From left: Local developer Peter Allen, 624 Church St. project owner Dennis Tice, that project’s architect Brad Moore, and Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere. Briere accepted congratulations on her council re-election win the previous day. (Photos by the writer.)

Both items were approved on unanimous votes at the meeting, which featured perfect attendance by the 11 current members of the board. The following evening, on Nov. 7, the Ann Arbor city council confirmed the appointment of Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace Cosmetics, to fill a vacancy on the 12-member DDA body. At its Nov. 6 meeting, the board did not discuss either Clark’s appointment or the other council agenda item affecting the DDA – a revision to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA TIF (tax increment financing) capture.

The sale of monthly parking permits for the 624 Church St. development was an issue that the DDA board had previously considered – for an earlier version of the project, which had actually completed the city approval process. It had gone through planning commission review and recommendation, with a site plan approved by the city council on March 4, 2013. For that earlier version, the project was required to provide 42 parking spaces for the additional residential square footage it contained beyond the by-right density under the city’s zoning code. Instead of providing the parking spaces on-site, the owner of the project sought to satisfy the requirement through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program – a request that was granted by the DDA.

For this revised and expanded version of the project – made possible through additional land acquisition – a greater number of parking spaces is required. And the project owner again sought to meet that requirement through the CIL program. So at its Nov. 6 meeting, the DDA board granted the project owner the ability to purchase 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The DDA board also acted on its streetscape framework project. The contract awarded to SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard is meant to provide guidance for developing future streetscape projects, not to design any specific streetscape project. The most recent streetscape improvement undertaken by the DDA was the Fifth and Division project, which included lane reconfigurations and bump-outs.

In addition to its voting items, the board received a raft of updates, which included reports on the first quarter financials. The DDA is essentially on course to realize $4.5 million in TIF capture revenue and about $19 million in parking revenue. Other updates included reports on preparations for the NHL Winter Classic hockey game, debriefing on the International Downtown Association conference attended by some board members and staff, Freedom of Information Act issues, and public commentary.

The board heard from Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, about the ongoing downtown zoning review. Detter’s remarks were countered by DDA board members. Detter reprised his comments at the city planning commission meeting later that evening. So that back-and-forth will be reported out in more detail as a part of The Chronicle’s Nov. 6, 2013 city planning commission report.

624 Church Street Parking Permits

The board considered a request by the owner of the 624 Church St. project to purchase additional monthly parking permits as a part of the contribution in lieu (CIL) program – up to 48 such permits. The spaces were requested for the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The original proposal for 624 Church St., 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 (CIL) program. 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 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 architect for the project, Brad Moore, attended the Nov. 6 DDA board meeting, as did the owner, Dennis Tice. Neither of them formally addressed the board nor were they asked to respond to any questions. The new version of the project could be coming before the planning commission in later in November or December.]

The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right 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 that 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 was pursuing.

624 Church Street Parking Permits: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt reviewed how the board had previously approved 42 parking spaces. The project had increased in size as a result of the acquisition of a house to the south of the original project site, Hewitt explained. The total amount of required parking is 53 spaces, five of which will be provided on-site, he noted. That would increase the number of spaces needed in the parking system from 42 to 48. Hewitt pointed out that the number still falls within the framework of a pilot project the DDA was working on, based on assigning the ability to purchase monthly parking permits to owners of property, on a square-footage basis. At the July 3, 2013 DDA board meeting, Hewitt had described the pilot allocation as 1 monthly permit per 2,500 square feet.

[The DDA manages the system in a manner that sells monthly parking permits on a first-come-first-serve basis. Subsequently, DDA staff has reported little interest in the pilot program among property owners in the South University area. Executive director Susan Pollay said at the Sept. 4, 2013 board meeting that letters had been sent to property owners, but almost none of the property owners were interested in managing the parking permits on behalf of their tenants.]

Mayor John Hieftje said it’s important to note that the monthly parking permits purchased under the CIL program are 20% more expensive, so the parking system would receive more revenue than for a regular-priced permit. Hieftje also recalled a discussion at a downtown marketing task force meeting – which he invited DDA board members to attend – when a representative of the South University Area Association reported the impact of having more residents in the area had been positive. The Church Street development would increase activity and vibrancy in that area, he said.

Hewitt added that as a business owner in the area [of revive + replenish], that part of town has definitely become more vibrant and more active.

Keith Orr said that the allocation still falls within the pilot project square footage guidelines, so he’d be supporting the proposal, saying it made sense.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to approve the allocation, under the CIL program, of 48 parking permits in the Forest Avenue structure to the 624 Church St. project.

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract

The board considered awarding a contract to SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard to develop a streetscape framework plan for the city’s downtown.

A budget for the project had been authorized by the board at its July 3, 2013 meeting – $200,000 over the next two years. The Nov. 6 resolution set a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 and indicated that the project scope still requires refinement. The resolution establishing the budget referred in general terms to the DDA’s development plan, which the resolution characterized as including “identity, infrastructure, and transportation as key strategies, and also recognized that an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The downtown streetscape framework plan, according to the July 3 resolution, would “align with these strategies, as it would address quality of place in streetscape design, on-going maintenance, and private development projects.” The July 3 resolution indicated there would be considerable collaboration with other entities like the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the University of Michigan. The benefit of having a streetscape framework plan, according to the July 3 resolution, would be “shortened planning phases, and thus cost, for future streetscape projects due to the overarching plan guidance.”

The most recent streetscape project undertaken by the DDA related to improvements on Fifth and Division, which included a lane reduction and bump-outs.

SmithGroupJJR provided consulting support for the DDA’s Connecting William Street project. Nelson\Nygaard is the consulting firm the DDA hired to study the parking system, resulting in a 2007 report.

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract: Board Deliberations

John Mouat led off by saying the streetscape framework plan would be a wonderful tool for the city and DDA as well as private developers.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board: Nov. 6, 2013

It’s a good step, he said. There’d been good cooperation between the DDA and city staff on the project. DDA planner Amber Miller had put in a lot of work, he said. A consultant selection committee consisting of DDA staff, city staff and a DDA board member had put together a request for qualifications sent out in mid-October, Mouat said. Four teams responded. Two of the qualified submissions were selected and then invited for an interview in October.

The selection committee recommended hiring SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard, Mouat said. Noting that two firms are being recommended, Mouat said that while SmithGroupJJR will be the lead firm, Nelson\Nygaard will do a bit more of the work. Mouat noted that Nelson\Nygaard had completed similar plans for other cities across the country. SmithGroupJJR brings facilitation skills, engineering and more technical and “nitty gritty” skills, he said.

Mouat noted that the resolution in front of the board is for work not to exceed $150,000. The budget has been approved for up to $200,000 – to add additional services. Two things that might be added, Mouat said, were enhanced civil engineering services that the city staff is interested in. The other thing that might be desirable is to bring in an economist who can analyze the benefits of streetscape projects. Potentially, that work could be extended to gathering base data on what exists now in the downtown.

Roger Hewitt mentioned that the board has worked with Nelson\Nygaard in the past on the parking demand study. The experience with that firm had been very satisfactory, Hewitt said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution on the streetscape plan.

Quarterly Financial Statements

Roger Hewitt gave the board an overview of the financial statements for first quarter of the 2014 fiscal year. [.pdf of July-Sept 2013 financial statements] That’s the three months of July through September for a fiscal year that starts on July 1. [The DDA's fiscal year aligns with the city of Ann Arbor's fiscal year.]

TIF (tax increment financing) income is slightly below budget, he reported. There’s still some TIF revenue that’s expected to come in later in the year. That amount is anticipated to be about $4.5 million by the end of the year. Operating expenses are also lower than budgeted, he said, but it’s anticipated that they’ll ultimately be within 3% of what was budgeted. Not a lot of capital expenditures have been incurred so far. Most of construction work occurs during the summer and for much of the construction in the latter part of summer, the DDA hasn’t been billed yet. Overall that number is expected to be close to what was budgeted, Hewitt reported.

Parking revenues for the quarter exceeded budget slightly, and it’s anticipated that the DDA will be close to budgeted gross revenue of a bit over $19 million, Hewitt said. Parking operating expenses are “a little off,” he reported. The costs for the First and Washington structure were budgeted in the previous fiscal year, but the work did not take place in that year. That’s because the private contractor doing the project did not finish the work, and did not have a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck portion of that apartment project [City Apartments] during FY 2013. The certificate of occupancy was the trigger, Hewitt said, for releasing the money. A budget revision would be necessary later in the year, he said.

Direct parking expenses were slightly under budget thanks to Republic Parking manager Art Low, Hewitt said. Overall, the numbers are anticipated to being close to budget by the end of the fiscal year.

A lot of maintenance on the parking structures had been done this summer, Hewitt said, but not many bills have shown up yet. He did anticipate spending the budgeted amount of $2.2 or $2.3 million. The housing fund, Hewitt said, is about where he thought it would be. He offered to answer any questions.

Hewitt then reviewed the unaudited income and balance sheet statements for each of the funds. There’s a bit over $1 million in the housing fund, but Hewitt noted that most of that is committed to projects the board has already authorized. The TIF fund balance is $5.3 million, Hewitt said, and the parking fund balance is $3.3 million. The TIF fund is high because the DDA has received almost all the income for the whole year, but not yet incurred the expenses.

Parking Numbers

Roger Hewitt delivered the parking report. For the first quarter of the fiscal year, revenue is up about 8% and hourly patrons are up about 4% compared to the same quarter in the previous year, Hewitt said. In dollar terms, revenue for the first quarter was about $5 million.

Hewitt noted information about weather and the number of University of Michigan football games that might affect the parking activity. He also said there were fewer spaces in the system than a year ago. [7,804 in 2012 compared to 7,727 in 2013. The difference is primarily in the number of on-street spaces and the number of spaces available in the Fifth and William lot due to construction of the Blake Transit Center.]

Keith Orr got clarification that some of the reduction in on-street spaces is due to the use of meter bags.

Revenue per Space: Structures (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA.)

Ann Arbor Public Parking: Patrons (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA)

Ann Arbor Public Parking: Revenue (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA)

Hewitt reviewed a rough draft of a profit and loss statement on each parking structure for the past year. [.pdf of parking structure profit and loss statement FY 2013] He stressed that the information had not been audited. It illustrates that it is solid when considered as an entire system, he said. Newer structures don’t make money until the bonds that funded those structures are paid off, but they’re supported by revenues from other structures and on-street parking spaces, he explained.

As examples, Hewitt gave the Fourth and Washington and the Forest Avenue structures – both of them have lost money even though they have a high rate of occupancy. That’s because the bond payments on them are not yet paid off. Once the bonds are paid off, those structures are expected to become very profitable, he said. That compares to Liberty Square and Ann Ashley – with their bonds paid off, both are very profitable, Hewitt said. Liberty Square, Hewitt said, makes almost $1 million a year.

Russ Collins ventured that there would always be bond payments because there will always be capital maintenance. The expenses are consistent over time if the parking system is properly maintained, Collins said. Hewitt allowed that bond payments would be required if the system expands or needs major capital work.

Collins allowed that there’s a certain value in tracking the bond payments associated with a particular structure. But Collins didn’t want the public to think that at one point all the bonds would be paid off. It’s the DDA’s job to make sure there’s ongoing capital maintenance and investment, Collins said, to look after this capital asset.

Hewitt said that the structures at Maynard Street and Fourth and William aren’t profitable because both have a huge amount of money that has been spent over the years in major reconstruction and expansion. On Maynard, about 10 years ago roughly $11 million had been spent on major reconstruction. Older structures, even with enhanced maintenance, will need major structural improvements. So Hewitt concluded that Collins was right – that a point will not be reached where everything is paid off. It’s a system that needs both routine and major maintenance. He ventured that some of the DDA board members had been around long enough to know what happens when the parking structures are not properly maintained.

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: Bike Share

Keith Orr gave an update on the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) bike share program. CEC will need to request the use of some on-street parking spaces for the bike share stations, Orr reported. A report had been received from B-cycle, the vendor selected for the program, and details are still being worked out. The request will come at the November partnerships committee meeting, with board approval requested in December. He allowed the timeline had slipped a bit. The CEC is still on course for targeting Earth Day in 2014 (April 22) for launch. A name for the bike share program has not yet been decided, Orr said, but a contest to name the program is going on. [The deadline to submit a name is Nov. 15.]

