on the distances beyond the DDA boundary, it does have a specific distance policy related to affordable housing. The DDA’s affordable housing policy is to support housing projects up to 1/4 mile away from the DDA boundary. This policy was affirmed at the board’s March 4, 2009 meeting. Those deliberations will likely be remembered as much for the 1/4 mile distance as for board members’ “channeling” former board member Dave DeVarti, who consistently championed the cause of affordable housing.

While the source of the skatepark support was proposed to be taken from a grant previously allocated to the Washtenaw-Livingston Rail (WALLY) project, those WALLY funds ultimately came from the DDA’s parking revenues. Those dollars enjoy somewhat more geographic flexibility, because they are not collected under the tax increment financing of the DDA district, but rather from parking fees. Although there’s somewhat more geographic flexibility, the DDA’s policy on investing parking revenues has been to look at the parking system as part of a “transportation system” and to fund transportation-related projects. For example, the DDA uses parking revenues to fund go!pass bus passes for downtown workers.

While skateboards do have wheels, it’s not straightforward to analyze a skatepark facility at Veterans Memorial Park as a transportation project.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ray Fullerton expressed some puzzlement at the skatepark resolution, asking for some clarification as to whether the support would be for the proposed Veterans Memorial Park facility or for some additional second location. Board members don’t typically engage in interactions with the public during their speaking turns, but Clark told Fullerton that “as written” the money could not be spent on the proposed Veterans Memorial Park facility.

After the meeting, Clark told The Chronicle it’s possible that the DDA’s partnerships committee might amend the resolution’s wording – which currently reads “skate facilities and resources” – so that it’s simply skate resources that are located in the district. In that case a resource like, for example, signage pointing people down Dexter-Ann Arbor Road to the skatepark could conceivably be located in the district, but still support the Veterans Memorial Park location.

Policing the Downtown

How the downtown gets policed was a topic that received discussion at a couple of different points during the meeting.

Policing: Funding Source

The source of the funds identified for Clark’s resolution in support of the skatepark is an as-yet unspent grant for the Washtenaw Livingston Rail (WALLY) project, which has an uncertain future. [At a recent Ann Arbor Transportation Authority retreat, the AATA board identified WALLY as a project they'd like to see start hitting some milestones for achievement.]

Clark has previously identified the unspent WALLY allocation as a funding source for a different initiative – restoration of downtown police patrols. At the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, the board remanded a resolution to its partnerships committee on the subject. From previous Chronicle reporting:

At the May 5 DDA board meeting, the board remanded a resolution to the partnerships committee on reserving of funds for a possible contract with the city to provide downtown beat cops. The resolution had been brought to the board by Newcombe Clark via its operations committee.

At the May 12 partnerships committee meeting, Clark said he was content not to press the resolution forward unless there was an attempt to grab the funds for some other purpose. The funds in Clark’s resolution on beat cops would be reallocated in monthly $60,000 increments from the WALLY north-south commuter train project, between Washtenaw and Livingston counties. There is a total of $335,000 reserved in the DDA budget for WALLY.

Policing: Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council Report

Ray Detter, who chairs the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, reported on that body’s regular meeting, which takes place on the Tuesday evening before the DDA’s first-Wednesday monthly board meeting. The existence of the CAC as a body is stipulated in the state enabling legislation for downtown development authorities.

Detter reported that the previous night’s meeting had included chief of police Barnett Jones, deputy chief John Seto and Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere. He said they’d spent two hours discussing crime, panhandling and the challenges of police in the downtown area, as well as throughout the rest of the city. The discussion had been prompted, Detter said, by the expressed concern of downtown residents about petty street crime and aggressive panhandling being on the rise. Some people are attributing this increase, he said, to the reduction in sidewalk police presence.

One of the CAC members is president of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association, Detter said, and he’d reported five separate security issues in a one-month period – twice a homeless person had stolen items out of the lobby, a smash-and-grab break-in, as well as homeless people sleeping behind the building.

Detter indicated chief Jones had observed that some of the homeless population are homeless “because they choose to be.” There’s an increase in people sleeping on the street, in parks, under bridges, Detter continued, and Liberty Plaza – an urban park at the corner of Liberty and Division – has become a problem once again.

Detter said that the CAC admired the ability of the police department to cope with the problems of crime in the city. He noted that while crime statistics are going down, arrests are going up. The police force has been reduced from 216 down to 124, he said, and they need help to solve this city-wide problem.

Detter said that Briere had indicated she’d be bringing a resolution to the city council at its Sept. 20 meeting to re-establish a panhandling task force. Detter alluded to the work done from 2001-03 by a previous task force, which had prompted a revision to the city’s panhandling ordinance. The ordinance revision had been due in part to the efforts of Joan Lowenstein, Detter said, who was then a member of the city council.

