Excerpt from a Chronicle chart constructed with DDA parking data from the Ann Arbor public parking system. The vertical scale represents hourly patrons per parking space in a given parking facility. The lines correspond to four facilities in the system: Maynard, Liberty Square, Fourth & Washington, and Huron/Ashley. Pop quiz: Which line corresponds to which facility? Answer in the full report.

On the TIF side, the board first adopted a formal policy to guide its allocation of grants to new private developments. The board then acted to authorize a $650,000 TIF-capture-based grant to the 618 S. Main project. The policy applies to developments that are seeking to leverage support from the state’s brownfield and Community Revitalization Program, or other matching programs.

Highlights of that policy include a priority ranking of benefits that a development must offer. At the top of that list: A requirement that the project fills a gap in the existing market. The DDA board concluded that the 618 S. Main project filled such a gap – by targeting residential space for young professionals. The $650,000 would be distributed over four years, with the amount in any one year not to exceed the estimated $250,000 in TIF capture that would ordinarily be retained by the DDA as a result of the completed construction.

The board was interested in achieving a unanimous vote of support for the 618 S. Main grant, and not all board members agreed with covering bank carrying costs and the full amount of streetscape improvements. So the $650,000 reflected a reduction from a $725,000 grant in the original resolution before the board.

On the parking side of the DDA’s responsibilities, routine business was mixed with issues involving the imminent opening of a new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. In the routine category was the board’s authorization of three-year leases for two properties from companies controlled by First Martin Corp., which the DDA manages as surface parking lots – at Huron/Ashley and Huron/First. Per space, the Huron/Ashley lot generates more revenue per month than any of the other public parking facilities in the city.

The board was also presented with a demand-management strategy for encouraging the use of the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, which is scheduled to open in mid-July. Highlights of that strategy include a reduced rate for monthly permits of $95/month – a $50/month savings over the $145/month rate set to take effect in September this year, and a $60 savings over the extra increase that the DDA is planning for two structures. The special $95/month permits are available only to current holders of permits in two other parking structures in the system: Liberty Square and Maynard Street. The DDA wants to free up spaces in those two structures for people who do not hold permits, and pay the hourly rate instead.

The DDA board also heard public commentary from advocates for some kind of public park to be constructed on top of the new underground parking structure – instead of using the space for additional surface parking, with the eventual possibility of allowing development of a significantly-sized building there.

In the board’s final action item, routine adjustments were made to the current fiscal year’s budget in order to assure that actual expenses did not exceed budgeted revenues for any of the DDA’s four funds. Last year, the routine adjustment did not adequately cover construction invoices that arrived after the final budget adjustment, something that was pointed out in the DDA’s audit for that year.

Brownfield Grants: Policy

In 2008, the DDA discontinued its partnerships grant program, because the board believed that development interest in downtown Ann Arbor was strong enough that such grants were no longer needed to help spur investment. [.pdf of March 5, 2008 DDA board resolution]

However, the board was approached recently by Dan Ketelaar, developer of the 618 S. Main St. project, with a request for support for the project based on the TIF (tax increment finance) revenue it would generate. The support would count as the local match expected as part of the state’s brownfield program. Ketelaar made his initial presentation to the DDA board on Feb. 1, 2012 after having won a recommendation of approval for his project from the city planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012.

One of the concerns that was expressed by board members through the months-long discussion over the course of several partnerships committee meetings – some of them added to the calendar as special sessions – was the absence of any formal brownfield grant policy. So the policy was developed during these discussions.

Sandi Smith introduced the policy by noting that the DDA’s partnerships committee has struggled with the discussion for several months. She reminded her board colleagues that a draft policy had been presented to them at their May 2, 2012 meeting. She felt that not many of the changes made since then were substantive. The cap was changed, she noted. Another significant change was to try to make the evaluation criteria objective. She noted that the criteria in the policy reflect the priorities and values of the DDA in order of importance:

1. Addresses a documented gap in the marketplace or underserved markets of commerce.
2. Will act as a catalyst for additional revitalization of the area in which it is located.
3. Is “connected” to the adjacent sidewalk with uses on the first floor that are showcased using large transparent windows and doorways to give pedestrians a point of interest to look at as they walk by the project.
4. Creates a large office floor plate.
5. Will facilitate the creation of a large number of new permanent jobs.
6. Is a mixed use development, that will encourage activity in the daytime, evening, and weekend, such as a development with a mix of commercial and residential.
7. Adds to downtown’s residential density.
8. Reuses vacant buildings, reuses historical buildings, and/or redevelops blighted property.
9. Number of affordable housing units created on site or funded by the project elsewhere in the community, which are beyond what is required by the City.
10. Environmental design exceeds City requirements.
11. Architecturally significant building or project design.
12. Strengthens Ann Arbor’s national visibility.

Newcombe Clark suggested adding a clause that stated: “Grant approval will also be contingent on DDA review and approval of any subsequent substantial changes made prior to or during construction, which must be fully disclosed on an on-going basis.”

Clark described the added clause as matching up closely to how things are handled at the city with development agreements, when they’re approved by the city council and then must be reviewed for possible approval at the administrative level or by the council itself.

Nathan Voght – Washtenaw County’s brownfield program coordinator who works in the county’s office of community and economic development – was asked to comment on Clark’s amendment. Voght indicated he felt it was fine – because it would put the developer on notice that the DDA is to be kept abreast of any changes. Smith took the opportunity to acknowledge the work that Voght had done to help with the formulation of the policy, as well as that of Matt Naud, the city of Ann Arbor’s environmental coordinator.

Clark then offered an additional amendment to add a specific item to the list that an applicant must submit as part of the financial pro forma [added language in italics]:

The Developer making a grant application to the DDA must submit a full financial pro forma, including purchase cost and construction cost breakdown, sources and uses including any equity positions that constitute managing member position, rental income or condo sale prices, tax assumptions, and recurring expenses, etc.

Clark’s amendments were accepted as “friendly” and thus did not require a vote.

Roger Hewitt thanked the partnerships committee for the enormous amount of work they’d done. He agreed with the concept of using TIF money to support state brownfield grant money. He supported that, he said. He had hoped that the policy would remove the subjectivity from the evaluation and make it essentially an administrative action. He understood the need to balance what the market wants and what the DDA would like to see – which can be a challenge.

Having gone through the process when the DDA previously had a TIF grant program, Hewitt felt it could lead to long endless discussions and to subjective decisions that will leave some people unhappy. Speaking to the 12 criteria, he said he did not think there’s a developer born who doesn’t think they qualify for some of those. He would have been happier supporting something more administrative and objective.

Responding to Hewitt, Smith ventured that something as objective as he had described might leave the DDA in a position that forces the board to approve a project. She did not want to be hemmed into something so rigid that the board has to automatically approve a project.

John Mouat suggested that it might be worth looking at needed streetscape and infrastructure improvements that could be undertaken, without needing to undergo a brownfield grant application process.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the brownfield grant policy. [.pdf of brownfield policy as adopted]

Brownfield Grants: 618 S. Main

After approval of the grant policy, Sandi Smith moved into the reason for having such a policy: The DDA had received a request for the kind of support outlined in the new policy – for the 618 S. Main project.

Brownfield Grants: 618 S. Main – Commentary

Dick Carlisle of Carlisle/Wortman Associates spoke at the start of the meeting on behalf of Bill Kinley. They’re partners and tenants of South Main Market, located across the street from 618 S. Main. Since their acquisition of the South Main Market about seven years ago, he said, they’ve made investments to keep the retail space alive and have worked closely with tenants. As a result, the market is now 100% occupied – a total of 14,000 square feet. He said they feel very fortunate, but they also worked very hard to make that happen. He did not want to speak specifically to the 618 S. Main project, but said he was very happy to see private investment being made in that area of South Main Street. All the improvements that are made will be helpful to everyone, if the entrance to downtown Ann Arbor is improved.

His message, Carlisle said, is quite simple: please consider allocating funding for streetscape improvements on both sides of the street [which would include the South Main Market side]. He noted that there’s a lot of pedestrian activity, especially on University of Michigan football game days. There also have been significant traffic issues, he said, due to his own property’s businesses and the gas station on the corner, which generates a lot of traffic. He asked the DDA board to consider allocating funds to make that area more pedestrian friendly.

Ray Detter, during his report from the downtown area citizens advisory council, called 618 S. Main an excellent first use of the policy.

Brownfield Grants: 618 S. Main – Board Deliberations

Based on the criteria in the policy, Smith said, the partnerships committee had concluded that the project addresses a gap in the rental market, that it act as a catalyst for the South Main area, that it will add to the downtown density, and that it has environmental features exceeding the city’s requirements.

The grant that the board was asked to consider included the following line items, for a total of $725,000:

Recommended DDA Brownfield Grant for 618 S. Main Street
$135,000 Streetscape costs (sidewalk adjacent to project on Mosley/Main
$384,500 Streetscape costs (sidewalk on west side of Main north of project)
$100,000 Rain garden to infiltrate storm water, rather than detain and release
$ 80,500 Upsizing the water main under Ashley Street to a 12” pipe
$ 25,000 Bank carrying costs
$725,000 TOTAL

-

The amount of the grant was proposed to be disbursed over four years in the following amounts: $100,000, $225,000, $225,000, and $175,000.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in with a number of concerns. In the course of conversation with Smith and DDA executive director Susan Pollay, Hieftje drew out the fact that the dialogue about the detail in the streetscape improvements is now starting. Hieftje said he was concerned that the developer be required to actually build to the detailed specifications that are agreed upon. He made an apparent allusion to the Corner Lofts building at State and Washington as an example of a building that was ugly – due to the failure of the developer to build it to the approved specifications.

Another concern Hieftje had was about the bank carrying costs – because he did not feel the DDA should bear that cost. John Mouat ventured that one way to reduce the carrying costs would be for the DDA to front-load its support on the first years of the four-year period. [The board would be constrained in that option by the policy, which states that "the amount released will at no point be greater than the amount of new TIF paid by the developer of the new project."]

Outcome on amendment: The board voted unanimously to eliminate the $25,000 for bank carrying costs from the grant award.

Left to right: DDA board members John Hieftje, Leah Gunn, Nader Nassif.

Hieftje also confirmed that the $135,000 line item for streetscape improvement costs did not include a specific breakdown of those costs for the ordinary work that is required of a developer to perform as part of a project.

So Hieftje put forward an amendment to eliminate the $135,000. Roger Hewitt suggested that there’s a base amount for the sidewalk improvements immediately adjacent to the project that should be the developer’s expense. But he could support improvements that go beyond the city’s minimum requirement. The DDA could support the differential, he said.

Leah Gunn asked Pollay to comment on the sidewalk improvement design. Pollay clarified that the developer, Dan Ketelaar, is planning to do more than what is required by code. She described it as an enhanced planting scheme that’s more than what’s required. Newcombe Clark questioned whether it made sense to talk about what was actually required – because the project has not yet received approval from the city council.

DDA board chair Bob Guenzel asked Nathan Voght how the Michigan Economic Development Corporation brownfield program might view the reduction in local support – which would result from eliminating the $135,000. Voght said the state wants to see a significant contribution.

At the $725,000 level, Voght felt the MEDC was feeling positive about the 618 S. Main application. Gunn said it bothered her that the state won’t just say how much the DDA needs to contribute. Nader Nassif also asked if there were an exact dollar figure that the MEDC was looking for.

Voght ventured that if the amount is still “in the ballpark,” he felt it would be okay. But he stressed that the MEDC has not formally considered the application. He also noted that the state has two programs – a brownfield redevelopment program and the new community revitalization program. Voght said the state is still figuring out the community revitalization program.

Clark ventured that based on his own experience, it’s the amount of enthusiasm from the local authorities that matters, as opposed to the dollar figure. The state doesn’t want to tie its hands so that only the “haves” get the money.

Sandi Smith proposed coming up with a number – some percentage of $135,000 – and encouraging the best-looking streetscape. She didn’t want to leave the amount shy of what was necessary to get a good streetscape.

DDA board member Newcombe Clark.

Gunn offered an amendment to Hieftje’s proposal to eliminate the $135,000, instead cutting the amount to $100,000. She was concerned there could be a “tipping point” past which the state would not consider the local match to be sufficient. Hieftje indicated a preference to go down to $85,000. Clark ventured that for the state of Michigan, a unanimous vote would be more interesting than an additional $15,000.

Outcome on amendment to grant $100,000 instead of $135,000 for sidewalk improvements: It failed with only 10 members present and four members voting against it – Hieftje, Hewitt, Mouat and Clark. It needed seven votes to pass.

So Gunn tried again, this time offering an amendment to make the amount of support $85,000.

Outcome on amendment for $85,000 instead of $135,000 for sidewalk improvements: It passed unanimously.

With the reduction in the grant award now resulting in a $650,000 award, Hieftje returned to the topic of the rain garden. Smith explained that under the city code, detention is required, which could be achieved at a cost of around $100,000. That approach detains stormwater in a tank, then releases the water into the stormwater system pipes. The benefit offered by a rain garden with infiltration is that it keeps the stormwater out of the pipe. It’s not about the visual aesthetics of the rain garden. The cost of the rain garden would be around $850,000, so the DDA was supporting something that went $750,000 beyond what was required, she said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $650,000 grant to the 618 S. Main project.

Parking System

The DDA operates the public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Under terms of the contract, the city receives 17% of gross parking revenues from the system. So the public parking system, which is mostly located within the Ann Arbor DDA TIF (tax increment finance) district, is a topic at nearly every DDA board meeting.

Parking System: Monthly Report – Break in Trend

A standard part of a DDA board meeting is an update on the monthly parking report, looking at the most recent month for which data has been analyzed. At the June 4 meeting, board members discussed data from April 2012. In giving an overview, Roger Hewitt noted that for April, the revenue to the system was up compared to April 2011, but it had not increased as much (on a year-over-year basis) as in previous months. He also noted that there’d been a decline in the number of hourly patrons. So he’d asked Republic Parking to take a closer look at that, he said. Republic Parking handles day-to-day parking operations under a contract with the DDA.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Total revenue

Ann Arbor public parking system: Hourly patrons

One factor contributing to the decline, Hewitt reported, is that there was one fewer business day in April this year – 25 compared to 26. In addition, there were two fewer “weekend days” [Friday and Saturday] – 8 compared to 10. Another wrinkle was that this year, the University of Michigan held graduation on four days, all in April. Last year there were only three days of graduation, and one had been in May, Hewitt reported. And the parking pattern for graduation attendees, he said, is that they enter the structure as hourly patrons, but stay almost the whole day. So the number of patrons is depressed, even though the revenue is the same.

Hewitt noted that revenues were still up 9%, which he characterized as a solid increase – more than the 6-7% range for the rate increases.

Parking System: Demand Management – Maynard, Liberty Square

Hewitt gave the board an update on the parking demand management system that the DDA’s operations committee has been working on, in connection with the completion and opening of the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. The board had given the committee direction to undertake development of the program at its May 2, 2012 meeting.

In broad strokes, the DDA would like to reduce the number of spaces taken up by monthly permit holders in the parking structures nearest to the high-demand University of Michigan campus. The DDA would also like to ensure usage of its new underground parking garage.

Hewitt summarized the approach as establishing prices for parking based on the demand in a particular area – higher demand areas have higher prices and the lower demand areas should have the lowest prices. Integrated into the concept is a component for alternative transportation, he said.

The DDA has asked the getDowntown program to do a transportation audit for the State Street and South University Avenue businesses. The DDA has also asked that getDowntown do some targeted marketing and communication to those businesses. Further, the getDowntown program has been asked to encourage businesses to adopt a “transportation stipend” program, instead of just providing a monthly parking permit. The stipend would allow employees to realize the savings that would result from opting to take public transportation, instead of claiming an employer-provided monthly parking permit. The Zipcar car-sharing program would be expanded in the Maynard Street parking structure, Hewitt reported. In-street bike racks will also be added to the State Street area.

