City administrator Steve Powers was game enough to don as a hat the “meter moon” he was presented during the April 2, 2014 DDA board meeting by Shary Brown of WonderFool Productions. (Photos by the writer.)

A $674,264 grant to support the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s getDowntown program will allow employees of participating downtown Ann Arbor businesses to use their go!passes to ride the bus for another year, without themselves paying a fare for any of their bus boardings. That’s a program the DDA has funded out of public parking system revenues for over a decade

In other transportation-related business, the board approved a resolution that expresses notional support, but not does not commit any funding, for the third phase of a study for a high-capacity transportation system – stretching from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The third phase of this connector study will be an environmental review. The resolution of support will be used as part of an application, due April 28, for a U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER 2014 (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant.

A $600,000 grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission will be invested in capital improvements to two properties in or near the DDA tax capture district: Baker Commons and Miller Manor. Baker Commons is a 64-unit building located at the southeast corner of Packard and Main, within the DDA district. Miller Manor is a 103-unit building on Miller Avenue outside the DDA district, but within a quarter-mile of the district boundary. That conforms with the DDA’s policy on use of its tax increment finance (TIF) funds for housing. The $600,000 is to be paid in three $200,000 annual installments starting this year.

The board also approved a policy that provides guidelines for defining a “community benefit” – when it comes to evaluating the elimination of on-street parking spaces in downtown Ann Arbor. That policy comes in the context of a related city council-approved policy setting the fee for permanent removal of an on-street metered parking space. If a new development requires the elimination of an on-street parking space, the developer is required to pay $45,000, plus some of the projected future revenue the space would have generated. But an exception can be granted by the DDA – which operates the city’s public parking system under contract with the city – if it’s determined that the parking space removal is a “community benefit.” Exceptions could include new developments that meet or exceed goals laid out in various existing plans or public health and safety codes.

In other business, the DDA board denied the appeal of a request made under the Freedom of Information Act, affirming a decision to redact a portion of a public document that had been available for several years in un-redacted form on the city of Ann Arbor’s website.

The board also held a closed session lasting about a half hour, citing a desire to review the written opinion of legal counsel.

During public commentary, the board heard a pitch from Alan Haber for the DDA to be a partner in creating an Earth Day (April 22) celebration on the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Also during public commentary, the board heard from Shary Brown, thanking the DDA for its past support of FoolMoon and FestiFools. This year’s events, held in downtown Ann Arbor, take place on the first weekend in April.

Among a range of various updates, the board received a presentation from public art commissioners on the status of the East Stadium bridges public art project. It’s a presentation that the art commission is providing to several boards and commissions, including the planning commission at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

Funding for go!pass

The DDA board considered a resolution funding the getDowntown’s go!pass and other programs with a grant of $674,264.

This is a previous edition of the go!pass, subsidized by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. A swipe through the fare box of an AAATA bus lets its holder ride AAATA buses an unlimited number of times.

A go!pass allows employees of downtown organizations to ride the bus, without themselves paying a fare for any of their bus boardings. The DDA has funded the program – out of parking system revenues – for over a decade.

Fares for go!passes are paid by the Ann Arbor DDA out of a grant from the DDA board to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s getDowntown program.

That amount includes operational and administrative overhead as well as reimbursements for fares.

Under the rules of the program, a business or organization located within the DDA’s tax capture district can purchase bus passes for its employees for a nominal $10 apiece.

However, an “all-in” rule of the program requires that passes must be purchased for all employees, whether the passes will be used by every employee or not.

The DDA reimburses the AAATA based on the actual use of go!passes, which has shown steady increases over the last 10 years:

Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year for rides taken under the getDowntown go!pass program (red). (Data from AAATA charted by The Chronicle.)

As a fraction of total rides taken on the AAATA, go!pass rides account for about 10%. The amount reimbursed by the DDA per go!pass use is $0.90. A “use” is a boarding of a bus, not a “connected trip.”

If a go!pass holder has a commute that involves a transfer from one bus route to another, then commuting both ways to work – which would count as just two connected trips – would generate a total of four boardings. The $0.90 go!pass cost per boarding is based on the number of boardings an average holder of the AAATA’s 30-day pass makes – divided into the cost for such a pass. A 30-day pass, with unlimited boardings, is available to anyone and costs $58. A holder of a 30-day pass who commutes both ways to work five days a week, using routes that require a transfer, would effectively be paying $0.64 per boarding [58/(22.667*4)]. Transfers don’t cost any extra on the AAATA system – so compared to the $1.50 full fare, such a rider would be paying $1.30 per trip.

A breakdown of the specific costs the DDA board was asked to fund at its April 2 meeting includes the following, which amounts to $674,264 for FY 2015, compared to $610,662 in FY 2014. The amounts allocated last year for each item are indicated in square brackets. Descriptions are summarized from getDowntown descriptions.

• getDowntown: [$40,488] $40,000. Support for programs, services, outreach and marketing to encourage downtown employers/employees to use transportation alternatives. 2015 Survey of Decision Makers and Employers.
• go!pass: [$479,000] $529,000. Transit incentive for employees. Cost increase due to estimated 5% increase in ridership over FY 2014. Reimbursement is $.90 per ride.
• NightRide improvements and go!pass discount: [$18,233] $20,500. For evening employees who depend on transit to get to work. Increase in amount reflects an increased demand for service and increase in ridership.
• Route #4 Washtenaw enhanced service: [$56,363] $57,772. Bus route with highest downtown employee ridership. The increase reflects a 2.5% cost of living increase due to increase in diesel fuel cost and operator wages.
• Route #5 Packard enhanced service: [$16,578] $16,992. Route used by significant numbers of downtown employees. The increase reflects a 2.5% cost of living increase due to increase in diesel fuel cost and operator wages.
• ExpressRide go!pass discount: [$0] $10,000. Service from Canton and Chelsea to Ann Arbor.

Funding for go!pass: Board Deliberations

Keith Orr introduced the resolution on go!pass funding. He noted that the resolution being considered by the board continues funding that goes back about 12 years. Orr described the getDowntown program as a partnership between several organizations – the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor, and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The DDA has always been supportive of getDowntown, because the whole point of the program is to get more people downtown, Orr said.

Orr described the go!pass program as a huge success in alleviating the parking strain on downtown. Orr then ticked through the individual categories of funding making up the $674,264 grant, which he said had been provided by getDowntown on request from the operations committee. He described the overall increase as about a 10% increase.

Director of getDowntown, Nancy Shore, was in the audience to answer any questions. Board members didn’t have any.

Al McWilliams abstained from the vote, noting that getDowntown is a client of his marketing firm, Quack!Media.

Outcome: The board voted to approve the getDowntown funding, with McWilliams abstaining.

Support for Continuing Connector Study

The board considered a resolution, added during the meeting, expressing notional support, without committing any funding, for the third phase of a study for a high-capacity transportation system. The system might be built along a corridor stretching from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The third phase of this connector study will be an environmental review.

The resolution of support will be used as part of an application, due April 28, for a U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER 2014 (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant.

The lead agency for the study, which is now in its second phase, is the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. This second phase is an alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. The study first winnowed down options to six different route alignments. Those six routes had been further reduced to two possibilities. Additional modeling work is being done on those two alternatives.

The first phase of the project – a feasibility study completed in 2011 – concluded that there was sufficient travel demand in the corridor to warrant some kind of high-capacity transit system.

Support for Continuing Connector Study: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the resolution and gave the background on the study. He described the mathematical modeling as using very complex software and data. The modeling generated ridership projections for various route choices, he explained. In the southern part of the route, there were discernible differences in ridership projections for different route choices, he said. In the northern part of the route, different routes did not display as marked a difference.

Out of the six, the technical committee had settled on two preferred routes that come from the north down through the middle of town. Those two routes are now being re-modeled after some revisions were made to those routes. One is a longer route that has more stops, while the other is a shorter route with fewer stops.

Hewitt allowed that the process had drawn out longer than anticipated. He did not think a final report would be ready before the end of the summer. He described the process as under on budget, but over on time. The environmental study phase of the project, Hewitt explained, would start after the completion of the current phase, which will determine a locally-preferred alternative.

There’s the potential for receiving federal funding for the environmental study, he continued. That would come through the TIGER program. The current round of funding applications are due by 28 April, Hewitt said. The advice of representatives on the technical advisory committee – which include representatives from WATS and MDOT – is that it’s probably too early to think that the project would receive a federal award.

But there was some value in putting the project on the federal funding radar so that in the next round of funding, it might increase the chances that the project would receive a grant award, Hewitt indicated. One of the criteria used to evaluate the merits of the federal grant is the number of partners who are involved in the project, he said. Hewitt noted that the project is a partnership between the AAATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA and the University of Michigan.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution urging the continuation of the connector study to a third phase, which will include an environmental study.

Housing Commission $600K Grant

The board considered approval of a grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for $600,000 for capital improvements to two properties in or near the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax capture district: Baker Commons and Miller Manor.

Baker Commons is a 64-unit building located at the southeast corner of Packard and Main, within the DDA district. Miller Manor is a 103-unit building on Miller Avenue outside the DDA district, but within a quarter-mile of the district boundary. That conforms with the DDA’s policy on use of its tax increment finance (TIF) funds for housing.

FoolMoon “meter moons” were set at the seats of all DDA board members, including Bob Guenzel.

The $600,000 is to be paid in three $200,000 annual installments starting this year. The grant will support planned capital improvements at the two public housing facilities. [.pdf of Baker Commons plan] [.pdf of Miller Manor plan]

The $600,000 amount pushes the total contribution by the DDA to AAHC – from 2012 through 2016 – to at least $1.16 million. The requested April 2 DDA board action came in addition to a $300,000 grant made by the DDA board to AAHC for Baker Commons a year ago at its March 6, 2013 meeting. That grant was for driveway and sidewalk replacement and repair; installation of energy-efficient lighting; insulation and air sealing; window replacement; adding a second entrance; door replacement; upgrade of fixtures appliances, flooring and cabinetry; replacement of heating and cooling units; generator replacement, elevator replacement, upgrade of common area furniture, and installation of additional security cameras. The DDA board’s April 2 resolution extended the term of the $300,000 grant, as the AAHC has not yet used the funds.

Prior to that, at its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting, the DDA board had granted $260,000 to the AAHC for the replacement of the roof on Baker Commons.

For many DDA board members, the $600,000 grant to AAHC this year was contingent on action by the city council to grant a similar $600,000 request made by AAHC of the city of Ann Arbor. At its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to develop a budget amendment that would allocate $600,000 from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help the AAHC pay for capital improvements.

Approval of that amendment by the city council would be contingent on the closing of the sale of city-owned property at Fifth & William in downtown Ann Arbor – the former Y lot. Net proceeds of the sale, at around $1.4 million, are to be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund. The closing on the property took place on April 2.

Housing Commission $600K Grant: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the resolution on the grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The partnerships committee of the DDA had received additional details from AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, Lowenstein reported. The timing of the allocation would fit in with the DDA budget allocations, she noted, saying that the grant was paid out in three separate years.

Lowenstein also pointed out that the resolution incorporates a clause that extends the term of an existing $300,000 grant from the DDA to the AAHC that was made in 2013. The money had been awarded but has not yet been used by the AAHC, she said. If the grant were not extended, then it would sunset under DDA board policy.

Hall was present at the meeting in the event that board members had any questions, Lowenstein said. They did not.

John Mouat said he wanted to remind people that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission is a long-time client of his architectural firm, Mitchell & Mouat Architects – so he would be abstaining.

Outcome: The $600,000 grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission was approved, with Mouat abstaining.

Definition of Community Benefit for On-Street Parking Removal

The DDA board considered a resolution to define “community benefit,” for the purposes of evaluating the elimination of on-street parking spaces in downtown Ann Arbor. The action was taken in response to a city council directive passed earlier this year.

The resolution would set a policy that defines “community benefit” as including new developments that meet or exceed goals laid out in various existing plans or public health and safety codes. The only specific planning documents mentioned in the community-benefit policy are the DDA’s development plan and the city’s non-motorized plan. [.pdf of policy considered at April 2, 2014 DDA board meeting]

If the removal of an on-street parking space does not provide a community benefit, then a developer is required to pay $45,000 per space, as well as the amount of projected revenue the space would generate over the next 10 years. That was the policy adopted by the Ann Arbor city council at its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting. The council left some flexibility in the fee policy, which allowed for some discretion to apply the fee or not, if a community benefit were provided by the removal of a space. The definition of “community benefit” was left for the DDA to determine. It’s in that context that the DDA board’s April 2 action was taken.

The council’s determination of the fee amount came four years after the DDA had made a recommendation on the fee policy:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

To press the council to act on the issue, a clause was incorporated into the 2011 extension of the contract under which the DDA manages the city of Ann Arbor’s parking system:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Under the terms of the 2011 contract, the DDA pays the city of Ann Arbor 17% of gross parking revenues.

Definition of Community Benefit for On-Street Parking Removal: Board Deliberations

DDA board chair Sandi Smith.

Roger Hewitt introduced the resolution on defining public benefit for the removal of on-street metered parking spaces.

He gave a brief history of the topic. When the A2D2 zoning proposal was discussed initially, one of the elements that had been discussed, but not enacted, was a charge to remove metered parking spaces from streets, he said. After several years, the city council had passed an ordinance to put the zoning in place, and adopted a policy of charging $45,000 for every meter removed for private purposes. But there’s an exception when it is done for community benefit, Hewitt said.

The DDA staff and the city staff have worked together to come up with a policy that defines what that community benefit is, Hewitt said. He summarized the policy as saying that the committee benefit has to be a benefit that extends to more than just the specific location or the specific developer.

The resolution would allow the DDA to use the guidelines that had been developed in making a determination on community benefit. There’s also an appeals process that a developer can use if they feel that it has been applied inappropriately.

Sandi Smith quipped, “I like the pace at which this has moved,” venturing that it had taken five years to develop the policy. Hewitt noted that the A2D2 process had started in 2004.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the policy defining community benefit in connection with removal of on-street meter parking spaces.

Appeal of FOIA Denial

By way of background, The Chronicle had filed a request with the DDA under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the RFP (request for proposals) issued by the city of Ann Arbor in 2009 for development of the Library Lane site, as well as an email dating from 2012, addressed to DDA board member John Splitt, among others. Splitt’s email address, along with those of board member Roger Hewitt and former board member Leah Gunn, were redacted – on the grounds that to disclose those email addresses would amount to an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

The RFP in question had been available on the city’s website for several years in unredacted form. The RFP invites readers to contact Splitt, who was in 2009 chair of the DDA board, under the email address jsplitt@comcast.net – the same email address Splitt generally makes available for public use. The DDA’s handling of this issue was similar to the way the city of Ann Arbor handles the redaction of personal email addresses. [For more background on this issue, see "When Lawyers Fool With FOIA."]

DDA board member Bob Guenzel.

At the April 2 meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay told the board that as the DDA’s FOIA coordinator, she had handled a request that had come in for two documents. As is her standard practice, she had redacted the “personal” email addresses for three board members, who were included in an email message. Pollay contended that the appeal expressed a disagreement about the practice of redacting “personal” email addresses.

She told the board that two of the email addresses she thought were personal, and one of them was a business address. It had been her practice to do that kind of redaction, she said. The question before the board, Pollay said, was whether to grant the appeal, which would be to provide unredacted copies of the documents. The board could also provide direction to deny the appeal, or the board could also approve some of the appeal redaction.

