Bob Snyder reads aloud from the preliminary report of the Ann Arbor fire department, which summarizes the events of a recent nighttime house fire that killed one resident.

A recent fire on South State Street, which killed a resident of the house that burned, prompted a call to revisit a 2004 proposal to ban from porches the use of indoor furniture, like couches. That measure was ultimately tabled by the council six years ago, left to demise without any action.

A couple of residents expressed some disappointment that the councilmembers would not be discussing the budget that evening, but budgetary topics did make their way into the conversation. Chief among them were the relationship of the new parking fine schedule – which is expected to generate an extra $635,000 for the FY 2011 budget – to the parking plan that’s scheduled to be presented on Monday night to the council by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Questions about the planned Fuller Road Station were also raised, including the plan for financing the project. That project is not on Monday night’s agenda. But a different major capital project does have an associated Monday agenda item: the East Stadium bridge replacement. The item involves authorization for the city to apply for funds from the state’s local bridge fund – the city’s most recent application was denied. Caucus attendees heard Hieftje explain that the city would delay the start of replacement construction from fall 2010 to spring 2011, to allow for another round of funding applications.

The council also got an update on one resident’s ongoing efforts to move a mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School to an intersection where cars already stop.

Porch Couch Ban Redux

Bob Snyder led off caucus discussion by echoing similar sentiments he’d expressed at the council’s April 5, 2010 meeting. Citing the house fire at 928 S. State St. – which occurred in the early morning hours of April 3, 2010, killing one of the residents – Snyder called on the council to revisit the possibility of a ban on the use of indoor furniture on porches. The preliminary report on the fire indicates that it started in a trash can on the porch, spread to a couch, then ignited the rest of the structure.

Snyder read aloud from the preliminary report released from the fire department [.txt file of preliminary report on the fire from AAFD]:

The fire was first noticed in the corner of the porch. It was a trash fire in a waste container. Fire built and spread to the adjacent sofa (positioned across the front of the residence windows on the porch). From there the fire continued to build from the ready fuel load of the sofa, building up heat and spreading to the structure itself.

Snyder allowed that he was “riding high on [his] high horse” on the issue. He noted that some landlords had already removed couches from their rental properties. He allowed that it was too early to say whether it was arson that had caused the fire or whether an upholstered couch was to blame. However, Snyder stressed that the consequence of the fire had been tragic. From the report:

The third occupant was difficult to awaken and eventually exited through the front doorway, through the fire, as Fire apparatus was arriving on the scene. He was on fire and ran across the street in front of arriving apparatus. He was attended to by Fire personnel, extinguished and cared for until HVA arrival. He was transported to the hospital where he passed away approximately 12 hours later.

In that context, Snyder asked the three councilmembers present to revisit the Aug. 16, 2004 resolution considered by the council, but ultimately tabled, that would ban the use of indoor furniture on outdoor porches. Snyder allowed that the proposal had been met with “derision” at the time, with the representatives from the Michigan Student Assembly saying that couches created a “home-like atmosphere.”

Later during caucus deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that some of his fondest memories of college life were of taking a nap on the porch. He also mentioned that he’d recently bought a new couch, and had stored the old one on his porch for a time, before it eventually found a new home with his uncle. During that time, he said, he would have been out of compliance with an ordinance banning couches on porches.

Snyder noted that back in 2004, the city council had concluded that it could not legislate aesthetics. He sought to counter that idea by noting that we already legislate other kinds of aesthetics – like trash or cars parking on lawns.

Snyder then cited his 15 years of experience in the furniture industry with Herman Miller, saying that no furniture could be made permanently flame retardant. He concluded by saying, “I’m worried. I don’t know whose hands to put this in.”

Briere noted that the area of the city that Snyder had discussed – where he owns rental property – is a confluence of Ward 1, Ward 2, Ward 3 and Ward 4. She allowed that fires were undoubtedly a problem – whether it was a problem caused by couches on porches was difficult for her to say. She noted that the city council were not the parents of students, and observed that any ordinance would apply equally to student neighborhoods and other parts of the city, like the Old West Side and Pontiac Trail.

Kunselman introduced the idea that couches on porches could be addressed by landlords, by building prohibitions of porch couches into leases. He noted that the city council had received a letter from property management companies lobbying for a couch ban. Kunselman’s response: “You ban it!” Until he sees property management companies take a stronger position, he said, he was not favorably inclined to an ordinance on porch furniture.

Hieftje indicated that he thought Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was taking a look at the ordinance language that had previously been proposed and that if he had to guess, he thought that the council would be considering something. In relevant part, the 2004 proposed ordinance reads [.txt file of 2004 proposed couch ban resolution]:

Upholstered or other furniture designed or manufactured primarily for indoor use shall not be used or left:
1. On residential unenclosed, exterior porches or balconies
2. In an exposed open area of private property
Exceptions:
1. Wood, metal or plastic furniture.
2. Outdoor patio furniture with weather resistant cushions
3. Upholstered furniture designated for pre-paid special pick-up by public or private haulers complying with sections 2:7 and 2:12 of Chapter 26 of this Code.

Fuller Road Station

Gwen Nystuen, who’s a member of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), asked at the caucus about answers to questions that had been compiled from a Feb. 10, 2010 public meeting on Fuller Road Station. She said that the questions collected at the meeting had been posted on the city’s website, but that the answers had not. The questions that PAC had posed about the project had also not been given answers.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that they’d look into getting the answers to those questions posted – Briere composed an email on the spot to someone at the city.

Fuller Road Station – a proposed parking structure and bus station, and possibly an eventual train station – has been controversial from the point of view of PAC, due to the land’s status as parkland. But it’s also been controversial from the point of view of its financing. The city has not yet put forward a plan to finance its share of the city-University of Michigan joint project.

Fuller Road Station can be connected to a question asked by resident Brad Mikus at caucus, about $750,000 in the city’s economic development fund. At the council’s most recent meeting, April 12, to focus on the city’s budget, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out the fact from city administrator Roger Fraser that the proposed budget would provide authorization for spending the $750,000, but he said that there was no spending plan for the money.

Both Hieftje and Fraser have stated publicly that no general fund money will be used to pay for Fuller Road Station. The city’s capital improvements plan shows the money coming from the city’s economic development fund. At caucus, Briere and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) traced the history of the money currently in the economic development fund – it had been appropriated from the general fund to pay for free parking incentives for Google. The $750,000 is the amount that is now left over. Briere indicated at the caucus that the expectation by some had been that if the money were not used for that original purpose, it would revert to the city’s general fund.

Asked if he would consider the $750,000 currently in the economic development fund to be general fund money – thus not eligible for use on Fuller Road Station, Hieftje said he hadn’t thought about that question. Kunselman, in contrast, said flatly: “It’s general fund money.” Attaching a different label to it did not change the status of the money as general fund money, he said. Kunselman compared it to “Steve” versus “Stephen” – “I’m Steve, but I’m also Stephen, still the same person.”

Parking Plan and Fine Schedule

On the agenda for Monday’s council meeting is a presentation of a parking plan from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [Chronicle coverage: "Parking Report Portends City-DDA Tension"] Parking is generally a fertile ground for Ann Arbor discussion and Sunday’s caucus was no different.

Questioned by residents about features of the plan to be presented by the DDA, mayor John Hieftje, who also sits on the DDA board, stressed that the council would not be taking action on the plan – they’d simply be receiving the report.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that a parking issue on the agenda that would possibly result in council action was a proposed increase in fines for parking violations. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Parking Fines to Increase in Ann Arbor?"] The increase for one of the the most common violations – expired meters – would be bumped from $15 to $20. The discounted amount for those who pay the ticket immediately would remain $10.

The new fine schedule is estimated to generate an additional $635,000 in revenue over the current levels, and that additional revenue has been baked into the budget that will be presented formally by city administrator Roger Fraser on Monday night.