From experience, Hewitt reported, the Maynard Street structure does fill up in the middle of the day, and people have to wait to get in. Liberty Square, Hewitt said, is also near capacity. Hewitt then unveiled the details of what he described as a two-year pilot program – based on the DDA’s experience in opening a new parking structure. A new structure doesn’t get used much for the first couple of years, Hewitt said. It takes the public a couple of years to find it and to start using it routinely.

So the idea is to “jump start” that process, Hewitt said. Currently, based on rate increases approved by the DDA board earlier this year, monthly permit rates are scheduled to increase from $140 to $145 per month on Sept. 1, 2012. Hewitt announced that for the Maynard Street and Liberty Square structures – the two highest demand structures in the system – rates would now be raised even higher, to $155 per month. Hewitt said there are around 700 monthly parking permits in the roughly 1,400 total spaces in those two structures, so the idea is to move those monthly permit holders to the new underground garage.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Patrons per space. To give an idea of the maximum usage in the system – measured in terms of patrons per space in a facility – this chart includes the Huron/Ashley/First surface lot (light green). None of those surface lot spaces are used for monthly permits. To give an idea of the maximum usage in a parking structure that allows no monthly permit parking, the chart includes the Washington/Fourth structure (light orange). The two structures that are the target of the incentive program – to move monthly parking permits from there to the new underground structure – are Maynard Street (blue) and Liberty Square (red). Chart by The Chronicle, using data from the DDA. One way to observe the effect of the demand management pricing will be to track whether the red and blue lines increase. (Links to larger image)

By way of background, the contract between the DDA and the city of Ann Arbor, under which the DDA operates the city’s parking system, was revised in May 2011 to give the DDA the unilateral authority to adjust rates, without approval by the Ann Arbor city council. However, the contract requires the DDA to announce intended rate increases at a board meeting, hold a public hearing at a subsequent board meeting, and not vote on rate increases before a third board meeting.

The rate increases triggering the public announcement and hearing process are described in the contract as “any increase in the Municipal Parking System’s hours of meter operation or parking rates intended to persist for more than three (3) months.” Based on a telephone interview with DDA staff, the DDA is interpreting the clause to apply to parking meter rates, not monthly permit rates.

The rate changes are meant to be revenue neutral, because the increase in rates for the two high-demand structures are expected to be balanced against the decrease in monthly permit costs for the new underground garage.

The monthly permit rate increases were characterized by Hewitt as the “stick part” of the plan. The “carrot part” is an offer of cheaper monthly permits to current permit holders in the Liberty Square or Maynard Street structures – if they move to the new underground garage. It would be a $60 savings compared to the monthly permit rate they’d pay if they stay in their current structure. The rate of $95 per month in the new underground structure would be good for two years. Any new users of the system would also be offered the $95 per month rate.

Hewitt characterized the plan as the first real substantive experience with differential rates in parking structures. “We’ll see what happens,” he said. Even though the spaces they’re offering in the new garage will be cheaper, the DDA expects that those are spaces that would otherwise be empty – because the DDA is not expecting a lot of underground parking garage use in the first few years. Hewitt felt that by opening up Liberty Square and Maynard Street to more hourly patrons, the enormous demand could be met for that kind of parking. The new rates, as well as the incentives for parking permits, will be implemented Sept. 1, Hewitt said.

Nader Nassif thought the incentive system is a great idea. He reported that based on his hard-hat tour of the new underground garage, he felt it’s actually a very well-designed, beautiful structure. It’s impressive to see natural light from several levels underground, he said.

John Mouat stressed the need to use getDowntown to help get the word out. Board chair Bob Guenzel thanked the DDA staff for their hard work putting together the incentives.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. The board had given direction at its previous meeting to the operations committee to develop the demand management pricing.

Surface Lot Leases

The board considered lease agreements for two surface parking lots in downtown Ann Arbor. One lot is known as the Brown Block, bounded by Huron, Ashley, Liberty Washington and First streets. The other is located on the southeast corner of Huron Street and South Fifth Avenue. The new leases extend for a period of three years.

Surface Lot Leases: Background

The DDA manages the two lots as part of Ann Arbor’s public parking system. The leases, which have been in place for several years, are between the DDA and two limited liability companies owned by the local real estate development firm First Martin Corp. Those two companies are Huron Ashley LLC and City Hall LLC. The lease for the Brown Block had been with the city of Ann Arbor, but this year it’s with the DDA – due to the fact that the city and the DDA signed a new contract last year, under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system.

The monthly rents paid to First Martin under terms of the leases are stipulated at $28,333/month and $2,122/month, respectively. Based on arithmetic done by The Chronicle on DDA revenue data, the monthly revenues for the two lots since July 2009 have averaged around $61,000 and $9,500, respectively. There is a provision in the leases for the rent paid to the DDA to increase based on the consumer price index (CPI).

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue per space by selected facility. Surface parking lots, like the Huron/Ashley/First lot, show the highest revenue per space. The lowest revenue per space is derived from metered on-street parking. Structures show varying amounts of revenue per space, based in part on the number of monthly parking permits they allow.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Huron/Ashley/Liberty. Revenue on the surface lot shows the same kind of upward trend as the rest of the system.

Although the two parcels are not zoned for parking use, First Martin Corp. could itself choose to use the surface parking lots for commercial parking – as a pre-existing, non-conforming use, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson’s response to an emailed query from The Chronicle. The lot on the Brown Block is used by the DDA for hourly parking, paid to an attendant in a booth. The other lot, across the street from Ann Arbor’s city hall and new Justice Center, is used for monthly permit parking.

Surface Lot Leases: Board Deliberations

Newcombe Clark was keen to establish that the new lease amounts for the two lots did not reflect any more than a simple CPI increase from the previous amounts.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the two lease agreements for the surface parking lots.

Library Lot

John Splitt gave an update on the construction of the underground parking garage, which is nearing completion. South Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William had been expected to reopen by the end of May, but that re-opening was delayed. At the June 4 meeting, Splitt gave June 18 as the new date for probable re-opening of the street, and July 12 as the date of the opening of the structure.

The Library Lot, as the parcel is called due to its proximity to the downtown library, is part of the area of study for the DDA’s Connecting William Street project, which aims to find alternate uses for the surface parking lots in the area bounded by William, Ashley, Liberty and Division streets. That project is being undertaken by the DDA at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council, given last year on April 4, 2011. As the opening of the underground structure draws closer, advocacy for construction of a park on top of the lot has become more vocal.

Library Lot – Public Commentary

Commentary by Will Hathaway and Eric Lipson focused on the future of the top of the new underground parking garage, which is due to be completed in mid-July. By way of brief background, a request for proposals (RFP) process that could have led to the selection of a development project on top of the underground parking structure was terminated by the Ann Arbor city council on April 4, 2011. The proposal in play at that point was for a conference center. The parking structure includes reinforced footings designed to support future development on the site. Among the proposals that were rejected in the earlier phases of the RFP review process were two that envisioned the use of the area as primarily open space – some kind of park.

Lipson essentially ceded his time to Hathaway, who reprised many of the points he’d made at the DDA board’s meeting the previous month, on May 2, 2012. He told the board that his group was working to promote the idea of a park of some kind on the Library Lot. [It's called the Library Lot, but the Ann Arbor District Library does not own the parcel.] He’d put together a slide show to promote that, he said.

He began by saying that Ann Arbor lacks public space downtown for people who work and live. Ann Arbor previously had a town square, he said, in the form of the lawn at the old 1878 Washtenaw County courthouse, which had stood on the block of Huron and Main.

Hathaway suggested that the top of the underground parking garage is a place in the middle of Ann Arbor that could be a missing “Central Park,” bounded by Fifth Avenue, William, Division and Liberty streets. He described the block as anchored by the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. But he also noted that the area is home to organizations like the Center for the Education of Women, the Christian Science reading room, the University of Michigan Credit Union and the Inter-cooperative Council. Small businesses in the area include Jerusalem Garden, Earthen Jar, Seva, Comedy Showcase and Herb David guitar studio.

Hathaway described Liberty Plaza on the northeast corner of the block as the only park in downtown Ann Arbor – a modest open space connected by a ramp and footpath to the Library Lot. Hathaway pointed out that the Library Lot was formerly a surface parking lot, that’s been transformed by the new underground parking garage. So the question is how to use the top of the new parking garage, he said.

The Calthorpe study from the mid-2000s recommended a “town square” on that site, Hathaway said. A hotel/conference center was proposed and rejected, as were two proposals for parks – because the RFP review committee contended that they would not create adequate economic benefit. So Hathaway ticked through other examples of park-like spaces that had generated economic benefit: Campus Martius and River Walk in Detroit; Post Office Square in Boston; Millenium Park in Chicago; the High Line Park on an abandoned rail line in New York City; and Discovery Green in Houston. All those parks generate economic benefits through “place making,” he said. That happens in several ways, Hathaway continued: revitalization of an existing building, new construction, more customers, and increased tax revenue.

Liberty Plaza is the only green space in the downtown, Hathaway said, and creating a pedestrian link to the Library Lot would essentially create Ann Arbor’s downtown Diag [a reference to the University of Michigan campus landmark]. He suggested that the Ann Arbor District Library could extend itself in connection with an adjacent park. Outdoor features that might be constructed on the Library Lot space, he said, include ice skating, interactive sculptures (like the Wave Field or The Cube), a sculpture plaza, or a town square gazebo.

The current plan is to put around 40 surface parking spaces temporarily on the top of the parking garage. So Hathaway concluded by saying that the choice is between a park or a parking lot. On July 14, after the grand opening of the new garage, his group has permission to host an event on top of the parking garage. It will be an afternoon for celebration of the end of construction and the businesses nearby who’ve endured the turmoil. It will be an opportunity to envision what a park on that spot might look like.

Library Lot – Board Response

Sandi Smith responded to the slide show presented by Hathaway by saying she appreciated the passion of his group, but said she found it “slightly disingenuous” when the location of the underground parking garage is bordered for the most part by historic districts. What’s displayed on the slides, she contended, is not feasible to achieve in the center of Ann Arbor.

From left: DDA board members Newcombe Clark, John Mouat and Sandi Smith.

Every example that Hathaway had given, she said, has high-rise buildings all the way around – extreme density. In Ann Arbor, she said, there are not even 5,000 people living downtown yet. She wanted the Connecting William Street process to unfold and she wanted Hathaway and his group to participate in it. Smith said it’s important to keep in mind that “we’re not Houston, we’re not New York City. We just don’t have the possibility of creating what was presented to us today.” She concluded her remarks by saying it’s important to keep in mind what is possible.

Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board in a position created by the organization’s state enabling statute, agreed with Smith, saying that it’s “a little bit disingenuous” to say Liberty Plaza is the only green space in downtown Ann Arbor. Hieftje then went on to describe the University of Michigan Diag as a public park that is populated by students, people of Ann Arbor, and families having picnics. It’s a “state of Michigan park,” he said, that is “open and available to all of us.” Hieftje also pointed to an area near the new North Quad residence hall at State and Huron as an additional park. All those spots on University of Michigan property should also be shown as green space on the map in Hathaway’s presentation, Hieftje contended.

Regarding Liberty Plaza, Hieftje said he and Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere – along with city parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and park planner Amy Kuras – had taken a look at Liberty Plaza. Hieftje said there may be a possibility to redesign Liberty Plaza and there might be some grant money available.

Hieftje also said it might be possible to use some parks capital improvements millage money for Liberty Plaza work. A request might also come to the DDA. He said he did not want improvements to Liberty Plaza to be construed as opposition to a significant park on the Library Lot. He then went on to describe how in his time as mayor, he’d been very active in adding parkland to the city.

Library Lot: Public Commentary – Reprise

At the conclusion of the meeting, Nancy Kaplan addressed the board on the future of the Library Lot. [Kaplan serves on the Ann Arbor District Library board.] She asked the board to consider the results of a survey that the DDA had done. The responses showed support for green space in the Connecting William Street study area. She said that although Liberty Plaza has failed as a park, its existence shows that the city was willing to have a green space.

In the area where the Library Lot is located, Kaplan said there’s a need for respite from stone and hardscape. She asked the board to do something, at least temporarily, that would allow for a use of the top of the underground structure that is different from surface parking. She suggested using tree plantings. She encouraged the board to try it as a pilot program. Kaplan said the area has a lot of unattractive buildings and needs some respite from that.

Kitty Kahn told the board she totally agreed with Kaplan. She asked why a green roof on top of the underground garage couldn’t be tried. She contended that there is plenty of parking and that more is not needed. She urged the board to give the idea of some green space a try.

Annual Budget Adjustment

The DDA board considered amendments to its previously approved fiscal year FY 2012 budget (ending in three weeks, on June 30). It is an annual exercise undertaken to ensure that the actual expenses incurred are allowed for in the budget.

An example of a major difference between the already authorized budget and the amended version is an adjustment upward from $1,017,847 – for capital construction costs from the TIF (tax increment finance) fund – to $3,480,701. Those costs are construction invoices related to the new South Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is expected to open in mid-July. The budget adjustment is conservative, in that it assumes the parking garage will be completed and invoices will be submitted by the end of June, although that’s not likely. [.pdf of FY 2012 budget revision]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

Last year, the DDA received construction invoices after its final regular budget adjustment that resulted in an excess in expenditures over budgeted revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. The overage was identified in the regular audit that was done by Abraham & Gaffney, P.C. as inconsistent with Michigan’s Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act (UBAA) of 1968. DDA staff attributed the $337,478 overage to the submission of a bill forwarded to the DDA in June by its construction management consultant, Park Avenue Consultants Inc. The bill was for the underground parking garage and streetscape improvement projects that are currently under construction.

This year an additional effort was made to ensure that the final budget adjustment allowed for additional construction invoices that might be submitted between now and the end of the fiscal year.

South Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William is expected to reopen in mid-June, although it was most recently expected to open by the end of May.

Roger Hewitt introduced the item to the board and gave the background, noting that a city councilmember had been sharply critical of the DDA in connection with this issue in the past. [He was alluding to Stephen Kunselman, who represents Ward 3.]

Aside from some lighthearted commentary about a line item for the graffiti-removal product Elephant Snot, and more serious inquiry about the inclusion of the cost of surface lot leases in the direct parking expenses category, there was not a lot of board deliberation on the budget adjustments.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the adjustments to its FY 2012 budget.

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: State Street

During public commentary, Frances Todoro addressed the DDA board as a member of the State Street Area Association board. She noted that the State Street area currently has some challenges with respect to retail space – frequently turnover, for example, and the opportunity for the former Borders space. As a board, the SSAA has expressed a desire to learn more about opportunities, what is possible in the community. Specifically, she described an interest in having a retail location analysis done, that would encompass the entire downtown. It would be something that landlords, merchant associations, everyone who wants to understand the potential for downtown Ann Arbor could participate in. Questions such a study might answer include: Who wants to be in Ann Arbor? What demographic would make a retailer successful?

Todoro said the SSAA is interested in partnering with the DA to make the study happen.

During his remarks near the beginning of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje mentioned an improvement he’d like to see in the State Street area – widened sidewalks through bumpouts. It would enhance the outdoor dining possibilities, he said, making it more like Main Street. The sidewalk currently is too narrow there, he said. The idea of bumping out the sidewalks on State Street in downtown is something he said he did not want to fall off the radar screen. [Hieftje had begun talking about that idea around a year and a half ago.]

Responding to Hieftje’s suggestion to increase opportunities for outside dining on State Street, Roger Hewitt quipped that he supported Hieftje’s comments strongly. [Hewitt owns the Red Hawk Bar & Grill on State Street, which would benefit from that kind of streetscape improvement.]

Comm/Comm: R4C Zoning Review

Ray Detter, during his report from the downtown area citizens advisory council, said that the CAC had asked mayor John Hieftje to support the report from the R4C/R2A review committee. He characterized the work of that committee as reflecting an overwhelming desire to preserve streetscapes in the R4C/R2A area and to curb development patterns that depend on the accumulation of lots so that larger projects can be built. [See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Weighs R4C/R2A Report."]