Bob Guenzel then moved that the action that Pollay had taken to redact the “personal” email addresses be affirmed.

Outcome: The board voted to deny the appeal that would have resulted in the public disclosure of the unredacted RFP regarding the Library Lane site.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Abstentions

At the April 2 meeting, two board members abstained from votes taken at the meeting. John Mouat abstained from the vote on the Ann Arbor Housing Commission grant, citing the fact that the AAHC was a client of his architectural firm, Mitchell & Mouat Architects. And Al McWilliams abstained from the vote on the getDowntown funding, noting that getDowntown is a client of his marketing firm, Quack!Media.

But during the routine approval of the previous meeting’s minutes, McWilliams asked that the minutes from the board’s March 5, 2014 meeting be amended. Those minutes showed the vote on the DDA’s resolution on increased transportation funding. His vote was recorded as an “aye.” He contended that he abstained from the vote. He indicated that he had just stayed quiet. “I will be more vocal about that in the future,” he said.

Board chair Sandi Smith told McWilliams that saying nothing counted as abstention, but it would be helpful for the record keeper to say something. The board agreed to amend the minutes as requested by McWilliams.

Comm/Comm: FoolMoon

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Shary Brown addressed the board on the topic of FoolMoon.

Shary Brown of WonderFool Productions addressed the board during public commentary at the start of its April 2, 2014 meeting.

She told the board that this weekend, WonderFool Productions would present FoolMoon on Friday evening and FestiFools on Sunday afternoon, April 6. She told board members that the “meter moons” that had been placed on the board table were meant for them, the board members. They have been through their “full orbit cycle of three years,” she told them. They are being retired and donated to the DDA, she said, explaining that the DDA was receiving the meter moons because the DDA had believed in the “foolishness” by providing support to the event.

Brown said there would come a year when the DDA was no longer entertaining fee waivers for bagged meters for special events. [There's a $15 a day charge per meter to reserve parking meters by placing bags over them.] For her very tiny organization, when it was in its second year of presenting the FoolMoon event, it was a “make or break deal,” she said. The DDA had recognized the value of cultural events downtown, Brown added. “We were the new kid, but we thought we were special,” she told the board. She felt that the DDA also recognized that specialness and had commissioned the “meter moons.” The moons have been placed atop parking meters for which the DDA had waived the meter bag fee. It was small for the DDA but big for FestiFools, she said.

Brown thanked the DDA board for recognizing the cultural value of the events that get put on in downtown Ann Arbor. Brown then presented city administrator Steve Powers with a “meter moon,” saying she wanted to make sure that the city of Ann Arbor also had such a moon. Powers donned the “meter moon” as a hat. Brown told the board that FoolMoon started at 6 p.m. in front of Grizzly Peak restaurant. Brown told the board that Grizzly Peak had been a big supporter of the event and brewed a beer in honor of FoolMoon called “Fool Brew.”

Brown told the board that there would also be live music at the FoolMoon event. She described the event as including hundreds of luminaries that members of the community have built over the last several months. People with luminaries would be starting at Slauson Middle School, Kerrytown and the University of Michigan Museum of Art and would begin meandering their way through town and come down to Washington and Ashley streets. City Apartments would serve as a backdrop for the event, she continued, and there would be a special laser show.

Comm/Comm: Earth Day

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Alan Haber introduced himself as a long-time champion of the Library Lane site becoming an Ann Arbor civic center, developed for public use. Based on recent action of the city council, Haber said, some of that land would ultimately become a city park. In the meantime, Haber said, the surface of the lot should be made available for public events and activities.

The next opportunity for that, he said, would be on Earth Day on April 22. There were a lot of people who would like to see a festival for Earth Day on that weekend, Haber said, which starts on April 19. So he was putting together a permit application for special events. He reminded the board of a proposal to set up a temporary skating rink on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure, but that project never came to fruition. The city attorney had never managed to get back to his group on the questions they had about that proposal, Haber said.

Haber said it would be very nice if the DDA would, as it had on July 14, 2012, be encouraging of an Earth Day event on the Library Lane site. He hoped that the whole surface parking area on top of the structure would be made available for the Earth Day event. He hoped that the DDA would be a partner in putting on the event. Such an event could become an annual Ann Arbor spring party, he ventured. He wanted the DDA board to participate and to make it as easy as possible.

Comm/Comm: TiniLite

During public commentary, Changmin Fan told the board that he was excited and nervous, quipping that FoolMoon was another competitor to his TiniLite company. He reminded the board that in 2005, Ann Arbor had installed LED streetlights. He described his company’s technology as connecting the community digitally. He wanted to help small businesses and retailers downtown as well as the general public. He described how there could be a new democratic movement and the public could have a new voice using his company’s technology, referring to the technology as smart social signs. He hoped that sometime this year a light could be installed that was 100 feet high that would display information.

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Reporting out from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the committee had received a presentation from Ben Dahlmann to lease the former Y back to the DDA, after the purchase of the property by Dahlmann from the city. [That purchase was completed the same day as the April 2 board meeting.] The proposal was for the DDA to continue to operate the parcel as a surface parking lot. Hewitt reported that the DDA had removed all of its equipment from the parking lot – as requested by the city of Ann Arbor, which had owned the property.

Hewitt noted that the operations committee members had several concerns about Dahlmann’s proposal. Some of the concerns involved the current condition of the lot, which was in need of some repair. Another concern was the financial consideration related to revenues that the DDA might be unnecessarily foregoing. He noted that there was a significant amount of additional public parking available adjacent to the former Y parking lot. The committee had asked deputy director of the DDA, Joe Morehouse, and Republic Parking manager Art Low to do a financial analysis and come back to the next operations committee meeting to see if there’s a proposal that could make any financial sense to the DDA.

Board chair Sandi Smith inquired about the condition of the surface lot, noting that it had been installed as permeable asphalt. She asked if the current poor condition was a consequence of the permeable asphalt or damage from the Blake Transit Center construction.

Hewitt said both issues were a factor. He said that the permeable asphalt did not have a very long life span, because it gets filled up with grime. There was also some excessive wear and tear on the surface where the AAATA had done construction staging for the Blake Transit Center, he said. If the DDA was going to operate the lot as a surface parking lot for the long-term, the surface would need to be replaced, he said.

Hewitt said that the city of Ann Arbor had requested that the DDA operate a surface parking lot there after the old YMCA building had been demolished. [For additional background see "Old Y Lot: 2 More Years of Surface Parking?"]

Comm/Comm: Downtown Ambassadors

By way of background, for several years the Ann Arbor DDA has had an interest in maintaining some kind of additional patrol presence in the downtown. In the mid-2000s, the DDA entered into a contract with the city of Ann Arbor with the implicit hope that the city would maintain its dedicated downtown beat cops. That contract was structured at that time to pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, with the city able to request up to $2 million a year for a maximum of $10 million.

That hope was not realized, and the DDA has since discussed the idea of providing additional funding for police or for ambassadors. The idea of “ambassadors” was explored in the context of subsequent 2011 renegotiations of the contract between the city and the DDA under which the DDA operates the parking system. The DDA wanted to be assigned responsibility for parking enforcement – a function performed by the city’s community standards officers. Board members imagined that this activity could be performed in an ambassador-like fashion.

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district. The DDA also continues to pursue the idea of ambassadors. Several DDA board members made a trip to visit Grand Rapids last year, a city that had recently launched an ambassador program.

On April 2, Roger Hewitt noted that the DDA has discussed a possible ambassador program. The operations committee has assembled quite a bit of information, he said, including a list of cities that have such ambassador programs. The cities range geographically from Akron, Ohio to Yakima, Washington, Hewitt said. In size, they range from New York City to Eaton, Pennsylvania, which has a population of 27,000.

Every ambassador program seems to be crafted to the city where it is located, Hewitt said. Some of the ambassadors do “clean and safe” programs. Others do customer relations, while other programs do outreach to people with substance abuse and mental health issues. There are a whole range of activities that ambassador programs can undertake, Hewitt said.

The problem with issuing a request for proposals is that you pretty much have to know what you are looking for when you start it, Hewitt said. On the other hand, a request for qualifications would give the DDA an opportunity to gather information and to ask questions without committing itself to a particular program, he noted. So issuing a request for qualifications was deemed to be a prudent way to gather more information from experts in the field to run such programs to help the DDA make its decision on whether to go forward – and if so, what it should look like and what it should cost.

There is no financial implication for the DDA at this point in the process, Hewitt explained. There would be a time commitment on the part of DDA staff and board members, however, to review the information provided by respondents to the RFQ.

Comm/Comm: Fourth & William

By way of background, at the its Jan. 8, 2014 meeting, the DDA authorized up to $40,000 for Carl Walker Inc. to develop architectural renderings for renovations to the southwest stair tower and elevators of the Fourth & William parking structure.

The Fourth & William structure, at 994 spaces, is one of the largest in Ann Arbor’s parking system – but has elevators that are more than 30 years old. [A recent trip from the ground floor to floor 7 was timed by The Chronicle at 45 seconds. The comparable trip at the newer Washington & Fourth parking structure took about 17 seconds.]

At the March 26 DDA operations committee meeting, Mike Ortlieb of Carl Walker Inc. presented two possible timelines, based on either a two-phase or three-phase approach to the construction. The basic cost was estimated at $2.45 million. Pursuing the three-phase approach would cost an additional $150,000.

The two-phase approach would last about a year – from August 2014 through July 2015. The three-phase approach would take five months longer – through about December 2015. In both scenarios, the goal is to keep the parking structure open for business.

Chronicle chart of potential timeline for renovations to the southwest elevator at the Fourth & William parking structure, based on Carl Walker estimates.

Reporting out from the operations committee at the board’s April 2 meeting, John Splitt gave an update on the Fourth & William elevator project. Mike Ortlieb and Josh Rozeboom from Carl Walker Inc. had attended the operations committee meeting, he reported. Renderings will be shown to adjoining merchants in the Main Street area. And their input on possible construction timelines will be solicited, Splitt reported.

Comm/Comm: Housing Needs

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Joan Lowenstein said they’d heard from Washtenaw County staff [Stephen Wade and Brett Lenart] about a needs assessment for affordable housing. There is no specific proposal made to the committee, but the committee was generally supportive of the notion, she reported. The DDA would be able to use a result of that study as it considers how to allocate its funds, Lowenstein said.

Comm/Comm: Partnerships Grants

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Joan Lowenstein said the committee had a discussion about restarting a program of partnerships grants, which are different from grants to brownfield projects like Zingerman’s Deli or the 618 S. Main project. The committee is considering adapting the criteria for brownfield grants to develop a more general grant policy.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter told the board that the CAC had a potential new member, who is a resident of City Apartments. He told the board that if they knew of anyone who lived in the DDA district, they should let that person know that the downtown citizens advisory council welcomed their participation. The group meets on the first Tuesday of the month at 7 p.m. in the city council workroom.

The group had reviewed at its meeting on the previous evening some of its positions on developments in the downtown, Detter said. The group unanimously supports the expansion of public transit services, Detter said – and the group supported passing the May 6 transit tax proposal. The tax would fund better service on nights and weekends, he noted, plus redesigned routes reaching more destinations and making more frequent trips. The CAC believes that the improvements would result in improved quality of life for everyone. It would relieve traffic congestion, protect the environment, and spark economic opportunity. It might also mean that no additional large parking structures would need to be built in the downtown, Detter said.

Detter also told the board that the CAC supports the council’s action to pursue revisions to the D1 zoning downtown to address past mistakes that had been made.

Detter told the DDA board that the downtown citizens advisory council had spent a lot of time discussing recent city council decisions that would reduce the ability of the Ann Arbor public art commission to carry out its mission. The public art program was undergoing change and reshaping, he allowed. The CAC appreciated the public art commission’s efforts over the years. [Marsha Chamberlin, a CAC member, also serves on the public art commission.]

Detter said the group continued to support the development of a significantly sized public plaza on the Fifth Avenue side of the Library Lane parking structure. The group also supported development of a public plaza that is sensitive to the needs of the adjacent Ann Arbor District Library. Any planning for the surface of the Library Lane parking structure, he continued, should include a tax-producing development on the major part of the property. Any future development should be encouraged to work cooperatively to integrate itself with and complement the adjoining public plaza, Detter said.

Present: Al McWilliams, Cyndi Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat. Powers did not return to the meeting after the closed session.

Absent: Rishi Narayan, Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at this time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The pending sale of the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor – on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann has a closing date on April 2, 2014. The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7, 2014 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Affordable housing fund activity. Recommendations on the use of the monies in the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund come from the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

The dollar figure of $1,384,300 million reflects the $1.75 million in gross proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs, from the sale of a downtown city-owned parcel known as the old Y lot. The city paid $3.5 million for the property in 2003.

The council approved the sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The city has made interest-only payments on a $3.5 million loan for the last 10 years.

The city purchased the property in 2003, exercising a right of first refusal, in part to prevent its acquisition by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

The Dec. 16 council decision reflects a departure from the council’s policy established on Oct. 15, 2012 – which would have first reimbursed the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for various other costs, including interest payments, and relocation of the residents of the YMCA building that previously stood on the site. In October 2005, two years after the city purchased the property, the mechanical systems in the building failed, and the building eventually was demolished. It was converted to a surface lot in the public parking system.

The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board voted at its Dec. 4, 2013 to waive that claim. And the city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 that the city itself paid in interest could be reimbursed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building.

It’s not clear if the DDA can waive all of its claim in light of the fact that the DDA used at least some TIF (tax increment finance) funds to pay for items like demolition and some of the interest payments on the loan. [.pdf of DDA records produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Chronicle] If that were analyzed as a distribution of TIF to the city of Ann Arbor, then under state statute the DDA would need to distribute a proportional amount to the other jurisdictions whose taxes are captured in the DDA district.

The history of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land and the connection to the city’s affordable housing trust fund goes back at least 20 years.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions in the summer of 2013 that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

At the Dec. 16 meeting, several advocates of affordable housing spoke to the council during public commentary, urging councilmembers to allocate funds from the proceeds of the Y lot sale to support affordable housing.

For details about the council’s deliberations on this item, see The Chronicle’s live updates from the Dec. 16 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

On Dec. 4, 2013, city administrator Steve Powers attended his first DDA board meeting as a member. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also considered a resolution added to the agenda on the day of the meeting, related to the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) parking agreement for the 624 Church St. project – but ultimately decided to table that resolution pending further review at the committee level.

The DDA’s Dec. 4 resolution allocating $280,000 for the Main Street light pole replacement ended the political wrangling over who should pay for those downtown Ann Arbor light poles. Replacement of the deteriorating poles was identified by the city as a need in the first half of 2012. The source of an estimated $600,000 required for the project was specified in the city’s CIP (capital improvements plan) that year as coming from the DDA – though the funds were at that time not authorized by the board.

In the spring of 2013, the city council weighed how it might clarify the city’s ordinance that restricts the DDA TIF (tax increment finance) capture. In that context, DDA executive director Susan Pollay told the council that the DDA might not be able to afford to pay for the Main Street light pole project – if the council changed the ordinance language to clarify the calculations in a way that did not favor the DDA. The question of the DDA’s TIF capture was not ultimately settled until the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

In the interim, the city council voted at its May 20, 2013 meeting to request that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the $580,000 light pole project. After the council then declined at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting to approve a budget allocation for the remaining $280,000 that was needed for the project, the DDA board passed its Dec. 4 resolution, citing the urgency of replacing at least 36 of the poles as the reason for its decision.