Residents at the caucus questioned the wisdom of making the assumption of the extra revenue. Briere allowed that the budgeting process was not an exact forecast. It involved trying to overestimate expenses and underestimate revenues, she said. These estimates are based on expenses and revenues in past years, but ultimately no one could know the future.

Currently, the parking system for the city is administered by the DDA under an agreement that was struck in 2005 and included payments of up to $10 million over the life of the 10-year deal. Mid-way through the term of the contract, the DDA has paid the full amount of the contract.

The city council and the DDA each have a committee charged with the task of renegotiating the parking agreement between the two entities, with the city hoping that the DDA will agree to continue paying the city $2 million a year. At caucus, Hieftje indicated he would be “very surprised” if the DDA did not agree to make that payment for FY 2011.

Asked by resident Nancy Kaplan whether the DDA was interested in making the right to enforce parking rules a part of the current negotiations over a possible $2 million payment, Hieftje confirmed that several members of the DDA board were interested in that possibility. He cautioned, however, that it’s not clear how such a plan would be implemented. Among the challenges is the geographic question of enforcement of those meters outside the DDA district. Another major challenge is a labor union issue – enforcement is currently performed by unionized labor in the form of the city’s community standards officers.

Caucus discussion of parking issues also included a review of the new ePark stations that have been installed in downtown areas. Jim Fuester, an interior designer with Mir’s Oriental Rugs on Main Street, reported that in working the “front lines” of downtown he’s encountered numerous complaints about the new stations from customers. He said that he’s resorted to going out to the meters with clients to help them learn how to use the machines – just so that they are able to spend time in his store without risking a fine.

A suggestion for the machines made by Fuester was to provide an audio version of the instructions – when the glare from the sun hits the screen, it’s impossible to read, he said.

Fuester’s experience with the machines contrasted with Kathy Griswold’s – she said she loves the machines.

But Griswold feared that the city was not going to collect the amount of revenue it expected from ticketing, because based on her own experience, she was not getting the number of tickets she previously received. She wondered if the city was still putting the same resources into ticketing.

Briere allowed that revenues from ticketing were  down this year, but that based on a Chronicle item she’d seen, she knew that the city continued to ticket.

East Stadium Bridges

On the council’s Monday night agenda is an item that authorizes the city’s application for another round of funding from the state’s local bridge fund. [See Chronicle coverage: "State Board: No Funding for Stadium Bridges"] Mayor John Hieftje indicated that the city hoped to receive some money from the state and was also pursuing funding at the federal level. As part of the city’s effort to secure some federal funding, Hieftje reported, Congressman John Dingell was setting up a meeting with the assistant secretary to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.

The upshot of the effort to secure funding was that the construction scheduled to start this fall based on a funding plan using just the city’s street reconstruction millage will be delayed until the spring.

Asked whether the option of an at-grade crossing had been explored – as opposed to retaining a bridge at that location – Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that yes, it had. In addition to the engineering and logistical challenges, they said, the thing that made it impossible was the Ann Arbor Railroad’s refusal to give permission for an at-grade crossing of the rail track.

King School Crosswalk

Resident Kathy Griswold addressed the caucus on the issue of a mid-block crosswalk in front of King Elementary School, which she’s been seeking to have moved to an intersection since fall of last year. She said that the new crosswalk had been designed, funded and had been supported by the neighborhood. She contended that city administrator Roger Fraser had stopped the project. When Todd Roberts, superintendent of Ann Arbor Public Schools, had asked Fraser about it, she contended, Fraser’s reply had been: “It’s not going to happen.”

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he thought a meeting was being set up. Griswold confirmed that attempts were being made –  by the mayor’s assistant – to set up a meeting, but that people were not available and there was difficulty scheduling, that had persisted over considerable time. “This stalling technique has gone on for months,” she said.

Griswold noted that she had followed the process: the crosswalk had been reviewed by the transportation safety committee, had the support of the King Elementary principal and the transportation director of AAPS. She concluded “I’m a bit frustrated.”

State Rep. Pam Byrnes, left, and Karen Sidney talk before the start of the city council's meeting, which included a presentation at the start of the meeting from Byrnes. (Photos by the writer.)

And, in a move that some councilmembers described as leadership, mayor John Hieftje announced that he was writing a check for $1,273 as a contribution back to the city, because that’s the equivalent of 3% of his annual salary – the same percentage conceded by the firefighters union. It’s also the same percentage Hieftje has suggested that all employees citywide accept as a wage reduction. Some councilmembers indicated they’d be making similar gestures, which they allowed were only symbolic.

The city council also approved a budget increase for the 911 call center modification, a project to facilitate co-location of the city and county 911 centers – it’s expected to be a cost-savings measure.

Council also directed the city administrator, Roger Fraser, to plan an event to honor volunteer members of various boards, commissions and committees that do much of the work required to make the city run.

In other business, the council approved without discussion a University of Michigan project for the soccer complex on South Main Street.

State Rep. Pam Byrnes (D-District 52) gave a presentation to the council at the start of the meeting outlining exactly how bleak the economic outlook is in Michigan.

Many of the items on council’s agenda were postponed: revisions to bicycling and pedestrian ordinances (including bicycle registration); revisions to parking fines; and the capital improvements plan.

And two of the items were pulled from the agenda at the start of the meeting: a revision to the ordinance on signs and outdoor advertising to allow portable signs; and a resolution to approve the transfer of a liquor license to BW&R GoBlue LLC, located at 640 Packard Street.

Firefighter Contract

At the city council’s Dec. 5 budget retreat, city administrator Roger Fraser had indicated to councilmembers that he intended to implement an item in the fiscal 2011 budget plan six months earlier than specified in that plan:  layoff 14 firefighters.

When the city council did not take any action at their Dec. 7 meeting to gave Fraser other direction, layoff notices were sent – to have been effective on Jan. 4, 2010. At their Jan. 4 meeting, the city council was informed that the city and the International Association of Firefighters Local 693 reached an agreement that would forestall layoffs until at least June 30, 2010, which the union would vote the following week. The union approved the agreement.

The item on the council’s Tuesday agenda was an approval by the council of that agreement. Highlights from the council packet description:

• One-year contract: July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010.
• Effective Jan. 3, 2010: a 3.0% wage decrease.
• Effective Feb. 1, 2010: an increase in Pension Contribution from 5% to 6%.
• Effective upon Council Approval: a payment of $250 into each member’s HRA account for FY 2010.
• Guarantee of no layoffs through June 30, 2010.

Hieftje noted that the deal did not get the city all the way to covering the budget gap they needed to cover.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the deal preventing layoffs of firefighters until June 30, 2010.

A related item on the agenda addressed the ordinance change – to the retirement system –  needed in order to implement some elements of the agreement with the firefighters. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why the item had been put out of place on the agenda – as an ordinance change, it should not have been included in the section on staff’s new business. City administrator Roger Fraser explained that the rationale for its agenda placement had been that it was contingent on approval of the firefighter agreement, thus immediately followed it on the agenda.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change to the retirement system.

Three Percent for Symbolism

Related via the 3% theme to the firefighters’ concession was an announcement from mayor John Hieftje. In his communications, he said that while he’d previously announced a challenge to all city staff, including councilmembers, to accept a 3% wage cut, it was not a simple matter for councilmembers to implement a cut for themselves.

Council Pay Raises: Legislative Background

By way of background, the city charter actually still specifies that councilmembers are not paid:

SECTION 12.6.
(a) Each member of the Council, except the Mayor, shall serve without pay. The compensation of the Mayor shall be fixed by the Council. When authorized by the Council, necessary expenses may be allowed to its members when actually incurred on behalf of the City.

However, in 1972, the following amendment was made to the state’s Home Rule City Act:

117.5c Local officers compensation commission; …

Sec. 5c. In place of a charter provision existing on December 31, 1972 establishing the salaries or the procedure for determining salaries of elected officials, the governing body may establish, by ordinance, the procedure described in this section, in which case the restriction contained in a charter provision with respect to changing salaries during term shall be inapplicable.