Comm/Comm: Near North

Mayor John Hieftje gave an update on the latest report from Avalon Housing’s Near North affordable housing project. The DDA board had voted on Sept. 7, 2011 to extend a $500,000 grant that it had previously awarded. At that time, the closing on the deal had been thought to be imminent. At the June 4, 2012 meeting, Hieftje reported that financing was now expected to be finalized at the end of June. Demolition of the vacant houses, he said, would be expected to begin in July.

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, John Mouat.

Absent: Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein.

Next board meeting: Noon on Monday, July 2, 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!

Members of the public line up for the public hearing on the Percent for Art program. (Photos by the writer)

What pushed the council meeting into the wee hours, however, were the topics of art and parking.

Several members of council backed off their previous support for a reduction in public art funding. The Percent for Art program was left at its full funding level. The council also approved a contract for management services for the Dreiseitl art project to be installed as a part of the new municipal center – amid legal concerns raised by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Also, the council ultimately approved a heavily amended version of a resolution on parking that Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had added to the agenda on the previous Friday, which left the intent of two key “Resolved” clauses largely intact: (i) the city will get revenues from a surface parking lot, and (ii) the city’s plan to install its own meters has been braked indefinitely. A third clause that would have extended downtown meter enforcement to 10 p.m. was swapped out in favor of one that is less specific.

The council attended to a variety of other matters, including its new committee organization, authorization of purchases connected to single stream recycling, and acceptance of an energy grant. Councilmembers and the city administrator also made robust use of the communications section of the agenda to provide status updates on their recent work.

In Part I of our council report, we focus on art and parking.

Percent for Art: Proposed Reduction

At its Dec. 7 meeting the city council approved on first reading a resolution sponsored by Mayor John Hieftje and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) that would have reduced the allocation to public art specified in the city’s Percent for Art program. The reduction was proposed to be from 1% to 0.5% of capital projects, and to last for three years.

The second reading of the resolution and its accompanying public hearing was held Monday night.

Public Hearing on Percent for Art

Jan Onder, Jim Curtis, Elaine Sims and Margaret Parker, who all serve on the city’s public art commission, spoke at the public hearing on the Percent for Art reduction. [The commission had strategized about their response to this resolution at the group's Dec. 8 meeting.]

Onder noted that the reduction would not generate money to cover the shortfall in the general fund. She also cited her experience owning a downtown shop [Generations] for 22 years in support of her contention that “art can bring people here.” She suggested that art can “give people something to write home about.” Onder contended that a possible 30% reduction in capital improvements, with the 50% reduction in arts support translated into an 80% reduction in arts funding.

[Editor's note: Percents are not additive in that way. The arithmetic here can be understood with a hypothetical example of a current capital improvements budget of $100. Under the Percent for Art program, there would be a $1 allocation to art. If the budget were reduced by 30% to $70 and the public art program were reduced to 0.5%, then ($70)*(.005) = $.035. Compared to $1, that would translate to a 65% reduction.]

Curtis cited his experience as a commercial real estate developer in support of the idea that investing in art, even in times of economic difficulty, could be a financial win. He also noted that the allocation to art under the city’s program was a relatively small percentage.

Sims introduced herself not only as a public art commissioner, but also as the director of the University of Michigan Health System’s Gifts of Art program. She said that 3 million people per year pass by works of art in UM health facilities, and that art had a positive impact in key moments of their lives. She allowed that Ann Arbor is not a hospital. Given the long planning associated with development of works of art – as long as three years – she feared that the reduction would represent a setback to the program.

Parker portrayed art as one of the most important ways that the state of Michigan could expand beyond the boom and bust pattern of a one-product economy. Investments in the arts, she said, paid off $10 for every dollar put in.

Others besides art commissioners also spoke at the public hearing.

Marlene Ross, a docent at the University of Michigan Museum of Art, emphasized the potential financial benefit of art – people come from all over the state to visit the museum’s new addition. Ross said that a reduction in funding would send a negative message to artists.

Donald Harrison, executive director of the Ann Arbor Film Festival, reported that he’d moved to Ann Arbor from California, and that when people asked him why, he cited Ann Arbor’s leadership in arts and culture. In contemplating his move, he said, the Percent for Art program affirmed his belief that Ann Arbor was a special place.

Shoshana Hurand introduced herself as a social worker perhaps better known as an advocate for the arts [e.g., as an organizer of Festifools]. She said that in her work in places like Detroit and Elkhart, Ind., she’d come to see art as an “indicator species” – in environmental science they can serve as a measure of the health of an ecosystem. By supporting the weakest elements of a system, she said, it can help nourish the rest of the space.

Bob Grese, who was on the municipal center art task force, acknowledged the challenges that councilmembers faced in consideration of the budget. He cited other communities that have Percent for Art programs – not just New York City, he said, but also similar-sized communities to Ann Arbor like New Haven, Conn. and Chapel Hill, N.C. As director of Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum, he said, he could attest to the value of art installations, like the 10,000 daffodils in the arboretum.

An artist spoke at the public hearing said he was embarrassed that he had to come to the city council to talk about the importance of art. He cautioned the council to consider the message that they’d be sending to the artist community in Michigan. Trying to save 0.5% in a construction budget, he reported, “feels icky as an artist.”

Thomas Partridge contended that he’d initiated the public art discussion. He reported that he was the son of a deceased award-winning artist – his mother, who inherited her talent from his grandmother. He was there, he said, to advance the cause of public art. He suggested that this be tied to making Michigan the center for film making and creativity.

Charles Loucks spoke in support of the proposed reduction in the program. The method of funding – taking monies out of capital funds – was flawed, he said. Funding the program instead out of operations would allow adequate oversight, he suggested. He said found it “galling” that the public art commission had looked to a German artist for its first major work.

Council Deliberations on Percent for Art

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who co-sponsored the resolution with Mayor John Hieftje, led off deliberations by asking her colleagues to consider whether art was a core service that the city should prioritize. The proposal, she said, ensured that the program would be alive and funded, but that it was important to pull back a little bit for a limited period of three years. Without further council action, the full 1% would be restored after three years.

She characterized the proposal as consistent with “shared sacrifices” that would be required. She said that she’d rather the situation not be art versus firefighters, saying, “We can’t be pitted against each other.” She concluded her remarks by saying  she thought the proposal was “palatable.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who’d voted against the reduction at its first reading, had not changed his mind. He read from a communication he’d been sent from Jan Barney Newman [currently a member of the Ann Arbor District Library board] in support of maintaining funding. He concluded that art is one of those things that symbolizes Ann Arbor.  He echoed the words of the public speaker who characterized the proposal to reduce funding as “icky.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4), who’d supported the reduction at the first reading, said she was concerned that it would set the program back when it was only beginning to gain its footing. She compared the idea of reducing the percentage to taking back a tax abatement that had been granted.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), had argued against the reduction at first reading, making an argument based on economic development. He took up Smith’s question about whether art was a core service saying, “I instead look at it as a core value.” He said that art was a defining element for Ann Arbor’s regional and national image. He also echoed the sentiments that Margaret Parker had expressed during public commentary, saying that economically, Michigan was still a “one-trick pony,” despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Rapundalo also reiterated a theme from the first reading, saying that no exact dollar figure could be identified as the amount to be saved.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) helped craft language for a revised parking resolution, which came after the Percent for Art deliberations.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was “amazed, surprised, and pleased” by the support for art he’d heard from the community. He said that cultural leadership is an important element of the Ann Arbor brand and that it was important to reinforce that brand and expand it. He allowed that these were bad economic times, but noted it was not general fund monies that were at stake.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he would not be supporting the reduction, citing the fact that it would not make any difference in the general fund. Hohnke said that definition of the funding as a percentage allowed the amount of funding to go up or down in a way that was commensurate with the city’s ability to invest in its infrastructure. He compared it to the same good long-term role that research and development played in the business sector. It was important to continue those investments, he said, in order to set us up for economic vitality in the long run.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported that when he lived in Washington D.C. he knew all the paintings at the National Gallery because he visited them every week. He stressed that the Percent for Art program was a gift to the community, not to any one artist, and that at a time like this, we need to celebrate art.

Saying he supported public art in general, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) offered his support for Smith’s resolution, saying it was “the right thing to do.” In response to the argument that general fund money would not be affected, he pointed out that non-general fund money was also currently stretched. Art, he declared, is non-essential. He pointed out that three years is not that long.

In responding to her colleagues, Smith said she took exception to Rapundalo’s contention that the council didn’t know what dollar amounts they’re voting for. [She had provided Rapundalo at the first reading of the resolution a reference point: In the  FY 2011 capital improvements plan (CIP), there were $519,000 in eligible funding – so that the savings were around $260,000.]

But recognizing that most of the support from her colleagues at the resolution’s first reading had melted away, Smith declared that she had heard from them that art is a value that they are not willing to sacrifice, and that she was pleased to see that it’s a value they would stand up for.

Hohnke and Hieftje then stressed again the fact that the Percent for Art funding could not be spent on general fund activities. Hieftje declared that what the council had accomplished through consideration of the resolution was education of the public on that point.

In explaining why he now did not support the reduction in funding after helping to sponsor the resolution with Smith, Hieftje said that he thought that art might help us climb out of the economic downturn. Citing a recent PBS Newshour broadcast in which Ann Arbor was portrayed as Michigan’s “life preserver,” Hieftje concluded that if Ann Arbor were to continue as a shining light, the Percent for Art program needed to continue.

Outcome: The council rejected the resolution, with support coming only from Kunselman and Smith, and thus left the Percent for Art program intact.

Dreiseitl Art Project

The item before the city council was a $111,4000 contract with Quinn Evans, the architect for the municipal center, for design documentation and procurement of bids for fabrication and installation of the exterior sculpture proposed by Herbert Dreiseitl and recommended by the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission for the Ann Arbor municipal center. Dreiseitl’s project is a fountain sculpture that is fed by stormwater.

The estimated cost of the installation, which is just one of the three pieces of art that Dreisetil designed, is $737,820. [.pdf file of project budget breakdown]

The agenda item had first been expected to appear on the council’s Nov. 16 agenda, but that expectation was shifted to Dec. 7. The expectation then shifted to the council’s Dec. 21 agenda, but was not included when initially published on Wednesday before the meeting. Because staff members cannot add agenda items after Wednesday, the item required the sponsorship of a councilmember when it was added around 11 a.m. on the morning of Dec. 21. Margie Teall (Ward 4) was the item’s sponsor.

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC), ticked through some of the key dates in the trajectory of the project:

• October 2008: Art commission recommends commissioning design for three pieces of art at the municipal center – one outdoor sculpture, and two indoor wall pieces.
• March 2, 2009: City council approves Dreiseitl’s design fees at $77,000.
• July 20, 2009: Dreiseitl visits Ann Arbor to unveil his design concepts at a public forum and at city council.
• September 2009: Dreiseitl returns to Ann Arbor to meet with municipal center architects and others.
• Oct. 19, 2009: At a special meeting, the municipal center task force recommends accepting designs for all three pieces.
• Oct. 19, 2009. At a special meeting, AAPAC recommends accepting design for the outdoor sculpture – tabling and placing contingencies on the other two indoor pieces.

Public Commentary on Dreiseitl

There was no public hearing on the Dreiseitl project, but four people signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting to speak about it. Speakers included members of the public art commission, Margaret Parker and Cheryl Zuellig.

Bob Galardi and Margaret Parker wait their turn to speak during public commentary.

Parker spoke of the need for Ann Arbor to keep pace with other communities. Jackson, Mich., she said, had a facility with a large artist live/work space. She cited Grand Rapids for its recent ArtPrize contest, which brought more than 1000 artists to that city and hundreds of thousands of visitors over the course of two and a half weeks. Kalamazoo has a four-story building featuring all of the arts, she said. And  Ypsilanti, with its artist incubator system, had become the “go-to place for young artists in our area.”

Zuellig stressed the importance of the timing – there was an opportunity to integrate this work of art into the infrastructure of the building. With respect to the project’s budget, she said that as a landscape architect she was familiar with the costs of such projects and that the costs were reasonable.

Shary Brown, who recently retired as director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, spoke in favor of Dreiseitl’s project. She said that it was a permanent investment that would draw visitors to the site of a major innovative work by an artist specializing in environmental art.

Bob Galardi, a retired Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator, also spoke in favor of the project, saying that art provided a social service that nothing else can provide. The ecological theme, he said, was most appropriate for Ann Arbor as a green city. It would contribute to the education of children in the future. Galardi said that he imagined that the Dreiseitl sculpture would become a standard stop for yellow school buses on their way to the Hands-On Museum. “Art is good business,” he concluded.

Council Deliberations on Dreiseitl

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with Margaret Parker that the agenda item dealt only with the outdoor sculpture – there were two other art pieces designed for the interior. She expressed concern that the three pieces were meant to work as a whole.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) pressed for an explanation of how the city was complying with the requirements of the public art ordinance.

Parker confirmed that the blue lighting elements were a connecting theme. [Additional background on the other two projects, which are not moving forward at this time: "Dreiseitl Project Moves to Council"]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) emphasized that the outdoor piece was important to move forward, because of the need to integrate it with the new building’s infrastructure.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) then spoke to what he characterized as an “urgency” to move the project forward, a feeling he said he understood but did not share. He was more concerned, he said, that the council followed its own ordinance that it had passed in November 2007.

Kunselman then ticked through requirements of the ordinance that he felt potentially had not been met. The text of the ordinance cited in relevant part by Kunselman:

1:836.  Ownership and maintenance of work.
(1) No work of art shall be considered for acquisition under this chapter without an estimate for future maintenance costs.

1:837.  Oversight Body.
… (2) The oversight body shall:
(A) Promulgate guidelines, subject to the approval of city council, to implement the provisions of this chapter, including procedures for soliciting and selecting public art and for determining suitable locations for public art;

(B) By April 1 of each year, submit to city council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year; …

(G) Present an annual report to city council within sixty (60) days after the end of each fiscal year containing:
(i) A report on the status of all public art incorporated into or funded by capital improvement projects in progress or completed during the preceding fiscal year;
(ii) A maintenance report on each work of public art presently under city management detailing maintenance costs for the preceding fiscal year, anticipated maintenance costs for the next fiscal year, and any significant future maintenance concerns, including prioritized recommendations for the maintenance, repair or renovation of particular works;
(iii) A review of the city’s public art with regard to the purposes stated in this chapter;
(iv) A report on the oversight body’s efforts to promote awareness of public art;
(v) A report on donations of art and where such art was placed;
(vi) A report on additional funds raised and how such funds were used; and
(vii) Any other matter of substantial financial or public importance relating to the public art in the city.

Plans referenced in (B), said Parker, had been prepared each year. She allowed, however, that no report in (G)  had not been completed, saying that there had not yet been any art acquired under the program. She said that the commission could prepare the report. [The report appears to require elements not dependent on acquisition of art.]

With respect to the required estimate of maintenance costs, it was Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, who addressed the question. Kunselman was correct that the estimate was required, she allowed, but she presented that night’s agenda item in the following context: It was the second of three action steps, only the third of which was “acquisition.”

The first action step, explained McCormick, had been the conceptual design, which had been approved in March of 2009. What they were doing that evening was the bid to design what would be installed, complete with plans and specs for concrete and plumbing – the second action step.  The authorization of the purchase would come sometime in April, and that was “acquisition,” said McCormick.  At that time, an estimate for maintenance costs would be required.

As for the guidelines for acquisition, Parker said that AAPAC had submitted them to the city attorney’s office. They were to be finished review by the city attorney’s office in the next 30 days. [Senior assistant city attorney Abigail Elias has had the guidelines since the summer of 2008 – Parker had cited the delay at an AAPAC meeting in January of 2009.]

On Monday, in response to the question of how essential the guidelines were, city attorney Stephen Postema did not indicate he felt it was necessary, based on the ordinance, to have the guidelines in place before acquiring art.

Outcome: The contract with Quinn Evans to provide project management services on the Dreiseitl project was approved, with dissent from Kunselman.