According to the DDA’s resolution, staff will use the DDA funding to begin now with replacement of those poles most in need of being removed, with the remainder replaced in the summer of 2014.

Also at its Dec. 4 meeting – in connection with the city’s pending sale to Dennis Dahlmann of the former Y lot, at William Street and Fifth Avenue – the DDA board passed a resolution that waived claim to $1,439,959 in reimbursements from the sale that the DDA has calculated it might be owed. The city council adopted a policy on Oct. 15, 2012 that included depositing net proceeds (after reimbursements) from the former Y lot sale into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

So the DDA board’s action is an attempt to increase the amount that will be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. The resolution passed by the DDA board also calls on the city council to waive the city’s claim to reimbursements. The city purchased the property in 2003 for $3.5 million and has made interest-only payments for the last 10 years on a loan for that amount. The agreed-upon sale price to Dahlmann is $5.25 million.

In another formal action taken on Dec. 4, the DDA board accepted the audit report from the most recently concluded fiscal year – FY 2013, which ended June 30, 2013. The auditor issued an “unmodified” or clean opinion.

The board also considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, from the developer of the 624 Church St. project. The developer is asking for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits could be purchased using the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The program allows a developer to satisfy certain zoning requirements that parking spaces be provided for a project – by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system at a premium rate, instead of building the spaces on site. The developer of the 624 Church St. project wants the ability to extend the 15-year minimum to cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee.

The board’s newest members introduced themselves at the meeting: city administrator Steve Powers and Main Street retailer Cyndi Clark.

Also at its Dec. 4 meeting, the board heard a range of updates on various projects and public commentary. Highlights included a report from the Main Street BIZ (business improvement zone), which has enough money in its fund balance to handle sidewalk snow removal for the coming winter, without collecting the winter tax assessment to which it is entitled. In a separate update, there’s a possibility that downtown ambassadors could be hired by the DDA as soon as the summer of 2014.

Other topics covered in updates included the effort to save the State Theater, the NHL’s Winter Classic on New Year’s Day, and The Puck Drops Here festivities on New Year’s Eve.

Main Street Light Poles

The need to replacement the Main Street light poles due to rusting bases has been known since last year – in early to mid-2012.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

This spring, at city council meetings, replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

The poles were part of the city’s CIP last year with the source of the funds identified in the CIP that year as the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund. The status of the funding – estimated at that time to be $600,000 – was identified as not yet authorized.

Over the course of the year, the replacement of the light poles became part of the fractious politics between the city council and the DDA.

In timeline overview form:

• April 1, 2013: Initial approval of DDA TIF capture ordinance revision (Chapter 7). Main Street light poles were cited as a project the DDA might not be able to pay for if the Chapter 7 revisions were approved.
• April 15, 2013: City council approves an amendment put forward by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to the Chapter 7 revision, which delayed applying the revised language until FY 2015.
• May 20, 2013: City council approves FY 2014 budget amendment that affects DDA budget.
  

  Whereas, The DDA is forecasted to receive $568,343 more in TIF revenues than anticipated in the proposed FY14 budget;
  Whereas, Council desires to support the public housing program in the DDA area;
  RESOLVED, The DDA TIF fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $568,343 for the purposes of creating a one-time transfer;
  RESOLVED, The DDA Housing fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $300,000 to reflect Council’s desire for the DDA to support affordable housing in the DDA area; and
  RESOLVED, Ann Arbor City Council requests that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

• June 5, 2013: DDA board meets and executive director Susan Pollay reports the council’s action. She tells the board that she’s meeting with city staff to figure out how the light poles will be paid for.
• July 3, 2013: DDA board allocates $300,000 for the light pole replacement project at the same meeting it allocates $250,000 for other capital projects, and $59,200 to support the creation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. One “whereas” clause characterized the council’s action in a way that is not based on the wording of the city council’s May 20 budget amendment.
  

  Whereas, Through the 2013/14 budget approval process it was determined that the City would undertake this street light replacement in calendar year 2013, with the DDA allocating $300,000 toward the cost of the project, and the City allocating $216,000; [.pdf of complete DDA light pole resolution]

• Oct. 21, 2013: City council resolution allocating $280,000 toward the project fails on a 7-4 vote. It needed eight votes for approval.
• Oct. 31–Nov. 1, 2013: City staff inspect the 81 light poles, determining that 36 need to be replaced within 6 months and the remaining 45 within 1-2 years.

Until the Oct. 21 council resolution failed, according to city of Ann Arbor public services area administrator Craig Hupy and DDA executive director Susan Pollay, their intent was that a cost-sharing arrangement between the city and the DDA would allow for the DDA to purchase the fixtures for all the poles, with the city paying for the poles. The DDA proceeded with the purchase of the fixtures. That left insufficient funds to deal with the 36 Main Street light poles most in need of replacement. The initially planned splitting of the costs, which did not come to fruition, appears to have contributed to the timing of the DDA’s resolution to allocate the additional $280,000 on Dec. 4.

Main Street Light Poles: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt began deliberations on Dec. 4 by indicating he believed it was back in May when it was determined that the light poles on Main Street were rusting out at the bases, and that they all needed to be replaced. [The need to replace the poles was identified a year earlier in 2012, with the source of the funds identified in the city's CIP that year as the DDA's TIF fund. The status of the funding – estimated at that time to be $600,000 – was identified as not yet authorized in the CIP.]

Hewitt indicated that in May, the DDA passed a resolution that it would allocate $300,000 of the $580,000 for the total cost of the project – which would be carried out by the city, he said. [The DDA's resolution was actually passed on July 3, 2013. What was passed in May – on May 20, 2013 – was a city council budget amendment that included a request for the DDA to allocate at least $300,000 toward the light pole project.]

Hewitt continued by saying that the city’s portion was going to be $280,000, but when asked to approve the additional funds, that resolution “was not successful at the city council.” There was therefore a shortage of $280,000, Hewitt said. An examination had been done, and many of the light poles are a safety hazard, he said. So the DDA was recommending that $120,524 be allocated in this fiscal year. That’s the amount remaining in a bond fund for State Street improvements that were done back in 2000 or so, Hewitt said. It’s money that had been sitting in a fund that had been unspent for about 10 years. This would require changing the budget, he said. And then in the next fiscal year [FY 2015], Hewitt continued, the remaining money would be allocated. Hewitt alluded to the fact that the FY 2015 budget has not yet been adopted by the DDA board.

DDA board chair Sandi Smith.

DDA board chair Sandi Smith offered what she described as a “super friendly amendment” to change the description of the fiscal years to match the city of Ann Arbor’s labels. [The current fiscal year, which started July 1, 2013 is FY 2014 under the city's labeling scheme. The DDA has historically named the calendar years spanned by the fiscal year – e.g., calling this year FY 2013-14.]

John Mouat asked if there was conversation about the State Street improvement project. He wanted to know what the status of the project was. Hewitt told Mouat that the project was completed over 10 years ago. Hewitt said that in the upcoming fiscal year, the DDA should take a look at improvements in that area. Some of the improvements made back then had taken a beating, Hewitt said, so he felt it would be appropriate to spend some money in the State Street area to do repairs in the existing streetscape.

Mouat wondered whether some aspects of the State Street project had not been completed in the context of the moratorium on new streetlights.

By way of background, the “moratorium” on additional streetlights has its origins in a budget amendment approved by the city council in 2006. The history and current policy (which includes the moratorium) was reviewed in a message to councilmembers from city administrator Steve Powers this past summer. [.pdf of July 9, 2013 email]

At the Dec. 4 meeting, Hewitt said he didn’t think there were any streetlights that were a part of the State Street project plan that were not completed. DDA executive director Susan Pollay explained that as the lights were installed, the DDA discovered that the streetlights that had been selected didn’t cast as much light as they’d hoped. There were some very tall lights that fit that description, she said – at that time, light pollution was a very big concern, she added. The light levels were low, she said. Some light was supposed to be provided by store windows.

Pollay described how “dollars were held back” so that additional light could be added to the area. Ultimately the design, which looked good on paper, was not successful in achieving the desired light levels, she said. There’s an unofficial understanding that the city’s electric bills are not supposed to be increased by adding more lights. As the DDA waits to understand what the city policy on replacing streetlights might be, Pollay said it was appropriate to use that money to replace the light poles on Main Street. At some point, the light levels on State Street would be revisited, she said.

Mouat thanked Pollay for that clarification. John Splitt wanted to reaffirm that he hoped something could be done in the coming year in the State Street area – in connection with the lighting, as well as with the planters. Russ Collins offered what he called a “niggling point” about the Washington Street area: The streetlights on Washington Street are off – they’re not functioning on the south side, Collins said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the additional $280,000 in funding.

Proceeds of Y Lot Sale

By way of background, at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved the sale of city-owned property downtown – a parcel north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. The DDA has been shouldering roughly half of the interest payments on the loan taken out by the city.

The former Y building offered 100 units of single-resident occupancy (SRO) low-income housing. Soon after the city’s purchase, the mechanical systems in the building failed, and all the residents needed to be relocated. The building was subsequently demolished, which the DDA paid for. Equipment was installed so that it could be used as a surface parking lot until its ultimate disposition was determined.

At its Nov. 18 meeting, the council did not delve into the question of how the net proceeds of the pending sale would be defined, but some councilmembers indicated they were pleased that the result would be a deposit into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, councilmembers adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

That council policy was approved after the DDA board passed its own resolution on Sept. 5, 2012, encouraging the city to return to a previous policy that dedicated the net proceeds of sales of all city-owned land (not just the Y lot) to support affordable housing.

On Dec. 4, Keith Orr offered a replacement to the resolution that was included in the board packet. Orr alluded to the fact that he was bringing forward the resolution – because he served in the “Dave DeVarti seat” on the DDA board – even though many people had worked on it.

By way of additional background, during his period of service on the DDA board, DeVarti was a staunch supporter of funding for affordable housing. DeVarti was not reappointed, and in late 2008 Orr was appointed to replace him. After DeVarti left, board members sometimes have quipped that they were “channeling Dave DeVarti” when they spoke in support of affordable housing.

During public commentary at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, DeVarti addressed the board on the topic of the former Y lot, suggesting that the DDA purchase the lot outright, so that the need to repay the loan would be removed as the impetus toward selling the lot. That approach would give the city a lot more flexibility, he had argued.

The substitute resolution offered by Orr at the board’s Dec. 4 meeting included a separate “whereas” clause establishing the DDA’s position that affordable housing is in the interest of the downtown. The revision also named specifically the net amount that the DDA believes it has invested in the property: $1,439,599. And finally, the revised resolution separately recommended the city council waive its own reimbursement of its costs in connection with the sale of the former Y lot parcel.

Orr pointed out that the address of the property is 350 S. Fifth. He noted that the city now has a purchase agreement. Orr said that part of the sales agreement is that entities that had investment money in the property would be reimbursed. [Later in the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers, who was attending his first meeting as a DDA board member, corrected Orr's statement, pointing out that this was not part of the sales agreement but rather a city council resolution, passed in 2012.] The largest portion of the DDA’s contribution was paying for the demolition of the former Y building and picking up a portion of the interest payments.

A document provided at the DDA board meeting showed the demolition costs at $1.469 million and interest payments totaling $600,426 since 2004. The net contribution, factoring in the income the DDA received from the surface parking operations it established on the parcel after demolishing the building, was $1,493,959. So the resolution asked the DDA board to waive reimbursement of that amount. [The copy of the resolution distributed to the audience named $1,439,959 as the amount of the DDA board was waiving. That's the amount Orr named in reviewing the resolution. A separate document distributed at the meeting with the actual breakdown of payments and costs showed $1,493,959. The correct math based on those figures is the greater amount: $1,493,959.]

The resolution also asked the city council to waive its claim to reimbursements, which Orr said was around $ 2.7 million. The goal, Orr said, was to ensure that a substantial investment in affordable housing can be made.

Joan Lowenstein followed Orr’s description by saying that the DDA’s goal has been to see that the maximum amount from net proceeds of the sale go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Orr confirmed Lowenstein’s understanding, but added that the resolution reflected everything that the DDA could do to maximize the investment in affordable housing as a result of that property sale. The DDA’s commitment to affordable housing, Orr said, was confined to investments within the district, or within 1/4 mile of the district. The city had more flexibility, Orr said.

Al McWilliams asked about the general motivation to use the proceeds from the Y lot to support affordable housing. Orr said that one reason is historical: The former Y building had included 100 single-resident occupancy units that provided low-income housing.

Orr continued by saying there’s always been this feeling that the proceeds of the sale should help low-income and affordable housing. Orr also pointed out that when board chair Sandi Smith served on the city council, the council was already talking about doing that. “It’s not a particularly new idea,” he concluded.

Bob Guenzel said that in his mind, it was more than a promise that those 100 units would be rebuilt in the downtown area, even if not on the same piece of property. That hasn’t happened for a number of reasons, Guenzel said, but the “substitute” is that the proceeds of the sale would be used for affordable housing. A lot of people remember that community commitment that was made, he concluded.

Russ Collins asked: Does the city have specific plans to build – or cause to be built – affordable housing? Collins wondered if there was any plan to contract with the Delonis Center [a homeless shelter located in Ann Arbor] to operate supportive housing? He wondered if there was any strategic plan to actually execute anything?

City administrator Steve Powers said that the city council’s first action would be to complete the sale of this property. He said he was not aware of any specific steps pending after that.

Collins ventured that there’s no strategic plan that the city is party to, other than “collect a bunch of money and use it for affordable housing?” “Council has no strategic plan …? If they do, that’s great,” Collins said. Powers responded to Collins by saying that the city is a party to work with the Washtenaw Housing Alliance (WHA) and the county’s office of community and economic development. There’s not a city-specific plan at this time, Powers said. WHA and the county’s office of community and economic development are talking about doing an assessment of affordable housing needs.

There’s a continuum, Guenzel said, from the very poorest to what is called workforce housing. He told Collins that there are a lot of discussions about it.

Historically, Smith said, there were funds in the affordable housing trust fund, and that has been spent down. There was no ability to plan for those funds, she said, because the balance is under $200,000 right now. It’s pretty nominal, she said, and you can’t build a unit for that amount. Guenzel noted that the question of whether some funds could be used for bricks-and-mortar versus supportive services was yet to be determined.

Collins had concerns about how prudent it is to allocate money toward a generally good idea without a clear strategy of what to do. “It’s great to do nice things. The DDA tries to do nice things, and we’re told that we’re a shadow government,” he said. If there’s no community strategy for addressing this, the DDA is doing something that might be nice in the future, he said, but he indicated he didn’t feel this was genuinely addressing the issue.

Smith replied that she didn’t necessarily think the DDA was the organization to tackle affordable housing. Smith noted the DDA has historically set aside money for affordable housing – and it’s now built into the DDA ordinance that the DDA is required to set aside $300,000 annually for affordable housing. She strongly supported the resolution because the DDA would then be able to leverage funds with the city and the county. She pointed to the last “resolved” clause that called on the city to follow the DDA’s example. Then those resources could be used to create a solid plan and move forward, she said.

John Mouat asked if it would be possible to take advantage of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). That would be a good entity to consult with in its advisory capacity. Powers indicated that he thought HHSAB had already had those kinds of discussions.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution waiving the DDA’s interest in proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot.

Proceeds of the Y Lot Sale: Parking Contract

Toward the end of the meeting during communications time, John Splitt indicated that he had some concerns about the sale of the former Y lot, based on the contract – under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city. Under the contract, he said, the DDA is supposed to be given notice about the removal of parking spaces from the system. Sandi Smith stated that “We have not received written notice.”