Comm/Comm: Abandoned Bikes

Keith Orr noted that many complaints had been received over the years about abandoned bikes. The DDA has always tried to work with the city on the problem, and now a system has been worked out. A process had been created to identify and remove bikes. Orr described how about 50 junk bikes were removed in October with the help of Republic Parking. There’s now storage for “bikes with value” – so a recovery system is now in place. A “sweep” will likely be conducted on a quarterly basis, Orr said.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt announced the connector study getting closer to the end. [By way of background, 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 further south 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 locations for stations and stops. A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor.]

The following week a series of public meetings would be held, Hewitt reported. The possibilities had been narrowed down to six different alignments, he said, but they can be mixed and matched. Meetings on Nov. 14 are scheduled at 9:30 a.m. at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, at 1 p.m. at the downtown AADL and at 6 p.m. at the library’s Traverwood branch.

Mayor John Hieftje inquired if there had been any discussion of gondolas as a possible mode. Hewitt explained to Hieftje that the consultants were not enthusiastic about that option because of limited capacity. The needed capacity equated to that of a light-rail system, Hewitt said, and a system with gondolas wouldn’t have the needed capacity.

Comm/Comm: NHL Winter Classic

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, reminded the board that she’d mentioned the logistical planning that was going in to preparations for the Winter Classic – an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium.

Pollay said she’d been working with city staff and University of Michigan staff on the preparations. She indicated that the Ann Arbor city council would be asked on Nov. 18 to approve a plan to create transit and parking strategies similar to those that are typically in place for a home football game at Michigan Stadium.

The game is scheduled for New Year’s Day, she noted, when AAATA buses and University of Michigan blue buses aren’t running. The plan will involved charging for use of public parking on that day, when typically no charges would be applied. That will allow people to reserve parking in advance, Pollay said. The idea would be to have as many people park away from the stadium as possible. Arrangements are being made with Briarwood Mall to allow people to part there. Shuttles would be running from hotels, and there’d be downtown shuttles that would stop at parking garages.

The Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is also planning an event – called The Puck Drops Here – for New Year’s Eve, Pollay reported, which is expected to attract around 10,000 people to the downtown area. Michelle Chamuel, who placed second on the most recent season of The Voice, would be performing, Pollay said, well as DJs with a regional draw. Plans are coming together well, Pollay, said, but the city council needs to be comfortable with the logistics decisions.

John Mouat was curious to know how the community has reacted to the upcoming events. Mayor John Hieftje responded to Mouat by saying the downtown marketing task force had received an update from the Ann Arbor Area CVB, and the report was that a lot of people are responding positively, saying that they never really have anything to do on New Year’s Eve. Hieftje noted that Toronto has a population willing to travel, with 45,000 expected to arrive in Ann Arbor on buses. The game is a chance to showcase the city, Hieftje said – and an opportunity for Ann Arbor to really shine. If even 10% of those who attended the game wanted to come back, that would be a really good thing, he said.

Hieftje ventured that Canadians are generally more polite than Americans.

Board chair Sandi Smith asked if the city council needed to pass a resolution to allow for the DDA to charge for parking. Pollay indicated that the Nov. 18 resolution was not about asking permission, but rather just making sure that if there are concerns, those concerns are addressed.

Hieftje felt that the fans who are arriving for the game are paying a whole lot of money for tickets – and they won’t care if they have to pay a bit more for parking. It was important for the DDA to cover its costs, Hieftje said. Keith Orr noted that if the weather is bad for the game, which will be played outdoors at Michigan Stadium, then Jan. 2 would be the back-up date, and it would take place at 7 p.m.

In more detail, the resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

Comm/Comm: IDA Conference

Joan Lowenstein reported that the most recent partnerships committee meeting had included a lot of time debriefing from the International Downtown Association Conference in New York City, which took place from Oct. 6-9. Lowenstein said that as usual, the conference was very valuable and attendees had learned a lot from people all over the country.

Ann Arbor DDA board members Joan Lowenstein and Bob Guenzel.

Some of the topics of sessions attended included nurturing downtown streets, the role of arts and culture, and ways to create metrics of success, Lowenstein said. Most of the attendees were members of business improvement districts (BIDs), she noted. Lowenstein described the possibility that the DDA could become a source of statistics. She said there’s evolving technology to capture pedestrian and vehicle traffic – besides hiring interns to stand on a street corner using counters. She ventured that maybe go!pass and Flocktag could be used to gather data.

Lowenstein also mentioned open space management as a topic. She said that New York City had 57 different BIDs throughout the city. Some of those worked with nonprofits to enliven public spaces. Lowenstein stressed that the spaces in New York City exist through the efforts of organizations. The partnerships committee meeting had included the idea of branding downtown as a whole and the possibility of creating a downtown marketing plan.

Sandi Smith talked a lot about metrics, Lowenstein reported. The DDA’s state of the downtown report is a solid base, she said, but there are ways to be more creative.

About the IDA conference, John Mouat said it was interesting to hear about shifting trends in how people shop. He also enjoyed a visit to the High Line – the elevated park on an abandoned rail line. He described how the High Line goes under a building, leading to a big display by Kindle that includes couches and coffee tables.

Smith responded by noting that the High Line is run by a conservancy, which rents out that space and helps fund other nice things, she said.

Comm/Comm: FOIA

During the Nov. 6 meeting, Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director of the DDA, reported to the board in her capacity as the DDA’s Freedom of Information Act coordinator. She described receiving a FOIA request from [Ann Arbor Chronicle editor] Dave Askins [this reporter] for which the DDA had produced records, but which included some redacted content.

An appeal had been submitted, Pollay reported, and as a result of that appeal, the DDA would produce a “clean copy” of the records as requested in the appeal. Board chair Sandi Smith then stated that it appeared that the DDA has been inundated with requests made under Michigan’s FOIA. She wanted the executive committee of the board to review the FOIA policy and consider refreshing the FOIA policy.

[The appeal concerned the redaction of items like the government email address of a state university employee, which had been inappropriately redacted by the DDA under the statute's exception for unwarranted intrusion into someone's private life.]

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Transit Update

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. She updated board members about a series of public meetings that the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is holding to explain its five-year transit improvement program. Everything is contingent on additional funding, she said.

Comm/Comm: Conquer the Cold

In her remarks to the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting, getDowntown director Nancy Shore plugged the program’s Conquer the Cold commuter workshops and classes. She reported that 80 people had registered for classes this year. Fleeces would be given away for the first 200 people who sign up, she said.

Comm/Comm: Civic Tech Meetup

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti told the board about the Ann Arbor Civic Technology Meetup. It’s an effort he’s started to get citizens involved with technology and the city. The next meeting will take place at Menlo Innovations space on E. Liberty St. on Nov. 25 at 7 p.m. The topic of that meeting would be public data sources, he said.

As an example of using public data sources, Vielmetti reminded the board about an effort that had been made a few years ago to come up with a plan for mobile access to parking availability data. He’d modified that approach and had now developed something for his own use. He said he’d be happy to show everyone. It’s a way to show people which parking facilities are full and which are empty, he said.

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. He told them it was great to see some former colleagues who were still there.

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti.

He wanted to put forward an idea he’d been thinking about for some time, he said, which he’d already mentioned to some people. He suggested that something might be done in the direction of affordable housing on the former Y lot. [The city-owned parcel is locate on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle a possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. At its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, the city council directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the property.]

DeVarti proposed that the Ann Arbor DDA could ante up the money that’s owed on the city’s loan and remove the need to repay the debt as a consideration. That would give the city a range of options, he said, which would provide some leverage to encourage the development of affordable housing at that site or something else, or the land could be used in other ways. He would be willing to work on a committee to try to flesh out some ideas, he said.

Comm/Comm: Ambassador Program

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 the 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 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.

During communications time at the start of the DDA board’s Nov. 6 meeting, Roger Hewitt reported that he, John Splitt, Keith Orr and DDA executive director Susan Pollay had made a field trip to Grand Rapids and met with Grand Rapids DDA director Kris Larson about that city’s ambassador program.

Hewitt said the group had received a lot of information about the Grand Rapids downtown ambassador program. The ambassadors provide directions to help locate businesses and services, call for medical assistance, provide information on parking, provide social service information for people in need, identify and report hazards and contact police. What had caught everyone’s attention, Hewitt said, was that they’d observed an ambassador holding an umbrella over a woman putting money in a parking meter. Hewitt said he thought it was an idea worth pursuing, and that the DDA’s operations committee should take a look at.

Splitt confirmed that he was along for the ride and said he was very impressed by the ambassador program in Grand Rapids. He thought the Ann Arbor DDA should take a serious look at implementing it here. Orr called it a very informative trip. He noted that besides the ambassador program, the trip had included a look at the structural relationship between the Grand Rapids DDA and the city. There was an umbrella organization that did the visioning for a variety of organizations, Orr said, including the DDA. He said it was interesting to see that structure and the success that had resulted from that approach.

Sandi Smith asked if the ambassadors work with Grand Rapids police department. Yes, Orr confirmed, there’s a direct contact between ambassadors and the police, but ambassadors are not deputized in any way. They act as “eyes and ears” for the police department, Orr said. They’re trained differently, with a social services component, so that situations can be diffused, before they become “police situations.”

Hewitt added that the ambassadors are “not assistant cops or anything.” Orr noted that Grand Rapids hires a company that specializes in this type of thing [Block by Block]. Ambassadors are there to help, but not to enforce the law and not to perform police functions.

Smith confirmed with Hewitt that he’d bring a proposal forward through the operations committee. Mouat indicated support for the idea that if someone is having a problem and they contact a social services organization, it goes directly to someone who can help solve the problem without having to involve the police.

Orr followed up on Mouat’s observation by saying it was important to select the right person with the “right beat.” In a geographic area where there were a lot of social services agencies, the ambassador is actually a social worker – because he was able to help people find the services they needed instead of treating it as a police problem. Orr noted that while the ambassadors are not deputized, they do wear uniforms so there’s a perception of added security and that the area is being patrolled.

Russ Collins said he was not on trip to Grand Rapids, but reported that he was aware of an ambassador program in Schenectady, New York that works with Schenectady’s equivalent of Ann Arbor’s Delonis Center, a shelter for the homeless. He said that the Schenectady program provided a transitional employment opportunity.

Comm/Comm: Ashley Terrace On-Street Parking

Theodore Marentis addressed the board during public commentary at the start of the meeting on behalf of the 111 N. Ashley Condominium Association. He’s vice president of the board of that group. He described the building as located across from the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. He wanted to talk to the board about one or perhaps half a space of on-street parking. He said there’s a parking shortage due to the higher density of the building – with its 100 units of residential space.

It’s hard for people to drop off kids or things they’ve purchased while out shopping during the day or in the evenings, Marentis said. That’s because they don’t have control of the space right by the entrance to the building. They’d be content if even half of the space could be given over to the building for its control. Marentis suggested some system of a windshield card that could control use of the space, and pointed to the residential parking permit areas located to the north of the building as an example of the regulation of on-street parking that already exists in the area. His board had sent him to address the DDA, and he told the board that the condo association was open to discussion.

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

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, 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!

DDA board member Sandi Smith. (Photos by the writer)

The meeting did not feature one of its typical highlights – discussion of the monthly parking report. However, the data was released to the public at the meeting, and it was mentioned that the data was now available to the public in draft form.

So this meeting report adds that provisional parking data to the data set that The Chronicle maintains – to chart the activity in Ann Arbor’s public parking system as the DDA measures it.

Highlights from public commentary included appreciation from representatives of the Neutral Zone for grants the organization has received from the DDA. The board also heard an update – during public commentary and in its committee reports – on a proposal to install an artificial ice rink on top of the new Library Lane underground parking garage.

Committee reports included updates on a possible economic development task force initiated by Ward 2 city councilmember Sally Petersen. Other updates included getDowntown’s commuter challenge, which takes place during the month of May, and the opening of the “Bike House” bicycle parking facility inside the Maynard parking structure.

Parking Data

The monthly parking report is a typical highlight of board meetings. Because the full board meeting falls on the first Wednesday of the month, the monthly report presented to the board is not from the immediately previous month, but rather for the month before that. So for the May 1, 2013 meeting, the monthly parking report would be expected to cover March 2013.