Parking

Before the council was a resolution that Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had previewed for the Downtown Development Authority‘s operations committee the previous Wednesday. [Chronicle coverage: "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible"]

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

Before the council meeting began, Smith circulated paper copies to the press and the public of a revised resolution that swapped out language on the meter enforcement extension, in favor of a proposal that the DDA provide a presentation to the council of a plan for evening parking management options.

Public Commentary on Parking

Five people signed up for reserved time at the start of the meeting and spoke on the parking resolution. Thomas Partridge said he was against imposing any parking fees on disabled people.

Bob Snyder, president of the South University Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of Smith’s resolution, saying he was opposed to the installation of parking meters in near downtown neighborhoods. It was not just a matter of aesthetics, he said, but rather a signal of encroaching commercialism. Extending hours of enforcement, he contended, was a better way of increasing revenues.

Ray Detter, president of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, expressed support for all parts of the resolution. He said that all the parking should be managed by the DDA as part of a transportation demand management strategy. He agreed with Snyder’s characterization of meter installation in residential neighborhoods as “creeping commercialism” and said that the city’s installation of its own meters was in conflict with the city’s parking agreement with the DDA.

Deanna Relyea, who founded Ann Arbor’s Kerrytown Concert House, addressed the specific needs of the Kerrytown district, which she said had been chronically underserved. She feared concert house audiences would be disappointed with the extension of meter enforcement hours and that they might experience anxiety about an expired meter while a concert was going on. Kerrytown, she suggested, was different, as was each district of downtown. She suggested that each downtown area association should be consulted about its area, to develop a solution that was happier.

Kevin Sharp introduced himself as a 17-year employee of the People’s Food Co-op, but stressed that he was speaking for himself. He said that parking is enough of a challenge already. He noted that a grocery store use was different from a restaurant use. A $15 ticket on top of a $15 ticket could become a psychological barrier to shopping for groceries downtown, he said, when there is free parking at larger grocery stores outside the downtown.

Council Deliberations on Parking

The “Resolved” clauses from the resolution, in its final approved form, are as follows:

RESOLVED, That net revenues from the 350 South Fifth lot be directed to the General Fund, provided that “net revenues” shall be gross revenues less incurred installation costs (other than demolition costs) and operational costs;

RESOLVED, The City shall suspend the plan to install its own parking meters;

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

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

RESOLVED, That the City Administrator be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to implement this Resolution.

Getting to that exact language was a tortuous affair, as the council attempted to craft language on the fly at the table, then finally capitulated – they took a break. As they went into recess, Mayor John Hieftje directed a couple of them to “huddle up” and thrash through the wording.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, was asked to step to the podium, along with DDA board members Roger Hewitt and John Splitt. Seated in the background, from left: Councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

We eschew a blow-by-blow account in favor of highlighting some of the issues that were raised.

Smith was brutally frank in explaining the rationale for the resolution: “Without a doubt it’s about revenue generation – for the city and for the DDA.” The increased revenue to the DDA, she said, would “put the DDA in better position to give it to the city when it comes asking for it.” [Chronicle coverage of the city-DDA money issue: "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible"]

The DDA was represented at the meeting in the form of its executive director, Susan Pollay, and board members Roger Hewitt and John Splitt. They were asked to the podium to brief the council on the concepts of transportation demand management as explicated in the Nelson/Nygaard Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study.

Hewitt said that part of the idea was to make the most desirable parking the most expensive and the least desirable parking the least expensive, thereby providing people with economic choices. In term of desirability, Hewitt said, street parking is most desirable, followed by surface lots, with parking structures the least desirable.

Currently, Hewitt said, the pricing structure was consistent with that desirability, except for evening street parking, which was free. [Smith's original resolution would have extended meter enforcement to 10 p.m.] Hewitt said that street parking in the evening was taken up predominantly by downtown employees, despite the fact that a $30-per-month parking structure permit was available for the hours between 3 p.m. and 7 a.m.

He also mentioned the AATA Night Ride program, which is a shared taxi service that is free to holders of a go!pass, or $1 for those without it.

In response to a query from Smith about the city’s past history with evening enforcement, Pollay said that since the mid ’90s nothing had been tried. James Macdonald, owner of the former Bella Ciao restaurant in downtown Ann Arbor, stepped to the podium to offer some historical insight. He was initially asked to return to his seat – the public is not permitted to step uninvited to the podium during deliberations – but was later invited back.

James Macdonald provided some historical insight into the city’s experience with evening enforcement of parking meters. In the early ’90s people did not enjoy the unexpected surprise of a parking ticket as a souvenir of their visit to downtown.

Macdonald said that in the early ’90s a resolution was passed to enforce meters in the evenings, but that it was quickly rescinded at a Nov. 4 meeting, based on numerous phone calls. [Editor's note: We think the year might have been 1992. Here's minutes from the Nov. 4, 1992 meeting.]

Council concerns with the resolution included Stephen Rapundalo’s (Ward 2) worry that it was too narrowly focused, and should be more comprehensive in its approach. He cited his experience serving on the A2D2 parking advisory committee in making his case for comprehensiveness. He was reluctant to take the city’s plan for installation of more meters completely off the table. The eventual swapping of “suspend” for “discontinue” seemed to address that concern.

In discussion of the term “citywide,” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) queried the city attorney about whether the DDA could properly administer parking facilities outside its defined boundaries, according to the state enabling legislation. It was Pollay who provided the clarification that the DDA could not use its tax capture for that purpose, but that there were already several parking facilities outside the DDA district that are managed by the DDA, most notably the Forest structure. [.pdf map of DDA district boundaries]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted at one point to delete almost everything in the resolution except for the request that the DDA present a plan. Much of the wholesale deletion of “Whereas” clauses actually stuck – there seemed to be little appetite on the council to highlight the question of who was authorized under the city-DDA parking agreement to operate the city’s parking system – it’s the DDA. So the “Whereas” clauses addressing that issue disappeared from the approved resolution.

However, Smith was able to convince Taylor and Rapundalo to accept the “Resolved” clause that would give net revenues from the surface lot at Fifth and William (the old YMCA lot) to the city of Ann Arbor. It’s grossing around $25,000 per month in revenue. Rapundalo had been worried that the language of the resolution would cause the city to incur an upfront cost to reimburse the DDA for its investment in the installation of the lot. Taylor was not happy with the lack of precision in the language specifying the net revenue – “similar to” a previous agreement on a different lot wasn’t going to cut it.

Taylor’s first attempt at a revision was greeted by city administrator Roger Fraser with his assessment that Taylor had crafted a description that would require the DDA to first give the city the gross, with the city then returning the DDA’s expenses to achieve the net – which was more complicated than allowing the DDA to compute the net, then hand it over to the city. Taylor quickly abandoned that particular tack. The challenge in formulating the “net” statement was what led to the recess to thrash out the language.

Before the deliberations concluded, Smith cautioned her fellow councilmembers against trying to micromanage the parking system by trying to pull the levers within the machine. If they were interested in learning more about parking, she encouraged them to attend an operations committee meeting of the DDA.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the amended parking resolution.

In a related matter, the agenda item calling for an $87,000 expenditure for parking equipment to be installed on Wall Street was tabled. With approval of Smith’s resolution suspending the city’s program of meter installation, the equipment is no longer needed.

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

Absent: Sabra Briere, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Jan. 4, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Ann Arbor parking meters are currently enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Saturday. (Photo by the writer.)

Key elements of the draft resolution that Smith shared with fellow DDA board members included: (i) net revenues from the Fifth and William (old YMCA) lot would go into city rather than DDA coffers, (ii) downtown parking meters would operate and be enforced until 10 p.m., which is later than their current cutoff of 6 p.m., and (iii) the city would discontinue its plan to install its own parking meters in neighborhoods near the downtown.

The city’s plan to install its own parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown was formulated as part of the city’s FY 2010 budget (the current fiscal year), but implementation was not immediate. Reference to the city’s installation of “its own meters” alludes to the fact that the DDA manages the public parking system via an agreement with the city – the new meters would not fall under that agreement.

Although the specific wording of the draft differed in parts from the resolution that was added to council’s agenda on Friday, the key points remained.

Within hours of its appearance on the agenda, the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce had sent a memo to city councilmembers asking for postponement of the resolution.

Smith’s resolution puts one question that’s been simmering for nearly a year closer to the front burner: Will the parking agreement between the city and the DDA be renegotiated as part of the FY 2011 budget?

FY 2010 Adopted Budget, FY 2011 Budget Plan

The city of Ann Arbor plans budgets in two-year cycles, though it formally adopts budgets only one year at a time.  When the city council adopted the FY 2010 budget in May 2009, that was the first year of a two-year plan, which included FY 2011 as the second year. The city’s fiscal years run from July 1 through June 30 – FY 2011 begins on July 1, 2010.

The FY 2010-2011 city budget planning cycle included parking and the Downtown Development Authority in two significant ways.

The FY 2010 adopted budget included an assumption of $380,000 in additional annual revenues per year through the installation of parking meters by the city in areas outside the DDA district. [.PDF file of the DDA district boundaries]

The FY 2011 budget plan included an assumption that the parking agreement between the city and the DDA could be renegotiated to result in a $2 million payment by the DDA to the city, which the DDA is not compelled by the current agreement to make. That agreement, struck in 2005, called for the DDA to pay the city up to $10 million through 2015 – the DDA has made payments of $2 million in each of the first five years of the agreement, for a total of $10 million.

Since January 2009 , there’s been political jostling on the side of the city council and the DDA board on the question of the parking agreement, but no actual discussions between the two bodies through their respective “mutually beneficial” committees.

On the question of parking meter installation, the DDA  has expressed skepticism about the amount of revenue those meters could generate. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA to City on Meters: We're Skeptical"] Sandi Smith (Ward 1) has, since June 2009, worked on the city council to delay the installation of the meters until alternative revenue sources could be identified to replace the $380,000 the city expected to collect from the new meters.

Before summarizing the discussion at the DDA operations committee on Wednesday, we provide two separate timeline overviews: (i) the political jostling on the city-DDA parking agreement, and (ii) the city council actions on installation of additional parking meters outside the DDA district.

History of the Mutually Beneficial Committees

-

• Jan. 20, 2009: City council passes a resolution asking the DDA to begin discussions of renegotiating the parking agreement between the city and the DDA in a mutually beneficial way.
• March 4, 2009: DDA board establishes a “mutually beneficial” committee to begin discussions of the parking agreement between the city and the DDA. On the committee: Roger Hewitt, Gary Boren, Jennifer S. Hall, and Rene Greff. The DDA’s resolution establishing their committee calls on the city council to form its own committee.
• May 20, 2009: During the mid-year DDA retreat, mayor John Hieftje states publicly that city councilmembers object to Jennifer S. Hall and Rene Greff’s membership on the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee.
• June 3, 2009: DDA board chair Jennifer S. Hall removes herself from DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, replacing herself with Russ Collins.
• June 15, 2009: Mayor John Hieftje nominates councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4), Leigh Greden (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) to serve on the city council’s “mutually beneficial” committee, and they’re confirmed at the city council’s July 20 meeting.
• July 1, 2009: DDA board chair Jennifer S. Hall appoints Sandi Smith to replace outgoing DDA board member Rene Greff (whose position is filled with Newcombe Clark) on the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee. Smith is also a city councilmember, representing Ward 1.
• August-December 2009: Sandi Smith, the chair of the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, reports at each monthly DDA board meeting that there is nothing new to report.
• Dec. 5, 2009: Dissolution of the DDA is included in an “everything is on the table” list for discussion at the city council’s budget retreat.

[For background on the tax-increment financing that funds the DDA and the political tension between the city and the DDA, see previous Chronicle coverage: DDA Retreat: Who's on the Committee]

History of FY 2010 Parking Meter Installation

-

• May 18, 2009: City council adopts its FY 2010 budget, which includes an assumption of $380,000 in revenue from installation of parking meters in near-downtown neighborhoods.
• June 15, 2009: City council passes a resolution authorizing only a limited implementation of parking meters in a limited number of new locations, with an Oct. 5 deadline for development of an alternative revenue plan.
• June 15, 2009: City council passes a resolution that redefines the parking rate and revenue deal between the city and DDA on the 415 W. Washington parking lot (which was not covered in the general city-DDA parking agreement) in favor of the city. Annual net to the city is projected to be $164,000.
• July 1, 2009: DDA approves, with dissent, its side of the 415 W. Washington parking lot deal.
• Oct. 5, 2009: City council extends a moratorium on installing additional parking meters to Dec. 14.
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council separates consent agenda item to purchase parking meters for $87,000 and postpones that action.
• Dec. 7, 2009: City council again postpones action on the purchase of parking meters for $87,000.
• Dec. 21, 2009: City council to consider action on purchasing parking meters for $87,000, along with Smith’s separate resolution addressing Fifth & William lot revenues and extending meter operation and enforcement to 10 p.m.

Discussion at DDA Operations Committee

At last Wednesday’s DDA meeting, Sandi Smith apprised her DDA board colleagues of the resolution she intended to place on the council’s agenda that would have the effect of forestalling permanently the city’s plan to install its own parking meters outside the DDA district. The resolution would also extend the hours of operation and enforcement for downtown meters.

Revenue Replacement: Fifth and William Lot

The revenue replacement for those outside-the-DDA-district meters would come from proceeds of what is now the surface parking lot at Fifth and William, known as the “old Y” site. That surface lot, created relatively recently, is not envisioned long-term for parking. It’s slated for redevelopment.

In that respect, the Fifth and William lot is similar to the surface lot at 415 W. Washington, which was also converted to surface parking, pending planned redevelopment of the site. Both lots are thus considered temporary, and are not covered explicitly in the 2005 parking agreement between the city and the DDA.

As the previous timeline indicates, in the summer of 2009, proceeds from the 415 W. Washington lot were renegotiated in favor of the city, as a part of Smith’s effort to replace the revenue estimated by the city from installation of additional meters in near-downtown neighborhoods.

With the closure of the Fifth Avenue “Library Lot” for surface parking – because of construction starting on the underground parking garage at that location – use of the nearby Fifth and William surface lot has jumped dramatically. In October 2009, the lot generated $26,742 in revenue, compared with only $8,659 in October 2008.

Not all of the estimated $300,000 in annual revenue from the Fifth and William lot would go to the city of Ann Arbor – the DDA would be fully reimbursed for installation costs. Those installation costs would include items like the paving of the lot and the parking gates and payment kiosk, but not the demolition of the old YMCA building that previously stood on the lot or the environmental remediation that was required. DDA executive director Susan Pollay told The Chronicle in a phone conversation Friday that the DDA spent roughly $1.5 million on demolition and asbestos abatement at that site.

At the DDA operations committee on Wednesday, Newcombe Clark expressed some similar concerns about the proposed deal to those that Rene Greff had expressed earlier in the year about the 415 W. Washington deal. [See Chronicle coverage on: "Split DDA Board Agrees on Splitt"] Clark was appointed to replace Greff on the board, when her term expired at the end of July 2009.

Clark was concerned that what was proposed was not transparent – the deal was a mechanism to transfer money from the DDA to the city, which was more appropriately an issue for the two “mutually beneficial” committees to explore. “It creeps into the ‘mutually beneficial’ committee’s responsibility,” he said. “If the city needs money, do it transparently.”

Clark said he feared that there would be perhaps seven or eight smaller deals done before the “mutually beneficial” committees ever met.

Smith responded to Clark by saying, “It’s wishful thinking that anything will happen at a meeting between the committees that is really mutually beneficial.”

As far as whether it was transparent what the proposal meant, Smith said, “It’s clear – it says, ‘Back off the installation of new parking meters!’”

Also focusing on the aspect of the proposal that put a stop to the city’s planned installation of new parking meters, Pollay pointed out that the DDA’s strategy in responding to the city had been to express its skepticism about the projected revenue that the new meters would generate, rather than to contest the city’s authority to install the meters.