Roger Hewitt responded to Smith by saying that he’d reviewed the most recent contract and he was not sure that the city actually is required give notice. DDA executive director Susan Pollay said that the contract refers to a “lease” and not a “sale.” Splitt said he just wanted to make sure that there was enough time to move equipment.

City administrator Steve Powers responded by saying that the city would be providing information about that, quipping: “It’s in the mail.” In connection with the sale of the property, the city would work through the removal of the parking equipment with the DDA, Powers said.

From the parking contract [emphasis added]:

The City shall not lease any portion of individual Facilities to third parties where such lease (either alone or cumulatively with other leases in such Facility) would reduce the number of usable parking spaces in such Facility by more than one percent (1%) or five (5) parking spaces, whichever is less, without first (i) providing DDA with thirty (30) days prior written notice; (ii) consulting with DDA about the location and terms of use of such leased spaces to reduce the impact of such use on DDA’s use of the Facility; and (iii) upon DDA’s written request delivered no more than fifteen (15) days after notice of the proposed lease, executing a side letter between City and DDA, the sole purpose of which is to make DDA whole for the loss of Gross Parking Revenue associated with the reduced parking spaces.

FY 2013 Audit

Board member Roger Hewitt made the motion to accept the DDA’s 2013 financial audit. Every year the DDA has an audit performed to ensure the DDA’s financial position is accurately stated. [.pdf of DDA FY 2013 audit]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

The DDA uses the same firm as the city [Rehmann], Hewitt said. The audit came back this year with an “unmodified” opinion, meaning there were no changes. He explained that the outcome essentially means that it was “clean” and that the DDA’s financial statements are an accurate reflection of the DDA’s financial position.

There was a suggestion, he allowed, to have an independent review of general journal entries. That’s been put in place, he said. A CPA the DDA has on contract will review those journal entries, he reported.

“Everything is just fine, according to our auditor,” Hewitt said. The conversation with the auditor was a good conversation that will help shape the budget in the upcoming year, Hewitt said.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to accept the FY 2013 audit report.

624 Church Street Parking CIL

By way of background, on Nov. 6, 2013 the DDA board approved the purchase of 48 parking permits under the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program for a revision to a proposed residential development at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor. The spaces were approved to be provided in the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The original proposal for 624 Church, which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu program.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right of 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because the DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution-in-lieu-of-parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project is using.

624 Church Street Parking CIL: Public Commentary

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church St. project, appeared before the DDA board during public commentary time at the start of the meeting. He asked board members to consider modifying the terms under which the 624 Church St. project would be able to lease spaces monthly parking spaces under city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. Currently the project has been allocated 48 spaces for the minimum period under the CIL, which is 15 years. It’s come to the attention of the developer (Opus) that as it lines up financing, the financing companies would like to have two 10-year extensions added to the agreement, so that the length of the agreed-upon leasing of the parking spaces would cover at least a standard 30-year mortgage.

Moore said that Opus was asking that the agreement be amended – to add an option for two 10-year agreements that would exceed the minimum financing period. DDA executive director Susan Pollay told Moore that the item could be brought to the board in the next few minutes as an action item during the operations committee report.

624 Church Street Parking CIL: Board Deliberations

A draft resolution was distributed to the board at the meeting that would have addressed the issue that Brad Moore had raised. Roger Hewitt said the issue had only been brought to his attention that day.

He said that in his experience, funding for large commercial real estate projects tended to be for a 20-year financing period. He referred to Village Green’s City Apartments project as well as Ashley Mews as examples.

The resolution would add an additional five years to the existing agreement so that it could run, at the owner’s option, for 20 years instead of 15 years.

The indication from Moore was that the five-year extension would still endanger the financing for the 624 Church St. project. Hewitt indicated a reluctance to commit to a parking agreement for the length of time that Moore was requesting. He wanted to see some evidence that a 20-year financing plan – which in his experience is typical – is not possible before setting a new precedent.

Russ Collins ventured that the matter could be tabled until more information is received. Moore said that the parking would not necessarily be tied up in a single structure. Hewitt reiterated his concern that a 30-year term in this case would set a precedent for other developers.

Al McWilliams proposed an approach that would provide for optional renewal.

After some back-and-forth, Sandi Smith indicated that her preference would be for Moore to come back to the operations committee and allow the committee members to “chew on it” a bit more. The next operations committee meeting will take place on Dec. 18 at 11 a.m. Hewitt said.

Outcome: The board tabled the question of the CIL agreement in connection with the 624 Church St. project.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. In addition to information reported earlier in this article, here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Main Street BIZ

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Ellie Serras introduced herself to the DDA board as the community relations director for the Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ).

By way of background, the Ann Arbor DDA board voted on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the Main Street BIZ. Those costs included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

On Dec. 4, Serras told the board she was there to bring them up to date on the organization’s activities and plans for the future, and to thank the board for their investment from the very beginning. A BIZ allows property owners to establish a vision and to select services compatible with that vision, she said. The DDA’s support of the Main Street BIZ allowed development of a successful campaign that has grown into a fully-functioning provider of important services that have improved the quality of the Main Street neighborhood, she told them.

The Main Street BIZ was established in 2010 according to the state enabling legislation, receiving overwhelming support from property owners in the three-block area of Main Street from Huron Street down to William Street, she said. The Main Street BIZ provides sidewalk snow removal, sweeping, handbill removal and landscape improvements in that area.

The services and contractors had been “skillfully managed” by the Main Street BIZ board of directors within the parameters of an annually approved budget, Serras said. Funding for the BIZ is generated by an assessment added on to the property owners’ summer and winter tax statements, she said. The BIZ board had been diligent in protecting the property owners’ investment and as a result, the existing fund balance is adequate so that even if this winter brings a severe snowstorm, the snow removal could be handled without imposing the winter tax assessment this year.

So the BIZ board has determined that no BIZ assessment would be on their 2013 winter tax statements. Even though the assessment will not be imposed, the area will still receive the same level of consistent services that it has over the last three and a half years, Serras said.

The Main Street BIZ is now currently contemplating the possibility of expanding its boundaries, she reported, based on positive comments from surrounding property owners. As it contemplates such an expansion, she continued, the Main Street BIZ would be using the blueprint that had been developed in connection with the grant that the DDA had awarded to the Main Street BIZ. The blueprint will be updated to include changes to the state statute and the procedures used for establishing a BIZ.

In appreciation to the DDA, Serras said, the BIZ board wanted to invite the DDA board to join the BIZ for coffee and pastries to talk about the BIZ – on Jan. 28 at 9 a.m. at the DDA offices. The BIZ would not be asking the DDA for anything, but wanted to express its appreciation for the DDA’s support. She alerted the board to the BIZ website: annarbormainstreetbiz.com

Comm/Comm: Downtown Citizens Area Advisory Council

Ray Detter addressed the board as chair of the downtown area citizens advisory council. He told the DDA board that the CAC has a holiday party every year when it discusses developments over the last year and things that it wants to work for in the coming year. He said the CAC supports more public art, more trees – and taking better care of those that are already in place. The group also supports improvements to the alley between East Liberty and East Washington near The Liberty Square parking structure, to make it a more public place, he said.

The CAC supports the DDA’s development of a streetscape framework plan, and its parking and transportation management plan. The downtown transportation plan is part of a transportation plan for the entire county, Detter said, that includes Zipcars, mopeds, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s AirRide service and the getDowntown go!pass program. Detter continued by mentioning the north-south commuter rail project (WALLY), and the possible connector. The CAC wanted to avoid any need for additional above-ground parking structures, Detter said.

But the two most important areas of focus, he said, were population and retail. Retail will not thrive, he said, without a commitment to residential. The CAC applauded the success of Urban Outfitters, Bivouac and Renaissance, but was appalled by the loss of Selo/Shevel Gallery and Seyfried Jewelers.

Comm/Comm: State Theater

Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, continued by saying that the CAC was committed to the survival of the State Theater as part of a historic theater district in downtown Ann Arbor. The theater helps define the essential identity of downtown Ann Arbor, he said. Detter noted that many people remembered the Campus Theater.

Detter acknowledged the demand for office space, but that can’t equal the value of the two theaters, he contended. The Michigan Theater, Detter said, had provided the venue for the first “talking pictures” in Ann Arbor in 1928 and the State Theater had been around since 1942. [DDA board member Russ Collins, who's executive director of the Michigan Theater, corrected Detter, pointing out that it was the Orpheum that was the first "talking picture" movie theater.]

The State Theater attracts 50,000 people a year, Detter said. Some people “might think it’s a dump at this point,” but there are ways of fixing it up, he said. Detter added that he was looking forward to the expansion of the Cinetopia series with the State Theater as one of the venues.

It’s a challenge to save the State Theater, Detter said. But the Michigan Theater board has taken the initiative to open a conversation with State Theater LLC to work on a way for the community to purchase and retain the State Theater as part of the “theater district.” The DDA should be a part of that process, Detter said. Other DDAs have done this kind of thing, “and we can do it, too.” Detter said he still remembered the $250,000 that had been given by the DDA for the lobby of the Michigan Theater.

Later in the meeting, Russ Collins followed up on Detter’s commentary by saying it was not a DDA matter per se. But regarding the State Theater, the Michigan Theater is in talks with the owners of the State Theater building. He was hopeful that would have a positive outcome with respect to preserving the cinema exhibition capability at the State Theater. He was happy with the owner’s willingness to talk.

Comm/Comm: New Board Members

Board chair Sandi Smith invited the new board members who’d been added since the last meeting to introduce themselves.

City administrator Steve Powers quipped that he would not need four minutes [the time limit afforded public speakers]. “It’s a pleasure to be with you,” he said. When mayor John Hieftje had asked him to serve, he’d agreed with enthusiasm, he reported. He appreciated and understands the importance of the DDA to the overall mission of the city. The city council had confirmed his appointment Monday night [Dec. 2]. He told the board he’d worked as city administrator for a little over 2 years. In that time, he’d gotten to know executive director Susan Pollay and had enjoyed the professional relationship between the city and the DDA. Powers saw his service on the board as strengthening that existing relationship between the city and the DDA.

Cyndi Clark introduced herself as a retail owner on Main Street for Lily Grace Cosmetics. A month ago, she’d just opened up a second business, she said – a spa. She was delighted to be on the DDA board. Her family lives in Ann Arbor and she was born and raised here, she said. She was delighted to be working with everyone. “It’s a full term for me!” she concluded.

Comm/Comm: Connector

By way of background on the connector study, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then farther south along State to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor.

Roger Hewitt participates on the technical committee for that study. The DDA has contributed funding toward the study.

At the Dec. 4 DDA board meeting, Hewitt reported that three public meetings had been held on the connector project recently. The board then watched a video created to explain the project. After presentation of the video, Hewitt described the public meetings as an effort to get input on the different route options. The turnout was pretty good, he said. The morning session wasn’t all that well attended, with perhaps 10 people, Hewitt said, but the noon and evening sessions each had over 25 people attend, he said. People had a lot of questions and a lot of information was exchanged, he said, but he allowed there wasn’t as much feedback on specific transit routes as they would have liked.

Unless you’re in the “nitty gritty of it,” Hewitt felt that it’s a bit overwhelming to consider all the possibilities. The next meeting of the technical committee would take place on Friday [Dec. 6], he said, with a follow-up meeting the next Monday [Dec. 9]. The study needs to be completed in the first quarter of 2014, he said. The outcome of the study would be the “preferred local option,” Hewitt said, and he’d keep the board up to date on that.

Joan Lowenstein asked Hewitt to confirm that in the context of the basic “boomerang” route, there would still be a significant impact depending on how the route was planned through the downtown. Hewitt confirmed that, and said there had been a lot of discussion about it. One possibility that had been suggested was to just head south on State Street. There are significant problems with the width of all streets. He’d been pushing for the idea that the route needed to come at least as far west as the Blake Transit Center [on Fifth Avenue].

Right now, the group is looking at two stations – one in the central campus (State Street area) and one in the center of downtown (Main Street area). Neither the route nor the station locations have been determined, he said. There was some desire not to cross Main Street, he noted. That’s because the amount of federal support would depend on a demonstration that there’d be a savings in travel time – because “that’s how the feds measure things,” he said.

If the route crosses Main Street, then it would have to cross back over Main Street to get to the South State Street area, Hewitt explained, and with the current traffic backups on Main Street, it would be easy to get backed up during rush hour in the Main Street area. So the group is looking to stay east of Main Street.

From left: John Mouat and Roger Hewitt.

John Mouat asked for an analysis of the economic impact of such a project. In that context, he asked about the planned timing of the project. Hewitt responded by saying, “We’re talking about a while!” He noted that this is the second phase of the study, after the initial feasibility study. That study had shown that the existing ridership justifies a more robust form of transit than is currently in place. The current phase is an alternatives analysis, which would determine the local “favorite” route and mode of transportation. After that an environmental study would be done.

After all of that, you “stand in line for federal dollars,” Hewitt said. For a project that meets the right criteria, the federal government might fund up to half the cost of the project, he said. The cost, depending on the route and the mode, could be as little as $100 million and as much as $500 million. After getting the federal dollars lined up, he continued, you’d have to line up the local match. The University of Michigan has stated publicly that they’d be involved, he said, without putting a particular dollar figure on their participation. After construction and ordering of vehicles, Hewitt said, we shouldn’t expect anything rolling for 10 years.

But this phase of the study, Hewitt said, would be completed in the next three months or so. He felt that a decision was pretty close for the downtown route. It would mean a pretty big change to downtown, Hewitt said. He allowed that it’s hard to get people excited about this now, when the project is 10 years off.

Comm/Comm: Bicycles, Alt Transportation

Keith Orr gave an update on the bike share program. A representative from B-Cycle, the selected vendor, had been brought in by the Ann Arbor-based Clean Energy Coalition (CEC). They looked at potential sites for locating stations. The few on-street spots were too narrow for a station, Orr reported. So as of now, there were no requests from the CEC of the DDA for an on-street parking spot. The CEC still anticipates an Earth Day opening in the spring of 2014. Right now, the plan is for 14 stations, Orr said. Stations will be located as far north as the University of Michigan north campus, and as far west as Ashley Street.

Orr also reported out on the first usage stats for the Bike House – an enclosed facility in the Maynard Street parking structure. Orr reported that people love having it there, saying that it’s largely a commuting option for people. The time records for when people use it show that people use it primarily at the beginning of the day and the end of the day, he said, but it’s not the same people all the time. He concluded that people who are using the Bike House are not relying on one mode of transportation. Discussion is taking place about other locations where similar facilities could be constructed, Orr reported.

And based on recent go!pass stats, it continues to be a very robust program, Orr said. [The DDA funds the go!pass program, which is administered by getDowntown, whose staff are employees of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] More rides were taken and more cards were sold and used. Orr concluded that it continues to be a very popular and important program.

Comm/Comm: Winter Classic, The Puck Drops Here

By way of background, two major events are scheduled for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day in Ann Arbor: The Puck Drops Here and the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic Game. In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4 meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay reviewed highlights of the strategy that will be deployed for the NHL Winter Classic and The Puck Drops Here events.

For New Year’s Eve, the Fourth and William parking structure, as well as the Forest structure, will have a flat rate fee. That way, people will not have to stop at the cashier booth on their way out.