Parking Data: Background for March 2013

At the May 1 meeting, Sandi Smith raised the point that the board had by the time of the meeting received the monthly parking data from March 2013. Keith Orr noted that the operations committee meeting from the previous week had been cancelled – which is when the data would normally be reviewed. He said there was some concern about getting that data out. Anyone from the public can see it, he said, but he cautioned that the report had not been vetted, let alone proofread.

By way of background, the concern about getting the data out arose from an informal request from The Chronicle made on Monday, April 29 for the March 2013 parking report. DDA staff refused to provide it, based on the cancellation of the operations committee meeting, where the data is reviewed. Staff contended that the data could be released only through the DDA board.

When The Chronicle then made a formal request for the routine monthly report under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, DDA executive director Susan Pollay responded by asserting the DDA’s right under the statute to claim an extension of 10 business days beyond the standard 5-day response period.

That would have shielded the report from public view until the third week of May. On May 1, however, Sandi Smith handed the report to The Chronicle before the board meeting started. And Pollay followed with a formal response to the request made under Michigan’s FOIA, providing the document by email later in the day on May 1.

Parking Data: Parking Picture

Adding the provisional data from March 2013 shows that activity in Ann Arbor’s public parking system is consistent with the seasonal patterns over the last four years.

The two main measures used by the DDA to track overall activity in the public parking system are actually proxies for the number of parking hours used in the system: revenue and number of hourly patrons. An hourly patron is someone who pays by the hour in a structure or in a surface lot – as contrasted with someone who pays for a monthly permit.

Since 2009, revenue has shown increases year-over-year for the same month. Parking rate increases account for at least some of that additional revenue. And since September 2012, the total parking system inventory has been increased by the completion of the new underground parking garage at Library Lane. The new garage offers 738 spaces compared to the 194 spaces provided by the surface parking lot where it was built.

Chart 1: Ann Arbor public parking system – total revenue.

The number of patrons over the last four years has shown relatively flat performance within the seasonal pattern:

Chart 2: Ann Arbor public parking system – hourly patrons.

The top-performing facilities in terms of gross revenue per space continue to be surface parking lots – the lot at Huron/Ashley/First (aka Brown Block) as well as the Kline lot (red and blue lines in Chart 3). While the Brown Block lot has historically outperformed the Kline lot, over the last year the gap between the two lots seems to be growing:

Chart 3: Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue per space – surface lots.

However, those two surface lots – or surface lots in general – don’t make up a significant percentage of the revenue for the whole system. It’s metered parking (on-street) that makes up the largest part of the revenue in the parking system (black line in Chart 4):

Chart 4: Ann Arbor public parking system – total revenue by facility. Metered parking revenue is in black. Structured parking facilities are shown in shades of red. Surface facilities are shown in shades of green.

Even though metered parking is the largest revenue component in the Ann Arbor public parking system, on a revenue-per-space basis, it’s one of the weakest performing facilities. The new Library Lane garage, on a revenue-per-space basis, now exceeds that of the performance of parking meters:

Chart 5: Ann Arbor public parking system – focus on structures.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s May 1 meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Neutral Zone

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Jon Weise introduced himself as the executive director of the Neutral Zone. He thanked the DDA for all the support and partnership that the DDA had provided to the Neutral Zone over the last several years. He highlighted the Neutral Zone’s participation in the DDA’s energy savings grant program – which pays for an energy audit and a percentage of energy improvements to a property. He reported a 25% savings in energy costs as a result of that program. And year and a half ago, the Neutral Zone had again approached the DDA for some help in redoing the driveway. The DDA had helped to broker an arrangement with the contractors who are in town working on streets and roads. “We are thrilled to be here and to thank you and to tell you how much we love the DDA,” Weise said.

Mary Thiefels introduced herself as the visual arts coordinator at the Neutral Zone. She had a long history of public art in Ann Arbor and in southern Michigan, she told the board. She was trying to extend public art opportunities to the youth of the community, she said. She wanted to provide a preliminary report on activity associated with the program. Applications had been sent out to all the youth at the Neutral Zone, she said, and there were seven applicants. It’s being set up as a work-study type arrangement, she said. A site will be chosen – most likely one of the railroad underpasses. The youth will submit a proposal and develop a budget and a timeline, she said, and will document the process. A final press release will be sent out when it concludes with an unveiling of the project. Thiefels wanted the youth to have a full-circle experience of ownership and design, learning how to talk about what they want to create and following through.

Comm/Comm: shur!

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Dave MacNamara addressed the board on behalf of himself and Omari Rush for “shur! Live, Work, and Play Better.” He told the board he was not there to complain but rather to thank the DDA for what it does. The shur! series involves young professionals who want to be downtown and who want to start local businesses. He told the board that young professionals like him were there to stay. He wanted to help promote what the DDA does, to give Ann Arbor an edge.

Comm/Comm: Ice Rink

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Alan Haber gave the board an update on his group’s proposal for a temporary artificial ice skating rink to be installed on top of the Library Lane underground parking garage. They’d met with the DDA’s partnerships committee. Members of that committee had given his group a number of questions to pursue. His group had also held a meeting with the city attorney’s office, to see if it’s possible to use the top of the underground structure for other purposes besides parking. There was a possibility that the contract – under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, on behalf of the city – might need to be amended, Haber said.

Haber said that some city councilmembers are working on a resolution that might change the zoning of the surface lot from public land parking to public land non-parking. Another question from the city attorney involved the legal form of the entity that Haber’s group would need to form – a nonprofit or a cooperative. Haber said his group was asked to look at a comparable rink in Boulder, Colorado. He reported that people seem to like that rink and it gets a lot of publicity. The rink had been established by the Boulder equivalent of the Ann Arbor DDA, Haber said. Haber told the board that his group was hoping to have a two-year pro forma, for initial operation of the rink over a two-year period. He said his group had talked to the library board about the security issues. [Haber and Stewart Gordon had made a presentation to the Ann Arbor District Library board's April 15, 2013 meeting.]

In her report from the DDA partnerships committee, Sandi Smith confirmed the committee did have a presentation from Haber’s group about the potential ice skating rink on the Library Lane lot. The committee continues to have questions about financial aspects and security. At this point, there were more questions than answers, she felt. The committee had sent the group back to the drawing board, Smith said – adding that the group’s proposal needed to have more flesh on the bone.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Citizens Advisory Council

Ray Detter gave his monthly report on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. He invited everyone to an annual downtown potluck party that he helps to host at his home. [The two addresses on the invitation are 120 and 126 N. Division.] This year the potluck falls on June 6, starting at 6:30 p.m.

Detter then described what the downtown citizens advisory council is. Members are appointed by the mayor and city council, he said. The only qualification is to live in the DDA district. The group meets in city hall, typically on the day before the full meetings of the DDA board. Detter reported to the board that there are 11 active members of the CAC, and there’s a limit of 15. Detter announced that if anyone wants to join, the council would be glad to have them.

He highlighted the Downtown Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibit Program as a project that the citizens advisory council had initiated. This year from May 15-16, 600 high school students would be visiting downtown Ann Arbor to participate in one of 13 tours that would be conducted over the two days.

Comm/Comm: Cinetopia

During the time for communications from DDA board members, Russ Collins, who’s executive director of the Michigan Theater, stated simply: “Go to Cinetopia!” Cinetopia is an international film festival that takes place in Ann Arbor and Detroit from June 6-9 this year.

Comm/Comm: Economic Development

Sandi Smith, in her report from the partnerships committee, said that Ward 2 city councilmember Sally Petersen had attended the last committee meeting.

DDA board member Joan Lowenstein and mayor John Hieftje, who also serves on the board.

Petersen had floated an idea for an economic development task force with membership from the DDA, Ann Arbor SPARK, and city councilmembers – to look at goals and tactics. Smith said she didn’t think the proposal had been presented to the council yet. Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, indicated that it would likely be on the May 20 city council meeting agenda.

Joan Lowenstein added that the partnerships committee would be getting an update from Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko about SPARK’s work plan and how the DDA can work more with SPARK. Lowenstein said the DDA has been working with SPARK all along. So she thought that the update from Krutko would cover projects that the DDA and SPARK could continue to work on together.

Comm/Comm: Commuter Challenge

Reporting from the operations committee, Keith Orr noted that May 1 was the first day of getDowntown’s commuter challenge. So far this year 1,400 people have registered, from 232 organizations. He reported that DDA staff are also participating, as well as some DDA board members. It’s not too late to sign up, he said. His own restaurant, the \aut\ BAR, is also participating, Orr said.

Comm/Comm: Bike House

Keith Orr reported from the operations committee that the “bike house” would be launching May 17. Two parking spaces in the Maynard parking structure are being converted to a walled-off secure location for bicycle parking. The capacity of the bike house will be 37 bicycles, Orr reported. It’s hard to miss, he said, with its lime green walls. “As we speak, the hoops are going in.” He gave May 17 as the official launch date, which is Bike-to-Work day. Cupcakes would be served, he said.

Russ Collins quipped that he was disappointed that the bike house is so aesthetically pleasing. [Previous descriptions of the new facility had called it a "bike cage."] It means that there would be no opportunity for a cage fight fundraiser, say between Bob Guenzel and Ken Fisher, Collins joked.

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein.

Absent: Roger Hewitt, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, June 7, 2013, 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 location of the 624 Church St. project is indicated with a red pushpin. Locations of structures in Ann Arbor’s public parking system are indicated with blue Ps.

Most recently, at the Dec. 19 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, the discussion focused on location: For which of the six public parking structures would monthly permits be sold? The developer of the 624 Church St. project would prefer that the project be allowed to buy permits in the Forest parking structure.

The Forest facility, a joint venture of the DDA and the University of Michigan, is the structure closest to the proposed residential development. According to the developer’s Nov. 28 submittal to the city, the 13-story project would include more than 80,000 square feet of new floor area with the following configuration of apartments: 11 one-bedroom; 21 two-bedroom; 33 three-bedroom; and 11 four-bedroom units. That’s a total of 76 apartments, with 196 bedrooms.

The developer, Opus Development Corp., has already won approval from the DDA’s board to satisfy the project’s parking requirement without providing onsite spaces – by instead using the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The CIL provides an option to purchase monthly permits, but the cost is at a rate 20% higher than standard pricing.

Discussion by the DDA operations committee on Dec. 19 centered around the issue of fairness: Would allowing the purchase of permits in the Forest structure give the developer of the 624 Church St. project an unfair competitive advantage in the South University area rental market? Raising the fairness issue was DDA board member Roger Hewitt, who owns Revive + Replenish, which is a tenant in the ground floor of the Zaragon Place on East University. Zaragon is a nine-story apartment building with almost 250 bedrooms, catering to the student rental market.

Other board members did not perceive the issue to be problematic, from the perspective of fairness to already-existing projects. And Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, pointed out that the decision to allow a project to purchase monthly parking permits is a tool that’s available to the DDA to help make a private development possible that otherwise would not be. In the case of 624 Church St., building parking spaces on that site isn’t feasible. Hewitt was concerned that the strategy – if the DDA allowed permits to be purchased at a structure very near to projects – might result in an incentive for developers in the future not to build any onsite parking.

The committee’s discussion was inconclusive, but committee members indicated they wanted to develop a formal policy on which parking structures would be chosen for monthly permits sold under the CIL program. The 624 Church St. project is due to come before the city planning commission on Jan. 15, so the developer would prefer to have the issue settled by then. But given the DDA’s desire first to establish a policy that would guide this and future decisions, it’s unlikely it will be finalized as early as mid-January.

Based on the committee’s discussion, capacity in the parking system does not appear currently to be a limiting factor on selling CIL permits. The committee also reviewed the latest monthly parking data, which shows continued increased usage of the new underground garage, Library Lane.

Revenues per space in the Library Lane structure are now beginning to approach those of on-street parking spaces, but are still the lowest of any facility in the system. That’s due in part to a discounted rate offered to induce holders of permits in other structures to move to Library Lane.

Also of interest at the operations committee meeting was a draft policy for holding events on top of the Library Lane structure, including the closure of the mid-block cut-through, Library Lane itself.

624 Church: Additional Background on CIL

The D1 zoning for the 624 Church St. project doesn’t actually include any parking requirements – as long as the total floor area does not exceed 400% FAR (floor area ratio). But as proposed, the project comes in at 665% FAR. And to get the extra 265% FAR as a by-right premium, the city’s requirement of 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of additional floor area works out to 40 parking spaces.