Detter stated that now we need action again.

The city’s “panhandling ordinance” is not known by that label in the city code. It’s a part of Chapter 108 on disorderly conduct and is covered in the section on solicitation:

9:70. Solicitation.
Except as otherwise provided in Chapters 79 and 81 of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit the immediate payment of money or goods from another person, whether or not in exchange for goods, services, or other consideration, under any of the following circumstances:
1. On private property, except as otherwise permitted by Chapters 79 and 81, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
2. In any public transportation vehicle or public transportation facility;
3. In any public parking structure and within 12 feet of any entrance or exit to any public parking structure;
4. From a person who is in any vehicle on the street;
5. By obstructing the free passage of pedestrian or vehicle traffic;
6. Within 12 feet of a bank or automated teller machine;
7. By moving to within 2 feet of the person solicited, unless that person has indicated that he/she wishes to be solicited;
8. By following and continuing to solicit a person who walks away from the solicitor;
9. By knowingly making a false or misleading representation in the course of a solicitation;
10. In a manner that appears likely to cause a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities to feel intimidated, threatened or harassed;
11. Within 12 feet of the entrance to or exit from the Nickels Arcade, located between State Street and Maynard Street; the Galleria, located between S. University and the Forest Street parking structure; and the Pratt Building, located between Main Street and the Ashley parking lot; or
12. From a person who is a patron at any outdoor cafe or restaurant.

Policing the Downtown: Partnerships Committee Report

Russ Collins reported that the partnerships committee had invited chief of police Barnett Jones and deputy chief John Seto to make a presentation to the committee on the status of policing in the city. Collins noted that there’s a difference between the perception and the statistics of safety. With respect to statistics, Collins said, Ann Arbor is very safe. And from the point of view of perception, he continued, Ann Arbor is also perceived as essentially safe. But he allowed that “young people can act enthusiastically.”

He also said that there was a lot of support for the idea of having downtown police patrols, because the perception of safety can be even more important than the statistics of safety. Collins said that the relative leniency of the panhandling laws in the absence of policing meant that people’s perceptions didn’t necessarily match the statistical reality of safety.

Newcombe Clark noted that when the crime statistics are low, it might take only one or two “bad apples” to skew the numbers higher. At that, Collins quipped, “You’re not talking about Ray [Detter] specifically, though, right?” After the laughter quieted down, Clark continued by saying that a large number of incidents could be the work of one or two individuals.

The other point that Clark highlighted from the police department’s visit to the partnership’s committee CAC was that the police force is good statistically at catching all the perpetrators of major crimes quickly and efficiently – but they feel the pressure to be proactive. Summarizing what the two officers had presented at the meeting, Clark said that an armed robbery might or might not happen, depending on whether they knew there’d be police officers nearby.

The “slippage” at Liberty Plaza, Clark said, could be attributed to the fact that the people who are new to town don’t know the panhandling rule, and those who know it, know that there aren’t beat cops walking around regularly enforcing it. He said it did not undercut the argument for downtown patrols to observe that statistically the Ann Arbor police do a really good job, especially considering that they have 100 fewer officers than they had a few years ago. Clark concluded by saying he didn’t want to let the issue go, simply by saying “the stats are good.”

Collins agreed with Clark’s basic sentiment – we’d all like bicycle patrols and beat cops restored because that provides a very effective message to the citizens and to the “nefarious people.” Safety is not only a statistic, he said, but also a feeling.

Some Chronicle readers may have noticed bicycle-mounted Ann Arbor police officers along Fourth or Fifth Avenue near the Blake Transit Center. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority contracts for security at the bus station. It’s not part of a general downtown beat patrol.

DDA Finances: Bond Payments, Timelines, Parking Revenue

As part of the operations committee report, Roger Hewitt presented the final unaudited summaries and fund balance sheets for FY 2010, which ended June 30. A point raised by Newcombe Clark was an asterisk next to a line in the TIF Fund Income Statement for the line item indicating “bond payments” for $1,569,605. The footnote reads: “Includes $508,000 for the Police/Court Facility Grant.”

Clark asked that in the future, that amount be reflected instead in the line item for “Grants & Transfers.” The arrangement is that the DDA has committed to grant the city of Ann Arbor the funds to make part of the city’s bond payments for the new police/court facility [aka municipal center]. At the meeting, deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse indicated the duration of the grant to be 25 years.

Also as part of the operations committee report, Hewitt noted that the board packet included a detailed set of milestones, which Village Green – developer of the City Apartments project at First and Washington – needs to hit as part of the purchase option agreement. That agreement was extended by the city council at its Aug. 5 meeting. Clark picked up on the fact that the turnaround time for DDA activities and involvement were all relatively short – in many cases a day. He suggested that the DDA “politely ask” that it be kept in the loop on those matters.