On New Year’s Day, the city council had approved the street closures that will be in place. The NHL has asked that staffing be provided at public garages, Pollay said. That would allow for the reservation of a parking space in advance. If people reserve in advance, that would allow them to drive directly to a specific location.

Staff would also be handing out maps – mostly with an eye to help people after the game find the place where they’d parked. Pollay also told the board that the names of those businesses that are going to be open on Jan. 1 would be listed on the back of the map.

At all structures and lots, Pollay said, a flat fee of $5 would be charged on New Year’s Day. It’s meant to reimburse the DDA for its costs, not to make a lot of money.

John Mouat asked if anyone had developed a projection of how many people will be needing to park. Pollay said that to her knowledge, no. As much as possible, people are being encouraged to use the buses and shuttles that will be provided. They’re also working to communicate to people about the parking that’s available at locations away from the stadium.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that lawn parking will be allowed, as it is on home football game days.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Ambassadors

By way of background, for several years, the Ann Arbor DDA has had an interest in maintaining some kind of additional police patrol presence in the downtown. In the mid-2000s, the DDA entered into a contract with the city of Ann Arbor with the implicit hope that the city would maintain the dedicated downtown beat cops. That contract was structured at the time to pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, with the city able to request up to $2 million a year for a maximum of $10 million.

That hope was not realized, and the DDA has since discussed the idea of providing additional funding for police or for “ambassadors.” The idea of ambassadors was explored in the context of subsequent re-negotiations of the contract between the city and the DDA under which the DDA operates the parking system. The DDA wanted to be assigned responsibility for parking enforcement (a function performed by the city’s community standards officers) and imagined that activity to be performed in an ambassador-like fashion.

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district. DDA board members visited Grand Rapids this fall to observe a new downtown ambassador program in that city. The initial report from that visit was given at the Ann Arbor DDA board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.

At the board’s meeting on Dec. 4, Roger Hewitt reported that the operations committee had a lengthy discussion about the idea of hiring ambassadors, based on the visit by some board members to Grand Rapids to see the ambassador program there. A number of views were expressed, Hewitt said, but most people thought it was a good idea and that the Ann Arbor DDA should aggressively pursue it. At the next operations committee meeting, Hewitt said, it would be pursued. Personally, he said, he would like to see something in place for the summer of 2014, if it’s possible to move that quickly.

Comm/Comm: Prosperity

Joan Lowenstein reported out on the partnerships committee discussion about the A2 Ypsilanti Regional Chamber’s annual Impact conference.

Keith Orr and Joan Lowenstein.

The focus this year was based on a presentation made by Lou Glazer of Michigan Future Inc. Glazer’s work suggested that there’s a strong connection between prosperity and placemaking, and attracting young talent. The trends indicate that prosperous states show a higher proportion of wages from the “knowledge industries” – medical, technical and legal professions, Lowenstein said. Prosperous states also have a high proportion of college grads. Taxes don’t play as much of a role in prosperity, she said – it’s all about educational attainment and quality of place. Michigan and Ann Arbor are lagging behind other places in terms of the number of young professionals who are attracted here.

For example, she said, Madison, Wisc. has twice the number of young professionals as Ann Arbor does, Lowenstein reported. Glazer had said that Ann Arbor has an important role to play in prosperity, but the elements that are key to that need to be embraced: transit, private sector growth and density, she said. A lot of people want to attract families, but attracting young professionals will lead to that, she said, because people tend to establish families where they get their first job. Ann Arbor needs to do a better job of engaging young professionals in the community by giving them a better voice, Lowenstein said.

One of the panels at the Impact conference included young people who are reluctant to put themselves out in public positions, because of the nature of the media and social media – because you can get trashed by putting yourself out in public, Lowenstein said. She called it an unfortunate element of our modern life.

DDA board member Al McWilliams will be working on DDA communications.

Lowenstein also reported that the partnerships committee meeting will establish a subcommittee focused on communications. Al McWilliams and Rishi Narayan will head up that subcommittee, she said – noting that McWilliams is involved in that sort of thing all the time. [McWilliams is founder of the ad agency Quack!Media.]

January’s board meeting, which was originally scheduled for Jan. 1 – because it’s part of the first-Wednesday meeting pattern – was shifted to Jan. 8. There was no traction for the possibility of changing the day of the week or the noon meeting time for the regular board meetings.

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Crashes

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti addressed the board about pedestrian safety issues. He noted the outcome of the city council’s recent action on the city’s crosswalk law [and the announcement by mayor John Hieftje that he would be vetoing the change the council had voted 6-4 to approve]. The current ordinance mostly addresses outside-downtown issues, Vielmetti said, with its reference to non-signalized crosswalks. In preparing for the city council meeting, Vielmetti said, he’d looked at about eight years of car crash data. What he’d noticed consistently is that the majority of pedestrian crashes happen in the downtown and campus area – probably because lots of people are walking downtown.

The narratives in some of the accident reports often describe how the pedestrian was crossing with a walk light, while the car had a green light and was turning, but didn’t see the pedestrian, Vielmetti said. This is an issue that’s within the purview of the DDA to address, he added. There’s only so much education you can do, with a transient student population. And there’s only so much enforcement you can do without adding to the police force. But the engineering could be addressed, he said – through careful attention to the built infrastructure where people cross the street, or near parking structures where there are a lot of pedestrian-car interactions.

Present: Al McWilliams, Cyndi Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Rishi Narayan.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Waiver of that claim could lead to the transfer of the money to the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, under a policy established by the Ann Arbor city council a year ago. The DDA board’s action came at its Dec. 4, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of unamended Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

The DDA board resolution also calls on the city council to waive the city’s own reimbursement, so that the entire net proceeds of the sale could be transferred to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The fund has been essentially depleted over the last several years. The DDA board’s resolution was amended slightly at the Dec. 4 meeting to include a specific amount to be waived ($1,439,959) and to highlight a request that the city council follow the DDA’s example.

The gross proceeds of the sale are defined by the $3.5 million paid by the city in 2003 for the property and a recent agreement to sell the property to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million. That purchase agreement was approved by the city council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement] The city originally purchased the property by exercising a right of first refusal, to prevent the acquisition of the site by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The AAATA’s Blake Transit Center is located just north of the property, and the AAATA has a continued interest in using some portion of the property for staging buses, so that space on Fourth Avenue is not taken up with bus boarding areas.

The city of Ann Arbor has financed the $3.5 million under an arrangement with the Bank of Ann Arbor to make interest-only payments on that amount for the last decade – with the DDA shouldering roughly half of those interest payments. A balloon payment is due on Dec. 16, 2013. The DDA’s share of the interest payments has amounted to a total of $600,426 since 2004, according to a document provided at the board’s Dec. 4 meeting.

The DDA also incurred the costs of demolishing the former Y building and installing the equipment necessary to convert the lot for use as surface parking ($1,469,804). But the DDA has received a total of $1,043,277 in parking revenue from the lot since 2009, when it was converted. That’s balanced by parking operating expenses of $342,006. In sum, the DDA calculates that it might be able to claim reimbursement of $1,439,959. The DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

The former Y building offered 100 units of single resident occupancy low-income housing that the city council of a decade ago expressed a desire to see preserved in the downtown area, if not on that specific parcel. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale. This issue was not addressed during the Dec. 4 board meeting.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

The interest rate on the loan extension would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale.

A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council met on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow.

The Ann Arbor city council’s Dec. 2, 2013 agenda is comparatively light, but might not lead to an especially short meeting.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue was aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus was rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law. The caucus drew six councilmembers and a dozen members of the public, and lasted three hours.

Another topic that could extend the Dec. 2 meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules would be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

This article includes a more detailed look of many of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the Dec. 2 meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Updates might begin somewhat sooner.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. When The Chronicle interviewed Traverse City code enforcement officer Lloyd Morris by telephone, he indicated that a pedestrian merely standing at the curb, not in the roadway, would not be considered to be “within a crosswalk.” But he allowed that Traverse City enforces the language to mean that a pedestrian who is not in the roadway but approaching the crosswalk with a clear intent to enter the roadway should be given the right-of-way. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except being in the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

A pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

As that report from 2011 indicates, the abatement applies to “personal property” that’s used in book production. If that equipment is moved to the Edwards Brothers Jackson Road plant, as part of the company’s effort to consolidate operations, then that equipment would no longer qualify for the tax abatement. That’s because it will have been moved outside of the industrial development district (IDD) where the 2011 abatement was granted.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement, which now pays the city 17% of the gross parking revenues. But it also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The $45,000 proposed amount is based on an average of the estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space, as estimated in 2009. By way of background the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 per space annually.

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, and were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place on Nov. 18.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review by the rules committee, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted on Dec. 2. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

5:48 p.m. Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition board chair Erica Briggs has forwarded to the city council three documents – including a letter of support, and names of more than 600 people who’ve signed an online petition supporting the existing crosswalk ordinance. [.pdf of comments from supporters] [.pdf of WBWC letter to mayor and council] [.pdf of names of 668 people supporting existing crosswalk law]

6:35 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:38 p.m. Here in council chambers, the partitions are already pulled back in anticipation of a large crowd on the crosswalk ordinance. Folding chairs are set up to provide additional seating. Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living is here. Three members of the city’s commission on disability issues attended yesterday’s council caucus: Larry Keeler, Lloyd Shelton, Linda Evans.

6:49 p.m. Erica Briggs has arrived, as has Lloyd Shelton. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. City administrator Steve Powers is now here. Assistant city attorneys Mary Fales and Abigail Elias are also in council chambers.

6:49 p.m. Firefighters to be introduced have also now arrived.

6:52 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has now arrived. Chambers are beginning to fill up.

6:55 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are now here.

7:07 p.m. Chambers are now packed. We’re shoulder-to-shoulder. Much of the supplementary seating is now occupied. It will still be standing-room-only despite the additional seats.

7:12 p.m. Professor Jonathan Levine is here, as are several others who could be counted as public transportation and non-motorized advocates.

7:12 p.m. We appear to be nearly ready to begin.

7:14 p.m. And we’re off.

7:15 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance, roll call of council. All except for Margie Teall (Ward 4) are present.

7:15 p.m. Teall’s absence might affect the council’s ability to achieve a political compromise on the crosswalk ordinance.

7:15 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:17 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wants to swap the order of public hearings so that the crosswalk ordinance has its public hearing after the others. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wants to move C1 before B1. That’s Traverwood Apartments rezoning before the crosswalk ordinance.

7:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda as amended.

7:18 p.m. INT-1: Introduction of new firefighters. The current authorized staffing level for the AAFD is 85. After the FY 2013 was approved last year authorizing staffing at 82, the council approved a subsequent increase to 85, based on the receipt of some grant funding.

7:20 p.m. Assistant fire chief Ellen Taylor is introducing the new firefighters. She’s describing the one-year probationary period. She’s introducing five of the seven new firefighters in the city. They get a round of applause.

7:20 p.m. INT-2: FY 2013 audit results. The 2013 fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. The council’s audit committee reviewed the draft report on Oct. 24, 2013. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction. Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period.

7:26 p.m. Tom Crawford leads with some light humor: “I’m sure the crowd has come to hear this report.” He gets the intended laugh. Now he’s into a discussion of net assets of the city – over a billion dollars. But that’s mostly buildings and roads, not much of which can be used to pay for things, he notes. There’s $82 million that’s actually available. The general fund has a balance of about $14 million. Street repair millage had $18 million in it. Minimum balance for that fund is $9 million. Crawford explains that the apparent excess is partly due to timing of when road repair takes place. He’s talking about the potential liabilities of various funds. He highlights the public market fund – which has an adequate fund balance, but is actually weak in the context of GASB 68 requirements.

7:27 p.m. The pension system is 80% funded. VEBA is 39% funded. Their return achieved 11% last year, Crawford reports. He characterizes the general fund last year as doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted. It was a good year for the general fund, he says.

7:27 p.m. INT-3: Volunteer appreciation. Phillip Delekta is being honored with a mayoral proclamation for his volunteer work with the Ann Arbor police department.

7:29 p.m. Delekta is now explaining his work with the citizens emergency response team. He’s thanking the police and fire department personnel who’ve helped. Football games, the Ann Arbor marathon and the art fairs are some events they help with. He gets a round of applause.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes just two speakers: Thomas Partridge and Henry Herskovitz. Partridge is speaking on ending discrimination. Herskovitz will be talking about the council’s 2014 meeting calendar, which will be set tonight.

7:33 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He’s using the hand-held microphone. It doesn’t seem to be working. He says he’s an advocate for all residents of the city, county and state who need advocacy due to various challenges. Sound of kids in the audience makes this tough to hear. He calls for an end to discrimination. He contends that red-lining is practiced in Ann Arbor – with respect to housing and transportation. He says the council needs to be reformed. The council should see the world through the eyes of the most unfortunate among us, he says.

7:37 p.m. Henry Herskovitz says he’s speaking about the establishment of the council’s 2014 calendar. He wants the council reconsider a decision made 10 years ago to give preference to those commenters who want to talk about items on the agenda. That was based on a desire to prevent people from talking about Palestine and Israel, he says. He’d not been able to talk to the council at its previous meeting about “blacklisting of companies by MasterCard” – because it wasn’t an agenda item.

7:37 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:39 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) leads off by announcing he’ll be putting forward a compromise amendment on the crosswalk ordinance. “That will be my first order of business,” he says. “We will not be repealing the pedestrian ordinance,” he says. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says that Kunselman means that he hopes a repeal will not happen. Added late to the agenda, she notes, are the city council committee appointments, including resolutions on the environmental commission and greenbelt commission.

7:41 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is speaking about the crosswalk ordinance. Kunselman’s compromise would strip out language that requires motorists to stop for pedestrians at the curb or curbline, Taylor stresses. Mayor John Hieftje is clarifying that the compromise would still not require motorists to stop for motorists at the curb. Kunselman reads aloud the language.

7:43 p.m. Taylor quips “with summer just around the corner” that a resolution will be brought forward in the near future (not at this meeting) about the art fairs. The council provides financial support for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, and Taylor is indicating that the art fairs should also be supported.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanks several people who are present: Matt Grocoff, Chris Hewett and Erica Briggs. A meeting will take place on Dec. 11 at Bach School at 6:30 p.m. on pedestrian safety and traffic calming. Screaming children in the audience.

7:45 p.m. Briere is calling the public’s attention to a meeting to be held on Dec. 4 at 6:30 p.m. on a presentation of results of the Allen Creek berm opening feasibility study.

7:47 p.m. CC-1 Appointment of 2014 city council committees. [.pdf of committee assignments]

7:47 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventures that nobody wants to spend time with him on the University of Michigan student relations committee.

7:48 p.m. Hieftje says that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) was going to be asked to serve. Eaton asks when it meets. Hieftje explains that it’s not regular. Eaton accepts the assignment.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the committee assignments.

7:50 p.m. Local Development Finance Authority (LDFA) appointment. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to LDFA.

Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Petersen to the LDFA.

7:51 p.m. Planning commission, greenbelt advisory commission. Briere is returned to the planning commission and Taylor to the greenbelt advisory commission by a unanimous vote.

7:52 p.m. Environmental commission. Anglin and Briere are appointed to the environmental commission.

7:52 p.m. Commission on disabilities. The council has established a position for a councilmember and appointed Petersen to that spot.

7:52 p.m. CC-2 Approval of 2014 city council rules. Internal business tonight includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules] That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.”

At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations. [For additional background see Internal Council Business above.]

7:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt its rules for the year.