The supporting material for Smith’s upcoming council resolution on parking alludes to the fact that there is only one public parking system in Ann Arbor, and that the DDA, per its parking agreement with the city, has authority over it. That material reads, in relevant part, [underlining in the original]: “The DDA/City Parking Agreement states that the DDA shall have uninterrupted operation of the public parking system …”

Extension of Meter Operation Hours

Smith’s resolution also includes the extension of meter operation and enforcement to 10 p.m. – meters are currently not enforced past 6 p.m.

The rationale for extending meter enforcement is the complaint that downtown retail/restaurant employees use the free street parking after 6 p.m., which is counter to the goal of promoting turnover of vehicles to allow customers of the downtown to use the spaces.

There’s resistance to the extension of meter enforcement by downtown merchants; there was also vocal resistance to  the city’s intended installation of parking meters in near-downtown neighborhoods by residents of those neighborhoods.

Smith’s resolution is part of her continuing effort to forestall the city’s meter installation, which could be analyzed as an effort to address concerns of near-downtown residents. So, at the operations committee meeting, Clark questioned whether Smith – by proposing extension of meter enforcement hours – was simply afraid of “getting yelled at” by residents of neighborhoods.

At that, DDA board member (and county commissioner) Leah Gunn gave Clark a poke back, by asking if Clark was afraid of getting yelled at by Main Street merchants. [Clark is president of the Main Street Area Association board.] Gunn herself said she supported the extension of meter enforcement.

With a detectable weariness in her voice, Smith assured her DDA board colleagues that she was getting yelled at by everyone.

Next Steps: Postponement? Committee Meetings?

If the city council listens to the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, they’ll postpone consideration of Sandi Smith’s (Ward 1) resolution on parking. Within hours of its appearance on the online council agenda, an emailed response to councilmembers came from Kyle Mazurek, the chamber’s vice president of government affairs:

Dear Ann Arbor City Council Members,

I am writing in regard to the attached document entitled “Resolution Regarding New Parking Meters.” Presumably you will take action on this resolution on the evening of Monday, December 21.

Given that it’s now the holiday season and many are traveling, and given that this resolution was not uploaded to the City’s website until today (Friday) at 11:57 a.m., the Ann Arbor Chamber respectfully requests that you postpone consideration of this matter to a later date.

All interested parties should be given sufficient time and opportunity to examine it. Its implications for the downtown area business community should not be taken lightly.

This Council clearly values public input. For consistency and fairness sake, let’s not now stymie it by hastily considering this matter.

Respectfully,

Kyle Mazurek

While the exact text of the resolution was not finalized until Friday, Smith has indicated to her council colleagues at the last two council meetings that she would be bringing forward a resolution on parking. That has been the basis of her request to her council colleagues to postpone consideration of the purchase of parking meters for installation on Wall Street – a request they’ve respected twice now.

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

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

R-642-11-91

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

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

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

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

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the start of the meeting, clearly thinking outside the box. (Photos by the writer.)

Councilmembers spent considerable time on those topics, during a meeting that lasted until nearly midnight. But they also acted on a range of other items – Part II of this council report will focus on that remaining part of the agenda.

Two items were postponed – the appointment of council members to various committees, and a resolution to buy new parking meters for Wall Street. The council, with no discussion, also sent the area, height and placement (AHP) project back to the planning commission for further consideration.

Several funding requests were approved, including the purchase of new accounting software, two greenbelt acquisitions and funds for remodeling the city’s 911 dispatch center to accommodate co-location with Washtenaw County’s dispatch center. Council also signed off on additional funds for a Buhr Park ice rink project.

Affordable housing issues came up in two different ways. Councilmembers approved a resolution exempting eligible nonprofit housing providers, such as Avalon Housing, from paying property taxes for up to two years. Council also passed a resolution supporting the efforts of the University of Michigan’s Inter-Cooperative Council to secure federal funding.

At the end of the meeting, council went into closed session to discuss a pending lawsuit the city faces over the underground parking garage next to the Library Lot. When they emerged, they authorized action recommended by the city attorney.

Finally, long-time Pioneer track coach Don Sleeman was honored – over the years, his work has touched the lives of several people connected to city hall.

Council Committees

The postponement of council committee appointments received little discussion beyond mayor John Hieftje’s request right out of the gate that someone move to postpone them for two weeks.

What could be the focus of discussion in two weeks will be the composition of the budget and labor committee. In late summer, after the primary election recount established that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had won the Democratic primary election over incumbent Leigh Greden, Greden resigned from the budget and labor committee. Also resigning from that committee was Margie Teall (Ward 4). They were replaced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). In addition to Anglin and Briere, Hieftje, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) served on the committee. [Chronicle coverage: "City Council Begins Transition"]

After each November election, especially when there are new councilmembers, there’s an opportunity to reorganize the council committee membership. In the reorganization of committees brought forward by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) on Monday night, the current constitution of the budget and labor committee would stay the same, with the substitution of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) for Mike Anglin.

In his remarks during communications to council, Anglin spoke of the need to look at budgetary matters as a group. Briere had remarked towards the end of the Saturday budget retreat that she found the discussion of budget matters among all councilmembers was especially valuable.

Rapundalo, too, had remarked at the retreat, and again on Monday night, that what he found particularly valuable about the budget retreat was the time allotted for discussion amongst the councilmembers themselves.

On Monday night, the sentiment for a whole-group discussion format was somewhat supported by city administrator Roger Fraser, who indicated that there would likely be another full-day budget retreat required sometime in January 2010. Anglin, however, seemed to be making a case for making the budget and labor committee a “committee of the whole,” though he did not use that phrase explicitly.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who has served on the budget and labor committee for at least four years, did not attend the budget retreat or Monday’s council meeting. On Monday night, Hieftje explained that she had an extreme family health issue that required her attention – Higgins’ daughter is battling cancer.

Outcome: The city council voted to postpone their committee appointments until their Dec. 21 meeting, with dissent from Rapundalo.

Parking Meters on Wall Street

The resolution on parking meters had been postponed from the Nov. 16 city council meeting:

The resolution to purchase parking meters, a part of the consent agenda, was separated out from that group of items at Sandi Smith’s (Ward 1) request. [The consent agenda items are by definition moved and voted together, unless an item is specifically singled out, as this one was.]

The parking meters were to be installed along Wall Street as part of an effort to generate up to $380,000 connected with the FY 2010 budget, which the city council adopted earlier in the year.

At Monday’s meeting, Smith expressed skepticism that the projected extra revenues would materialize, even if the meters were installed. [Smith has been working to find revenue replacement, to avoid installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown.]

At Monday’s meeting, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked her colleagues for another postponement, indicating that the planned, comprehensive proposal that she’d intended to bring forward that night was not quite ready.

Outcome: The council unanimously agreed to postpone the resolution to purchase parking meters for installation on Wall Street.

Accounting Software

The council considered a resolution that would authorize spending $895,000 to move the city’s financial software system to one that would require less ongoing maintenance from the information technology department. Karen Lancaster, the city’s accounting services manager, described how the current system relies on Oracle, SQL and a full-time dedicated COBOL programmer – who recently retired.

Foreground is Jayne Miller, community services area administrator. To her left is Tom Crawford, the city's CFO.

The financial system is used to pay vendors, record all transactions, and manage the budget. It’s the official record-keeping system for the city, explained Lancaster.

The transition to a new system – provided by New World Systems Corp., which is based in Troy, Michigan, and which recently picked up a contract with the city of Battle Creek – is expected to pay for itself in two years, eight months, said Lancaster. The cost savings would be realized in part by a reduction in annual maintenance costs from $150,000 to $60,000, and the elimination of the COBOL programmer’s  salary of $135,000.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) elicited the fact that the license for the new software was for 10 years, so after the payback period of a little under three years, there’d be more than seven years of cost savings.

The money to pay for the system, said Lancaster, had been set aside each year for the last five years.

Queried by mayor John Hieftje, Lancaster explained that there was a window of opportunity to implement the change now, which was defined in part by the retirement of the COBOL programmer, and in part by the construction of the new municipal center. When that center is completed, the city’s IT department will be fully engaged by their move to the new facility and would not be available for work on the financial system transition.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) quizzed Lancaster about the number of users among city staff: 150 different staff members use the system. Queried by Briere, Lancaster explained that it’s not the age of the current system that makes it slow – its processing speed is fine. It’s just that it’s complicated for the user, she said. For example, users found themselves looking at one screen and typing numbers into MS Excel in another. The new system is fully integrated into MS Office, including Excel.

Lancaster also said that the new system would allow someone without in-depth knowledge of the accounting codes to get information out of the system. Asked whether the new system would provide improved availability of reports to council, city administrator Roger Fraser clarified that it’s not the kinds of reports that would change, but rather the effort that it took to produce them.

Briere asked if the reports would be made available online. Lancaster allowed that this was the trend – to a citizen portal. But that, she said, would be an additional project to ensure that the data were read-only.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution to spend the money that had been accumulating in the IT budget to pay for the new accounting system.

Greenbelt: Frederick Farm, Chapin Street

The council considered two resolutions involving the acquisition of land under the city’s greenbelt and open space program.

The first of them is a house on Chapin Street adjacent to West Park, which currently has three rental units. After the leases expire in August 2010, the $280,000 house will be demolished. From the memo accompanying the resolution:

The parcel is located immediately adjacent to West Park. The park is located near downtown Ann Arbor, and has several entrance points from the four streets on which it borders. However, the entrances are scattered and can be difficult to locate. The Chapin Street entry into West Park, which is closest to downtown, does not have optimal visibility in to the park. Obtaining this property, as well as removing the existing house and wooden fences, will significantly open the view to and from the park along Chapin, creating safer, more welcoming access.

The second acquisition was for development rights to a farm in Lodi Township. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, explained that the $1,000 contribution of the township to the $815,767 cost was rather nominal, but that the township was participating at the level it was able and had done so enthusiastically. [Detailed Chronicle coverage of that acquisition: "Frederick Farm in Line to Join Greenbelt"]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both acquisitions.

911 Dispatch

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. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "County Reorganizes 911 Dispatch"]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution to remodel fire station #1 to accommodate co-location of 911 dispatch with the county’s dispatch.

Area, Height and Placement (AHP)

In June of 2008, the city’s planning commission recommended to the city council a series of zoning amendments that would apply in all non-downtown areas, which were meant to encourage more sustainable land use. Instead of voting on the recommendations, the city council – which had heard from residents that they’d wanted a greater chance to participate in the process – directed city planning staff to conduct a series of public engagements. Eight such meetings were held between May and October 2009.  [Chronicle coverage of one of those meetings: "Zoning 101: Area, Height and Placement"]

Out of that public engagement process came staff recommendations for amending the planning commission’s originally recommended zoning changes. On Monday night, the resolution before council sent the planning commission’s recommendations back to that body to be revised, in light of the staff-recommended changes.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to remand the zoning changes recommended by the planning commission back to that body.

Buhr Ice Rink

Planning and development staff were also front and center on an agenda item that was not obviously about planning and development. The item was a change order for $70,048 in connection with ice rink concrete slab replacement at Buhr Park. It drew the attention of Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who noted that the need for a change order was an inspection issue. From the administrative memo:

A three week delay in the project occurred when an inspection raised questions regarding the type of piping being installed. The contractor and manufacturer of the piping were required to provide additional technical information. While this issue has been satisfactorily resolved, the delay has resulted in construction taking place in colder weather conditions and a modified specification concrete is now required.

The work required will delay the opening date of the ice rink until Jan. 9, 2010.

Smith noted that she’d heard numerous complaints about the timeliness of city inspections and that this perhaps illustrated how crucial it was to be aware that these things can actually cost money – in this case to the city. Jayne Miller, community services area administrator, together with a query from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), clarified that it was not really a problem with the performance of the inspector – the inspection had revealed a problem and the inspector had acted properly, said Miller.

Kunselman had noticed that the problem was with the type of pipe being installed – that was an issue that was in the purview of planning and development staff, Miller said. She said they needed to figure out how it happened and address that problem. She reiterated something she’d spoken about in greater detail at Saturday’s budget retreat – the past six months have been extremely difficult for the planning staff, with eight different zoning initiatives underway.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $70,048 change order for the new concrete slab for the Buhr Park ice rink.

Affordable Housing

The council passed two resolutions related to affordable housing. One involved an expression of support for the University of Michigan’s Inter-Cooperative Council in their efforts to obtain federal funding. During a public hearing related to a different resolution, Eric Lipson, general manager of the ICC and former planning commissioner with the city, mentioned that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had been the president of the ICC in the 1970s. Later in the meeting Taylor would correct the record: He allowed that he’d been the president, but that in the 1970s he was somewhere in middle school. The accurate time frame was 1989-90.

The second resolution was not just symbolic. It exempted eligible nonprofit housing providers from paying property taxes for up to two years. Michael Appel, executive director of Avalon Housing, who attend the meeting in case he was called on to answer questions – he was not – told The Chronicle that the point of the resolution was not to promote ownership of housing by nonprofits. Rather, the point was to remove one barrier to the temporary acquisition of housing, for rehabbing, then eventual sale to a permanent occupant as affordable housing. This was the rationale behind the two-year limit on the exemption.

Lawsuit

In a closed session at the end of the meeting, the council discussed with the city attorney pending litigation related to the underground parking garage being built by the Downtown Development Authority on the lot next to the library. [Chronicle coverage: "Parking Deck Pretensioned with Lawsuit"]

The claims in the suit can be divided into two kinds: nuisance claims and Open Meeting Act violations.

When the council emerged from the closed session, a motion was made and passed to direct the city attorney to follow the strategy he’d recommended to them in the closed session. The strategy itself was not specified.

Proclamation Honoring Coach Sleeman

At the beginning of the meeting, a mayoral proclamation was made in honor of Pioneer track coach Don Sleeman. Sleeman, who lives just down the street from The Chronicle, turns out to have a connection to Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), via Kunselman’s son, Shane.

Pioneer track coach Don Sleeman, center, receives a mayor proclamation from John Hieftje, left. In the background at right is Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who gave some remarks in appreciation of Sleeman's work.

The younger Kunselman was a captain of the Pioneer track team last year – he was a member of the state champion 4×800 meter relay team as a sophomore. So in addition to the proclamation, Stephen Kunselman read aloud a statement expressing his appreciation for Sleeman’s coaching, from his perspective as a father.

It emerged that senior assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, as well as the city attorney himself, Stephen Postema, had also been coached by Sleeman. Postema’s background as a high school track star would have already been familiar to Chronicle readers who remember every word published here. From our 2008 election report:

Additional chairs and tables were also added for poll workers and election inspectors, with help from Pioneer principal Michael White, who asked some teachers there (they were in school for in-service training today – students are off) to wrangle furniture. An historical factoid: Postema and White were fierce rivals as cross-country runners back in the day. Postema competed for Pioneer, while White ran for a high school in Jackson.

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

Absent: Marcia Higgins

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 21, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirms with an Ann Arbor resident at the city council's Sunday caucus that the map she's sketched reflects accurately the block bounded by Huron, State, Washington, and Division streets. In the background, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photo by the writer.)

The downtown zoning ordinance package – known as A2D2, which the council has approved on two prior occasions at a “first reading” – will be given a public hearing, with a vote also scheduled for Monday night. In addition, the downtown design guidelines will have its public hearing continued, which started on Oct. 5. No vote on design guidelines is scheduled for Monday.

Also receiving discussion at caucus were the six projects that were submitted before last Friday’s Nov. 13 deadline, in response to the city’s request for proposals to use the space on top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage.

Also the council’s agenda, but not receiving discussion among councilmembers who attended the caucus, is the council’s formal acceptance of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) from the city’s environmental commission – but not the plan’s recommendations related to Argo Dam.

And a consent agenda item that requests funds to purchase additional electronic parking meter equipment contains in its description a plan to install meters in new areas that have not been previously identified.

Finally, there’s a whole new category of item on Monday’s agenda – a category that raises questions.

Councilmembers attending the caucus were Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Design Guidelines

Prior community-wide discussion on proposed design guidelines for Ann Arbor’s downtown has focused on the lack of a mandatory process into which the guidelines would be integrated. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should" and "Mandatory Process Likely for Design Guides"]

At Sunday’s caucus, the councilmembers who were present heard from representatives of a citizen volunteer group that has been meeting and going through the proposed design guidelines. Overall, their message was that more time was needed to get the guidelines right: “There’s no reason to hurry this. It’s too important to hurry,” one resident said.