The DDA board had already voted, on Oct. 3, 2012, to authorize the parking spaces – somewhere in the system. It’s the first time the policy has been applied. It’s not the same mechanism that was used to provide Google an incentive to locate some of its offices in downtown Ann Arbor. Parking spaces were offered to Google on a subsidized basis. What’s at issue for 624 Church St. is the ability to purchase monthly permits by paying a premium rate.

A mechanism for new developments in downtown Ann Arbor to meet minimum parking requirements – without providing onsite spaces – has been part of the city’s downtown planning and development policy for a little more than three years. The city council adopted new zoning for the downtown on Nov. 18, 2009.

And the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the public parking system under contract with the city, had approved its recommendation of a specific CIL policy more than two years ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting.

The city council then formally adopted the DDA’s recommended policy, at its April 2, 2012 meeting, with the policy’s 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 exercising.

Current standard pricing of permits at Forest is $145 a month. At the CIL rate, the cost would be $174 a month.

624 Church: Committee Discussion on Location

Roger Hewitt raised two issues of concern to him – fairness and the unintended consequence of giving an incentive to developers not to provide onsite parking spaces. He also felt there could potentially be a legal liability for the DDA.

On the fairness question, Susan Pollay – executive director of the DDA – indicated that the kind of judgments involved were already being made in the context of the DDA’s regular monthly parking permits program. She wondered what the legal liability could be. Hewitt responded by saying that if a developer spends millions of extra dollars to add parking spaces to a project, and a different developer in the future simply asks the DDA to purchase monthly permits, the project that’s been granted the right to satisfy parking requirements by purchasing permits could become a more profitable project.

Hewitt feared the DDA would be incentivizing developers not to build onsite parking spaces. So he floated the idea that if N spaces were required, then only some percentage of N would be provided in a structure located close to the project. For example, he said, if the project needs 40 spaces, then perhaps 10% – or four spaces – would be provided in a location close to the project, with the rest provided elsewhere in the system.

Pollay again questioned whether there was any actual legal liability. DDA board member Joan Lowenstein, an attorney, indicated she didn’t think there was a legal problem – and the matter of fairness was one that’s to be addressed through an administrative process.

Hewitt reiterated his position – he was worried that in the future, because of the availability of the monthly permit options, “nobody builds parking.” DDA board member John Splitt ventured that it’s not completely clear whether a project that satisfies its parking requirement through the purchase of monthly permits would be more profitable than one that builds onsite spaces. He said the DDA doesn’t know what the return on the investment for a private developer is – one who charges residents for the use of an onsite parking space – to build those spaces. Hewitt ventured that the return is less than building “student dorm space.”

Pollay noted that the DDA was established to encourage new development, to increase TIF (tax increment financing), and that the contribution in lieu (CIL) of parking is specifically designed to encourage residential development. She stated that the only way the 624 Church St. project could be built – due to constraints of the site configuration – is if the CIL program were available.

DDA board member Leah Gunn noted that the only open question is the location of the monthly permits – because the board had already voted to allow 624 Church St. to purchase monthly permits somewhere in the system. She wondered if it were possible to sell some of the permits in the Forest structure and some elsewhere.

The conversation circled back to the question of fairness. Pollay asked if Hewitt was worried about fairness with respect to future projects or current projects? Hewitt seemed to indicate that fairness would dictate that existing projects should also have the option to obtain permits under the CIL program. Pollay stated that projects like Landmark and Zaragon Place are already built – so she didn’t see it as a fairness problem.

Landmark and Zaragon have onsite parking spaces, and those developments are renting the spaces to their tenants, Pollay noted. So Pollay said it seemed to her like those projects built parking spaces onsite because they chose to. Lowenstein ventured that it’s a competitive market, so the availability of onsite parking could be an advantage.

On the issue of fairness, Gunn asked if it was fair for Google’s parking permits to be subsidized initially, but not the parking spaces for Barracuda Networks. She allowed that employees of Barracuda are still getting a deal, because of the discount that the DDA has applied (for anyone, not just for Barracuda) to the cost of permits in the new underground Library Lane structure.

Gunn came back to her point that the DDA had already determined that the public parking system had adequate capacity to sell 40 permits to the 624 Church St. project. The only question is where, she said. Responding to concerns voiced again by Hewitt, Splitt suggested that the question of location could require “a bit more of a deeper dive.” Splitt didn’t want the choice of location for the permits to translate into a disincentive to construct onsite parking spaces.

Pollay suggested putting off a decision and asking city planning staff for their input. She suggested forming a subcommittee. Gunn wanted clarification: Would the subcommittee focus just on the 40 permits for 624 Church St.? Hewitt stated that the subcommittee should work on a general policy on location, saying, “We need a policy to defend in public.” Splitt wondered if it might not be possible to approve the 40 spaces for 624 Church St. in a particular location without the general policy. Pollay suggested that it might be worth hearing from the DDA’s legal counsel.

Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer, attended the operations committee meeting. He told committee members that it was an interesting conversation. He felt that developers prefer to build parking spaces on site, if they can, and suspected they make money on those spaces. He felt that allowing the purchase of monthly permits in a nearby structure would not be a disincentive to build spaces on site. He pointed out that the CIL program requires the payment of a premium – 20% more than the prevailing standard cost. That 20% was not huge, he allowed, but it’s real.

Munzel suggested an approach where the DDA could agree to sell 40 permits now in the Forest structure, but reserve the right “to boot them out” to a different structure in the future. That might be a way to make people feel more comfortable, he ventured.

A question from DDA board member Keith Orr drew out the fact that the parking permit contract under the CIL program was for 15 years. Pollay indicated that the idea was that in 15 years, it was hoped that the transit system of the future would be so robust that parking requirements for new developments would be zero.

Gunn then asked Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, where he’d choose to sell the permits. Economically, Morehouse said, it would be better to sell the permits for the Forest structure – compared to the Maynard and Liberty Square structures. The $29 added to the $145 for a standard monthly permit at Forest would yield more in a year than hourly parking typically does at Forest, he said. But the location where the permits would benefit the system most would be at Fourth and William, he said.

By way of additional background, there are currently 101 monthly permits for the Forest structure assigned by the DDA. But the University of Michigan has access to one-third of the 854 spaces there. UM affiliates with an appropriate parking pass can enter the structure until the one-third limit is reached.

Munzel noted that the city planning commission would have the 624 Church St. project on its agenda on Jan. 15, 2013. The parking requirement, met through the CIL program, would be part of the development agreement, which will be part of the site plan approval process, he noted. Munzel felt that Opus Development Corp. wouldn’t necessarily “have heartburn” if the location was not settled by the Jan. 15 planning commission meeting. Munzel felt it wouldn’t be a problem to say, “The DDA is still considering it.” It would, however, be easier to say, “This is what’s been decided,” Munzel said. It would need to be decided by the time a final approval is given by the city council, he said.

Varsity: Also Asking for CIL

At the Dec. 19 meeting of the DDA operations committee, it was noted that the Varsity development is also looking for four monthly permits under the CIL program. The project, located on East Washington Street, is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 persons with 77 parking spaces. Construction on the project is well underway.

Roger Hewitt’s reaction to the news that the Varsity was requesting four CIL spaces was: “How’d they get almost done and then find out they needed spaces?” Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning specialist, explained that the Varsity thought it had a viable agreement with Zipcar to contract for spaces, to satisfy part of the parking requirement.

In response to an emailed query, Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson essentially confirmed that understanding, writing that the Varsity had proposed to locate two car share spaces (Zipcar) in a surface parking lot on the property it owns west of the Varsity. One car share space is equal to four required parking spaces.

That would add eight spaces to the total provided by the Varsity, even though the Varsity only needs to provide an additional six spaces. Rampson believed that because the Varsity was not able to reach an agreement with Zipcar, the developer is now requesting four monthly permits from the DDA under the CIL program. The four permits, with the two spaces on the west parcel, add up to the six additional spaces that the Varsity needs to fulfill its additional parking requirement.

Monthly Parking Data

At its Dec. 19 meeting, the DDA operations committee received the regular report of parking revenues broken down by facility. At the Dec. 5, 2012 meeting of the full board, DDA board member Roger Hewitt indicated that the format of monthly parking reports would be changed to include more detailed data. That change has not yet been implemented. Currently, the DDA uses revenue and total numbers of hourly patrons as an imperfect proxy to gauge use of the system.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Hourly patrons in November 2012 (green trend line) showed a slight increase over November 2011, after showing a four-year low in September and mid-range numbers in October, compared to the last three years. Compared to last year, the number of parking spaces in the system has increased from 6,995 to 7,806, mostly due to the construction of the Library Lane structure, with its 700+ spaces.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue continues to show higher levels than last year in the same month – due at least in part to higher rates, hourly billing instead of half-hourly, and around 800 additional spaces in the system compared to last year. Revenues from October to November this year showed a slight downward trend, as they have in each of the last three years.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue per space in structures. The Forest structure (yellow trend line) is historically somewhat volatile, as it’s subject to the rhythms of the University of Michigan academic schedule. That’s the structure where the 624 Church St. project would like to purchase 40 monthly parking permits, instead of building the spaces on site. Library Lane (black trend line) showed continued increases in usage, with revenues per space approaching those of the on-street parking spaces (gray trend line).

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenues per space in surface lots. Revenues at the old Y lot at Fifth and William (purple trend line) reflect the onset of Library Lane construction, which removed the surface parking there, and later, the opening of the new Library Lane parking structure.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenues per space. Systemwide (heavy black trend line) the system showed a slight decline from October to November in revenues per space, as it has in past years.

Events on Top of Library Lane

At its Dec. 19 meeting, the operations committee was also provided with a draft of ideas for a policy on special events at the Library Lane mid-block cut-through and the top of the Library Lane parking garage.

The preamble to the draft includes the expectation that the site would eventually include a building with public open space:

The structural component of the underground Library Lane structure was designed to anticipate the construction of a future building and a future public open space area. In the meanwhile, until such time as these elements are designed and constructed, the DDA is supportive of community groups using the Library Lane surface parking lot and the adjoining Library Lane for events, public gatherings and meetings.

In the draft, the main bureaucratic requirement is approval by the city of Ann Arbor for a special events permit, which currently costs $34. There would also be an insurance requirement and the need to agree in advance to pay for any damages. Event organizers would not be allowed to drive stakes into the surface of the site. Trash is required to be removed from the site after an event. No water is available, and the use of power generators would not be allowed.

In some of the smattering of conversation on the issue, DDA board member Keith Orr ventured that he thought it’d be interesting to see a Bottom of the Park-type event, hosted on the lowest level of the underground garage – a play on the name of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival‘s “Top of the Park.”

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!

Left to right: DDA board member Sandi Smith, Ann Arbor Housing Commission executive director Jennifer L. Hall, and DDA board chair Leah Gunn. (Photos by the writer.)

And board members voted unanimously to support the resolution, which DDA board member Sandi Smith had brought forward. Smith, who also represents Ward 1 on the Ann Arbor city council, is planning to bring the policy resolution to the council for consideration at its Sept. 17 meeting.

DDA board members were positively inclined toward their own resolution, but sought to clarify that the “proceeds” meant net proceeds – that is, whatever is left after any debt associated with city-owned land is paid off. The loan for the city’s acquisition of the former YMCA lot, for example, still has a principal of $3.5 million associated with it. Smith indicated at the meeting that the resolution she brings to the council might involve the DDA forgoing the repayment on investments it has made in city-owned property – like interest payments on the former YMCA lot or the demolition costs associated with that property.

The board also made an amendment to the resolution during the meeting, adding the phrase “a percentage of [proceeds].” The change gives the council flexibility to adopt a policy that doesn’t require the entire amount of the net proceeds to be directed to the affordable housing trust fund.

At the Sept. 5 meeting, the board also heard a request from the executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Jennifer L. Hall, for a $260,000 allocation from the DDA’s own housing fund. The DDA has a housing fund that’s not necessarily dedicated to affordable housing. But the request Hall was making was for Baker Commons, a public housing project located within the DDA’s geographic district, at Packard and Main. The money would primarily go toward replacing the roof with one made of metal.

The board also got its regular update on the parking system. The basic message: revenue is up, and usage is up. The board also had a look at the unaudited financial figures for the end of fiscal year 2012, which concluded on June 30. Except for capital expenses, which were less than budgeted, most categories were on target. The DDA had budgeted all expenses for the new Library Lane parking structure for that fiscal year, but not all invoices have come in yet.