7:53 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayoral communications fall typically into two categories: (1) nominations to boards and commissions that will be voted on at a subsequent meeting; and (2) requests for confirmation of nominations that have been made at a previous meeting.

7:53 p.m. MC-1 Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the nomination of David Blanchard, put forward at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, to the housing and human services advisory board.

7:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm David Blanchard’s appointment to the housing and human services board. It runs through June 4, 2016.

7:53 p.m. MC-2 Nomination. Elizabeth Bletcher is being nominated to replace Al Gallup on the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee. For some historical background on the Elizabeth Dean Fund, see “Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed.” That nomination will be voted on at a future meeting.

7:53 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight three public hearings appear on the agenda. The first is on the repeal of the crosswalk law. The second is on establishing an industrial development district (to facilitate granting a tax abatement) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. The third is on a site plan to build a three-story addition to Running Fit at the corner of Liberty Street and Fourth Avenue downtown. The order of the hearings was changed at the beginning of the meeting, so that the crosswalk law public hearing will come last.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Establish Industrial Development District at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Luke Bonner, vice president of business development for Ann Arbor SPARK, is addressing the council. The petition was initiated by the property owner, he says. The establishment of a district will allow a tenant there, Mahindra Genze, to then apply for a tax abatement.

7:58 p.m. Alan Clark is addressing the council as a Ward 3 resident working at a start-up, called Mahindra Genze. It was started in the basement of the chief engineer. The location at Phoenix Drive has “max-ed out,” he says. Another new hire came in today, Clark says, and there’s around 25 employees there. Clark moved to Ann Arbor from Washington D.C. to become the seventh employee. He’s describing the product: an electric scooter. They’ll sell the product nationally, he says. There’s international interest in the product as well.

7:59 p.m. Clark says the company is looking to hire another 34 employees and wants to start production early next summer.

8:01 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says he’s usually conservative with respect to such requests. But he’s endorsing this request. He calls for the establishment of a larger district, he says, which was the point of the state’s enabling legislation.

8:02 p.m. Here are the names of the firefighters who were introduced earlier: Brian Schotthoefer; George Allard; Nicholas Kaczor; Christopher McGlothin; John Crowell; Ryan Newkirk; and Christopher Brown.

8:03 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:04 p.m. PH-3 Running Fit addition site plan. Architect Brad Moore is addressing the council. The expansion will add more stories for residential units. He notes that there were previously more stories before it burned back in the 1950s. He notes that the city’s historic district commission gave it a unanimous approval, as did the planning commission.

8:05 p.m. Thomas Partridge contends that there’s been a history of discrimination involved in zoning and site plan approvals. The site plan should be re-examined with respect to accessibility issues, he contends. Affordable housing is needed, he says.

8:07 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Crosswalk ordinance change. Hieftje asks people to line up and be ready to speak.

8:08 p.m. Hieftje advises that it’s not required to use the whole three minutes, but people can do so. Erica Briggs, chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, leads off.

8:11 p.m. Briggs urges the council not to repeal the ordinance. She says that the Kunselman compromise really does amount to a repeal. She’s ticking through familiar points. She’s citing pedestrian crashes so far this year – 36, and  she contends that this reflects a 16% decrease since the ordinance was passed. She cites the community-wide support for the ordinance. She invites people to stand who are against the repeal. The vast majority of people here are standing.

8:15 p.m. James Briggs addresses the council from his wheelchair. City clerk Jackie Beaudry then reads aloud his statement on his behalf. “It boils my blood,” says the statement, to see the ordinance repealed. He calls the approach that some councilmembers are taking one that asks people to “check your brains at the door.”

8:15 p.m. Katie Brion tells the council that she walks to school with her kids crossing Madison to get to Bach Elementary School. After the ordinance passed, she’s seen a huge improvement, she says. Enforcement should be the focus, she says.

8:18 p.m. Judy Stone speaks in favor of retaining the ordinance. She’s relating her experience almost hitting someone. She’s paid more attention to pedestrian crossings, since the installation of flashing lights, she says. The response to say “get rid of this system” goes in the wrong direction. It’s her own responsibility to modify her behavior, she says. Elderly people or people with children in tow shouldn’t have to put themselves in harm’s way, she says. Stone calls for a strong and ongoing educational campaign. “We need to keep at it,” she says. It would be shortsighted to repeal the ordinance, she says.

8:20 p.m. Matt Grocoff introduces himself as a resident of Seventh Street. He relates his experience taking his daughter back home and attempting to cross the street. The traffic was heavy and fast. He waited at the crosswalk with his daughter in his arms. Cars didn’t stop. Then an Ann Arbor Public Schools bus went through the crosswalk as he was already standing there with his child in his arms, he reports. He’s posted a video of the encounter on Safety on Seventh. He calls for a sober, thoughtful process.

8:24 p.m. Cory Snavely supports the ordinance as it stands. The point of contention, he says, is which pedestrians have the right-of-way, so Kunselman’s compromise doesn’t really do anything for that. He applauds the installation of the HAWK signal and pedestrian islands. He noticed a difference, he says, when the ordinance was passed. The only safe street to step into is one with no cars or cars that are stopped, he says.

8:26 p.m. Charles recalls spending a year in the hospital after being struck by a car. “When a car hits you, it wins, no question,” he says. He was proud that the ordinance had been passed and calls it a demonstration that Ann Arbor is a progressive town. He talks about how M.A.D.D. had changed culture with respect to drunk driving. And he calls for a similar cultural change for pedestrian safety.

8:28 p.m. Lloyd Shelton leads off by saying that the setup for addressing the council is not accessible. He’s astounded and disappointed that the city council would leave him out of the equation. “To put the onus on me is wrong. I would wag my finger at you if I could,” he says. Kunselman’s amendment is “exclusionary,” he says.

8:31 p.m. Annie Wolock tells the council she’s lived in Ann Arbor for 35 years. She wonders if repealing or changing the law is the right way to approach citizen safety. She calls for more law enforcement and education. Changing the law now will lead to more confusion, she says. “We need to stay the course,” she says and reevaluate after 10 years. She calls for tabling the issue.

8:34 p.m. Marissa Arnold has been a bus driver at UM for 15 years. She’s noticed a shift in culture for pedestrians. On a daily basis, pedestrians don’t do what their mothers taught them, she says – they just go out into the street. She says that pedestrians think that because they have an ordinance to back them up, they can just walk across the street without checking traffic. She calls for balance. She calls for more education. “Everyone has somewhere they need to go and be,” she says. So she supports the amendment of the ordinance as Kunselman is proposing. It’s too difficult to assess the intent of someone standing at the curb, she says.

8:37 p.m. Jeff Hayner urges the council to increase education, engineering and enforcement of the current ordinance. Failing that, he’s in favor of repealing it. He’s spoken to thousands of people, he says. [He ran for Ward 1 city council earlier this year.] He heard from a lot of people who wanted to see the crosswalk ordinance repealed. But he’s not sure that’s the right thing to do. He says that the lack of engineering leads to people not knowing what to do – giving the example of three crosswalks in succession that are marked in different ways. He calls education of pedestrians and their responsibilities an important priority.

8:39 p.m. Another UM blue bus operator [Kwajalynn Burks] is addressing the council. She wants more HAWK signals. Other drivers are always trying to beat her somewhere, she says. Pedestrians feel entitled, she says, which could lead to a fatality. At some intersections near campus, there’s no end to the pedestrian flow, she says. The “pedestrian rules” type of marketing has pushed pedestrians to adopt that mindset, she says.

8:42 p.m. Helen Aminoff says she’s lived here since 1960. The push to repeal the crosswalk law was prompted by the tragedy of a death in a Plymouth Road crosswalk, she says. That incident was not a result of the crosswalk ordinance, she points out. The driver had passed a car that had been stopped at the crosswalk and struck the pedestrian, she says. There’s room for improvement and tweaking, she allows, but she doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

8:44 p.m. Ted Reynolds relates an experience from 10 years ago. He was in the middle of a crosswalk when he saw a car come through a red light. He dodged the car, but fell and struck his head on the pavement. His brain had lost the connection to his right foot. He has not driven since then. He says he didn’t want to become an old geezer who rams into people in a crosswalk. He’s against anything that makes it easier for drivers to go through crosswalks and strike pedestrians.

8:45 p.m. Emma Wendt is advocating for the current crosswalk ordinance. She says she wants more of her peers to move to Ann Arbor. It’s a walkable, liveable, progressive city, she says. But her friends on the coast find it odd that she likes living in the Midwest. When they hear that Ann Arbor is planning to repeal the crosswalk ordinance, they’re aghast, she says.

8:47 p.m. Chris reports that he was hit in 1980 by a car. He was on the sidewalk on a ramp and the person turned left. A good buddy of his, a “little person” in a wheelchair, was crossing Stone School, he says, and was killed. An apparatus needs to be set up to make cars slow down, he says.

8:48 p.m. The gentleman now addressing the council supports the current ordinance. Before he moved to Ann Arbor, he says, he was director of disability resources for a university in Illinois. Each of you will have a disability if you don’t die first, he tells the council.

8:51 p.m. John Weir is a Ward 4 resident. He walks where he goes – by choice. It matters a lot to him to live in a place where he feels safe and doesn’t need to own a car. That matters to a lot of his peers, he says. The other towns and cities of Michigan are not the only places that compete with Ann Arbor. The norm for Boston, where he’s from, he says, is better education and enforcement than Ann Arbor. “We can do better,” he says.

8:53 p.m. Don Whitaker has lived in Ann Arbor for 28 years and he supports the current ordinance. He’s an automotive engineer and commutes to Detroit every day. He was proud of the council when the council passed the ordinance originally, calling it a progressive move. Walkable cities are good for property values, he says. The main reason we should have the ordinance is safety, but a vision of a better community for everybody is also important. We need to work on education of pedestrians and motorists alike, he says.

8:56 p.m. Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, speaks in favor of keeping the current ordinance. She says there’s a lot of work to be done on engineering and education. She points out that in 1978, the law changed so that you’re supposed to stop for people with white canes. Before the ordinance, it took 35 minutes for someone with a white cane to cross, she says, which is not acceptable. She agreed with the UM bus drivers that pedestrians also need education.

8:58 p.m. Steven Kronenberg cautions against the idea that it should be an issue of motorists versus pedestrians. He points out the link between the amount of traffic on the roads and the number of parents who drive their children to school. He urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:02 p.m. Tricia Jones introduces herself as a Ward 5 resident. She feels for the UM bus drivers who spoke, but says that students have behaved that way forever. The recent data at non-signalized intersections, she says, show that incidents have decreased from 34 to 11 – but she allows that it’s just for 10 months of the year. She urges the council to preserve the ordinance.

9:03 p.m. Andrew Peters is a student at UM law school. He and his wife chose Ann Arbor over Boulder and Manhattan. They didn’t know about the crosswalk ordinance before they moved here. But when they visited they noticed that people were able to walk around the city. He was concerned that before something is changed – about something that makes Ann Arbor what it is – more thought should be given to it.

9:05 p.m. Julie Grand says that she visited some personal websites of councilmembers. She’s quoting their own sentiments at them to argue for waiting for a recommendation from the pedestrian safety task force.

9:08 p.m. Jonathan Levine said he’s relieved that Kunselman is bringing forward an amendment that would still require motorists to stop. A number of states are updating their laws from “yield” laws to “stop” laws, he says. If Ann Arbor is going to be different from the rest of Michigan, it’s important to think about how it should be different. He argues from the point of view of how to treat the negligent pedestrian versus the patient pedestrian. A law requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians standing at the curb rewards patient pedestrianism, he says.

9:11 p.m. Ken Clark notes that Michigan actually doesn’t have a law on crosswalks. He reviewed all the 2012 pedestrian crashes. 77% of the crashes last year were assessed by the police as the fault of drivers, he says.

9:14 p.m. Jeff Gaynor, a teacher at Clague Middle School who’s on the school’s Safe Routes to School committee, explains how the group had applied for a grant. Three of the engineered crosswalks had been installed on Green Road with that money, he says. In his 35 years of teaching, he’d taken his students on hundreds of field trips and taught them how to cross the street. There has been an increase in the number of cars that stop, he says, but the behavior is not yet universal.

9:15 p.m. Gaynor says that he can’t tell his students to step off the curb and hope that cars will stop.

9:17 p.m. Mike Miller says he logs 30-35 miles a week walking different routes. He thinks that the ordinance has made things better. He thinks Kunselman’s amendment is a step backwards. He calls for more engineering and education. He thinks that stoplights might be put in on certain streets. Through enforcement we could get a more effective law, he says.

9:19 p.m. Julia Roberts is speaking as a resident (she’s an AAATA transit planner). She’s lived in Ann Arbor for eight years – having moved here from Chicago. She’s proud of the ordinance that was passed. The crosswalk law isn’t responsible for reckless driving or walking. She asks for the council to wait for a recommendation by the pedestrian safety task force.

9:20 p.m. Tony Pinnell, a translator for European companies, advises the council that repealing the ordinance would send a bad message – and would be bad business.

9:21 p.m. Chip Smith says he lives in Ann Arbor to give his daughter a chance to walk to school. In the 18 years he’s lived here, the city has made progress but it’s still not a walkable city. He calls for the council to wait until the pedestrian safety task force can make a recommendation.

9:23 p.m. Mary Benson describes the situation as “Russian Roulette.” She thinks the issue isn’t addressed in either version of the ordinance. “I think we need more red lights,” she says. That’s universally understood. People don’t know what the flashing beacons mean. “We can educate until hell freezes over,” she says. There will still be 10,000 new drivers every year, she says. She also calls for enforcement of jaywalking laws.

9:24 p.m. Larry Deck says that he doesn’t see how Kunselman’s amendment gets to the heart of the matter. He encourages the council to wait for the recommendation of the pedestrian safety task force. He calls for a culture of mutual respect.

9:26 p.m. Ed Vielmetti says he started looking at maps of pedestrian crashes. Many of them happen near UM campus and downtown. There are two problems. One is main arteries along big long stretches. The other problem is downtown pedestrian safety, where cars are turning. He cites State Street as a particularly difficult area.

9:30 p.m. Kathy Griswold says that almost 10 years ago she spoke to the council and asked why Ann Arbor couldn’t be more like some other cities. But Ann Arbor doesn’t want to do the work, she said, to enforce existing ordinances. She contends that the crosswalk ordinance was borne out of a desire to help Ann Arbor win awards. Ann Arbor’s crosswalk ordinance isn’t consistent with AAPS school safety rules, she says, or with the state’s UTC. She contends that a professional engineer hasn’t been heard from. She asks if the city wants to work hard or just have an ordinance.

9:31 p.m. Robert Gordon addresses the council as a Ward 3 resident. He says this is a “rush” to repeal. He calls for waiting for the pedestrian safety task force to make its recommendation.

9:34 p.m. Thomas Partridge recounts his various candidacies for public office. He calls for using scientific data and for enacting ordinances to make a better community. Councilmembers come to meetings having made decisions before the meetings, no matter how many people come to the podium to make reasoned, logical arguments, he contends. He’d attended his first caucus meeting yesterday, when they had spoken in emotionally committed ways to the repeal. He calls the language of the ordinance “muddled.” He tells councilmembers to put themselves in a wheelchair and then try to cross Huron Street.

9:36 p.m. Karen Moorhead asks the council to move carefully and slowly. She hopes that the council might reconsider how much the ordinance means. Think about enforcement, engineering, and education, she says.

9:37 p.m. Recess. The public hearing on the crosswalk ordinance is done. We’re now in recess.