In Ann Arbor’s case, the relevant ordinance is contained in Chapter 22 of the city code. Pertinent to the possibility of reducing the Ann Arbor city council’s compensation is the timing of the local officers compensation commission’s (LOCC) meeting, as specified in Chapter 22 [emphasis added]:

(3)   The commission shall meet for not more than 15 session days in every odd numbered year and shall make its determination within 45 calendar days of its first meeting. A majority of the members of the commission constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the commission. The commission shall take no action or make determinations without a concurrence of a majority of the members appointed and serving on the commission. The commission shall elect a chairman from among its members. “Session days” means any calendar day on which the commission meets and a quorum is present. The members of the commission shall receive no compensation, but shall be entitled to their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.

Council Pay Raises: Recent Local History

The city’s LOCC commission met on May 12, 2009 and made a determination to maintain compensation of councilmembers and the mayor at $15,913 and $42,436, respectively.

Because this year is an even-numbered year, an adjustment to compensation would have to wait until January 2011.

The previous determination of the LOCC, made in 2007, had recommended a 3% raise for the mayor’s position from $40,000 to $41,200 in 2008  and another 3% to $42,436 in 2009. In 2007, the LOCC had also recommended a 3% raise for councilmembers from $15,000 to $15,450 in 2008 and another 3% to $15,913 in 2009.

At their Dec. 17, 2007 meeting, the city council considered a resolution that would have rejected the recommended pay increases. It was separated out into three separate resolutions, one on the mayor, another on the mayor pro tem (which we here leave aside), and a third on councilmembers. The resolution was introduced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Christopher Easthope, who then represented Ward 5, along with Mike Anglin.

The constitution of council at that time was: Ronald Suarez (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Joan Lowenstein (Ward 2), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Leigh Greden (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Christopher Easthope (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and John Hieftje (mayor).

The resolution ultimately passed failed on a voice vote. Commentary in a Dec. 23, 2007 editorial published in the Ann Arbor News read as follows:

Quite a kabuki dance ensued as the resolution was discussed and ultimately defeated – meaning that the pay raises will go into effect. Easthope and new Council Members Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, and Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, voted to reject the raises for the council – though Anglin supported giving Mayor John Hieftje a raise. (A challenge by Leigh Greden, D-3rd Ward, was pure debate-club theater. Greden proposed that those rejecting the raises give the money to charity – Easthope, Briere and Anglin all agreed to do it.)

[Editor's note: The editorial was drafted by Ann Arbor Chronicle publisher, Mary Morgan, who then served as the News' opinion editor.]

Then, in the summer of 2009, a request made by Ann Arbor News columnist Judy McGovern under the Freedom of Information Act yielded emails exchanged between councilmembers during the Dec. 17, 2007 meeting. Those emails revealed the talk at the table to have been actual theater. From McGovern’s July 21, 2009 article:

7:32 p.m. – Leigh Greden to Marcia Higgins: “SK (Stephen Kunselman) is with us on the pay raise.”
7:34 p.m. – Higgins to Greden: “Welll (sic) that’s 5 of us. Anyone else?”
7:37 p.m. – Greden to Higgins: “Higgins, (Margie) Teall, (Stephen) Rapundalo, (Joan) Lowenstein, Greden, Kunselman. I think (Mayor John) Hieftje is with us too. He wants it to pass. I told him I would publicly challenge anyone who votes no (against accepting the additional compensation) to return the pay raise or donate it to a charity. I told him I would publicly follow-up on that challenge in 6 months, so he better vote yes.”
7:38 p.m. – Higgins to Greden: “Joan changed her mind?”
7:39 p.m. – Greden to Higgins: “She said ‘I just don’t want to be the only one.’ I told her we have a majority, so she said she’d vote with us.”
As the question reached the floor, Greden e-mailed Easthope.
8:28 p.m. – Subject “wait”
“I’m going to see what people say about the pay raise. I will challenge in a minute.”
8:29 p.m. – Easthope to Greden: “Make sure, that’s our deal for keeping my mouth shut. I told John I wouldn’t ask for a roll call vote.”
8:29 p.m. – Greden to Easthope: “Deal. I need to let the others speak first.”

Council Pay Cuts: Symbolic Check Writing

Against that historical background, Hieftje said that he’d be writing a check for $1,273 and handing it over to the city administrator as a contribution to the city of Ann Arbor.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he supported the idea that everybody should contribute, and said that he’d be joining the mayor in writing a check.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) chat during a recess of the council's meeting.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) also said he’d write a check for his 3%, noting that in tough times, symbols were important.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) slowed the momentum for check writing when he said he’d “be willing to give it some thought and consideration,” but noted that there were differences between the firefighters and city councilmembers at the level of benefits received.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) told the mayor, “I appreciate your leadership on this,” noting that the council was asking a great deal from everyone.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked the mayor for leading the effort, emphasizing that it was largely symbolic. She noted that she could not write a check for an entire year, but would do it quarterly.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) allowed that she did not have a problem with symbolism. But she noted that the local officers compensation commission had met and determined that there would be no pay increases. She also noted that the fire department agreement affected one union contract only, and raised the question of what the other unions were doing. She wondered what the situation looked like for non-union workers.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) remarked, “It hardly seems rational not to join in this love-fest,” but then alluded to the historical background of how there’d been a great deal of manipulation of the discussion about council pay raises back in 2007, and that she’d held to her commitment made back then to give the 2007 raise – which she’d voted against – to charity.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) allowed that she had no problem following the spirit of the gesture, but that the amount per person of around $450 was not going to “shake loose the $5 million” shortfall they were facing. She then admonished her fellow councilmembers: “I hope you’re all as strong when it comes to tougher decisions.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) did not speak to the issue.

Later in his communications, city administrator Roger Fraser, alluding to other city employees, noted that “some of our folks have been contributing already.”

Resolution Giving Recognition to Citizen Volunteers

Before the council was a resolution, brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), directing the city administrator to create an annual event that would honor and recognize the numerous volunteers who serve on boards, commissions and committees that help the city run.

City administrator Roger Fraser and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) as they discuss an event to honor citizen volunteers.

City administrator Roger Fraser remarked that such an event had been instituted in Blaine, Minn., where he’d previously been city manager, and that it had been well-received.

He reported that his recent success in dropping some weight had allowed him to fit into a commemorative T-shirt from that event in the early 2000s.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the creation of an event to honor citizen volunteers.

Co-Located 911 Dispatch

Before the council was a resolution to approve an increase in the project budget for the co-location of the city and county’s 911 dispatch center.

Previous coverage from the council’s Dec. 9, 2009 meeting:

The city of Ann Arbor has agreed to co-locate its 911 dispatch with the county’s operation – that will take place at the city’s existing location in fire station #1, across from city hall. The cost of the remodeling will be $48,183, but will be reimbursed from the 800 MHz public safety communications millage fund.

At Monday’s meeting, chief of police Barnett Jones called the co-location a “dream come true.” The expectation is that co-location will eventually lead to consolidation of the operations.

The cooperative effort with the county on 911 dispatch, Jones said, was part of an effort to regionalize services, which already included SWAT, K-9, and training. [See also: "County Reorganizes 911 Dispatch"]

The resolution before the council on Monday was to approve the purchase of a 911 phone switch for $258,983.

During the brief deliberations by the council, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited from deputy police chief Greg Bazick that the consolidation has been talked about for almost as long has he’s worked on the force – 19 years. The cost savings would lie in the ability to eliminate duplicative technology costs.

City administrator Roger Fraser pointed out that for now, the arrangement would allow the city and county to work side-by-side, which was more economical, because by state law if they made it one operation, they would have to pay the more expensive of the two labor contracts.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of the 911 phone switch.

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

Although the capital improvements plan (CIP) was ultimately postponed, five people spoke to the issue during the public hearing on it.