The board was also updated on a possible change to the way that transportation planning and funding takes place in Washtenaw County. Discussions by the policy board of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) suggest the  possibility that Washtenaw County could form its own metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Currently, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), which includes a total of seven counties, serves as the MPO  for Washtenaw County. The change would affect how federal transportation funding is administered locally.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policy

The board was asked to consider a resolution encouraging the Ann Arbor city council to adopt a policy on proceeds from the sale of city-owned land – one that would allocate such proceeds into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The city council’s resolution will be considered at that body’s Sept. 17 meeting. It’s being brought forward by Sandi Smith, who serves on both the city council and the DDA board.

The policy has a long history dating back to 1996. The policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Commentary

Reporting from the downtown citizens advisory council, Ray Detter told the board that the CAC had also discussed the DDA’s resolution on using proceeds from city-owned land sales to support affordable housing. Members of the CAC have always supported affordable housing, he said.

But Detter cautioned the DDA and the city council that the CAC is committed to maintaining and improving the existing low-income housing in the downtown – whether it’s in the form of the Delonis Center homeless shelter, the housing commission’s Baker Commons, or the privately-owned Courthouse Square. The CAC supports rehabbing existing units rather than tearing down existing affordable housing to build new units, Detter said.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Board Discussion

Sandi Smith introduced her resolution by telling her DDA board colleagues that on Sept. 17 she would be bringing forward a resolution to city council that would direct the proceeds of the sale of city-owned property into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

She observed that, “We have not had a tremendous amount of success in building affordable housing.” It’s something she has watched the community struggle with, she said, during her time serving on the DDA board and on the city council.

The funds need to come from somewhere, she stressed. She contended that insufficient affordable housing units are being provided in downtown and near downtown. The recent failure of the Near North project hammers the point home, she said. So she wanted to ask for the DDA board’s support in bringing the city council’s resolution forward. She allowed that the city council resolution was not yet in final draft form, so there is some ambiguity about it.

The details are not 100% clear, Smith allowed, but the request for the DDA’s part is to say that the DDA agrees with the overall concept – and that the DDA is willing to forgo some payback on some investments that the DDA has made in city-owned properties. As an example, Smith gave the portion of the ongoing interest payments the DDA has made on the loan used to purchase the old YMCA building. The DDA would be forgoing repayment of that interest. [Those payments total about $140,000 annually, half of which have been paid by the DDA and half by the city of Ann Arbor. The property was purchased in late 2003, and the building was subsequently demolished. It's now a surface parking lot.]

Roger Hewitt wanted clarification that the “proceeds” of any sale would be considered after the payment of any debt attached to the property. Smith pointed out it’s not a benefit to the city to leave a debt unpaid with nothing behind it – saying that would not make a lot of sense. Proceeds would be construed as “net” proceeds, she said. Hewitt indicated that he was comfortable with that. He also pointed out that the DDA’s resolution was an advisory resolution only – because it’s ultimately a city council decision.

John Mouat indicated his support for the notion, saying it was a terrific idea. But obviously, he said, the “devil is in the details.” From his perspective, he would prefer to see the proceeds from city-owned land sales not simply go into the general fund.

Mouat also wanted to see some consideration given to the fact that the DDA is still working on the Connecting William Street project – looking at five city-owned parcels and what uses would eventually be made of those parcels. [Recent Chronicle coverage of a DDA presentation to the planning commission: "Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project."]

Some of the things that people have said they want out of those parcels, Mouat continued, include performance space, parks, good architecture, sustainability. So the community vision for those parcels still needs to be determined, he said. [For response to Connecting William Street from the city's park advisory commission, see Chronicle coverage: "Park Commissioners: More Green, Please."]

Mouat also pointed out there might be some things the city needs to provide as incentives – to help realize the community’s vision for those parcels. So he liked the concept of reinvesting the proceeds of the sale in those parcels themselves or putting proceeds into the affordable housing trust fund.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the city council resolution will only be as strong as the six councilmembers [a simple majority on the 11-member body] who sit around the table at the time. He also pointed out that there are other capital needs that might come along. In that context, he suggested an amendment to include the phrase “a percentage of [the proceeds].”

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the DDA board approved the resolution encouraging the city council to adopt a policy directing a percentage of the proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission: New Roof

During public commentary at the start of the DDA board’s meeting, Jennifer L. Hall – executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission – addressed the board. She discussed a request for $260,000 from the DDA’s housing fund, the bulk of which would be put toward the replacement of the roof of Baker Commons.

By way of background, the DDA’s housing fund is not the same fund as the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The DDA’s housing fund receives money through transfers from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) fund. It currently has a balance of about $1 million – $400,000 of which is committed to Village Green’s City Apartments project, and another $500,000 of which had been committed to Avalon Housing’s Near North project. It was recently announced that Near North will not go forward.

Baker Commons roof. View is looking to the south, across the intersection of Packard and Main streets.

Hall noted that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission is the public housing authority for the city of Ann Arbor, which has jurisdiction for about 360 city-owned units. The housing commission also administers about 1,400 federal housing vouchers for the entire Washtenaw County.

Ninety percent or more of the population served by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission are extremely low-income residents, Hall said. Most of the people who live in housing commission units are disabled or elderly and many of them do not have jobs. So it’s really the lowest income folks in the community who are served by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Hall said.

The housing commission has only one property within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district, Hall explained – Baker Commons, on the corner of Packard and Main streets. So she wanted to make a request to fund a current urgent need: a roof for Baker Commons.

The roof has had ongoing leaking problems, and the housing commission has undertaken periodic patches. However, in the last year or so it is gotten much worse, Hall reported. There has been leakage into housing units and damage to the roof trusses, she explained. For all of the housing units, the commission is trying to move towards doing more long-term cost savings – so rather than replacing the Baker Commons roof with an asphalt roof, they explored using a product that would last longer and realize long-term savings.

So the housing commission went out and got a bid for a steel roof, which came back at $246,000. There are many advantages to a steel roof, Hall said. The only real disadvantage is the increased upfront cost, she explained – which is about three times more than an asphalt roof. On the other hand, she said such a roof can last forever – as long as you keep repainting it. The original guarantee is 20 years for the roof, and as long as you keep repainting it, you should never have to take it down to replace it.

From left: Jennifer Hall appears to be showing Leah Gunn how steep the Baker Commons roof is.

Hall noted that the roof of the building has an extremely steep pitch, so it is a very expensive project to replace the roof no matter what kind of roof is put on – because it’s a high-rise building with such a steep pitch. The commission would like to replace it once, and then have it last for a very, very long time, she said. Some of the benefits for the steel roof include: no off-gas; resistance to wind, fire, mildew, insects and rot; extended life for air-conditioning units; decrease in attic temperatures; and decreased energy use overall. It decreases the heat-island effect. Hall also pointed out that the product that the housing commission has chosen was made in Michigan.

A few additional items, for which Hall requested funding, fell into the category of energy-saving devices – programmable thermostats and occupancy sensors for interior lighting in common areas. The programmable thermostats are estimated to save $50 per year for each of the one-bedroom units in Baker Commons. The sensors would be estimated to save around $770 a year.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission: Board Response

Mayor John Hieftje made remarks generally supportive of Hall’s to request on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. He said the 30-year funding trend across the nation for housing commissions was downward.

Board chair Leah Gunn suggested referring Hall’s proposal to the DDA’s partnerships committee.

Outcome: This was not an action item, and no vote was taken.

FY 2012 Financial Statements

Roger Hewitt gave an update on the financial reports for the end of the fiscal year, which concluded on June 30, 2012. The figures are as yet not audited, but the DDA is ready for the audit to take place, Hewitt said. There was not too much variation between the budget as amended in May 2012 and the final figures, Hewitt reported. The one area where a considerable difference appears is in capital expenses.

It’s a legal requirement that the DDA show positive budget numbers for the year, Hewitt explained. So for that reason, all conceivable capital expenses related to the new underground parking structure were included in the past fiscal year’s budget, even though the DDA did not expect that they would all need to be paid that year. That way, the DDA made sure that it remained within the letter of the law. [Last year, the DDA's auditor had noted an overage as a violation of Michigan's Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act, which was due to a construction invoice submitted late in the year.]

So the major variations between the end-of-year figures in the budget were capital expenses that were budgeted but not actually expended. Those expenses will come due in the current fiscal year, Hewitt pointed out. [.pdf of end-of-year FY 2012 statements]

TIF (tax increment finance) fund income was very close to what had been budgeted, Hewitt said, as were TIF operating expenses. TIF capital expenses were about $2.4 million less than budgeted. But that money will be spent in the current fiscal year, he cautioned. The parking fund showed a similar situation, he continued. Parking revenue was very close to what had been budgeted. But about $800,000 was not spent, which had been in the parking fund budget – it will be spent in the current fiscal year. For the parking maintenance fund, about $1.4 million was not spent, but will be spent in the current fiscal year. For the housing fund, interest rates were a little bit higher than expected, so there was a bit more income than budgeted.

Hewitt then ticked through the fund balances for four funds in the DDA’s budget. The TIF fund has a little over $3.6 million. The housing fund has a little over $1 million. The parking fund balance is about $2.1 million. And the parking maintenance stands at about $1.6 million. Some additional money will be spent on the completion of the Library Lane underground parking structure, he allowed, but the total fund balance is such that it could comfortably take care of those additional expenses.

Parking Report

The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. That contract pays the city 17% of gross revenues. The DDA in turn subcontracts out the day-to-day operations of the system to Republic Parking. So the monthly parking report is part of every DDA board meeting.

Parking Report: Monthly, Quarterly Numbers

The update on the parking system was delivered by board member Roger Hewitt. The trend that the DDA has seen for the last 12 months – and increasingly so in the last six months – Hewitt said, has been significantly higher revenues. That’s attributable to increased usage and also partly due to rate increases, he said. But the majority of the increase in revenue, he contended, was a function of greater usage of the parking system.

In June 2012, revenues were up 19% over June 2012 June 2011, while the number of hourly patrons for the same period was up 2.65%. Hewitt concluded that the hourly patrons are staying longer. Of the 19%, Hewitt estimated 6-8% is the amount of the rate increase. So he concluded there was a 10% increase in revenue attributable to increased usage. Hewitt concluded that it’s fortunate that the new Library Lane underground structure is open, because there is clearly demand for parking.

For the fourth quarter, Hewitt continued, revenue in the parking system was up 14% – with hourly patrons just about level. For the last 12 months revenues are up 12% – two-thirds of which was due to rate increases and the balance of which was increase in usage, Hewitt said. Hourly patron numbers for that period were up only about 2%, so the hourly patrons are staying longer, he concluded.

Hewitt concluded that demand and the financial condition of the parking system are very strong. The initial numbers for the first 10 days that the new structure had been open, Hewitt said, were 4,000 hourly patrons in the first week, which meant $45,000 of revenue.

By way of background on rate increases, the DDA board approved additional rate increases on Jan. 4, 2012. Some of those increases were just recently implemented, starting in September 2012. Rate increases implemented starting in September include those at parking structures and lots, where rates climbed from $1.10 per hour to $1.20 per hour.

But other changes were implemented starting Feb. 1, including a change in the billing method at parking structures and hourly lots – from half-hourly to hourly.

To compare the hour-increment billing method to the half-hour billing method, assume that parking times are evenly distributed among those people who parked between N and (N + 0.5) hours and those who parked between (N + 0.5) and (N + 1) hours, where N is some whole number.

On the hour-increment billing method – for the current hourly rate of $1.10 – the first group would pay for N + 1 hours, or roughly $0.55 more than under the half-hour-increment method, when they’d pay just for N + 0.5 hours. The second group would pay for N + 1 hours under either billing method. So by changing from half-hourly to hourly increments, half of the roughly 2 million annual hourly patrons would pay $0.55 more – generating roughly $550,000 more revenue annually.

Parking Report: Parking Management

Hewitt complimented Republic Parking manager Art Low on the management of the system during the art fairs in July. On the Friday of art fairs, for the first time in the history of the parking system, every single parking structure was full at one time – and that had never happened before, Hewitt said. Of course, Hewitt pointed out, it was during the art fairs. But that included three levels of the underground parking structure that were open to the public. [It has four levels, which are now all open.] So it was a very, very busy day, he concluded. Art fair revenues were up 30% over last year. Part of that is having extra capacity and part of that is having very good management of getting people into the structures, he said.