9:49 p.m. And we’re back.

9:50 p.m. Approval of minutes from previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

9:51 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just one item: a resolution to approve purchase order for Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) for annual geographic information system (GIS) software maintenance and license agreement ($58,900).

9:51 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration, but no one moves to separate out the one item from itself.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the consent agenda.

9:51 p.m. C-1 Approve rezoning for Traverwood Apartments. The council is being asked to give initial approval for rezoning of a 3.88 acre parcel for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office research light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The site plan for this project, being developed by First Martin Corp., is not being considered by the council tonight. But the $30 million project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. [For additional background, see Traverwood Apartments above.]

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning necessary for the Traverwood Apartments project. A final vote will come at a future council meeting after a public hearing.

9:52 p.m. B-1 Crosswalk ordinance. The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote. Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping. Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. …

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?” [For additional background in the preview above: Crosswalk Law]

9:53 p.m. Kunselman leads off by calling it a great discussion with the citizenry. That had led to the effort not to repeal but to amend the ordinance, he says. It would also make it more consistent with the language on the city’s signs, he says. He now reads forth the ordinance in its entirety.

9:54 p.m. The key part is “shall stop and yield the right of way to every pedestrian within a crosswalk …”

9:55 p.m. Hieftje says that Kunselman can just substitute the amendment in place of the previous repeal, without a vote.

9:57 p.m. Kunselman says that the issue has been talked about for several months. The death on Plymouth Road was very emotional, he says. Whether that death resulted from the words in the ordinance, it was a situation to be taken seriously, he says. Kunselman complains that Erica Briggs of WBWC had taken the conversation he’d had with her and used it as “propaganda.”

9:58 p.m. Kunselman reviews the Traverse City ordinance, which requires stopping, but doesn’t talk about pedestrians anywhere except within a crosswalk.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman argues from the point of view of uniformity. We don’t want to have confusion among drivers trying to guess how to operate, he says. About the crash data, he says, any decrease can’t be attributed to the crosswalk language. He says that the citizenry has called for more enforcement and education. So at the next council meeting, “by golly” he’s going to propose a budget amendment to fund more traffic enforcement.

10:03 p.m. Kailasapathy says that it’s not the case that councilmembers were asking pedestrians to step into traffic. And it’s not acceptable to have to wait a long time to cross the street, she says. “We’re telling you to wait and find a gap,” she says. She calls for HAWK and other signals and infrastructure. She supports any amendments to the budget to support this – like hiring more police, or spending money on infrastructure. The marginal rate of return on pedestrian infrastructure is greater than investing in something like a rail station, she says.

10:06 p.m. Lumm agrees with investing in infrastructure and enforcement capability as budget priorities. She appreciates everyone coming out to speak. She’s talking about the crash data. She says it can’t be used as a definitive argument either way. She’s reviewing the history of the crosswalk ordinance changes.

10:07 p.m. Lumm says she tried back in 2011 to get the crosswalk ordinance language revised to refer only to “within a crosswalk.”

10:10 p.m. Briere says that Lumm is correct that the data doesn’t support a particular conclusion. November and December – for which 2013 data is not available – are months when accidents have historically been higher, she says. Briere says the question is what problem they’re trying to fix. The public has said more education, enforcement and engineering is necessary. So she doesn’t see how changing the ordinance helps. She says that accidents happening with pedestrians are in the crosswalk, not when cars are stopping for pedestrians stopping on the curb.

10:11 p.m. Briere clarifies what a “traffic signal” is: a red-yellow-green light. So it doesn’t include flashing beacons or stop signs, she explains.

10:11 p.m. Briere notes that the ordinance doesn’t apply to most downtown locations.

10:13 p.m. Briere says she’s going to reflect more on this issue. But she says she’ll paraphrase Jeff Hayner, who ran against her this last election – he had called for education, enforcement, and engineering, not repealing the ordinance.

10:14 p.m. Anglin is for spending the money on education and engineering. Right now there are too many irregularities, he says. He notes that many of the drivers are parents driving their kids to school. He says he’ll support the Kunselman amendment, and says it’s important to follow through and support it.

10:15 p.m. We’re in a state of confusion, Anglin says. And until that confusion is removed, we won’t have a safe community.

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski says he doesn’t see how the Kunselman amendment lines up with the rhetoric of uniformity. He likes his irony like he likes his coffee: bitter. Tomorrow is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities, he points out.

10:19 p.m. Warpehoski talks about his goals for the pedestrian safety task force. He’s not convinced that an inappropriate sense of pedestrian empowerment exists. He doesn’t buy that argument – but allows that that’s a data question. That data could be collected, he says, or the council could take a fire-ready-aim approach.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski says that he walks a lot, with his kids. And he says he’s noticed that things have improved since the ordinance was passed. He says he feels safer as a pedestrian since the ordinance was passed. He says he’ll vote no on Kunselman’s proposal.

10:23 p.m. Taylor says he rejects the idea that Kunselman’s proposal is a compromise. He’s ok with Ann Arbor being different with its crosswalk law. No ordinance can protect drivers or pedestrians from negligence, he says. He repeats an argument from the Nov. 18 meeting – that the ordinance can’t be so powerful to embolden pedestrians but too weak to compel motorists to stop. He calls the budgetary amendments that others have talked about “chest thumping.”

10:24 p.m. Taylor says that the alleged confusion and fear has been “sown” and is not real, because the ordinance is very simple.

10:28 p.m. Eaton thanks everyone who showed up to speak. But he also says his vote is informed by those he talked to during his council campaign. The small numbers in the data, he says, mean that conclusions can’t be drawn. Eaton calls for a real education program and a real enforcement regime. “Here were are again tinkering with the ordinance,” he says. Ultimately, the money will have to be spent, like Griswold said, Eaton says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen says that she’s struggled with the logic of the ordinance. She says the data doesn’t show that increasing the right-of-way for pedestrians has increased safety. Petersen is skeptical that enforcement of the current ordinance would actually work. And she’s skeptical that effective education is possible in a transient community. Pedestrians should take full responsibility for their own safety, she says.

10:31 p.m. Petersen puts her faith in engineering. She says she’ll support an ADA compliant pedestrian bridge over Plymouth Road.

10:35 p.m. Warpehoski says he can count votes and realizes that he’s not going to win this one. But some comments of colleagues have gotten under his skin. He responds to Eaton’s characterization of the engineering efforts to date by saying the staff should be applauded for their efforts. Warpehoski explains that Petersen’s characterization of how a pedestrian claims the right-of-way is not correct. He agrees that pedestrians need to take responsibility for their own safety, but argues that pedestrians can best do that when they’re standing on the curb and can expect that motorists can stop.

10:36 p.m. Petersen responds to Warpehoski by saying that what he’s describing is ideal and that there’s not adequate enforcement to get to the point where motorists will actually stop.

10:39 p.m. Taylor says there’s are those who are unable to make the judgment as to whether it’s safe to enter the roadway. Under the current ordinance, it’s proper for the motorist to stop for someone just standing at the curb. Taylor says that the public speaker who talked about the culture change associated with drunk driving made a good analogy. That casts interesting light on where we are as a culture, he says.

10:42 p.m. Briere says that Petersen wants better enforcement, engineering and education and thinks there’s no way to achieve those goals, and thinks that the ordinance needs to be changed. She ticks through a paraphrase of positions taken by Eaton and Kailasapathy. Briere says that as more cars stop for pedestrians, more and more cars will stop for pedestrians. When drivers are not prepared to see a pedestrian – because they don’t have to stop for pedestrians – then they’re not prepared to stop for a person with a white cane or a person in a wheelchair, she says.

10:44 p.m. Briere also says that for “foreigners,” the more they see people stop for pedestrians, the more those “foreigners” will stop for pedestrians.

10:46 p.m. Hieftje says that in light of the closed session that’s scheduled, he would like to have the council suspend the council rule that requires a closed session to begin before 11 p.m. That rule is now suspended. Now back to the crosswalk ordinance.

10:48 p.m. Lumm is arguing against tabling. She says there’s been a lot of debate about the ordinance. Lumm is now holding forth with prepared comments.

10:50 p.m. Lumm’s comments are based essentially on an argument for uniformity across Michigan.

10:53 p.m. Hieftje corrects Anglin’s previous statement that “most bicyclists get hit” saying that some do but most don’t. Hieftje says he doesn’t think there’s a case in the data for changing the ordinance.

10:55 p.m. Hieftje talks about a video that the council had been shown years ago that showed pedestrians not using a pedestrian bridge. That’s a response to Petersen’s expression of support to build a pedestrian bridge on Plymouth Road.

10:56 p.m. Hieftje says that education, better signage, and engineering will help. But he doesn’t see how changing the ordinance will help. He doesn’t see the logic of requiring a person in a wheelchair to roll out into the road to see if cars are going to stop.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-4 to change the ordinance. But Hieftje says he will veto the change.

11:00 p.m. DC-1 Establish 2014 city council calendar. In this item, the council is complying with a charter requirement: “The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month.” The pattern of the council’s regular meetings is: First and third Monday of the month with a work session on the second Monday.

11:00 p.m. Briere raises the question of a conflict with Passover.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm its calendar of regular meetings.

11:00 p.m. DC-2 Approve city policy regarding removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. The council is considering establishing a value for on-street parking spaces, in situations where the builder of a project makes a proposal that results in the loss of an on-street metered parking space. The $45,000 proposed amount is based an average of an estimated construction cost for an above-ground space of $40,000, and $55,000 for a below-ground parking space.

By way of background the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent financial records show that last year on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually. [For additional background, see Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces above.]

11:01 p.m. Taylor says he’s going to ask for a postponement. A public hearing is recommended, he says, for any kind of fee. So he moves to have it postponed until Dec. 16.

11:01 p.m. Briere asks if there’s sufficient time to give notice or a public hearing. There is.

11:02 p.m. Lumm thanks Taylor for bringing it forward. She agrees with the concept. She thanks staff for their answers to questions.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the question of how much it should cost to remove an on-street parking space.

11:03 p.m. DB-1 Approve Running Fit addition site plan. The site plan entails a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. [For additional background, see Running Fit Addition above.]

11:03 p.m. Hieftje says he supports the project.

11:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Running Fit addition.

11:03 p.m. DB-2 Accept donation of 2.2 acres from W. Martin. The council is being asked to consider of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site for Traverwood Apartments. Earlier in the meeting, the council gave initial approval to a zoning change related to the project. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course. [image of map showing location]

11:05 p.m. Briere says she wants to make sure the official record reflects the correct size of the donation.

11:05 p.m. She thanks Martin for the donation.

11:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the acreage as a donation from Bill Martin to the city.

11:05 p.m. DS-1 Approve contract with Emergency Restoration Company ($729,000). The contract is for asbestos abatement in city hall. The council is being asked appropriate $400,000 in funds for the contract.

11:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract for asbestos abatement in city hall.

11:06 p.m. DS-2 Approve contract with Nova Environmental Inc. ($35,600). This is a contract for an air monitoring project during the city hall asbestos abatement project.

11:08 p.m. Anglin wants to know why this contract would not be included in the one for the work itself. Matt Kulhanek explains that this contractor would be overseeing the work of the other contractor. That’s why the items are separate.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the air monitoring contract.

11:08 p.m. DS-3 Establishing a tax abatement district at 1901 E. Ellsworth. Once an industrial development district (IDD) is established, the property owner can apply for a tax abatement. The consideration of the tax abatement is a separate vote, which will be taken at a future meeting.

11:12 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for CFO Tom Crawford. She gets confirmation that the point is eventually to allow for application for a tax abatement. Crawford says that abatements can be requested for any new investment, not just personal property. She wants to know how much the value of the tax abatement would be. She notes that the company, Mahindra Genze, is a large company in India, like GE here. So it’s not really a small start-up. The amount of the investment would be $1.6 million. That’s $25,000 in total tax and the general fund portion of the city would be less, he says.

11:13 p.m. Crawford responds to Kailasapathy by explaining that the question for the council to weigh is whether the company has alternative locations. Kailasapathy wonders if this isn’t just a “race to the bottom” among various communities vying to attract the company.

11:16 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that another consideration was that it would be a manufacturing operation, which is underrepresented in Ann Arbor. The fact that it’s located in an identified important corridor is also important. Kailasapathy gets confirmation that the tax abatement would likely be around three years, but could be up to 12 years.

11:18 p.m. Eaton reports that he’d had the opportunity to sit down with Luke Bonner of Ann Arbor SPARK and Alan Clark of Mahindra Genze. But he’s skeptical about tax abatements. He gets confirmation that the district is attached to the property, not the tenant. Crawford notes that Ann Arbor’s practice is to close the district after the original intent is fulfilled.

11:21 p.m. Eaton says when he looked up the city’s policy, it has a sunset clause. Crawford says that the policy is supposed to be reviewed. Eaton quotes the policy that makes clear that it does end and has already expired. Crawford: “I stand corrected.” Crawford notes that the prior city policy reflects the state’s criteria, so it’s not as if there’s no guidance.

11:23 p.m. Hieftje says that if the investment weren’t made by this company, the city wouldn’t get any tax revenue. Crawford says there’s a history of neighboring jurisdictions aggressively pursuing companies. Hieftje agrees with Kailasapathy’s characterization of the process as a “race to the bottom.” But these are the rules that the state of Michigan has set up, he says.

11:27 p.m. Petersen asks Crawford how common tax abatement is as an economic development tool. Crawford says that very few are done in Ann Arbor – in his nine years, it’s been done for around nine companies, he thinks. Ann Arbor SPARK’s Luke Bonner clarifies that it was a multi-state competition for the location. There were internal forces within Mahindra Genze that would have preferred the manufacturing location to be in a southern state. Previously, Bonner worked in Sterling Heights, where the personal property tax revenue was about $10 million, which he describes as about what all of Washtenaw County generates. That was a function of a policy to grant tax abatements.

11:31 p.m. Petersen supports this as important for economic development, which is a council priority. “I just think this makes sense for us,” she says.

11:31 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to support this, echoing Hieftje’s comments about these being the rules of the game. Lumm says she’s also not crazy about tax abatements because they pit one community against another. But she thinks the addition of jobs and the particular technology is a good fit for Ann Arbor. Kunselman also says he met with the representatives of the company, and he’s excited about the product. It’s located in one of the poorest parts of the city, he says, and he hopes that some of those jobs go to locals.

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to establish the IDD at 1901 E. Ellsworth.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Approve agreement University Of Michigan for municipal parking citation processing, collections and record management services. This is the renewal of an agreement with the University for processing parking tickets.

11:32 p.m. Hieftje says that last Saturday, UM was clocking speeders on Huron Street. He points out that UM does write tickets on city streets.

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the agreement with UM for parking ticket processing.

11:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve six-month extension of installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor to finance purchase of former Y lot. ($3,500,000). In the event that completion of due diligence on the pending sale of the old Y lot is not done by Dec. 16 – the date on which the city’s $3.5 million balloon payment is due – this approval will allow the city to continue the financing arrangement it has with Bank of Ann Arbor for six months. [For additional background, see Bank of Ann Arbor Loan.]

11:34 p.m. Briere says, “It’s my hope we never use this.” City administrator Steve Powers says that next week might be ambitious, but by the end of the year, the sale would almost certainly be completed. Lumm thanks the Bank of Ann Arbor for the terms, which include no prepayment penalty.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension of the financing arrangement with Bank of Ann Arbor on the former Y lot.