Among the specific areas needing focus, they said, were the following:

• Coordination between new zoning codes, design guidelines and the Downtown Plan.
• Specification of a design review process; the city’s new public participation ordinance helps define a “schedule” for a project approval process – where does the design review process fit into this schedule?
• Elimination of the checklist, because “checking all the boxes doesn’t mean good design.”
• Context of new construction in terms of respecting surrounding buildings.
• Use of example projects on which to test-run the guidelines before they’re formally adopted.
• Use of premiums for additional floor area ratios (i.e., taller buildings) only when a project is approved by a design review panel; this would be a way to leverage compliance.
• Improvement of photographs and graphics in the design guidelines document.
• Sustainability should be included in the design guidelines document not just in the context of new buildings, but also in the context of rehabbing older buildings.
• Character districts are not completely articulated and in some cases seem rather “open ended.”

Another area of concern was the need to clarify language so that the the meaning would be clear to three distinct groups of readers of the document: the general public, developers, and members of the design guideline panel.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was intrigued by the idea of using compliance with design guidelines as a condition on granting premiums – but had questions about how the ordinance language would be crafted to achieve that goal. She also wondered, as a  practical matter, how a developer might deal with the need to provide a design that assumed premiums, when the developer could not know in advance that the design would meet with the approval of a design guidelines review panel.

The composition of such a design review panel was suggested by one representative of the volunteer group to have five members: one member of the public, an architect, an urban planner, a specialist in historic preservation, and a real estate developer. The number of people on the review panel was not an area of complete consensus among the volunteer group, with one alternative having two representatives from each professional category, for a total of 10 or more people.

There was, however, a consensus that the members of such a design review panel should not also be members of other development-related boards and commissions in the city, e.g., the planning commission or the Downtown Development Authority.

Mayor John Hieftje raised the question of whether sufficient numbers of such professionals could be found who’d be willing to serve on a design review panel, and if so, whether they would find themselves with frequent conflicts of interest when projects they were working on came before the panel for review.

A2D2 Zoning

During discussion at the Sunday caucus, much of the history of the A2D2 was drawn out.

The A2D2 rezoning initiative was meant to simplify Ann Arbor’s downtown zoning code by reducing multiple zoning districts into something easier for city staff, developers, and the public to grasp. In broad strokes, the outcome of the A2D2 process was the establishment of two zoning districts for the downtown: D1 (core) and D2 (interface). One key defining feature of D1 is its 180-foot height limit, as contrasted with a maximum of 60 feet in D2. That D1 height limit applies across all D1 areas except for a swatch along East Huron and in the South University area, where the height limit for D1 is 150 feet.

For the South University area, the planning commission had originally envisioned all of South University as a D1 area and passed along that recommendation to the city council. The city council saw things differently, and carved out roughly half the South University area as D2. That meant that the council could not accept the planning commission’s proposed Downtown Plan, which specified all of South University as “core.”

But unlike zoning code, over which the city council has the final decision, the Downtown Plan requires agreement between the planning commission and the city council – on master planning documents, the planning commission has equal standing with the council.

The outcome of that interplay between the city council and the planning commission was a greatly reduced D2 area in South University, compared to what the city council had wanted. Council’s amendment to its originally passed A2D2 zoning – with its large D2 area in South University – was substantial enough that the ordinance had to be brought back again for a “first reading.” [All ordinances are heard by the city council at a "first reading" and a "second reading," before a vote is taken.] Here’s a more detailed chronology:

• April 4, 2009: City council passes A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version with South University larger D2.
• April 20, 2009: City council refers Downtown Plan back to the planning commission [Useful backround in previous Chronicle coverage: "What's Your Downtown Plan?"]
• May 19, 2009: Planning  commission revised slightly different Downtown Plan with smaller D2 in South University.
• June 15, 2009: City council accepts revised Downtown Plan with smaller D2 in South University.
• July 6, 2009: City council postpones A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• July 20, 2009: City council again postpones A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• Sept 9, 2009: City council passes A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council’s agenda includes A2D2 Zoning “second reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.

Some of the discussion at caucus centered on the question of how rezoning affected property values. Hieftje allowed that it was important to remember when rezoning, the city is rezoning property that is owned by people.

One resident focused on the block that includes the First Methodist and First Baptist churches downtown – bounded by Huron, State, Washington, and Division streets. She observed that the new construction at the corner of Washington and Division [411 Lofts] would already violate D2 zoning if it were to be zoned that way, but wondered if it was possible “to grandfather it in.” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) explained that it was possible, and that it would simply be a “non-conforming use.”

Another resident wondered why it was not possible to “down-zone” when it was clearly possible to “up-zone.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that from a legal point of view, it was always easier to give than to take.

That led to a discussion of the fact that by up-zoning a parcel, there could be a kind of “taking” from the owners of smaller residential properties adjacent to the up-zoned parcels.

Underground Parking Garage: What Goes on Top?

A topic on several residents’ minds was the request for proposals the city had made for use of the area on top of the underground parking garage currently beginning constructed on the lot along Fifth Avenue, next to the library. The deadline for submission of proposals was last Friday, Nov. 13. The city has received six different proposals.

One sentiment expressed at Sunday’s caucus was that all six should receive interviews, given that it was a relatively small number. It falls to the selection committee to determine which proposals are to advance to the interview stage, but on Sunday, Mayor John Hieftje stressed that the city council could determine to hear whatever proposals it wanted.

The selection committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Eric Mahler (planning commission), John Splitt (DDA board), and Scott Rosencrans (Park Advisory Commission).

At caucus, there was support for inclusion of a proposal for a community commons, which was one of the six submitted. In response to the suggestion that there was not adequate open space downtown, Hieftje pointed to the University of Michigan Diag, West Park, the Arboretum, and Liberty Plaza, which he said needed to be redesigned to be all on one level.

Hieftje also pointed out that the city was planning to build a greenway, and that the surface parking lot at First & William had been designated for future use as a park in that greenway corridor. What had been common to the majority of parkland additions to the city’s park system in the time he’d been in office, said Hieftje, was that they were natural areas.  Natural areas, he continued, posed lower costs for security and for maintenance than urban parks.

Referencing the development of the top of the underground parking garage, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) cautioned against speculative development, saying that there’d been two examples of less-than-successful attempts: Tally Hall and William Street Station. The former developer of William Street Station, which would have been located on the site of the old YMCA at the northwest corner of Fifth and William, has filed a lawsuit against the city over the city’s cancellation of the project.

Kunselman suggested exploring public-public partnerships, saying it made more sense to think of putting the new library on top of the parking structure, then simply selling the old library parcel and the old YMCA lot. [The library board had planned to build a new library on the site of its current downtown building at the northeast corner of Fifth and William, but called off the project late last year, citing the poor economy.]

After caucus, Kunselman pointed out to The Chronicle that the public-public involved with putting a new library on top of the parking structure would be a four-way partnership: the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA, the Ann Arbor District Library, and the Ann Arbor Public Schools. AAPS still holds its board meetings at the library, and there’s a historical relationship between the library and the school system, dating back to when the library system was actually a part of the school system.

A possible different approach to the RFP process the city had undertaken with the top of the underground parking garage, suggested Kunselman, would be to sell the air rights to a developer, with that developer then able to bring a project forward in a standard site-plan review process. In order to get the open space the city wanted, deed restrictions could be placed on the sale of such air rights.

Cell Phones

One resident at caucus wanted to know what happened to a proposed cell phone ordinance that had been mentioned at a previous council meeting. Mayor John Hieftje said that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) was still working on it. [At the council's Aug. 6 meeting, Rapundalo indicated that he and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had asked the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance to prohibit cell phone usage and texting while driving, and they expected it to come before council at its Aug. 17 meeting. It didn't come forward then.]

Single Stream Recycling

A question was raised about the investment being made in single-stream recycling infrastructure: Was a $0.5 million investment worth it during this economic time, when the payback period could be seven years? Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that there was more being invested than $.05 $0.5 million. Discussion of the dollar amounts clarified that in any case it was not general fund money being invested. [At its Nov. 5 meeting, council approved roughly $3.35 million related to the program. See previous Chronicle coverage: "Council OKs Recycling, Transit, Shelter"]

HRIMP: Dam-in/Dam-out

Also on the council’s agenda is its formal acceptance of the Huron River Impoundment and Managment Plan. That report contains 32 recommendations – the resolution to be considered by council will accept 30. The two recommendations that the resolution leaves out are those that say the dam should be removed or kept in place. The HRIMP committee could not reach a consensus on the dam-in/dam-out question, and included both recommendations in its final report, which was completed in the spring of 2009.

Acceptance of the HRIMP could set the stage for the city council to contemplate making a dam-in/dam-out decision, or if not, then at least to consider a previous resolution to repair the toe drains in the earthen embankment along the headrace. That resolution had been tabled at the council’s Oct. 19, 2009 meeting. [Chronicle coverage of that meeting: "Still No Dam Decision"]

Parking Meters

An item on council’s consent agenda for Monday will appropriate up to $87,000 for purchase of electronic parking meters for the Wall Street area. This is an area that was identified as a place where additional parking meters could be installed to generate additional revenue, and which the city council approved as a part of the FY 2010 budget.

The supporting memo on the agenda item indicates that city staff overestimated the number of meters that could be installed in the area, which means that revenue projections associated with the FY 2010 budget would not be met. The memo indicates that other areas have been identified for meter installation to make up for the shortfall [emphasis added]:

On June 15, 2009, City Council approved the installation of parking meter equipment in various locations within the city via Resolution #R-09-233. Wall Street was one of the areas identified for installation of equipment for 115 spaces. As staff began the field work for the installation, it was noted that the original count of 115 spaces did not account sufficiently for drive approaches and no-parking areas. The space count for Wall Street has been updated to 71 spaces for metering. This decrease in metered spaces will decrease our projected meter revenue by approximately $80,000.00. Staff has identified an additional area for meter installation that will be presented to council during discussions about potential budget adjustments for the current fiscal year.

Kunselman’s Questions

In reviewing the council’s agenda online, The Chronicle noticed a novel kind of item – attachment of a communication from a councilmember with questions about agenda items asked of the city administrator and city attorney. In this case, the questions were from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3):

PH-1 A2D2 Design Guidelines

What is the state enabling legislation that allows for a community to enforce mandatory compliance with community-adopted design guidelines (also known as “design standards”)?

What is the case history for legal challenges to mandatory compliance with community-adopted design guidelines? Specifically, has a community legally defended in a Michigan Court withholding a certificate of occupancy for violating a community-adopted design guideline for a building permitted, constructed, and compliant under the State Building code enforced by the municipality?

DS-6 Contracts for West Park Improvements

Are funds from the voter approved Park Millage being used for this project? If so:

Are any funds from the Park Millage being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide the voter approved Park Millage language that authorizes said funds to be directed to public art. If such language is not explicit, then, please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that voter approved Park Millage funds can be directed to other uses such as public art by Council majority approval.

If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Are funds from the Stormwater Fund, a utility enterprise fund, being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that utility enterprise funds, including loans from the State, can be directed to public art by Council majority approval. If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Given the phrasing of at least some of the questions, which request an opinion from the city attorney, their answers could be expected to be filed with the city clerk’s office as required by the city’s charter, which reads in relevant part:

The Attorney shall:

(1) Advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of all the Attorney’s written opinions

While state Rep. Rebekah Warren (D-District 53) addressed the Ann Arbor city council, laying out the budget situation in Lansing, a meeting attendee read the Detroit Free Press editorial: "How Michigan can find billions for the budget." (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (Oct. 5, 2009): State Rep. Rebekah Warren (D-District 53) addressed the city council at the start of the meeting, bringing the council up to date on the state budget that had passed, but which she’d voted against. Over the next year, there will be $1.16 million less in  revenue sharing paid to the city of Ann Arbor, starting with an October check that will be around $200,000 less than last year. This outcome is on the optimistic end of the projected range provided to the city council several weeks ago by Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer.

Before the public hearing began on the proposed new building design guidelines for downtown, Mayor John Hieftje indicated his and other councilmembers’ strong preference for a set of guidelines that were integrated into a required process as a part of a project review. So the several members of the public who spoke on the issue knew there was support on council for their view.

And University of Michigan student life was a part of the meeting in several ways – seen and unseen. The seen part included students who spoke against recent increased ordinance enforcement activity in the Hoover Street area on homecoming weekend. They announced a protest march.

The unseen part included an item stricken from the agenda that would have allowed the city to generate revenue from parking cars in Frisinger Park on home football Saturdays. And it included a closed session on a lawsuit stemming from the tasering of a UM student by Ann Arbor police in 2005. The incident arose out of the student’s arrest for having an open container of alcohol. A recent opinion from the U.S. District Court (Eastern Division) on a motion from the city for summary judgment found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the first application of the taser, but not on the second.

State of Michigan Budget

At its Sept. 21 meeting, the city council had passed a resolution opposing the proposed state budget, and asking Ann Arbor’s state legislative contingent to outline their positions:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Senator Brater, Representative Byrnes, and Representative Warren to provide the City Council with a written summary of their position on the Dillon-Republican budget proposal.

So on Monday night, Rep. Rebekah Warren, who represents District 53, which includes most of Ann Arbor, appeared at council to explain that she’d voted against the state budget, which included cuts in arts and educations funding, as well as reductions in state shared revenue – payments the state makes to municipalities like Ann Arbor. [The payments, which are funded by the state sales tax, are intended to some extent compensate individual municipalities for their restricted ability to levy additional taxes to increase revenue.]

State Rep. Rebekah Warren addresses the Ann Arbor city council. In the background, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). (Photo by the writer.)

The bad news: The state budget reduces the amount of statutory revenue sharing to Ann Arbor by about $850,000, which together with a $310,000 drop in constitutional revenue sharing means $1.16 million less for Ann Arbor, starting with the state’s fiscal year in October. The payments, which Warren explained come from the state in even-numbered months, will be $200,000 less, starting now.

Why it’s not worse news: The $1.16 million reduction in state shared revenues is actually on the optimistic end of the range forecast by CFO Tom Crawford in his presentation to the city council at its Aug. 6 meeting. [Coverage of that meeting: "Also: Ann Arbor CFO gives bleak report."] From our account of that meeting:

In 2002 the city of Ann Arbor received $6.2 million in statutory state shared revenue and $7.5 million in constitutional state shared revenue. In FY 2009 those totals had changed to $2.9 million and $7.9 million, respectively – roughly a $3 million decrease since 2002.

Projections on which the adopted FY 2010 budget were based saw state shared revenue levels as flat compared to last year. Based on the actual 8% drop in sales tax collections, plus a pessimistic assessment of likely action by the state legislature to address its own budget, Crawford is now projecting $1 million to $1.9 million less [emphasis added] in state shared revenue in FY 2010.

Added with $1 million less than projected in investment income, $0.2 million less in traffic citations, and $0.2 million less in development review fees, Crawford sketched a picture for councilmembers of a $2.4 million to $3.3 million shortfall for FY 2010, which is the current budget year.

The $1.16 million hit leaves FY 2010 with “only” about a $2.5 million shortfall.

Again, why it’s not worse news: Warren reported that the fire protection grant that the city receives from the state to provide fire protection for state-owned facilities would not be cut. [The grant itself is generally acknowledged to be underfunded.]

Warren, for her part, said she felt that the state legislature had “the responsibility and the tools” to provide the necessary funding. She noted that the state’s budget was dramatically lower than the Headlee cap – the state could, by law, collect $9 billion more in taxes than it does. She suggested that an overhaul of the state’s tax system was in order.

She did indicate that the legislature had passed a supplemental spending bill that would restore funding for some areas that had been cut, including state revenue sharing. However, as Leigh Greden (Ward 3) drew out, there is not any cash behind the supplemental bill. That is, the bill is an expression of intent. So when Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) sought to pin down whether or not Ann Arbor’s state revenue share could be restored in the next couple of days through some dramatic action, the answer was no.