Hewitt also gave an update on the new automated payment equipment that’s being installed in the Liberty Square parking structure and the Fourth and Washington structure. The new equipment allows people to pay for their parking before getting into their cars to exit the structure, and then use their validated ticket to raise the gate arm so that they can leave – instead of paying an attendant sitting in a booth. [The new automated equipment is being paid for by Republic Parking under a $1.3 million lending arrangement with the DDA.]

Attendants will still be available in the structure, Hewitt explained, but they won’t be sitting in a booth working exclusively as cashiers. A lot of parking systems across the country are moving in that direction, he said. It makes for shorter lines when exiting and a more efficient operation, he said.

Hewitt emphasized that parking personnel are not being removed entirely from the structures. They are being used more efficiently and effectively, he said, because they are also providing light maintenance, and walking through the structures providing assistance as needed. [Republic parking manager Art Low previously had explained to the DDA's operations committee that the personnel change had required creating a new job classification for collective bargaining – one that is slightly higher-paid than booth cashiering. He allowed that the total number of staff will eventually decrease over time.]

The Fourth and Washington structure is in the process of having the equipment installed. And the equipment has already been installed at Liberty Square. Up to now, Liberty Square had been designated strictly for monthly parking permits during the day. Now, over 100 monthly permit holders had moved into the underground parking garage, so some hourly spaces are opening up at Liberty Square, Hewitt said – and the hourly patrons are using the automated payment system.

Parking Report: Charts and Graphs

Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Hourly Patrons. The yellow line shows patrons for the recently-concluded fiscal year 2012. The number of hourly patrons was in most months very slightly more than the same month the previous year. But in some months, the number was less. FY 2013 (green) is off to a slow start for hourly patrons compared to previous years.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Revenue. The yellow line shows revenue for the recently-concluded fiscal year 2012.  It reflects substantial increases in every month compared to the same month in the previous years. FY 2013 (green) continues that trend.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System Revenue Per Space – Surface Lots. The top two facilities in the system, measured by revenue per space, are the Huron/Ashley/First (bright red) lot and Kline’s lot on Ashley (bright blue). They generate significantly more revenue per space than a heavily-used structure like Maynard Street (light blue). The most erratic performance of any lot appears to be the Fifth & William lot. The dramatic increases starting in late 2009 reflect the closing of the neighboring lot where the new Library Lane parking structure was built.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System Revenue Per Space– Structures. The highest revenue-per-space structures (Fourth & Washington and Maynard Street) are still considerably lower than a surface lot like Huron/Ashley/First (light red). Considered as a facility unto itself, on-street meters generate less revenue per space than most other facilities in the public parking system. That’s due in part to the fact that enforcement of the meters does not extend past 6 p.m.

Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Number of Spaces by Fiscal Year. The number of spaces available shows some fluctuation month to month. But the increases in revenue clearly can’t be attributed to an increase in the parking space inventory.

Washtenaw: Separate from Seven-County Region?

During routine reports, John Mouat mentioned that he is the Ann Arbor DDA’s representative to the Washtenaw Transportation Study (WATS) – a group made up of county and township officials, a city council member and other “various folks” whose job it is to help guide the direction of transportation spending in the county. The world of transportation is a exoteric world of acronyms and other strange things, he said. The organizing body for determining federal funding is the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), which is a seven-county organization – dominated by Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties, Mouat said.

Mouat wanted people to be aware of a discussion going on right now – about whether Washtenaw County should form its own metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The logic for bringing it forward is the idea that currently it’s a long and complex process to get initiatives done that WATS would like to see implemented. [.pdf of chart showing average additional time of 77 days due to SEMCOG's involvement] [.pdf of comparison by WATS of current arrangement and separate MPO]

The other point is that for some people, Washtenaw County is seen as unique and different from other counties, he said. Washtenaw County’s interests might be different from the interests of other counties. Other counties might be more interested in roads and bridges and not as much in nonmotorized projects, transit projects and so forth. So it might be possible for Washtenaw County to represent itself better as a separate entity than through SEMCOG.

But it’s not a simple matter, Mouat cautioned. For one thing, SEMCOG is against it. Also the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) has expressed considerable concern about it. [.pdf of MDOT letter] [.pdf of SEMCOG letter] He himself also has some concerns. He said it’s easy to be attracted to the idea of the county having control over our own destiny, but he feared the potential repercussions of breaking away from SEMCOG. He reported that there has been a bit of tension in trying to get meetings to happen with MDOT. He hoped that in the next couple of months some headway will be made on the topic.

Mouat thanked board chair Lee Gunn for attending the most recent WATS meeting in his absence. Gunn reported that not a lot happened at the meeting she had attended. But Mouat had been right about there being tension in the room, she said. Mouat call it a “very tough issue,” pointing out that the idea of Washtenaw County forming its own metropolitan planning organization is counter to the idea of regional planning. So it’s a balance between that and our own interests, he said.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s Sept 5. meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: DDA Board Retreat

Board chair Leah Gunn announced that there would be a DDA retreat on the afternoon of Nov. 16. More details will be forthcoming.

Comm/Comm: Construction Update

John Splitt gave an update on the completion of the Library Lane underground parking garage. He indicated that the punch lists are still being worked on. He hoped to have them finished very soon. But he confirmed that now all four levels of the parking structure are open.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Parks, Planning

Joan Lowenstein gave an update on the Connecting William Street project. The team is now presenting the draft scenarios to various groups. In the month of August, she reported, the project team had met with 11 different citizen groups, area associations and commissions. More such meetings will take place in September. She also described an upcoming webinar that same evening to introduce the Connecting William Street scenarios.

Another public meeting will take place on Sept. 10 at noon at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth. That would be a much more traditional meeting, compared to the webinar format. Lowenstein indicated the result the DDA wanted was a somewhat generalized idea of a consensus for massing and density on the sites. Really specific uses are not being proposed – although Lowenstein noted that generally described uses like residential, office, retail, hotel, lodging, and those kinds of things are a part of the different scenarios.

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he had addressed the Ann Arbor park advisory commission about the possibility of redesigning Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. The idea would be to make it into a better park than it is – although he contended it had come a long way since it was first built. He stressed the need to prioritize park initiatives, pointing to the greenway and the future of the 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main Street properties. [For a detailed report of Hieftje's remarks to PAC and commissioners' response, see "Park Commission Focuses on Downtown, Dogs."]

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, former planning commissioner Eric Lipson addressed the board.

Lipson introduced himself as the general manager of the Inter-Cooperative Council of the University Michigan, with headquarters 337 E. William St. He indicated the ICC was very interested in the Connecting William Street planning process. He thanked DDA planning specialist Amber Miller and DDA executive director Susan Pollay for coming to the ICC to present the Connecting William Street scenarios and to have ICC representatives take the survey.

Lipson said he was also there addressing the board as a member of the Library Green Conservancy to keep alive the concept of a plaza on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. People who have passed by the location, since the completion of the underground parking structure, have probably seen what he has seen, Lipson ventured – namely, that the space between Fifth Avenue and the elevator structure is highly underutilized for parking. The Fifth and William street surface parking lot was full when he’d walked past it that day, but there were only three or four cars on top of the Library Lane structure, he said. That portion of the lot is so obviously a plaza, he said.

He pointed out that mayor John Hieftje had suggested that his group form a private conservancy, and he reported that the group had in fact formed a conservancy. He also noted that Roger Hewitt had told his group that ultimately this will be a city council decision. So he reported that the Library Green Conservancy is still pressing ahead, because his group did not want the topic to go “off the radar.”

Lipson also pointed out that the Calthorpe study, commissioned by the city in the mid-2000s, had mentioned in several places a public space and a public plaza. And the Calthorpe study had indicated that the spot where the top of the underground parking garage is located would be a perfect place for such a public plaza, he said. In that report, public plazas and a gathering space are mentioned dozens of times, but there had been no mention of a conference center or hotel space. Why did we have all those charrettes and all that public process associated with the Calthorpe study, Lipson wondered, if it wasn’t going to be used?

So Lipson told the board that the Library Green Conservancy was not going to go away, and would continue to advocate for a public plaza at that location – recognizing that there were many other people advocating for other things.

Comm/Comm: Bicycle Issues – Cages, Sidewalks

John Mouat reported from the operations committee on a concept for establishing a “bicycle cage” at the Maynard Street parking structure – a place where bicyclists could have their bicycles secured inside a fenced-off area accessible with a swipable pass. There would be some costs associated to the bicyclists to access the spaces. He said it might be used by people who have high-end bikes or who have concerns about the security of their bicycles. They would be under a cover. The next steps would be getting cost estimates. Mayor John Hieftje indicated his support for the idea.

If the program were successful at the Maynard Street location, Mouat said, it could be extended to other locations. But one of the questions is: How far will people walk? Where would you like to park your bike in relation to where you’re trying to get to? It would help reduce the number of bikes that are parked on the streets, he pointed out.

There has also been some ongoing discussion about what to do with abandoned bikes, Mouat said. He reminded the board that the DDA had previously had a role in helping to tag bikes that were abandoned, but that has been deemed “inappropriate.” Nader Nassif pointed out that each of these cages can hold about 50 bikes, so he felt it was a good use of the space.

Hieftje tacked onto the discussion of the bike cages an idea he’s floated before to the DDA board – that he believes bicycle riding on downtown sidewalks should be prohibited. He imagined that such a move would generate a lot of public discussion. The Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition has done some work on the issue, he said. As the number of pedestrians increases, Hieftje said, it’s something he thinks the DDA board should pursue to foster a good pedestrian environment.

He contended there is really no problem riding a bicycle on the streets in downtown Ann Arbor. He felt that anybody who can ride a bike can also master riding in downtown Ann Arbor. He noted that a concern that had been raised against such a prohibition in the past involves families who want to bring their kids downtown. But Hieftje felt there would be ways to make allowances for that type of activity within the ordinance – for example, by exempting people of a certain age, or exempting people who are riding with their children.

Comm/Comm: Student Housing

Jim Mogensen told the board he wanted to make some observations about student housing. He noted that a lot of student housing projects are being built. He observed that there is no zoning for student housing. He noted that the state legislature has discussed the idea of not allowing local governments to have non-discrimination ordinances, but he pointed out that Ann Arbor’s non-discrimination ordinance says that you cannot discriminate against people based on their student status. It doesn’t say that you can’t discriminate against students, just that you can’t discriminate against people based on their student status, he stressed.

He emphasized to the board that the large student housing developments downtown are not temporary. That contrasts with the relatively temporary student housing projects built in “residential for cash” zoning districts. ["Residential for cash" is Mogensen's standard word play for R4C multi-unit zoning.] But the current projects that are being built would be much harder to redevelop, he cautioned. So the projects are going to be there, and they would probably have to be reused. He pointed to Courthouse Square as an example. That matters to the DDA for a couple of reasons, he said. When the numbers stop working, or if there has been over-development, the DDA board might find that people come ask them for some of the TIF money.

The other thing is that some of the residential projects have been created with some assumptions about behavior – more walking and pedestrian use, for example. If these units are redeveloped for young professionals, no matter what we might hope will happen, Mogensen said, there will be a greater demand for cars, and that’ll be something that has to be incorporated into planning. He encouraged the board to incorporate that kind of thinking as a footnote to their planning.

Comm/Comm: Building Boom

Ray Detter reported from the downtown area citizens advisory council (CAC). The group had discussed a large packet of written material, part of which fell into the general category of “building boom and tight rental market.” Detter then listed out a number of projects: the Library Lane underground parking garage, Blake Transit Center, the Ann Arbor District Library, The Varsity, 618 South Main, The Landmark, Zaragon West, City Apartments, the former St. Nicholas Church property, Ed Shaffran’s plans to put condos on top of the Goodyear Building, Howard Frehsee’s building on South State Street and his plans perhaps to put a high-rise on the back of that building, plans for the former Borders building, the Zingerman’s Deli addition, and the closing of White Market.

Also included in the discussion were some unannounced developments that have not yet been reported in the news media, he said. Detter described a purchase by Ed Shaffran of the old Brauer building at Catherine Street and North Fifth Avenue, and a plan to put apartments in that location. [Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Shaffran indicated that while a purchase agreement had been signed, there are a number of contingencies to work through before a sale would take place. One of the future uses being considered, wrote Shaffran, is residential. But that would require a rezoning of the property, which is currently a planned unit development (PUD), restricted to office-only use.]