11:37 p.m. Communications from council. Warpehoski follows up on Lloyd Shelton’s comment during the crosswalk public hearing. He says that Shelton is right about the accessibility of the council chambers. “We should be doing better as a seat of government for people with disabilities,” he says. People should not face an undue burden to address the council or be employed, he says. The configuration would not allow for a mayor or city administrator who uses a wheelchair. Briere points out that the chambers was built to serve as a courtroom.

11:37 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:40 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He reminds the council of the commitment to put items on the agenda in time for people to read them in advance and be able to comment on those items. The council appointments had not been added in a timely way, he points out. He also points out that the amendment on the crosswalk ordinance was not added until just minutes before the discussion. People would like to see the agenda settled on Friday, he notes.

11:41 p.m. Kathy Griswold says it was a major omission to not have a professional engineer recommendation for the original ordinance change. Having one person veto the revision puts a great burden on that one person, she says.

11:42 p.m. Closed session. The council is asked to go into closed session. The purpose is to discuss a privileged attorney-client memo that will be in writing, says assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to go into closed session.

12:05 a.m. We’re back.

12:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Dec. 2 meeting agenda.

Items that could result in considerable council discussion include final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. A scheduled public hearing on that issue could also draw a number of speakers. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

The tally could be closer for the final vote, as mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) could join Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who had dissented on the initial approval. Also a possibility is that a compromise approach could be worked out. The possible compromise would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would not afford the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

Some of the public’s perspective and council discussion on the crosswalk issue might be aired out during the council’s Sunday caucus, held in council chambers at city hall. This week the caucus has been rescheduled for 1 p.m. instead of its usual evening start time, in part to accommodate more discussion of the local crosswalk law.

Another topic that could extend the meeting is related to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

There’s some interest on the council in holding a closed session on Dec. 2 to review the options and the impact of those options. Any interest on the council in acquiring the land, which seems somewhat scant, would be based on a desire eventually to put the land back on the tax rolls. The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public. If the council holds a closed session on that topic, it could extend the Dec. 2 meeting.

One reason the council may have little appetite for acquiring the Edwards Brothers property is that the city has just now managed to sell a downtown property the city acquired 10 years ago – the old Y lot on William Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Approval of the $5.25 million sale to Dennis Dahlmann came at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million.

In the meantime, the minutes of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s most recent operations committee meeting reflect the DDA’s expectation that all of the equipment used to operate the public surface parking facility at the old Y lot will need to be removed by Dec. 31, 2013.

The city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is linked to a tax abatement. And on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is an item that would establish an industrial development district (IDD) for a different property, at 1901 E. Ellsworth, where Extang Corp. and GSG Fasteners are located. Creating an IDD is a step in the process for granting a tax abatement.

Land control and use is a predominant theme among other Dec. 2 agenda items as well.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to a rezoning request for the Traverwood Apartments project – from ORL (office, research and light industrial district) to R4D (multiple-family district). The First Martin Corp. project would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. The site plan and final rezoning approval would come before the city council at a future meeting. The Dec. 2 meeting will also include council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the Traverwood Apartments project site. The acreage to be donated is next to the city’s Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will also be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor. The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city council will also be asked to place a value on land currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking could be charged that amount. It would be paid to the Ann Arbor DDA, which manages the city’s public parking system. In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation, approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009.

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting. The budgeted staffing level for the fire department is 85. However, the statistical section from the most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the city shows 82 AAFD staff in fiscal year 2013. That’s because the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR itself is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000, as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets –  although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

On Dec. 2 council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. That includes adoption of the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules will be put forward at this time. Based on that meeting, it appears that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) will replace Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on that council committee. The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

Crosswalk Law

The council will be asked to give final approval of a repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The council gave initial approval to the repeal at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote.

Current Ann Arbor local law differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under current local law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor don’t have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they’re required to yield by stopping.

Here’s what the current law says (as a result of amendment on Dec. 19, 2011):

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

A possible compromise the council might consider would leave intact the language about motorists stopping, but still limit the right-of-way to just pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it would exclude those standing at the curb.

The compromise could be based on the wording of the ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk.

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who are advocating against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contend that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. But at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

Edwards Brothers Land

A pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The topic of land acquisition is one of the legal exceptions to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which requires all deliberations of a public body to be open to the public.

The council’s deliberations on granting the tax abatement nearly three years ago contemplated the possibility that the council could be faced with a decision about whether to act on the right of first refusal, which was associated with the tax abatement. At the time, city assessor David Petrak pegged the value of the land at anywhere between $1 million and $50 million. From The Chronicle’s report of that Jan. 18, 2011 meeting:

The cover memo also indicates that the Edwards Brothers real property is located immediately adjacent to a University of Michigan park-and-ride lot, and it’s felt that UM may have some interest in purchasing the property, which would remove it from the city’s tax rolls. In that light, the city staff built a stipulation into the tax abatement that would give the city the right of first refusal on any future land sale. So if UM offered to purchase the property, the city would have an opportunity to make an offer – presumably with the idea that the city would then sell the land to some other private entity, thereby returning the land to the tax rolls.

City assessor David Petrak briefly introduced some of the background on the request to the council.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some additional explanation. Without additional information, she said, she could not support it. Why was the city considering the application? The answer was that by statute it must be considered.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reminded the council that Edwards Brothers has been in Ann Arbor for over 100 years. When the previous abatement was granted, he said, the company was “this close” to moving the operation to North Carolina. Instead, due to the abatement, the company decided to remain in Ann Arbor and preserved around 400 jobs in this community.

With respect to Edwards Brothers not meeting the employment numbers required by the first tax abatement, Rapundalo cited the dire economic times, noting in particular that the book business has not exactly been thriving. So he did not want to hold the job losses against the company. He called Edwards Brothers a long-standing corporate citizen. He also said that if the company left, he would not doubt for a second that UM would pick up the property.

From the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited the fact that the tax abatement would apply to a new press – a typical economic requirement in a very competitive industry, he said. Petrak went on to explain the right of first refusal on the possible sale of the real estate, if Edwards Brothers decided eventually to leave anyway.

City administrator Roger Fraser elaborated in more detail on Crawford’s description of the press to be acquired. It’s particularly suited to quick turnaround on small printing jobs, and offers an opportunity to pick up some additional business for the company. The right of first refusal on the land sale, he said, was an attempt to extract some additional public benefit from the agreement.

Smith pressed for information about what the approximate cost of the land would be, if the city found itself having to contemplate whether to exercise its right of first refusal. Petrak didn’t have that information, but when continued to be pressed by Smith, he allowed that it was between $1 million and $50 million.

Mayor John Hieftje established with Crawford that there’d been no negative impact to the city’s revenues due to job losses at the company. Hieftje said the right of first refusal did not matter to him at all, but the 400 jobs at the company represented good, if not fancy, jobs. They might not earn the average $80,000 salaries that Pfizer workers earned, but they were good jobs. Hieftje also noted that the percentage of property that is abated in the city is minuscule.

…

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) observed that 415 jobs is a lot of jobs. The fact that there’d been only a 13% drop he characterized as a “great feat.” If it were a new company, he said, they would all be out helping to cut the ribbon.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed his support for the abatement.

Bank of Ann Arbor Loan

An agreement to sell the old Y lot on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues downtown – to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million – was approved by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of rider] [.pdf of sales agreement]

But it’s possible that not all the due diligence will be completed before Dec. 16, when the city owes the $3.5 million principal it used to purchase the property. As a hedge against that possibility, the council will be asked on Dec. 2 to approve a six-month extension on the installment purchase agreement with Bank of Ann Arbor for the $3.5 million. The interest rate would be the same as the interest rate at which the city is currently borrowing the money – 3.89% with no penalty for pre-payment.

If additional interest is owed due to the extension of the loan, presumably the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would also continue with its share of the payments. That was an arrangement agreed to in 2003 through action by the DDA’s executive committee, not the full DDA board. The DDA’s portion of the interest payments could factor into the calculation of the net proceeds from the former Y lot sale. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

However, two days after the council meets on Dec. 2, the board of the Ann Arbor DDA will be considering a resolution that would waive any need to repay the DDA for those interest payments or for the expenditures by the DDA to demolish the old Y building in 2008. [.pdf of Dec. 4, 2013 draft DDA resolution on Y lot proceeds]

Possibly relevant to the question of whether the DDA can simply waive any required repayment by the city to the DDA is the source of funds used by the DDA to make those payments. In recent years, the DDA has used parking funds to make the interest payments. To the extent that in earlier years, funds captured under the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) may have been used to make interest payments, it’s not clear if the DDA could simply allow the city to retain those funds as part of the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

Traverwood Apartments

On the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is a project proposed by First Martin Corp. that would construct a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

Only the initial vote on the zoning is being considered on Dec. 2. The final vote on the zoning and the site plan will appear on a future council agenda.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land to be donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

The Dec. 2 agenda includes the council’s consideration of a donation of 2.2 acres to the city from Bill Martin just north of the project site. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Running Fit Addition

At its Dec. 2 meeting, the council will be asked to approve the site plan for a three-story addition to the Running Fit store at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and Liberty Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building, at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The first floor will be retained as retail space, but six residential units would be built on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the city. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District.

The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

Cost of In-Street Parking Spaces

The city council will also be asked to place a value on portions of the public right-of-way currently used as on-street parking spaces – $45,000 per space. By formally adopting that figure, any future development that causes the removal of on-street parking spaces could be charged that amount.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects. Based on that reasoning, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, could be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget.

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

Audit, Firefighters, Other Stats

In non-land issues, the council will be introduced to newly hired firefighters at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The statistical section from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) shows a budgeted staffing level for the fire department of 82, in fiscal year 2013. But the council approved the hiring of additional firefighters after the fiscal year began, bringing the total to 85.

The CAFR is indirectly included in the council’s agenda – as part of a presentation that will be given by chief financial officer Tom Crawford on the result of this year’s audit. It was a clean audit that showed the general fund doing about $2.4 million better than budgeted.

Highlights from that FY 2013 audit report, which has now been issued in final form to the city, include an increase to the general fund balance from about $15.4 million to about $16.2 million. The $800,000 increase contrasts to the planned use of roughly $1.6 million from the general fund balance in the FY 2013 budget. About $200,000 of the increase was in the “unassigned” fund balance.

The result of the audit, in the new GASB terminology, was an “unmodified” opinion – which corresponds to the older “unqualified” opinion. In sum, that means it was a “clean” audit. The concerns identified last year had been addressed to the auditor’s satisfaction.

Members of the council’s audit committee, which met on Oct. 24. 2013 to review the draft audit report, were enthusiastic about the $2.4 million better-than-budget performance for the city’s general fund, which had expenditures budgeted for $74,548,522 in FY 2013.

Challenges facing the city this coming year include the implementation of the new GASB 68 accounting standard starting in FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. That standard requires that most changes to the net pension liability will be included immediately on the balance sheet – instead of being amortized over a long time period. The GASB 68 standard must be implemented for an organization’s financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.

Two of the city’s funds were highlighted by Crawford at the Oct. 24 meeting as having potential difficulties associated with the GASB 68 standard – solid waste and the public market (farmers market). For the public market fund, Crawford floated the idea to the audit committee that it could be folded back into the city’s general fund, on analogy with the golf fund. Starting this year (FY 2014), the golf fund has been returned to general fund accounting.

Among the other myriad statistics in the CAFR are the number of parking violations recorded by the city – which are again down in the range of 90,000 as they’ve been for the last three years. That’s about half what they were in 2006 and 2007. Those numbers in the CAFR don’t include University of Michigan parking tickets – although the city and the UM have an agreement under which the city processes tickets and hears appeals for the university. A renewal of that agreement is on the council’s agenda for Dec. 2.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of data available in the statistical section of the FY 2013 CAFR, which includes data from previous CAFRs as well. [.pdf of final audit report released on Nov. 15, 2013]

Ann Arbor parking violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor physical arrests. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fires extinguished. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire inspections. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor emergency responses by fire department. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor fire services data. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor police department staff strength. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor total city employees. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor water main breaks. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Ann Arbor taxable value. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Internal Council Business

On its Dec. 2 meeting agenda, the council also has a fair amount of its own internal business to wrap up, associated with the seating of the new council, which took place at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting.

That internal business includes adopting the council rules. Based on a less than 10-minute meeting of the council’s rules committee on Nov. 29, no changes to the rules were planned to be put forward at this time. The council’s rules committee – established by last year’s council – currently consists of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

However, the .pdf file attached to the council’s online agenda – which reflects the council’s rules to be considered for adoption – includes a revision that was explicitly discussed and, for the time being, rejected at the committee’s Nov. 29 meeting. [.pdf of city council rules]

That change replaces “personality” (an archaic usage meaning a disparaging remark about a person) with “personal attack” in the following rule: “The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.” At the council’s Nov. 18 regular meeting, when the council voted to delay adoption of the rules pending a review of the rules, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had asked that the rules committee look at the rule requiring that councilmembers “avoid personality” during deliberations.

At the Nov. 29 committee meeting, Stephen Kunselman weighed in specifically for retaining the more archaic wording as reflective of history and tradition. The outcome of that committee discussion was that no changes would be recommended at this time, as any changes should be reviewed by the rules committee with its new membership. But based on the inclusion of the change in the Legistar document, it’s not clear what the status of that proposed change is meant to be.

A consensus on the committee at the Nov. 29 meeting seemed to be that the new membership of the rules committee should include Sally Petersen (Ward 2) in place of Kunselman, as Kunselman did not wish to continue on the rules committee. In addition, Petersen’s ethics initiative, which was approved at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, tasks the rules committee with a certain amount of work – so the rules committee consensus on Nov. 29 appeared to be that the committee would be well-served by her membership.

The rest of the new council committee assignments are also supposed to be made at the Dec. 2 meeting.

The council’s calendar of regular meetings and work sessions will also be adopted at the Dec. 2 meeting. The basic pattern is first and third Mondays for regular meetings, except when there’s a holiday or an election during the week of the meeting.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

The council had voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator, Steve Powers, to negotiate with Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18, which Powers did. The Nov. 7 resolution was amended during the meeting to impose various conditions to ensure eventual development of the property. Those conditions were ensconced in a rider document attached to the sales agreement. [.pdf of rider document]

Dahlmann had offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million.

The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

At its Nov. 18 meeting, the council did not delve into the question of how the net proceeds of the sale would be defined, but some councilmembers indicated they were pleased that the result would be a deposit into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

It was not clear until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18 that Powers would be able to comply with the Nov. 7 council directive – to provide a sales agreement for the council’s consideration at the Nov. 18 meeting. In emails to councilmembers spaced just 14 minutes apart, Powers first indicated that negotiations with Dahlmann were continuing and that he didn’t expect to have a sales agreement ready for that night’s meeting (3:41 p.m.) and then that Dahlmann had agreed to all the city’s terms (3:55 p.m.). City attorneys were preparing the sales agreement, Powers wrote in the later email, and Powers expected it to be ready for consideration at that evening’s meeting.

The terms to which Dahlmann agreed were specified in the Nov. 7 council direction. The original resolution directed the inclusion of a provision to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR) including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann had not been successful, then the Nov. 7 resolution directed the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

Deliberations on Nov. 18 lasted only about 10 minutes. Several councilmembers praised Dahlmann’s offer and cited the quality of other properties he owns in Ann Arbor, including the Campus Inn and Bell Tower Hotel. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he disliked the idea of Dahlmann’s downtown hotel monopoly, but felt like the council should let the “best bid win.”

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]