Public Commentary on CIP

Thomas Partridge characterized one item on the plan as “selfish” on the part of the mayor – the Fuller Road Station, which in a second phase of construction could include amenities for bicyclists like showers and a mechanics shop. [Mayor John Hieftje sometimes rides his bicycle for transportation, and often mentions that he does so.] In the CIP, Phase I for the design and construction of Fuller Road Station, which is classified as “urgent,”  calls for $5.36 million to be contributed from the city’s economic development fund, with an additional $18 million coming from the University of Michigan.

Fuller Road Station was also addressed by Rita Mitchell, who echoed the sentiments of James D’Amour, who spoke to the council at its Jan. 4, 2010 meeting. D’Amour had objected to the arrangement between the city of Ann Arbor and UM for the land on which the Fuller Road Station will be built. D’Amour had characterized the arrangement as amounting to a permanent lease or a sale, which, as such, needed to be approved by voters. By way of background, on the Nov. 4, 2008 ballot had been an amendment to the Ann Arbor city charter, which was approved by voters by a 4-to-1 margin:

SECTION 14.3.
… (b) The City shall not sell without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the City voting on the question at a regular or special election, any City park, or land in the City acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof.

In addition to the city charter amendment is a clause of the state’s Home Rule City Act that also requires a referendum in order to sell land classified as a park. Specifically, among the powers explicitly not granted in the act:

… to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city;

Supporters of the city charter amendment argued that such an amendment was necessary in order to rule out possible abuse of the exception specified in the Home Rule City Act. That is, to circumvent the state statute, one could first revise the official master plan of the city to designate some other use for a park, then sell the parcel based on the exception.

During the public hearing on the CIP, Mitchell told councilmembers that the arrangement with UM violated the intent of the charter amendment that citizens have a say in how parkland is used.

Mitchell also criticized another item in the CIP: the expansion of the materials recovery facility to accommodate a change to single-stream recycling. While single-stream recycling seemed simpler, Mitchell allowed, there was additional complexity on the back end – both in the additional sorting that would need to take place, and in the incentive system that would be implemented to encourage people to recycle more. The program fed into the idea of more use, not reduce, said Mitchell. She suggested that the goal should be to reduce the total amount in the waste stream.

Kathy Boris also questioned the conversion to single-stream recycling. Ann Arbor already had a working two-stream system, she said, and residents were educated about it. The point of recycling, she stressed, was to be able to sell the material so that it could be re-used, not to collect as much as possible. She expressed concern that the quality of the material collected under a single stream system would suffer.

[In his communications, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he'd read a report questioning some of the claims made for single-stream recycling on economic grounds and that he wanted to get a response from city staff. Roger Fraser said that solid waste coordinator Tom McMurtrie had responded to the report point-by-point, and that Rapundalo would get a copy.]

Focusing less on specific items in the CIP and more on general concepts was Karen Sidney, who asked: What’s your plan to keep up what you have? She urged the council to think in terms of questions like when will Vet’s Park skating rink need a new roof? [During his communications to council, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that this was, in fact, a part of the city's thinking, and cited his own experience in the late '90s as chair of the park advisory commission in support of that contention. Planning for facilities improvements has been going on for years, he said.]

Cresson Slotten, senior project manager with the city, sifts through the capital improvements plan (CIP) looking for a piece of data that Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had requested.

Sidney also criticized the way that items in the CIP were characterized as a wish list, and the way the plan was defended with the assurance that the authorization for expenditures of the funds was not being voted on when the plan was approved – it’s just a plan. But when it came time to vote, she warned, councilmembers would point to the plan and say, “It’s been there for years!”

[During his communications, city administrator Roger Fraser said that the CIP reflected the staff's "best guesses" and that it was, in fact, just a plan, but that a plan needs to be funded. That, he said, required that the items be in the plan long before the budget decision.]

Brad Mikus picked up on a theme that Thomas Partridge had introduced when Partridge described the CIP as a largely “unknown issue.” He noted that as he’d read through the plan there were several dramatic increases or decreases in funding levels for various projects, reasons for which were not immediately obvious – WALLY and Fuller Road Station, to name two. He challenged councilmembers to answer some specific questions about the CIP, among them: How many of the specific line items are in your ward?

Council Deliberations on CIP

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off by alerting his colleagues to the fact that he’d be asking for a postponement, as he had just received a copy of the plan – he didn’t move the postponement, however, in order to give his colleagues an opportunity to raise any questions. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Cresson Slotten, senior project manager with the city, to find a specific item in the plan. No other councilmembers had any comments on the plan, so the deliberations came to a halt as Slotten searched through a paper copy of the plan.

At that point, Kunselman moved to postpone the vote on the plan.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the CIP.

Bicycles and Pedestrians

Back for their second reading before the council were two ordinances – one regarding bicycles and pedestrians and another on bicycle registration. The material effect of the ordinance revisions to the bicycle code is to repeal the city’s existing ordinances, with the idea that the Michigan Vehicle Code would apply where relevant. The ordinances to be repealed have counterparts in the MVC. For example:

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

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

[The Chronicle's set of the respective city-state pairings is available as a text file: statecitybicycle.txt.]

Bicycles: Public Comment

Three people spoke during the public hearing on the bicycle ordinance revision. Erica Briggs spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition – she’s also currently a member of the city’s planning commission and previously served as director of the getDowntown program. Briggs said that WBWC fully supported the revisions to the ordinances and suggested that the fee reduction from $8 to $3 for registration be even further reduced. She also said that they’d like to see progress made towards an ordinance that would require drivers to stop when a pedestrian approached a crosswalk, not just after entering.

Brad Mikus asked that councilmembers consider the question of enforcement – bicycles are required to have headlights, for example, as well as make an audible sound when passing a pedestrian. He also asked that councilmembers take a look at the definition of a bike path, which had been somewhat simplified.

Thomas Partridge told the council that the public had not been informed as to whether the ordinance would help disabled people or seniors. He also related an encounter on a sidewalk with a bicycle-mounted Ann Arbor policeman, who’d approached from behind with no lights.

Bicycles: Council Deliberations

During deliberations, Marcia Higgins (Ward 2) wanted to know why the references to the MVC were still not included. She’d requested them at the previous council meeting, when the ordinance revision had been approved on its first reading. Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, pointed out that the MVC was referenced in the ordinance revision. It reads:

10:160. Driver regulation applicable.

Every person riding a bicycle upon a street or highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle under the Michigan Vehicle Code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923 and as subsequently amended, which is incorporated by reference in Chapter 126 of this Code, except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. A complete copy of the code is available to the public for inspection in the Office of the Ann Arbor City Clerk.

Cooper said that a copy of the specific text of the MVC could be made available at the city clerk’s office.

Higgins, however, insisted that this was not user-friendly and stated that her previous direction had not been taken seriously. She wanted the text of the MVC to be included in the city’s code, and if there was some reason why it could not be included, she wanted to know why not.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked for clarification as to whether Higgins wanted the code itself to repeat the text of the MVC, or if instead that she meant it to be included in editorial fashion after publication. City attorney Stephen Postema said that typically it would be added in editorial fashion, but that he could not think of a reason offhand why it couldn’t be included in the code itself.

Higgins said that inclusion of the language in the code would force the council to make updates on a more regular basis.

With a motion for postponement on the floor, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that in the intervening time period, a more detailed description of the educational campaign be made available to councilmembers. The campaign had previously been discussed by council. Cooper said he believed that it had been made available – in the form of a response to a “caucus question” he’d sent to the council. City administrator Roger Fraser weighed in, saying that staff would review the matter and make sure that the council had the information.

Outcome: The bicycle and pedestrian ordinance revisions were postponed.

When the council came to the ordinance revision addressing registration procedures for bicycles, Carsten Hohnke noted that there’d been some conversation around exactly how the registration process would be structured. He moved to postpone that item as well.

Outcome: The bicycle registration ordinance revision was postponed.