Downtown Building Design Guidelines

A public hearing, but no vote, was scheduled on the design guidelines for new downtown buildings. The guidelines are proposed in connection with the A2D2 rezoning process. In his communications to council, Mayor John Hieftje indicated that when he and former Ward 1 councilmember Bob Johnson had originally supported the concept of design guidelines – prompted partly by a trip to Boulder, which has a mandatory process with voluntary compliance – they had always imagined a mandatory process and a design review board.

Hieftje said that he’d spoken with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who could not attend the council’s meeting due to illness, as well as with other councilmembers, and that there was a consensus that such a mandatory process with a review board should be added to the document. [Higgins, along with Evan Pratt from the planning commission and Roger Hewitt of the Downtown Development Authority board, constitute the A2D2 oversight committee.] As a result, Hieftje said, the vote on the design guidelines, which had originally been planned for Oct. 19, would be moved to Nov. 5, with the public hearing for the evening left open through Nov. 5.

In response to a question raised at the previous night’s caucus about why the mandatory review process had been gradually deleted from the document in the course of different drafts dating back to 2007, Hieftje said that he did not know. [Coverage of the previous night's caucus: "Another Draft of Downtown Design Guides." Coverage of a joint work session, which includes the fact that direction to the consultant to construe the design guidelines as voluntary in their draft came in a conference call held over the summer with the A2D2 oversight committee and the consultant: "Design Guides: Must vs. Should."]

Because the public hearing will be left open, the several speakers who chose to address council on the topic of design guidelines will not be able to speak again when it resumes on Nov. 5.

More than a dozen residents spoke at Monday’s part of the hearing. Many of them focused on the issue of a mandatory versus voluntary process. Speakers wanted to see “guidelines with teeth.”

John Floyd allowed that he understood why someone might object to an “aesthetics police” and that it’s “obnoxious to say that my judgment is better than yours,” but suggested that if the city was going to have guidelines at all, why not have them with teeth. He asked councilmembers to provide a description of the benefits of having guidelines that are merely voluntary.

Christine Crockett, who introduced herself as the only member of the original A2D2 design guidelines committee, described how disappointed they’d been to see the mandatory process written out of the proposal. A bit of humor was provided when she was followed to the podium by Eric Lipson, a former planning commissioner who’d also served on the committee with Crockett. “Sorry!” Crockett exclaimed. Lipson pointed out that he’d been hidden from her view behind a brick column.

In addition to the mandatory-versus-voluntary issue, speakers addressed other aspects of the proposal. Alan Haber alluded to a lecture given by Peter Calthorpe, in which he said that planning always comes down to politics. Haber asked to what extent the design guidelines supported non-economic transactions – those based on communication and creativity.

Peter Pollack stressed that the document would be read by at least three different audiences: (i) neighborhood groups, (ii) developers, and (iii) city officials. The language – down to specific phrases like “human scale” – needed to be evaluated from the perspective of each of those groups, he said.

Zoning Structure Overhaul

Also related to the design guidelines in a tangential way was a resolution considered by the council to approve $122,480 for a contract with the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning codes and land use regulations to make them unified and more efficient to deal with.

In response to a query from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), city attorney Stephen Postema explained that the work to be done by Clarion could proceed simultaneously with various other zoning initiatives like A2D2, the Area Height and Placement project and the R4C review. That’s because the effort to make all the various codes compatible will not, Postema said, change zoning policies themselves. The idea is to put a structure in place. City administrator Roger Fraser also stressed that zoning policies would not change as a result of Clarion’s work.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified with Postema that the decision to hire outside expertise was not a function of a lack of expertise in the city attorney’s office, but rather a lack of adequate time to tackle the project.

Clarion has offices in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Possibly to address a question raised at the previous night’s caucus by a resident about why an out-of-state firm was hired for the work, Postema explained that Clarion was the firm that senior assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald had identified. [The work was not put out for a bid.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $122,480 expenditure to review all of the city’s zoning and land use regulations.

University of Michigan Student Culture

There was a heavy UM student presence in council chambers. Three students spoke about an increased focus by the city of Ann Arbor on football game day parties, specifically in the area of Hoover and State streets. [Coverage by the Michigan Daily: "City Attorney's Office threatens BOX House, other State Street tailgates."]

Public Comment on Tailgating

Joey Juanico: Juanico introduced himself as a UM junior, who objected to the increased attention on enforcement of city ordinances in the Hoover and State street areas, which threatened to “destroy the culture” of tailgating. That increased attention had been reflected in a letter sent to residents in the area by Kristin Larcom, of the city attorney’s office. That culture, he said, was about community and friendship. He announced that he’d organized a protest march for Oct. 16 that would lead from the UM president’s house to Ann Arbor city hall. The protest, he said, was to defend students’ right to partake in a tradition. He punctuated his turn at the podium with “Go Blue!”

[For readers unfamiliar with the connection between Kristin Larcom's name and the name of the building that houses Ann Arbor's city hall: She is married to Geoff Larcom, former Ann Arbor News editor/writer, whose father was Guy Larcom, the former city administrator after whom the building was named.]

Abhishek Mahanti: Mahanti is president of the Michigan Student Assembly. He raised concerns about an apparent change in policy regarding parties in the State Street area. But he conveyed a willingness on the part of the student community to be cooperative: “We’re all ears to working together to be moderate about it.”

Aaron Miller: Miller is the new UM student liaison to the Ann Arbor city council, having been appointed last week by the Michigan Student Assembly. Miller said that he’d be attending council meetings and would talk to councilmembers individually about concerns of students. He said he’d also be there to listen to concerns in the Ann Arbor community about the campus community.

Council Comment on Tailgating

During his communications to his colleagues, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) took the opportunity to respond to some of the sentiments expressed by the student speakers during public commentary, in particular the “supposed tailgate ban.” He wanted to set the record straight, he said. There was no ban on tailgating and there was no policy change. Rather, he continued, the city had identified some acute public safety issues involving some “quite worrisome” behavior, and was consequently using existing regulations (e.g., on noise) to address those safety issues. The city, he concluded, had no intention of bringing the tailgating tradition to a stop.

Closed Session on Pending Litigation

At the conclusion of the council’s meeting councilmembers went into closed session to discuss legal strategy in a lawsuit that is tangentially related to some of the tailgating issues mentioned by speakers during public commentary.

The  lawsuit stems from an incident dating back to Sept. 1, 2005, which began with Ann Arbor police officers identifying a student, Daniel Perach, who was holding a red plastic cup filled with fruit juice and vodka. The incident involved a foot chase, and ended with Ann Arbor police officer Craig Lee twice using a taser on Perach in order to effect Perach’s arrest.

In a Sept. 30, 2009 ruling by the U.S. District Court (Eastern Division) on a motion from the city of Ann Arbor for summary judgment, the court found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the first application of the taser, but not on the second.

Relevant documents [.PDF files]:

• Initial Complaint
• City Response to Complaint
• City Motion for Summary Judgement
• Court Ruling on Summary Judgement

The suit was originally filed on Sept. 1, 2008. It claimed that:

10. The actions of Defendant in deploying his taser and intentionally striking Plaintiff caused Plaintiff great pain and injuries about his body.

11. By using unnecessary and brutal force to restrain Plaintiff where there was no legal basis to do such, the Defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable and violated Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution.

12. The Defendant does not have qualified immunity for his illegal actions as any reasonable person or police officer should have known that such actions were objectively unreasonable.

The suit asked for $150,000 in damages.

In asking for a summary judgment, the city had argued that the force used by Lee to stop Perach from fleeing – from Lee and other officers – and to overcome Perach’s resistance to efforts to handcuff him were “objectively reasonable,” and thus did not constitute excessive force, nor did it violate clearly established law. The city also argued that Perach’s “no contest” plea to resisting arrest prevented him from claiming that Lee had used excessive force by employing his taser in order to keep Perach from fleeing and in order that he could be handcuffed – because it was Perach’s attempts to flee and to resist handcuffing that had led to Perach being charged with resisting arrest.

But in its Sept. 30 ruling on the summary judgment motion, the court found that:

… Perach’s plea of no contest to the resisting arrest charge does not prohibit the continuation of his claims under Section 1983 action for excessive force against Lee.

The Court also holds that Lee’s first taser deployment (1) was an unconstitutional use of excessive force, but (2) did not violate a clearly established right. Hence, Lee is entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

As to the issue relating to the application of the second taser, the Court concludes that this act of law enforcement constituted a use of excessive force which was in violation of the clearly established right of Perach who has proffered sufficient evidence to establish that Lee’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. Thus, Lee’s request for qualified immunity on this issue is denied.

In the court’s view, then, the second taser deployment is a matter for a jury to decide.

The court’s analysis cites Ann Arbor police department policy on deployment of a taser, which is not to use a taser in the manner that Lee did:

The memorandum, written by Sergeant Baird, stated that “the Taser is not generally intended to be used as a tool to apprehend someone that is attempting to escape by running away” and that “[w]hen deciding to use the device in this manner the main consideration upon the officer is the severity of the crime they are wanted for” (emphasis in original). In addressing Perach’s arrest, Baird also wrote that “[i]n this case the suspect was wanted for a code violation only. Using the device in this manner is inappropriate.”

In light of the summary judgment ruling, the city of Ann Arbor can (i) appeal the ruling on the summary judgment to the 6th Circuit Court, (ii) go to trial, or (iii) attempt a settlement.

Based on the motion considered by the city council after it came out of its closed session, during the closed session the city attorney had presented his preferred course of action and asked council to support it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the city attorney’s office to pursue his recommended course of action.

Parking on Football Saturdays: Frisinger Park?

Placed on the agenda on Oct. 2, with sponsorship from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), was a resolution that would have allowed the city to generate revenue from parking cars in Frisinger Park on home football Saturdays. Frisinger Park is just south of East Stadium Boulevard between Woodbury and Iroquois. It was pulled off the agenda on Oct. 5.

Here’s how the resolution read:

Whereas, Frisinger Park is well situated to provide special event parking, in particular for University of Michigan home football games; and

Whereas, The City is providing home football game parking at other City-owned facilities, including its facility on S. Industrial and these parking revenues are a new source of funds for the City which is striving to maintain high quality level of service for its citizens;

Resolved, That the City Administrator establish a parking program for University of Michigan home football days at Frisinger Park, including the option for pre-game/post-game tailgating.

The football parking proposal was an idea that came in the “turning over every stone” approach that Sandi Smith (Ward 1) has been taking to find a way to generate the revenue that would go missing if parking meters are not installed in certain neighborhoods near downtown, which is an assumption currently built into the budget for FY 2010 passed by city council.

In deliberations about the extension of the moratorium on installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown – which came later in the meeting – Margie Teall (Ward 4) gave perhaps some insight into why the Frisinger Park parking resolution had been pulled from the agenda. She said she would simply not support football parking in Frisinger Park. The park is located in Ward 4, which she represents.

Moratorium on Parking Meter Installation

Back when the FY 2010 budget was first introduced with a proposal for installation of parking meters on service drives, it was quickly changed to a proposal for meters in neighborhoods near downtown. Sandi Smith (Ward 1), with support from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), has adopted the project of finding additional revenues to offset the estimated $380,000 that would come from not installing meters as planned near certain neighborhoods downtown.

Part of the strategy to avoid installation of parking meters has been to buy some time by enacting, at the council’s June 15, 2009 meeting, a moratorium on installation in some areas.

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the council meeting, Bob Snyder and Ray Detter both spoke in support of the moratorium.

Pressed by Margie Teall (Ward 4) to describe some of the revenue streams identified so far that would replace revenues otherwise generated by the parking meters, Smith pointed to the restructuring of fees for the surface parking lot at 415 W. Washington [also passed at council's June 15 meeting] plus the agreement with the Downtown Development Authority about where those proceeds go.

Extending enforcement of existing meters downtown past 6 p.m. was also a possibility, Smith said, but that would require negotiations with the DDA, via the “mutually beneficial” committee, which includes members of city council and the DDA board.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) gave his support to the moratorium, but cautioned against exploring budget solutions outside the discussion within the budget and labor committee.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution extending the moratorium on installation of parking meters until the council’s second meeting in December.

Sign Board Task Force

The council considered a resolution to create a task force to evaluate the placement of sandwich boards on downtown sidewalks and to explore the possibility of assessing a fee for their placement, handling the signs in a way that’s similar to how sidewalk cafe chairs and tables are regulated. Right now, said Sandi Smith (Ward 1), the signs are “a little bit haphazard.”

It’s part of the effort to find additional revenue so that parking meters won’t need to be installed in neighborhoods near downtown. Smith easily won support for the idea for adding a member of the sign board of appeals and a member from the commission on disabilities. The sandwich board task force, she said, was expected to be short-lived.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish a task force to look at regulation of sign boards.

Sylvan Pavement

Pulled out of the consent agenda for individual consideration by the council was an expenditure for $54,271 to pay for engineering services (from Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.) connected to the Sylvan Avenue permeable pavement project. Permeable pavement allows storm water to filter straight through the surface. The surface parking lot where the old YMCA building stood at Fifth Avenue and William is paved with permeable pavement.

Sylvan is a short one-block-long street running east-west, nestled into the upside down”V” formed by State and Packard streets, near Yost Ice Arena. Nick Hutchinson, who’s a civil engineer with the city, fielded questions from Margie Teall (Ward 4) in whose ward Sylvan Avenue is located.

The reason Sylvan was chosen, he said, was that it had suitable soil underneath, it was flat, and there were existing drainage problems. He was asked first by Teall about maintenance, a question that was followed up with a specific question from Mayor John Hieftje about the possible need to vacuum the pavement to maintain its permeable properties. Hutchinson explained that it was more a matter of running a street sweeper an extra time per year over the street as opposed to vacuuming it. He also noted that during the winter, no sand – just salt – should be spread on the street.

The extra cost of permeable pavement, he explained, came mostly from the extra cost of the asphalt itself, not from the street reconstruction activity. So the extra cost for this project, he said, was not significant, given the 800-foot length and narrowness of the street.

The project should be finished, Hutchinson said, in spring 2010.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution authorizing the expenditure for porous pavement installation on Sylvan Street.

Other Public Comment

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz began by suggesting that Israel, which is generally characterized as a U.S. ally with common cultural threads, has some important cultural differences. In the U.S., he said, all men and women are created equal, but in Israel, all men and women are not created equal unless they’re Jewish. Noting that if he argued that the non-Jews on the Ann Arbor city council could not become Israeli citizens, the argument would not be compelling: the non-Jews on the city council likely preferred to live in Michigan, anyway. So he sketched out a hypothetical scenario, in which the Jews of Cleveland, Ohio, decided to try to make Ward 2, with Burns Park, a Jewish ward. To achieve that goal, he asked councilmembers to contemplate that they killed some non-Jewish families there, and forced the remaining non-Jewish families to seek refuge in Wards 1, 3, 4 and 5. Thinking about the issue of Palestine from that point of view, Herskovitz suggested, might enable councilmembers to understand Palestinian issues.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat. He continued to come to meetings like this, he said, as he’s done throughout his life, to influence people to take responsibility to protect those who most need and deserve protection. He commended Rep. Rebekah Warren for her efforts [she spoke to the council on the budget at the start of the meeting] and challenged the city council to protect the most vulnerable in society.

Other Public Comment: Development Issues

Alan Haber: Haber sketched out some possibilities for use of the surface on top of the underground parking garage, for which ground was broken last week. He argued for the space to remain owned by the public as a gathering space, a mixed-use, many-use, flexible-use, garden, stage – a tourist attraction for those who come to discover downtown Ann Arbor.

Hand sanitizer has appeared in multiple locations in city hall, not just at the podium. Note the pump bottle in the background next to the pitcher in front of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). There are also dispensers next to all the elevators. (Photo by the writer.)

Haber alerted interested residents to a meeting on Oct. 11, from 10 a.m. to noon at 310 S. Ashley to work on a proposal for the new downtown public space on top of the library lot.