The parking revenue report that is always a part of the operations committee report showed some decreases in monthly numbers, compared year over year. For example, the Maynard structure showed $10,361 less revenue in June 2010 compared to June 2009, with 4,398 fewer hourly patrons using the structure.

             JUNE 2010          JUNE 2009         2010 VS. 2009
          Hourly             Hourly               Hourly
        Revenues  Patrons  Revenues  Patrons    Revenues  Patrons
Maynard $151,538  43,826   $161,900  48,224    ($10,361)  (4,398)

-

A breakdown of art fair parking showed $218,230 in revenues compared to $244,180 for 2009 for a decrease of $25,950 – the weather had been terrible this year, with downpours and tornadoes in the area. Hewitt said that most of the monthly difference for July 2010 – which was $$33,975 or 2.55% less that July a year ago – could be accounted for by the decreased revenues during art fair. Hewitt suggested that the quarterly and annual reports gave a better feel for how things are going than the month-to-month reports.

Changing of the Guard

At the start of the meeting, the board’s new chair, Joan Lowenstein, who was elected at the annual meeting held just after the regular board meeting in July, welcomed the board’s newest member, Bob Guenzel. Guenzel retired as Washtenaw County administrator earlier this year. Lowenstein indicated that Guenzel’s absence was due to a previously planned vacation, but she still welcomed him “in absentia,” quipping, “He doesn’t know about the whole hazing thing, yet.”

Guenzel is replacing Jennifer S. Hall. The board unanimously passed a resolution acknowledging her service, which is the usual pattern and practice of the board. Hall’s period of service included a turn as board chair from 2008-09. The resolution highlighted her commitment to open government:

Whereas, Jennifer Hall encouraged important changes to the DDA’s processes, meetings, and website to foster a strong sense of public openness, accountability and transparency;

That commitment emerged perhaps most publicly when it became clear this past spring that members of the DDA board and the city council had done significant work on re-negotiating the city-DDA parking agreement – work that took place out of public view and outside of the committee structure that both bodies had established to undertake that work.

At the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, when the DDA board voted to grant $2 million to the city as a unilateral amendment to the parking agreement, Hall gave a blistering critique of the way the discussions had been conducted out of public view, against the DDA’s commitment to openness and against the specific mandate she’d given – as chair at the time the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee was formed – that the discussions be open and transparent. [For Chronicle coverage of that meeting, see "DDA OKs $2 Million Over Strong Dissent."]

The resolution thanking Hall also highlighted some of the specific projects she’d worked on during her period of service:

Whereas, Jennifer Hall also encouraged a number of signature DDA projects and programs, including approval of the Fifth & Division pedestrian and bicycle improvements project, installation of in-street seasonal bicycle racks and expansion of DDA funding for the getDowntown program and go!passes;

After Lowenstein read the resolution aloud, the board approved it without comment.

Public Comment: Electric Cable

Paul Ganz – DTE Energy regional manager for the counties of Ingham, Jackson, Livingston and most of Washtenaw – told the board he was appearing before the board on a bit of a “whimsy.” In connection with the underground parking garage project along Fifth Avenue, he said, DTE had been working with Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, and Adrian Iraola of Park Avenue Consulting, who works with the DDA to help manage projects. [Various utilities have required relocation in connection with the project.]

Paul Ganz of DTE Energy presented board members with their own slice of history – a piece of an underground high-voltage cable that had been replaced as part of the construction of the underground parking garage the DDA is currently building on Fifth Avenue. DDA board member Leah Gunn is in the background.

To provide the board with a historical perspective, he distributed roughly hockey-puck-sized cross-sections of electrical cable, which he said was typical underground high-voltage electric cable – it had been installed 34 years ago, in May 1976.

Ganz noted that the copper wires are wrapped in lead to help protect them. Ordinarily, the cable is recycled, because the metal is valuable, he said. But he felt like it was worth sacrificing a foot or two of the cable, sliced up into pieces, so that board members could keep a piece of it on their desks as a memento. He concluded by thanking the DDA for their cooperation.

Board member John Mouat commented that he liked the “peace sign” that was formed by the insulation around the three separate clusters of copper wire that make up the cable.

Leah Gunn thanked Ganz, saying she’d add the cable slice to her concrete chunks from Fourth & Washington, and pieces of re-bar from First & Washington – a kind of “parking structure memorial.” Russ Collins also thanked DTE for the work involved in relocating the utilities, which had to be coordinated and timed in a crucial way.

Cross section of high-voltage undeground cable presented by Paul Ganz of DTE to DDA board members.

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

Absent: John Hieftje, Bob Guenzel.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2010, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]