An agenda item connected to bicycle registration would have changed the fee from $8 lifetime to $3 for five years and provided an educational packet to a registrant. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he was against the revision, saying that $8 was too expensive, especially in these economic times. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) then clarified that the $8 fee was proposed to be replaced with a $3 fee, but took Kunselman’s point, suggesting that the fee be reduced even further.

Hohnke then suggested that it would be prudent to postpone the matter.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked how much it actually cost the city to do the registration. Cooper answered that to produce the educational materials was just under $3 and there was a nominal amount of staff time to maintain the records.

Hohnke asked how much the cost would drop if the bicycle map were not included. Cooper explained that the map cost around $1.90 – it was made of an “indestructible medium,” and could be used in the rain. Cooper pointed out that the map also included some safety information.

Outcome: Consideration of the bicycle registration fee and educational packet was postponed.

Parking Fines

At their previous meeting, on Jan. 4, 2010, the council had approved a resolution to take fines for specific violations – handicap, odd/even districts and snow emergencies – and put them on the same schedule as other violations.

At that meeting Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had queried city treasurer Matthew Horning: Is this the revision to the fee schedule? Horning clarified that it was not. That would come before the council at the next meeting (Jan. 18), he had said then. Smith had asked that it be delayed until after the Downtown Development Authority had submitted the parking report that council had requested of the DDA, via a resolution, at its Dec.  21, 2009 meeting.[Chronicle coverage: "Most Aspects of Parking Deal Approved"]

What was before the council on Jan. 18, then, was the revision to the actual fine amounts. The new fine schedule includes an increase from $15 to $20 for the basic expired meter fine. [Chronicle coverage of Nov. 9, 2009 working session: "Parking Fines to Increase in Ann Arbor?"]

Consistent with her remarks at the previous meeting, Smith then moved for a postponement until April, after which the DDA will have submitted its report to the council.

Outcome: The parking fine fee schedule was postponed.

State Rep. Pam Byrnes

State Rep. Pam Byrnes (D-District 52) gave a presentation to the council outlining the current economic conditions in Michigan. Some of the council conversation focused on term limits. The topic emerged from mayor John Hieftje’s remark to Byrnes that if the state was going to reduce funding to municipalities, then it needed to provide additional taxing authority to those municipalities. The need to enact longer-term solutions like the kind of structural change the mayor was talking about, said Byrnes, might need to be preceded by elimination of term limits.

Other Public Commentary

A total of five people spoke during the time allotted for public commentary – either during reserved time at the start of the meeting or at the end, when no advance sign-up is necessary.

Library Lot RFP: Financial Return

Karen Sidney addressed one of the three objectives specified in the city’s request for proposals (RFP) to develop the Library Lot – the objective specifying that there be a financial return to the city. Using taxes to subsidize a development was not a financial return, she said. She also encouraged the council to think about the increased cost of population density – even as tax revenues increased, she cautioned, there was a parallel increase in the cost of services required by additional people.

How Should Ann Arbor Change?

John Floyd made his remarks at the end of the meeting during the slot for general public commentary. He began by expressing his appreciation for the attempts to coordinate the city and county – alluding to the co-location of the 911 dispatch center.

John Floyd spoke during public commentary at the end of the council meeting.

He then introduced a topic he’s raised with Ward 5 councilmember Carsten Hohnke before at city council, based on Hohnke’s remarks that Ann Arbor could look to cities like Portland, Seattle and Boulder as examples for inspiration. When Hohnke did not appear to be paying attention to him, Floyd said, “I’ll wait until you have moment to pay attention.” The pause, which could fairly be described as awkward – Floyd standing at the podium and Hohnke looking intently downward – was broken by Floyd saying, “Any time you’re ready,” and then continued for some seconds.

Hohnke looked up, and Floyd asked Hohnke to enumerate three or four ways that Ann Arbor should change to be like the cities he’d mentioned – should Ann Arbor, for example, grow its population to be like them?

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thomas Partridge told the council that he was contemplating running for either the state house seat in the 52nd District or else the 18th Senate District. He noted that he’d met Martin Luther King, Jr. a year before his death when he spoke on the campus of Michigan State University, where King held held forth, speaking for 45 minutes without notes. Partridge said we must challenge the old premises and – alluding to Pam Byrnes’ discussion of term limits as a reason why structural changes are hard – suggested the problem was not term limits, but rather attitudes and behavior of elected officials.

Palestine

Blaine Coleman and Mozhgan Savabiesfahani both spoke to the issue of Palestine.

Coleman began by saying that Israel had massacred Gaza one year ago and left 1,400 Palestineans dead. A supporter of the Israeli defense forces, Coleman said, had been appointed to the Ann Arbor human rights commission: Neal Elyakin. [The city council approved Elyakin's appointment to the commission on Dec. 7, 2009.] On Elyakin’s blog, Coleman reported, Elyakin had written that “the term ‘Palestinean’ is a masterful twisting of history” and before the military action in Gaza, he had written “Let Israel do what Israel does.” Coleman asked if that was the public face that Ann Arbor wanted to present. Coleman carried a sign that read “Boycott Israel” and concluded his remarks with that sentiment.

When mayor John Hieftje introduced Savabiesfahani he stumbled on her name and observed that it seemed to be misspelled on the council agenda. [It was misspelled.] She remarked that she’d spoken often enough at the city council that she felt like he should know how to pronounce her name. Hieftje – who often listens as people run roughshod over the pronunciation of his own name – shot back: “Can you say mine?” She then delivered the name “Hieftje” correctly, saying, “I do my homework.” In the substance of her remarks, Savabiesfahani criticized the U.S. for the ongoing wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. She noted that in discussions of ways to trim the budget, “not a single penny has been denied Israel” by the U.S. She said that in the same way that the U.S. EPA and FDA had become obsolete, Hieftje’s appointment of Elyakin to the human rights commission was making that body obsolete. She concluded her remarks with “Boycott Israel.”

Homelessness

Lilly Au described conditions at a tent city of homeless people in Ann Arbor – ice on sleeping bags that comes from the water vapor freezing. She lamented the fact that there is no day warming center, noting that the downtown library had become a de facto day warming station. But the library, she said, had rules against sleeping that could result in expulsion from the facility. She said that many homeless people are under treatment for mental illnesses and that the medication they take makes them drowsy.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 1, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

View from the southwest. The Library Lot (construction crane) is immediately to the north of the Ann Arbor District Library (red brick with blue trim). In the foreground is the awning for the Blake Transit Center (bus turning in). (Photo by the writer links to higher resolution image).

That discussion would be focused on parking fines – a topic the Ann Arbor city council was briefed on at its Nov. 9 work session by city financial services staff. That session did not include the DDA, which manages the Ann Arbor’s parking system under a contract with the city. Republic Parking is the company contracted by the DDA for operation of the system. [See Chronicle coverage: "Parking Fines to Increase in Ann Arbor?"]

In the only board resolution considered at the meeting, executive director Susan Pollay was authorized to negotiate easements with property owners adjoining the construction site for the underground parking garage, which is now starting construction.

The audit of the DDA’s books was reported as clean. Compared to the same month last year, the parking system continues to show gains in numbers of hourly patrons and in revenues – a consistent pattern for the last year.

Discussion of future downtown development emerged at several points in the meeting. It included the new downtown zoning package recently approved by the city council, plus design guidelines – which are to accompany the new zoning regulations, but which have not yet been approved.

The future of development atop the new underground parking garage, on the site known informally as the Library Lot, also received brief mention – an announcement of the first meeting of the RFP advisory committee, which will review the six development proposals received by the city. The group meets on Friday, Dec. 4, at 11 a.m. in the conference room on the sixth floor of city hall.

The Library Lot will also be included in a set of projects to be presented by students of Peter Allen, who teaches at the University of Michigan’s College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Those presentations will be given on Dec. 14, from 7-10 p.m. at the UM Ross School of Business in Room 0240.