Also discussed was an upcoming purchase of the Papa John’s Pizza property at Huron and Division – by the Connecticut firm Greenfield Partners. Detter noted that the firm had already purchased the neighboring property just west of Sloan Plaza. A project could now be extended all the way to Division Street, and Detter expressed his hope with the addition of the neighboring property, a better-designed building would result, and there would be better protection for the residents of Sloan Plaza.

The CAC was supportive of these developments, Detter said, in the same way that the group has been supportive of projects in the past – by making suggestions for improvements and monitoring the review of projects as they go through the process, including the city’s design review board.

Detter also described a range of different projects outside the downtown on which the CAC tended not to take positions. But because such projects would ultimately have an impact on the downtown, the CAC wanted to be involved in the ongoing discussion. Among the examples Detter gave were the location of a possible new rail station and the construction of a greenway.

Present: Nader Nassif, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

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

The resolution was amended in a way that, for the time being, headed off a direct confrontation between the DDA and the city over control of DDA dollars.

Another theme running through multiple parts of the meeting – including a discussion among interested parties afterward – was the issue of access to data, and the use of technology to share information.

In other business, the board heard a presentation on a city pilot plan to install automated trash cans in the downtown area, plus heard the usual reports from its subcommittees, including one from the operations committee that portrayed the DDA’s finances still in good order, despite the gloomy economy.

Does More Parking Meters Mean City v. DDA?

Background: At its Jan. 20 meeting, city council passed a resolution asking the DDA to open discussions on the parking agreement between the DDA and the city. Then, at its Feb. 17 meeting, city council asked that the DDA put forward a plan to increase its revenue to ensure adequate reserve funds. These two requests provided the background for the DDA boards’ operations committee meeting on Feb. 24, which resulted in forming a resolution to seat a committee to begin discussions requested by the city. That resolution was considered by the DDA board at its March 4 meeting, with an ad hoc committee appointed, consisting of Roger Hewitt, Gary Boren, Jennifer Hall, and Rene Greff. Greff was appointed committee chair by Hall.

Subsequently, the DDA’s ad hoc committee met, and Greff gave a report at the board’s full meeting on April 1. She said that the committee had reached a majority view – with dissent from Hewitt – that they should not re-open discussion of the existing parking agreement. It was not the role of the DDA, Greff said at that meeting, to cover gaps in the city budget. The committee had given some consideration to taking over city tax-funded activities (e.g., snow removal), and had contemplated purchasing the right to meter enforcement in downtown.

The city administrator’s proposed budget, first previewed on April 13 at a city council work session, includes strategic cuts to police positions. Many of the jobs to be cut are community standards officers, who enforce parking meters, among other responsibilities. City administrator Roger Fraser said at that work session that patrol officers would do ticket enforcement.

City council has not seated a committee of its own to begin the discussions it requested with the DDA to talk about the parking agreement between the city and the DDA. While the term of the agreement does not expire until July 2015, the DDA has met its financial obligation as specified under the terms of that contract, which has payments ending by July 2010.

The city’s proposed budget for FY 2011 assumes about $2 million – not specified under the current parking agreement – would be transferred from the DDA to the city.

The city’s website indicates that the chair of the DDA’s ad hoc committee, Rene Greff, would need to be reappointed by Mayor John Hieftje in order to continue to serve past July 31, 2009, when her term expires. Asked by The Chronicle after the May 5 board meeting if she has indicated to Hieftje a willingness and interest to continue her service on the DDA board, Greff said that she had. Last fall, board member Dave Devarti had indicated to Hieftje an interest and willingness to continue service on the DDA board too, but was not reappointed. In a December 2008 interview, The Chronicle asked Devarti’s replacement, Keith Orr, if he had a sense of the process employed by Hieftje to arrive at a decision to nominate him or to not reappoint DeVarti. Orr said simply, “I really don’t know. It seems to be very closed.”

Presentation: Field services staff from the city, Mike Bergren and Pat Cawley, appeared before the DDA board to explain a new city proposal to install parking meters where none currently exist adjacent to DDA meters, but outside DDA boundaries. There are an additional 208 meter locations proposed in the central business district, in many cases adjoining the University of Michigan hospitals system. Bergren said that the city would like to explore the possibility of having the DDA do the management – the DDA administers the city’s existing parking program. He also indicated that options were being considered for addressing the negative impact on free parking availability for residents in the area.

In addition to the new meters, Bergren described a new loading zone permitting program. He explained that every loading zone removes two parking spaces and that anything commercial can park in them. There would be a fee to be paid to obtain a permit, but the city would be divided into geographic sub-districts so that a vendor who needed to deliver only to a specific part of downtown would not need to pay the higher-priced permit for all of downtown.

Bergren noted that as a part of the budget proposal currently before city council [they'll be voting on it on May 18] there’s a proposal to install parking meters on some service drives. But that’s been put on hold, he said, because the locations adjacent to downtown make more sense – they project higher revenues than on the service drives.

Board Discussion on New Parking Meters: Board member John Mouat led off the board discussion by asking what the University of Michigan thought – given the proximity of the new meters to UM hospital facilities. Bergren said that UM had not weighed in on it, but that their input would be solicited.

Because the DDA is currently engaged in a process to replace some, if not most, of its parking meters with E-Park kiosks, Sandi Smith (a member of the DDA board member and city council) asked if the idea was to install kiosks or individual meters. Bergren said that was an ongoing conversation. Smith joked that she knew where some used parking meters could be sourced. Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, wondered playfully if they should be priced at $2 million each. [See background above.]

The resolution the board had before it included a “whereas” clause noting the confusion that would result from two different on-street meter systems and the duplication of services. This was a point emphasized by Hall and Joan Lowenstein in deliberations.

Smith questioned whether the projected revenues were realistic. Bergren said that the $380,000 in revenue was based on current revenues of meters in the same geographic vicinity. Cawley confirmed that the analysis was done segment by segment and not based on an overall average. Board member Roger Hewitt sought and got confirmation that the cost of collection was built into the revenue estimates. Smith was joined by board colleague Gary Boren in expressing great skepticism about the projected revenues, saying, “It’s not easy to take a parking meter and stick it in the ground and make money.”

In an apparent allusion to the request from the city to change the parking agreement between the city and the DDA, Boren also suggested that the issue of adding meters should be a part of a “larger horse-trading discussion.”

Greff weighed in on the same theme, saying that the discussion was more complicated than whether there were two parking systems or whether they’re inside the city or not. It was complicated, she said, by the fact that the city had asked the DDA to begin discussions to reconsider the parking agreement, but had not yet formed its part of the committee to have those discussions.

One resolved clause in the resolution considered by the DDA board included language that forced the issue of the city’s formation of its own committee:

The DDA suggests that this [the new meters] would be an excellent topic of discussion for the “Mutually Beneficial” subcommittees of the DDA and City to discuss when they meet to discuss the January 2009 city council resolution requesting that the DDA engage in a dialogue with the city to determine mutually beneficial opportunities to direct new funds to the city.

Greff wanted to know from Hieftje if city council was planning to negotiate the parking agreement before it adopted the budget and asked him point blank: “When are you seating the committee?” Hieftje responded by saying that it wasn’t the city administrator’s plan to have negotiations before the budget was adopted, adding, “I don’t think council is going to change any of that.”

Board member Leah Gunn suggested that the resolved clause be deleted and be replaced with one stating that the DDA would discuss the issue at its May 22 May 20 retreat and prepare a recommendation to city council. When Smith pointed out that the budget vote is on May 18, Gunn replied that budgets are living documents and can be changed. The recommendation to council would be along the lines of “You may have passed this, but we’d like you to think again.”

Hall Lowenstein responded to Gunn’s suggestion by saying that the retreat discussion would not define policy. Gunn then offered that the next regular board meeting could be specified instead of the retreat.

Greff brought the focus back around to the ad hoc committee. It was put into place, she said, at request of city council. “What are we doing with this resolution?” she wondered, “Are we just making a recommendation? They asked us to put the committee together!” Hieftje engaged in a bit of verbal sparring by saying that it was Smith’s committee – an apparent allusion to the fact that it was Smith who brought forward the Jan. 20 council resolution calling for the conversation between the city and the DDA (along with co-sponsors Margie Teall and Leigh Greden). To that, Smith offered a rejoinder to the effect that it’s Hieftje who appoints the committee. [The language of the resolution doesn't explicitly specify the formation of a committee to undertake the conversation.]

Hieftje then suggested an amendment of the resolution to specify just the partnerships subcommittee of the DDA instead of the “Mutually Beneficial” ad hoc committee. He pointed out there is a council representative [Leigh Greden] who attends those meetings.

Russ Collins said he’d be supporting the resolution, because it doesn’t really matter. The DDA has the intention to communicate something to city council, he said, “I don’t know it’s necessary at all.”

Lowenstein countered by saying that she thought it did matter, because the board can only speak through its resolutions. The alternative, she said, was to speak in “whispers” from individual board members to individual city council members and staffers.

Without the reference to the “Mutually Beneficial” ad hoc committee, Greff characterized the resolution as “de-fanged” but said she’d still vote for it. She said that the city is trying to renege on a contract that the DDA had paid out all the money on.

The text of the resolved clauses in the final resolution was:

RESOLVED, The DDA asks that the City reconsider the plan to install many dozens of new parking meters as part of its 2009/10 and 2010/11 budget approvals;

RESOLVED, The DDA suggests that this would be an excellent topic of discussion for the Partnerships Committee.

RESOLVED, The DDA will add this matter to its midyear retreat agenda for discussion, and will make a recommendation about this at an upcoming DDA meeting.

Outcome: The resolution was unanimously passed.

Data Access and Communication

The issue of data and communication surfaced in two significant ways during the meeting and afterward. The board heard from Connie Pulcipher in the city planning department and Kevin Eyer in the city’s IT division about the range of new communication methods the city was deploying to engage citizens. As a first method, Pulcipher mentioned the city’s new citizen participation ordinance [effective Jan. 1, 2009], which requires developers proposing a new building project to engage neighbors at a very early stage in the process.

She also mentioned the city’s email notification system, which allows people to sign up for updates on particular topics, or on all topics for which information is available. On one of the planning department pages, for example, residents can sign up for email updates on new petitions, subscribe to an RSS feed with the same information, or view the new petitions plotted out on a map.

Eyer demonstrated how the mapping out of new permits and petitions was available to visitors to the webpage using GoogleMaps or Microsoft Live Maps. The two systems are integrated into the city’s project tracking software, so there’s no additional work required to make the project appear on the map plot, once it’s entered into the city’s project tracking system.

Thematically, the city’s sharing of petition data through mapping technology is linked to the subject of the DDA’s sharing of parking data with the public.

And during public commentary, the DDA board also heard from a local software developer, Trek Glowacki, on the importance of not blocking access to that data. First some background on why the DDA collects and shares parking data.

Additional Background on the Role of DDA Parking Data: Looking to the future, the DDA’s parking management plan is to adopt a “demand management” strategy – allocating supply and adjusting pricing to encourage efficient use of parking facilities. For example, with the new E-Park stations, which will replace individual parking meters, the pricing assigned to individual spots through the city can be programmed based on time of day and geographic location, and tweaked to adjust rapidly to motorist behavior. If a price is set higher in high-demand areas, but it turns out to be so high that nobody parks there, then a new, lower price can be assigned via the wireless technology in the E-Park stations.

Status on other demand management tools currently being deployed by the DDA were reported from the operations committee at Wednesday’s meeting by board member Roger Hewitt. They include a valet parking pilot program (which has been “less than wildly successful”), and an AVI payment card pilot program, which is to replace structure permits with a way to bill actual usage straight to motorists’ credit cards.

Key to all these demand management programs is usage data. Some of that data is directly observable in the form of the electronic signs on parking structures indicating the number of spaces available in that structure. In time-series aggregated form, that data provides a useful picture of how much and when particular structures are getting used.

But even as shown on the signs, the numbers can be more than a novelty – if there’s hundreds of spaces indicated, then motorists can fairly conclude that the three-car backup at the entrance driveway is likely due to a temporary blockage, not a full structure. Or if there’s a low number, motorists can prepare themselves psychologically for a long circular drive to near the top of the structure.