The board heard an optimistic report from the Main Street Area Association on its window display contest, which is coordinated with the Friday, Dec. 4 Midnight Madness. And the board heard a report from getDowntown on its new physical location, which included an announcement of new email addresses as well as a new street address.

Hewitt on Parking Fines: “We have a number of thoughts!”

Early in the meeting, Sandi Smith gave what’s become a standard update from the “mutually beneficial” committee: Nothing to report.

The committee was established in early 2009 to meet with a corresponding Ann Arbor city council committee to renegotiate the parking agreement between the city and the DDA. The DDA manages the parking system through a contract with the city. The city of Ann Arbor has penciled in a $2 million payment from the DDA for its FY 2011 budget plan – a payment that the DDA is not required to make under terms of its current contract. Hence the desire on the city’s part to renegotiate the deal.

[For more historical background on the formation of the respective mutually beneficial committees, see previous Chronicle coverage "DDA: Who's on the Committee?" and more recently "Parking Fines to Increase in Ann Arbor?"]

In contrast to the report of inactivity on the parking agreement front – with no forecast for any future activity – there was a hint at Wednesday’s meeting that some kind of conversation might happen between the DDA and the city on the subject of parking violation fines.

In reporting out from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt mentioned that the committee had discussed the presentation on parking violation fines that the city council had received at its November work session. He observed that the DDA, and the operations committee specifically, had a number of thoughts and opinions on the subject, which “we’d be happy to share with city officials if they’d like us to.”

Sandi Smith, who sits on the DDA board as well as the city council, took up Hewitt’s conversational gambit by asking him what his preferred forum would be for the communication. Hewitt suggested that the natural vehicle for the DDA would be the operations committee and that it could include city staff as well as city council members. Smith then turned to Mayor John Hieftje, who also has dual status on the DDA board and the city council, for his thoughts. He offered that the important thing was for councilmembers who wished to attend to be made aware of the meeting date.

It was not clear if the goal is to have the conversation sought by Hewitt at the very next operations committee meeting. That meeting is scheduled for Dec. 16 at 11 a.m. at the DDA offices.

Demand Management: Parking as Part of Transportation

The next meeting of the operations committee on Dec. 16 will overlap with the transportation committee. The transportation committee will start at its usual time at 9 a.m. and go until 10:30 a.m., at which point the transportation and operations committees will meet jointly for an hour, before the operations committee continues at 11:30 for the rest of its regular meeting.

The point of the overlap, as explained by Roger Hewitt, who chairs the operations committee, and Jennifer S. Hall, who gave the transportation committee’s report in John Mouat’s absence, is to focus on transportation demand management (TDM). The goals of TDM, Hall explained, are twofold: (i) promote greater use of sustainable transportation options – bus, bicycle, walking, and (ii) increase the efficiency of the parking system.

The two committees’ subject matter overlaps in the area of TDM, so they’ll be meeting jointly to tackle TDM.

Parking Report

The parking system continues to show gains both in hourly patrons and revenues versus last year. For October 2009, revenues were $1,291,669 – a 3.07% increase compared to October 2008. For October 2009, 203,107 hourly patrons used the parking system, a 13.3% increase.

The roughly 200 spaces lost on the Library Lot, which has become a construction site for the underground parking garage to be built there, were reflected in a 500% increase in number of hourly patrons and a 200% jump in revenue at the Fifth and William surface lot just across the street, which is also commonly known as the site of the old YMCA. In October 2009, the Fifth and William lot generated $26,742 in revenue with 10,423 hourly patrons.

Future Downtown Development

Future downtown development surfaced as a topic at several points during the DDA’s board meeting.

Sites for Development

The Fifth and William site, which is enjoying increased parking usage, is not envisioned long term as a surface parking lot. The old YMCA building that previously stood there was acquired by the city of Ann Arbor in 2003 in order to preserve the 100 units of affordable housing that the building offered. The YMCA had no plans to incorporate residential units at its new site on West Washington, and neither did the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which had contemplated redeveloping the old building as a transit center and office headquarters.

In 2005, the mechanical systems in the old YMCA building failed to such an extent that residents needed to be moved out of the building. Seeing no immediate prospects for redevelopment of the property, the city (in coordination with the DDA) took the first step that any redevelopment would require: demolition of the building. Since the summer of 2008 the site has served as a surface parking lot. At its meeting on Dec. 1, 2008 the city council refinanced the property at the site of the old YMCA, which it purchased for $3.5 million dollars.

A previous private development at that site, William Street Station, was to include some affordable units, but the city council pulled the plug on that project, when the developer failed to meet various deadlines. The developer recently filed suit over that action.

In that context, during public commentary at the DDA’s meeting on Wednesday, Peter Allen, a local developer who teaches at the UM College of Architecture and Urban Planning as well as the business school, told the DDA board he was looking for jurors. The jurors are needed to judge graduate student projects focusing on three different sites in Ann Arbor, not all of them in the downtown: (i) the Library Lot, Fifth and William, (ii) the Fuller Road Station and (iii) the current Amtrak station. Those presentations will be given on Dec. 14 from 7-10 p.m. at the Ross School of Business in Room 0240.

In addition to academic proposals for the Library Lot, the city of Ann Arbor has received six responses to its request for proposals (RFP) for the top of the underground parking structure. Those proposals will be reviewed by the RFP advisory committee on Friday, Dec. 4 at 11 a.m. in the conference room on the sixth floor of city hall. From the DDA, the advisory committee includes current board chair John Splitt and executive director Susan Pollay. Other members are Margie Teall (city council), Stephen Rapundalo (city council), Eric Mahler (planning commission), Sam Offen (park advisory commission), Roger Fraser (city administrator), Jayne Miller (the city’s director of community services) and  Matt Kulhanek (manager of the Ann Arbor municipal airport).

It’s not clear what, if any, outcome might result from the initial meeting, but in his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter suggested that none of the six proposals could be endorsed by the advisory council, and that it might be wise to wait a bit and see if other proposals could be generated.

Zoning and Design Guidelines: Residential Density

While there was no consensus on which of the six proposals for the Library Lot was best, Detter reported, the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council was still commited to residential density.

In reporting out from the A2D2 steering committee on which he serves, Roger Hewitt echoed Ray Detter’s sentiments on residential density. Hewitt noted that city council had approved the recommended new zoning for downtown Ann Arbor at its Nov. 16 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead"] But he expressed his disappointment that the city council had not acted on the DDA’s recommendations for amending the zoning. Specifically, he contended that after five years of a planning process – dating back to the Calthorpe report, which had residential density as a goal – the city had actually gone backwards on residential density.

After the meeting, Hewitt walked The Chronicle through his reasoning. Under the old zoning, Hewitt explained, there was a reward for building residential construction – for every square foot of residential construction that was built, a developer was allowed an additional square foot of residential construction up to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 660%. Under the new zoning, the maximum FAR has increased slightly to 700%. But Hewitt pointed out that the reward is no longer 1-to-1 but rather 1-to-.75. Otherwise put, for every square foot of residential construction built, a developer is rewarded with the ability to build an additional .75 square feet of residential, which actually makes it more expensive to achieve the rewards. As a practical matter, he contended, under the .75 reward system, it was only possible to achieve an FAR of around 600%.

Preparing to Dig, Executive Director Gets Negotiating Authority

As a part of his report out from the capital improvements committee, John Splitt said that earth retention work would begin next week in preparation to dig the hole for the underground garage at the Library Lot. In the context of construction work set to begin in earnest, and at the request of neighbors who wanted clarification, the DDA board considered a resolution that gave the executive director of the DDA authority to negotiate easements with owners of property adjacent to the construction site.

Executive director Susan Pollay clarified for board members what this might entail: If sidewalks were broken in the course of construction, for example, then the DDA would repair them, or if landscaping was damaged, then the DDA would restore it.

Board member Gary Boren wanted to know if the resolution gave Pollay the authority to actually ink a deal, no matter the cost. John Splitt confirmed that it did, but Pollay assured the board that she was keeping the operations committee apprised of all conversations with neighbors. Roger Hewitt further clarified that any cost associated with the negotiations completed by Pollay would fall within the guaranteed maximum construction price.

Outcome: The board approved authority for the executive director to negotiate easements, with dissent from Jennifer S. Hall.

Clarifying her dissent on the vote in an email sent in response to a Chronicle query, Hall wrote:

I had no problem in general with the authority the board was giving to the executive director. However, I am still of the opinion that the more environmentally and economically sustainable decision would have been to invest substantially more resources into transportation demand management and alternative transportation and then evaluate the need to build more parking. I don’t support the parking garage project and cannot support any resolution relating to its implementation.

Grants: Near North and Arts Alliance

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Sandi Smith said that the Near North affordable housing development had asked the DDA for $500,000. Near North, which was approved as a PUD (planned unit development) by the city council at its Sept. 21 meeting, would include 39 total units – with 25 targeting incomes at less than 50% of the area median income (AMI), and 14 units of supportive housing targeting incomes at less than 30% of AMI.

Smith noted that the Near North development was within 1/4 mile of the DDA district, which was within the area where the DDA’s policy supports affordable housing. This was a policy adopted at the DDA board’s March 4, 2009 meeting. It was during that meeting that former board member Dave Devarti was “channeled” in support of the idea of not limiting the range to just 1/4 mile – an idea that ultimately did not win the day.

Smith said that the dialog with Near North had continued and that the partnerships committee expected to make a decision on a recommendation to the full board at the committee’s next meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 9 a.m.

As for the Arts Alliance request for $25,000 to build a web portal – as part of a $50,000 total budget – Smith said that the partnerships committee had recommended to the alliance that it provide a clearer idea of what the portal would do. If the alliance needed some start-up money to get started so that the idea could be clearer, the committee had suggested to the alliance that the executive director of the DDA had discretionary use of amounts up to $10,000, which they might pursue.

The window display at Four Directions on Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

Main Street Windows

During public commentary, Maura Thomson, executive director of Main Street Area Association, expressed her thanks to the DDA board for their help in putting on a store window display contest, which will continue through Friday’s Midnight Madness event.

At its July 1, 2009 meeting, the board had approved $4,000 for each of the downtown’s four merchant associations for a window display contest, for a total of $16,000.

Thomson reported that the window display contest was a success as measured by participation: 30 merchants were participating and to date over 1,200 people had voted on the website. Voting continues until midnight, Friday, Dec. 4.

It was also a success, she said, in terms of the intended impact: to get merchants to think about their windows as a way to tell the story of what’s sold inside. As an example, she gave Seyfried’s Jewelers, which had sold two items from their window display the first day of the contest, and Four Directions, which had sold out its inventory of scarves, after featuring them in their window display created for the contest.

getDowntown

During public commentary, Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, thanked the board for their help with the move from office space previously provided on an in-kind basis by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. The new location at 518 E. Washington includes 260 square feet of office space for getDowntown. Newcombe Clark, who sits on the DDA board as well as the chamber board, and is a principal at Bluestone Realty Advisors, found the new space – a service he reported he’d provided at no charge.

Shore clarified that the two getDowntown staffers would, for the next year, be employees of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority as the future of the organization was planned. The AATA, the DDA, and the city of Ann Arbor continue to provide support to getDowntown. Email addresses have changed to the domain getdowntown.org.

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

Absent: John Mouat.

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

The parking presentation was given by Matthew Horning, the city’s treasurer. It included comparative data from other cities, and an analysis of the impact on total revenues that would result from raising fines. His presentation also looked at the impact of providing incentives for early payment across the 34 different categories of violations. For the expired meter fine, which accounts for 65% of all tickets issues, Horning’s analysis assumed a recommended increase from $15 to $20. The schedule of fines presented by Horning is projected to increase annual revenues by $875,287.

The social media presentation was given by Kim Mortson, who works in public relations for community services at the city. She described how she’d used social media like Twitter and Facebook to complement more traditional approaches to promote parks and recreation programs.

In our report, we focus exclusively on the parking violation fines.

Parking Violation Fines

We begin with a bit of historical context, then describe Horning’s presentation, summarize the council’s commentary, and set a possible context for the future discussion – which includes the city’s relationship with the Downtown Development Authority.

When and Why Were Parking Fines Last Raised?

The parking violation fine structure was last changed in Ann Arbor about five years ago. At its June 21, 2004 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved that systematic increase. Six years before that, in 1998, fines had also been increased.

At the June 2004 meeting, the resolution to increase parking violation fines included “Whereas” clauses that provided the rationale for the increase [emphasis added]:

Whereas, Safety Services has reviewed the parking violation fines as part of the FY 2004-2005 budget submittal;

Whereas, The City last increased parking violation fines in April 1998;

Whereas, The current parking violation fines were found to be inadequate to cover the costs of service and promote long-term parking at meters rather at the designated long-term parking areas;

City’s Presentation on Parking Fines

City treasurer Matthew Horning’s presentation to the council described the current analysis as stemming from a periodic review of the fine structure, which began nearly a year ago, in December 2008. It was based on the benchmarking of fine structures in communities with similar population densities with universities: Milwaukee, New Haven, Seattle, Austin, Boulder, Madison, Lansing, East Lansing, and Grand Rapids.

To illustrate the benchmarking, here’s just one of the categories – Expired Meter – that Horning presented, showing the dollar amounts for fines in the benchmarked cities. [.PDF file: All Benchmarked Categories in Parking Fine Presentation]:

Exp  Meter     Mil  NH   Sea  Aus  Bou  Mad  Lan ELan  GR   A2   A2 Prop
Early Discntd                 15              5   10        10    10
Fine Amount    20   20   35   30   15   20   15   15   20   15    20
After 14 D          40   60        30   30   25   25   40   30    40
After 30 D          60                  40   35                   60
Default                                 50             60   40    70

-

The final two columns show Ann Arbor’s current fine structure and proposed fine structure. The first row displays the fine that is assessed if it’s paid by the next business day. Under the proposal that the city is recommending, then, an expired meter fine would remain the same $10 as it is now – if paid within one business day.

Currently, the parking fine structure provides a early-payment discount only for expired meters. The recommended fine structure change would include an early-payment discount across all violation categories. The discount would be uniform across all those categories: $10 would be subtracted from the fine amount.

Other features of the staff recommendation on parking violation fines include an increase in Minor and Near Hazard fines from $25 to $35, as well as standardization of all Hazard fines at $50.

The recommendation also extends the payment schedule across all categories, to include a 30-day point before default.

The projected revenue increase is based on the following distribution of how quickly patrons would pay fines, which is based on actual 2008 fine payment data:

Next Bus.    42%
1-14D        32%
14-30D        7%
30+D         10%
Default       9%
Total Rev.    $3,427,994
Rev. Increase $  875,287

-

So the projections see almost three-quarters of the newly-structured fines being paid at the standard fine or the discounted rate. And overall, there would be a 34% increase in revenues.

That 34% overall increase in revenues tracks with the 33% increase in fine for expired meters – from $15 to $20.

Expired Meters account for 65% of all parking tickets. If Over Legal Limit and No Parking Anytime tickets are added to Expired Meter tickets, 83% of all parking tickets are accounted for.