The DDA also sends that real-time data to its website. What if that data could be put in front of motorists who are not in view of a sign? Or if not in front of them, then in the ear of them? A couple of different initiatives independent of the DDA recently took advantage of the availability of this data on the web to make parking space data available by phone to drivers planning to park – call a number, get automated access to parking availability at a structure.

In an email communication to The Chronicle on May 7, 2009, the DDA’s deputy director, Joe Morehouse, said that access to the website by software protocols (like those used by the independent initiatives) had been blocked temporarily, then restored in mid-March. According to Morehouse, his understandng was there were never any specific users who were denied access – it was software protocols, not IP addresses that were targeted. [Chronology of DDA parking data denial]

At the DDA board’s April 1 board meeting, Tyler Erickson – a research scientist with Michigan Tech Research Institute who specializes in space-time data analysis – appeared at public commentary to comment on the blocking of the data. Erickson acknowledged that the technical issue of the blocking seemed resolved at that point, but discouraged the board from contemplating future blocking. He cited the community of interest in the data, which includes researchers, small-business people, and students working on projects, among others.

At the May 6 meeting’s public commentary time, the board heard from Trek Glowacki, a local software developer, on the subject of access to the data. [Editor's note: On a pro bono basis, Glowacki has provided code for The Chronicle's events listing page that enforces the correct chronological sorting of events. This assistance was rendered at an open office hour attended by Laura Fisher, who minds the Chronicle's code.]

Trek Glowacki: Glowacki introduced himself as a local software developer who doesn’t own a car, thus does not park. He walks into town, he said. Glowacki described himself as an information activist – someone concerned about the availability of information, in particular public information. Blocking access to the data, he said, is an affront to how the internet is set up, and alluded to continued denial of data by the DDA on a targeted basis.

Glowacki described the tech community of which he was a part as individuals and smaller companies who represented the “long tail.” This community wanted to attract other tech companies to come to town, he said, but when access to data is blocked, there’s negative publicity. Sometimes open access garners uses you don’t like, he concluded, but sometimes you get uses you never thought of. The remainder of the four minutes Glowacki allotted to questions – but board chair Hall explained that typically the board didn’t entertain discussion during that period.

However, in a brief interaction that ensued as Glowacki concluded his speaking turn, board member Rene Greff and executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay expressed their puzzlement about any continued blocking of the parking data. Pollay asked: “Can you clarify who is being excluded from access?”

Glowacki allowed he could. The details would have to wait until the end of the meeting.

Conversation after the DDA meeting: Glowacki waited until the end of the meeting, when Rene Greff and Susan Pollay, joined a little later by board member Keith Orr, approached the row of chairs against the back of the room where Glowacki was seated. Glowacki had waited there through the meeting with Bill Tozier and Brahm Windeler. The Chronicle was sitting next to Tozier. Pollay didn’t stay for the whole conversation, and Windeler didn’t engage much, as he was typing at his laptop, presumably taking notes on the conversation.

The conversation could fairly be described as a healthy back-and-forth. Or an energetic exchange. A spirited discussion, an inspired interaction. We won’t attempt to render a blow by blow account, but rather summarize in editorial fashion in a way that’s not meant to be comprehensive.

Mending Fences, An Editorial Aside: One thread woven into the conversation was the idea (advanced by Tozier) that there was a difference in cultures – a theme he’s written about in greater detail here, where the shorthand for the two cultures is “geeks and suits.” To underscore that difference, a few times during the conversation Tozier would occasionally deploy a two-handed gesture, which is hard to describe, but means roughly, “Here’s a fence, and you’re on that side, and other people are on the other side.”

Much of what was said on the DDA side of the conversational fence, though, could be interpreted as something like, “But we’re not so awfully different on this side of the fence than you are.” For example, Greff at one point said that on the board they were a bunch of liberals who were all about transparency and openness and access to data. The board had made a decision that the data would no longer be blocked and it was upsetting for her to hear that someone’s access might still be blocked.

For his part, though Orr didn’t say so explicitly on Wednesday, he handles the website for his bar and might have some claim to have at least a toe on the geek side of the fence, based on his background programming BASIC for Tec-Ed in the ’80s. Orr did say that when he saw something on a website, his natural inclination was: “I want to be able to grab it,” which could be interpreted as, “There’s a bit of the geek in me, just like you.”

And towards the beginning of the conversation, Pollay expressed the frustration that since the time the blocking was lifted, it did not appear this had been acknowledged. She said felt there was a responsibility for them – those on the geek side of the fence, as it were – to share that information accurately, too.

The individual Glowacki had identified for Pollay as having his access still blocked was Ed Vielmetti. We previously reported that Vielmetti had received a response to a FOIA request denying that specific request, but which indicated that data access had been restored.

In trying to independently answer the question of whether blocking of Vielmetti’s access persisted, during the conversation along the back of the wall, I called the automated telephone number Vielmetti had set up with Fred Posner, and confirmed that it was working (734.272.0909). I also emailed Vielmetti twice later that evening, but I could not discern in his replies a confirmation that he had access to the data.

Fred Posner, with whom Vielmetti had joined forces on one of the phone projects, said in a phone conversation with me that data access per se was no longer a technical problem – though Posner takes issue with the attitudes that led to the blocking in the first place. What’s still somewhat of a technical problem, said Posner, is that the accuracy of the data is a little dubious. Posner indicated that on occasion there were significant time gaps in updates to the data feed, which made it somewhat difficult to demonstrate that a software application would match the parking structure outdoor signage numbers. Is that even important for a demonstration? Opinions will vary, but I thought it was for this conversation I conducted with Fred in my venue of choice.

In response to a query from me, Tyler Erickson sent along some test results that he ran the morning of May 7, 2009 that show that the DDA server was no longer blocking requests from the Google App Engine. In the interim he’d gained access by feeding the server a user-agent string different from the Google App Engine.

The sore point of the missing acknowledgment by the geeks that data access had been restored is, I think, in some ways comparable to the missing acknowledgment on the DDA’s side of the positive contribution the various projects have made to the community. Glowacki compared it to an act of volunteerism like picking up trash and then having a police officer stop you. Tozier amplified the point by describing the currency of compensation on the geek side of the fence as coming partly through the development of a reputation – a reputation for making generous contributions to the community by developing cool, useful software tools. By cutting off the access to the data, Tozier said, the DDA had cut off access to that kind of compensation.

Another missing piece, as far as the geek side is concerned, is a statement on the DDA website – a policy articulating the DDA’s position on access to the data. And it’s that statement that Glowacki will now be working with the DDA to help craft for eventual posting on the website. He described it as a “license.” The DDA’s partnerships committee takes up the issue on Wednesday, May 13 at 9 a.m. at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301.

If the blocking of the data is like a broken fence, then it’s fair to say that this license, or information policy, or whatever it turns out to be, is an attempt to fix it. But what kind of fix is that really? I think it’s temporary and will need to be followed up with something more. For example, a broken metal DDA fence can be fixed temporarily with a ziptie, but needs to be followed up with a stronger weld.

In this case the stronger weld could take the shape of the small RFPs that Jennifer Hall described at the DDA board’s October 2008 annual retreat. Here’s how we reported that then:

Later in the meeting, Hall would articulate the idea that the DDA need not itself take on these smaller initiatives, but rather could identify a particular problem to be solved, solicit proposals, and fund whatever entity could solve that problem. To illustrate how this might work, she drew on her experience as a parent, saying that many parents bring their children to the Hands-On Museum, enjoy their time there, but then do not stay and do anything else downtown. The problem, she said, is that these parents don’t know where there’s a kid-friendly place to go eat, or where there’s a nice quiet place to spend time with their kids downtown. Solutions to that problem, she said, could be the kind thing DDA could fund – but not necessarily do itself.

The example Hall gave is an information problem. Otherwise put, it’s a data problem – the kind of thing geeks might have a geeky solution for that might result in people enjoying more than just the Hands-On Museum when they visit downtown Ann Arbor.

At Wednesday’s after-meeting conversation, Greff and Orr said that there hadn’t been follow-up on the idea yet. But they seemed receptive to that kind of thing.

Automated Trash Cans

Tom McMurtrie, solid waste coordinator with the city of Ann Arbor, introduced the board to a pilot program to install 25 trashcans in the downtown area that can be serviced with the same automatic arms that trash trucks already use for residential blue bins.

He began by ticking through the current level of service for the downtown, which includes emptying of litter containers 3-7 times a week, refuse collection 3 times a week, and recycling collection 3 times a week. All of the collection, said McMurtrie, is manual and labor-intensive. While recognizing that the DDA area is a special place, McMurtrie noted that this represented a higher level of service than for the rest of the community.

McMurtrie walked the board through the selection process for the exact model of automated trashcan, which included three bids. He’d called around to other communities that had installed such trashcans to get their feedback: Minneapolis, Louisville, San Diego, Detroit, and Akron. The cans got generally favorable reviews. Akron, for example, is ordering 200 more. In Minneapolis, they don’t use them in student areas, because they can be tipped over. Apparently it’s the tipping per se that’s at issue – the tops are configured to prevent trash from spilling out. The lids can only be opened by turning the container upside down, as when the automatic arm grabs a can, lifts, then dumps the contents into a truck.

The cans come in a variety of colors. McMurtrie brought along sample color chips.

Board discussion came at the end of the meeting, which meant that McMurtrie stayed through a variety of other presentations, committee reports and resolutions, in order to be available for questions. The board’s discussion was thorough. The Chronicle can attest that a few minutes into the board’s conversation on trashcans, audience member Bill Tozier speculated that the color chips would be requested for inspection, and within seconds of his remark, board member Joan Lowenstein asked to see the chips, which were then passed around.

Board chair Jennifer Hall had a mild criticism of the green color sample, saying that it felt more like a suburban park than a downtown aesthetic. McMurtrie responded by saying they’d identified a dark grey granite color as a likely choice. Partly at issue was the texture – nubby or not? Answer: they did not seem to be perfectly smooth.

The material was of concern to board member Roger Hewitt on account of poster/flier removal techniques, which typically entail slicing through them with utility knife. Over time, Hewitt said, the plastic surface would get gouged up. He also cautioned that they shouldn’t be deployed in student areas, because they’d be easy targets for tipping. Board member John Splitt joked that they looked a little bit too much like tackling dummies. McMurtrie said that even the stone-base cans would occasionally get tipped over – people like a challenge. He said the current trash cans were the solution a previous solid waste coordinator had come up with. Board member Leah Gunn indicated that student areas were exactly where the trash cans were needed.

The locations for the pilot program of 25 cans were chosen partly based on the condition of the current receptacles there. Those receptacles were mostly in need of replacement anyway, because many of their lids were missing. That means a real challenge for manual emptying in winter months, when snow accumulates in the lid-less containers and then freezes.

Locations were also chosen partly based on the accessability to the cans by a trash truck’s automatic arm, which needs overhead clearance in addition to horizontal access.

Lowenstein inquired about the possibility of something like the Big Belly Solar Compacter, which the University of Michgan has installed at North University and South State. McMurtrie allowed that it was an interesting solution, but that they cost around $3,500 per unit as compared with $300 for the cans they were considering.

Pollay suggested that sign tags with requests for feedback on the cans be affixed in a way that’s similar to the tags on the downtown LED street lights.

Board member Russ Collins asked a procedural question: “Why are you asking us about this? Are you going to be asking for funds?” McMurtrie said that he was introducing the cans to the DDA board just to make sure they were okay with them. Collins responded by saying, “That’s really darn nice! I mean that. I don’t think you have to do this.” Collins weighed in for installation of some of the cans in front of the Michigan Theater.

Present: Gary Boren, Rene Greff, Jennifer Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat, Keith Orr, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, June 3 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Retreat: Friday, May 22 Wednesday, May 20 on the Michigan Theater stage from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. [confirm date]

The guy who did that: Fred Posner.

He doesn’t work for the city of Ann Arbor, the Downtown Development Authority, or Republic Parking. To get a little insight into what led him to undertake such a project, and if you want the number to call, you’re going to have to read Fred’s Talk. [Here's documentation on how he accomplished the data-to-telephone part.]

Apologies for the illegible titles in the video. The whole thing lasts less than a minute, and is, I think, worth suffering through the awful titles.

[Read the Talk]

[Editor's note: HD is "Homeless Dave, a.k.a. Dave Askins, editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.]