The recommended new rate structure for those three categories, plus a category that city councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) whimsically suggested at the work session could be eliminated entirely [Derezinski is a Harley enthusiast.]:

                 Disc  Stnd  14D   30D   Deflt
1  Expired Meter
 Current         10    15    30          40
 Proposed        10    20    40    60    70                                  

2  Over Legal
 Current               25    35          45
 Proposed        25    35    55    75    85                                  

4  No Park Any
 Current               25    35          45
 Proposed        25    35    55    75    85                                  

32 Motorcycles
 Current               25    35          45
 Proposed        25    35    55    75    85

-

Council Comments and Questions On Parking Fines

There was some concern expressed about the benchmarking communities.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know how fresh the data from the other comparable cities was, and Horning confirmed that it was current. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for further clarification on how the cities were selected for comparison. Horning said that it was population density, and the technology available in those cities. [Ann Arbor has recently rolled out a wireless E-Park kiosk payment system to replace parking meters.] In addition, the benchmarking communities were selected based on their inclusion of a university.

Mayor John Hieftje said it might be possible to make the comparison to Grand Rapids because Grand Rapids was one of the other areas of the state where, like Ann Arbor, the economy was not performing as poorly as the rest of the state. But he expressed concern at the way the fines accelerated after the 14-day window. Is there any way to seek relief, he wondered, where ticketed motorists who found themselves in a tight financial spot could say, “I want to pay, but I can’t do it”?  Horning allowed that it was a good question, something that could be checked out.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was interested in seeing comparisons to cities smaller than Milwaukee and Seattle.  Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked for comparative data from Kalamazoo, but Horning said that he’d been unsuccessful in getting their data – he’d give it another try, though. Rapundalo also suggested getting data from one of the Detroit suburbs, like Royal Oak or Livonia.

Rapundalo  got clarification that there are currently 12 full-time employees whose responsibility is to issue parking ticktets – the same employees also enforce community standards ordinances.

Rapundalo indicated that in his trips up to East Lansing, enforcement was “quite vigorous,” and noted that the enforcement officers used electric vehicles. He said that Ann Arbor’s strategy of using officers on foot was healthy, but he wondered if the number of tickets issued might be increased. Hieftje reported having been given a parking ticket in Boulder within two minutes of his meter expiring, and Rapundalo one-upped that with a report that within one minute of meter expiration, he’d received a ticket in East Lansing. But, Rapundalo also indicated that they’d been quite generous when they overcharged him, providing a rebate good for … his next violation.

Rapundalo also drew out the relationship between the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor with respect to parking enforcement. Horning explained that the city accepts the payment of fines from UM-issued tickets. As part of the arrangement, UM pays for one of the two full-time parking referees, who handle appeals, plus overhead to handle the collection and adjudication process.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) expressed surprise that there were enough contested tickets to require two full-time employees. After the meeting, Horning emailed The Chronicle with complete 2008 data on contested cases: In 2008 there were 10,365 appeals heard for UM and city tickets combined; of those, 2,265 had the fine reduced and 4,657 were voided. That amounts to almost a 70% chance of some kind of success when a ticket is appealed to a parking referee.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) got clarification that the revenues under discussion were different from revenues that stemmed from the residential permit parking program. He asked for a report on revenues from those programs in neighborhoods near the downtown. Smith said that she’d already asked for a report that might include what he wanted, and that it might be best to wait for that before working on a separate report.

Related to the issue of parking in neighborhoods near downtown is the planned installation of parking meters in some of these neighborhoods as a part of the adopted FY 2010 budget. At the work session, Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, clarified for The Chronicle that the projected revenue increases for the parking fines assumed only the existing meters, without installation of those additional meters in neighborhoods.

The issue of installing those extra meters is one that Smith has adopted as somewhat of a project. She has persuaded her council colleagues to delay installation of them while ways to replace the revenue they would generate can be found. The FY 2010 budget assumed around $300,000 in revenue from additional parking meters to be installed in neighborhoods near downtown. [The section "Moratorium on Parking Meter Installation" in The Chronicle's coverage of council's Oct. 6 meeting contains additional background.]

Asked by email after the meeting if she saw the increased revenues from the parking fine increases as a possible way to eliminate the need for additional parking meters, Smith replied that she did, but that she had not yet floated the idea to her council colleagues.

Broader Context for Parking Fine Increases: DDA and the City

At Monday’s work session, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised the point that the majority of the tickets written were in downtown Ann Arbor –  in the Downtown  Development Authority district. Smith serves on both the city council and the DDA board.

She expressed concern that the fine structure be implemented in a way that did not result in downtown Ann Arbor being perceived as an unfriendly place. Mike Angin (Ward 5) at one point floated the idea of a “freebie” system where a ticket could be forgiven. City administrator Roger Fraser cautioned that it was important to have a system that the enforcement officers could easily enforce.

Smith also pointed out that the DDA was already deploying a strategy of “demand management,” which entails adjusting parking rates (not fines) to encourage people to park where they otherwise would not and to require a premium for parking that was the most desirable. The new E-Park kiosks that have already replaced many individual parking meters are intended to facilitate that strategy. She wanted to make sure that the DDA’s strategy of demand management be integrated into the new fine structure.

In responding to a question from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) about the reason behind the change in parking violation fine structures, city administrator Roger Fraser said it was a mix of: (i) demand management, (ii) revenue generation, (iii) deterrent and (iv) competitiveness.

Fraser stressed that “turnover” was something that the fine structure was meant to promote. That’s why there are 30-minute, 1-hour, and 2-hour limits, depending on the specific turnover goals in a given area, he said.

Chronicle Analysis: DDA and the Mutually Beneficial Agreement

Looking more broadly than the need to make the parking violation fine structure mesh with the DDA’s efforts at demand management, the context of the conversation includes the difficult negotiations that lie ahead between the DDA and the city on their agreement under which the DDA administers the city’s parking program – which is not the same as the city’s parking fine enforcement.

In very broad strokes, that city-DDA agreement, struck in 2005, provided that the DDA would pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, through 2015. According to the terms of the agreement, however, the city could ask for $2 million in any given year, so long as the total amount did not exceed $10 million over the 10-year period. The city asked for $2 million in each of the first five years of the contract, which means that the FY 2010 budget year is the last year that the DDA is obligated under that contract to pay the city.

However, in the FY 2011 budget plan, which was introduced by the city administration in January 2009,  along with the FY 2010 budget recommendations, the city assumed an additional $2 million payment by the DDA. So the city council passed a resolution in early 2009 asking the DDA to renegotiate the city-DDA parking agreement.

The DDA responded by establishing a “mutually beneficial” committee to engage in that negotiation. The city took no action to form a committee of its own until Rene Greff’s term on the DDA board expired in July 2009. Jennifer S. Hall, then-chair of the DDA board, took herself off the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee around the same time. Mayor John Hieftje had revealed at a summer DDA retreat that the barrier to the city council appointing its own “mutually beneficial” committee was the membership of Hall and Greff on the DDA’s committee. [Chronicle coverage includes: "DDA: Who's on the Committee?"]

With Hall and Greff off the DDA committee, the city council appointed its own committee, which included Leigh Greden, who at the time represented Ward 3. With Greden’s defeat in the August 2009 Democratic primary, that spot now sits vacant on the city council’s committee.

The two committees have never met.

For the last few monthly DDA board meetings, Sandi Smith – who is a member of city council and the DDA board and a member of both the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committees – has delivered a report of “nothing new to report.”

But at the DDA board’s April meeting, Greff had reported out the results of the first meeting (with itself) of the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee [emphasis added]:

Greff  then ticked through what the committee had done. They had: (i) reviewed history of DDA parking agreements with the city, (ii) reviewed TIF (tax increment financing) capture, and (iii) reached a majority view – with dissent from [Roger] Hewitt – that they should not re-open the discussion of the existing parking agreement. It was not the role of the DDA, Greff said, to cover gaps in the city budget. The committee had given some consideration to taking over city tax-funded activities (e.g., snow removal), and had contemplated purchasing the right to meter enforcement in downtown. [Here's the Chronicle's complete DDA board meeting report for April 2009.]

It’s thus possible that the DDA will begin to insert itself into the conversation on parking violation fines, especially as the approaching FY 2011 budget discussion increases the pressure for the city and the DDA to have their respective “mutually beneficial” committees meet and come to an agreement.