John Etter: Etter introduced himself as representing the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. He couched his remarks on development in terms of earning and keeping the public trust. The councilmembers had gained sufficient trust, he said, to win election to that body. But he contended that they would lose that trust if input from citizens did not affect their decision-making. In the case of Sloan Plaza residents, they’d made the case, he said, that a D2 zoning designation was more suitable for Huron Street than D1 – D1 is core downtown, while D2 is transition. Alluding to the city’s contention that MDOT’s Lansing office had given the D1 zoning a green light, Etter concluded by saying that if the matter gets to another forum, evidence of that approval would have to be produced.

James D’Amour: D’Amour is a former planning commissioner. Referring to the “by right” City Place project, which the council had approved at its last meeting, he contended that there was no such thing as a “by right” project. He maintained that if a project had a detrimental effect on public safety, health and welfare, that the project could be turned down. “Staff’s hands are tied,” he said, “but yours are not.”

Toy Guns

At the council’s Sept. 8 meeting, a second reading was heard of an ordinance that would allow enforcement of prohibitions against so-called look-alike weapons. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had raised questions about the adequacy of the language in the ordinance. [See Chronicle coverage: "City Council Begins Transition."] For that meeting, the city attorney’s office had asked that the resolution be tabled so that the language could be rewritten.

The council voted to postpone the resolution – until Oct. 5. As Briere had clarified at caucus, the attorney’s office had actually wanted a tabling of the resolution (with no date fixed). No changes have been made to the language in the interim. The request from the attorney’s office is again to table the resolution so that adequate time can be put into reworking the language.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the resolution.

Work Session

In his communications to council, city administrator Roger Fraser advised councilmembers that there would be a work session the following week, Monday, Oct. 12, starting at 7 p.m. [confirm date] to address three main topics:

• Downtown BIZ (Business Improvement Zone)
• The Fuller Road Station [formerly known as FITS]
• Single-stream recycling

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

Absent: Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Doodle by city council meeting audience member showing comparison of Project Grow versus police discussion. "Time spent on Project Grow – $7,000; On cops – $6.8 million."

Ann Arbor City Council Meeting (May 18, 2009): Ann Arbor’s city council approved the budget for fiscal year 2010 at its Monday meeting, spending little time discussing a separate resolution key to that budget, which approved an early-retirement inducement for police officers involving a one-time payment of around $6 million – depending on how many officers take advantage of the incentive.

The fact of the lengthy discussion over much smaller items was acknowledged around the council table, with councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) making a note of it when she made an unsuccessful bid to eliminate or delay the introduction of parking meters into near-downtown residential neighborhoods. Smith was comparing the relatively short discussion of parking meters (involving potential additional revenues of $380,000) to the previous deliberations on Project Grow’s funding. And in the course of the more than 45-minute deliberations on Project Grow’s $7,000 grant, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted: “The least expensive ones are the ones we fight the hardest over.” Briere lost her fight for the community gardening nonprofit.

The approved budget did include amendments to allocate funds for the Leslie Science and Nature Center. Also related to the budget, the two resolutions to approve fee adjustments for the community services and public services areas were approved with no deliberations by council, leaving the issues raised at the previous night’s caucus by the chair of the market commission undiscussed publicly.

In other budget business, city council passed a resolution to create a taskforce to study options for the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which is slated for closure under the FY 2011 budget plan (i.e., not the budget approved by council at this meeting).

Council also approved an extension to the purchase-option agreement with Village Green for the First and Washington parcel, gave final approval to a completely new liquor ordinance, approved increased water/sewer rates, approved grant applications for multiple properties under the greenbelt program, and asked planning commission to review the C3 zoning regulations regarding the kind of temporary outdoor sales conducted in previous years at the Westgate farmers market.

The funding of the north-south connector study was again postponed, pending coordination with the Downtown Development Authority.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) is not testing the air currents in city hall chambers. He's explaining why he thinks the early retirement option for police makes good budget sense.

Police Early Retirement Inducement

Background: The police department reduction proposed in the FY 2010 budget would take away a total of 27 full-time employees, with 16 of those (6 command and 10 patrol) sworn officer positions.

As a strategy to avoid laying off personnel, on Monday night city council gave final approval to a revision to the city’s general retirement policy that provides an inducement for police department employees to retire early.

A summary of the general retirement policy, as contrasted with the revision made for police officers, is provided in the actuarial evaluation of the proposed change that was made by the city’s consultant, Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company:

PRESENT PROVISIONS: General members are eligible for regular retirement (unreduced pension) at age 50 with 25 years of service, or age 60 with 5 years of service. Police members are eligible for regular retirement (unreduced pension) at 25 years of service, or age 55 with 5 years of service. General and Police members are eligible for early retirement (reduced pension) at age 50 with 20 years of service.

PROPOSED PROVISIONS:  … Members in COAM or AAPOA meeting the age requirement (if any) and within two years of meeting the service retirement conditions (unreduced or reduced) by June 30, 2009 are granted 2 additional years of benefit and eligibility service if they retire on or before June 30, 2009.

In addition to granting two years of service to members of the Command Officers Association of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, the early-out program authorized by city council allows members of those unions to purchase up to one year of service. The GRS&C summary of the police department’s personnel, based on information provided by the city, is as follows:

Number of active members: 149
Total payroll:            $11,448,056
Average age:              41.3 years
Average service:          14.7 years
Average annual pay:       $76,833
Eligible active members:  32 (+2 covered by AAPOA outside police department)
Payroll of eligibles:     $2,689,706

-

The analysis of the maximum cost, if all eligible members were to take advantage of the offer, is as follows: $3.5 million (pension), $1.6 million (voluntary employment benefit association – VEBA), $1.6 million (leave payouts), for a total of  $6.7 million. That amount would be taken from the city’s reserve fund, which is projected at $15.2 million at FY 2009 – or 18% of expenditures.

That amount  excludes the settlement of the Pfizer tax appeal, which reflects a potential liability of $0.9 million, as well as the Act 312 additional arbitration costs of $0.6 million that council authorized at its May 4, 2009 meeting. If all that actual cost, plus all the potential costs, are calculated in, reserves could be reduced to $7.6 million (9% of expenditures).

Projected operating cost savings, based on planned reductions of 18 FTEs excluding vacancies: FY 2010, $1.6 million;  FY 2011, $1.9 million; FY 2012, $1.9 million; FY 2013, $2.0 million.

Budget Questions Raised During Public Commentary: Two speakers during the public hearing on the revision to the city’s employees’ retirement system raised questions about the financial wisdom of the incentive program. Karen Sidney pointed out that for around $600,000 the civic band, Project Grow, the historic district consultant, plus gaps in human services funding could be covered, leaving around $6 million (from the maximum cost of the early-retirement program) that could be spent in part to pay police officers to do police work for two years, after which time they could retire at no extra cost to the city.

John Floyd echoed the same sentiment, saying that one option would be not to spend the cash from the city’s reserve upfront, and wait to see what ordinary attrition brought over the next two years – then use cash for an early retirement program if necessary. Floyd reasoned that if early retirement buyouts were necessary at that point, then it would be less costly in cash terms than now, because less incentive [in terms of years of service credit] would be required to induce officers to retire. Floyd concluded his brief remarks with a request: “I’d like to see the analysis.”

Deliberations: In terms of the analysis that Floyd requested, during deliberations Leigh Greden (Ward 3), who serves on council’s budget and labor committee [along with Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and John Hieftje (mayor)], offered the observation that with an attrition-based approach, there was no guarantee that anyone would retire. Officers needed some incentive to retire, Greden said.

In his other remarks on the issue, Greden rejected the notion that money should be taken from cash reserves to pay for operating expenses [like Project Grow or the historic district consultant], saying that a government using such a strategy would wind up bankrupt. He also stressed the fact that the general retirement program in place for the city was sound – it saves the city around $10 million a year, he said.  What made the enhancement being offered to police officers even better, Greden said, was the fact that it targeted middle management positions, while leaving patrol strength unchanged.

After Hieftje had brought police chief Barnett Jones to the podium to recount some of the history of crime rates and policing in Ann Arbor, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) took the opportunity to clarify with Jones how the elimination of the downtown beat  [which currently consists of six officers, who walk or bicycle the downtown area on a two-at-a-time basis] would affect the ability of Ann Arbor’s police force to address the “broken window theory” in downtown. Otherwise put: How would the elimination of foot and bicycle beat cops downtown affect the AAPD’s ability to keep downtown from getting out of hand?

Taylor’s clarification could be seen as an attempt to address the concerns of Newcombe Clark, president of the board of the Main Street Area Association and downtown resident, who had spoken during public comment on the issue. Clark reported that even with an assigned downtown police beat, when bars let out around 2:30 a.m., downtown Ann Arbor was something akin to Beyond Thunderdome.

In response to Taylor’s query on the matter, Jones explained that the total number of uniforms downtown would actually increase.  Officers are required to spend one hour every day outside of their cars – partly to conserve fuel, Jones said. And during these out-of-car breaks, they’d be walking around downtown. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified that by “break” Jones didn’t mean sitting in a cafe eating lunch. Jones also clarified for Smith that the new way of organizing the policing of downtown was not a break from the notion of “community policing.”

Although the subject didn’t receive much attention during the council meeting, at the previous week’s budget work session Jones had explained that part of the out-of-car time would be used to write parking tickets. That would compensate for the reduction in community standards officers, who are specfically dedicated to ticket writing.

On the subject of ticket writing, during public commentary general time, Jim Williams of the Local 369 AFSCME union objected to the possible transfer of job activity [here, ticket writing] from one bargaining unit to another.

After hearing Jones’ explanation of the reorganization of policing in downtown, Taylor offered Jones a cheerful: “Go get’em!”

Budget Amendments

The main event of the evening – deliberations on the city’s FY 2010 budget – left little unchanged from city administrator Roger Fraser’s proposed budget. What did change in the budget centered mostly around the Leslie Science and Nature Center. [electronic packet of amendments]

Leslie Science and Nature Center: Amendments #1 and #2 dealt with reallocating money to the nature center – which could have been expected, based on the budget work session.

At that session, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had queried Jayne Miller, director of community services, about the implications of eliminating the historic district consultant for the city one year earlier than originally planned. Taylor clarified, as he did at the budget work session, that the consultancy in question was not the city staff position currently held by planner Jill Thatcher, who has expertise in historic conservation.

Amendment #1, which was passed unanimously, reallocated the $24,000 alloted to the historic district consultant (whose job was described at the budget work session as largely completed) to fund the Leslie Science and Nature Center. That left the center short of the $28,350 council wanted to allocate to it based on the previous agreement that had been struck with the center in spinning it off from the city to become an independent entity.

Amendment #2, which was also passed unanimously, allocated the remaining $4,350 from the general fund reserves – something that violated a basic principle set forth by Leigh Greden (Ward 3). That principle was that any additional costs needed to be balanced by an alternate revenue source. In the case of Leslie, Greden introduced five points that convinced him the violation of the basic principle was worth it:

1. It’s not a great deal of money.
2. There’s an agreement with Leslie establishing an expectation.
3. The $28,350 is a 10% reduction from 2009 levels.
4. The agreement with Leslie is designed to transition the center to independence.
5. The center needs the money.

LDFA: Amendments #4, #5, and #6 dealt with the Local Development Finance Authority. They were all sponsored by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). It was left to Higgins to provide the explanations. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) explained the absence of his Ward 2 cohort by reporting that Rapundalo was attending the Bio International Convention. In broad strokes, he’s there in his capacity as president of MichBio to represent Michigan as a fertile place for biotech companies to locate and grow. Otherwise put, he’s engaged in economic development activity outside the area that is meant to benefit from that activity.

It’s precisely this geographic distinction that’s addressed by Amendment #6.  The basic idea is that it’s meant to enforce the idea of not spending money that benefits areas outside the geographic area of tax capture of the LDFA. The resolved clause reads:

Resolved, The SmartZone LDFA expenditure budget for Marketing be limited to funding [emphasis added] activities within the geographic boundaries of the Ann Arbor portion of the LDFA, specifically promoting the Business Accelerator.

The language of the amendment caught the attention of Christopher Taylor. He asked if  a billboard outside the district promoting an activity inside the district would count. Based on Higgins’ responses, it seemed to Taylor that the intent was that such a billboard would be okay. That being the case, Taylor suggested the resolution in its current form didn’t reflect that intent – the substitution of the word “promoting” for “funding” would capture the intent, he said.

Though the discussion seemed at that point on the verge of resolution, it foundered on the question of whether the resolution was necessary at all, because it was already reflected in either the founding documents of LDFA or else the contract between the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK and the LDFA. Skip Simms of SPARK and Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO (who sits on the LDFA board in an ex officio capacity) offered explanations involving a desire to improve clarity, something that Hieftje suggested had not been achieved by the resolution – because council itself had not been able to understand what the resolution meant. Higgins withdrew the amendment, but will perhaps bring it back as a standalone resolution in the coming weeks.

The other LDFA-related amendments could also come before council in another few weeks, in order to restore the elements of the LDFA budget that they eliminated. Amendment #4 eliminated $25,000 worth of funding for the angel investment group. Higgins reported that assistant city attorney Mary Fales had verified the legality of such support, but Higgins wanted to remove it for now and bring it back in four weeks or so. That amendment passed.

Amendment #4 could also be back before council in a few weeks to have $50,000 worth of funding restored for an LDFA staff position – the amendment cut the proposed new position. Because the position listed in the budget did not yet have a job description, for now council agreed it should come out of the budget. The initial rationale offered was that there was “incomplete justification for the position.” Taylor initially said he was uncomfortable voting for it, saying that the description “‘incomplete justification’ is itself incomplete.” It was Hohnke who brought out the fact that there was as yet no job description. It was enough to bring Taylor on board.

The saved money, perhaps temporarily so, will go to the LDFA reserve fund, which is separate from the city’s budget.

Related to the LDFA budget amendments – via its contractor, SPARK – was Amendment #8, which allocated an additional $25,000 from the prior year’s economic development fund balance [created in order to pay for Google's parking spaces] to provide SPARK with discretionary funding to promote  economic development in the Ann Arbor area. That passed unanimously.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) raises his hand to ask for the floor to say his piece on Project Grow. Hohnke did not vote for the organization's funding, expressing a broader vision for larger-scale community gardening.

Project Grow: The discussion was thorough on Amendment #7, to allocate $7,000 from the general fund park operations budget for contracted services to Project Grow instead. In the end it did not win approval. Its sponsor, Sabra Briere, fought hard for it, citing a citizen survey of her constituents that showed strong support for the program, even among respondents who did not garden with the nonprofit.  Hohnke had a larger vision in mind that involved the city providing infrastructure elements, but not cash. Greden didn’t want to accept the “ruffles” around the edges of the parks that Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city, described as possible when the contracted services budget for light trimming was reduced.

After first indicating his opposition to funding Project Grow, Taylor voted for it. In opposition, he had cited his understanding that Project Grow had applied for and been rejected in the human services funding competition. Briere clarified that Project Grow had not applied as a part of that set of allocations. But Taylor’s vote was not enough.

Parking Meters: There was a late amendment brought forward by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), which required a brief recess in order to formulate, to forestall the implementation of the city’s plan to introduce parking meters into residential areas in the near downtown area. Confusion prevailed for much of the discussion. Smith herself apologized for what she described as the “circus-like” manner in which the resolution was introduced.

Part of the plan at one point seemed to be for the Downtown Development Authority to guarantee any lost revenues by a possible delay in deploying the city’s meters. Higgins expressed concern: While Smith does serve on the DDA board, she’s not in a position to speak for DDA funds, and the council should not commit to a proposal if the DDA has not voted on the issue. [Editorial Aside: That will strike members of the DDA board as ironic, given the assumption of an extra $2 million in the city's FY 2011 budget plan paid by the DDA – which the DDA has not voted on. And yes, on the council side, the quick reply will be that it's just the budget plan, that's why we just call it the budget plan, not the budget, and there's time to sort it all out before FY 2011 decision time.]

Mike Bergren, with field operations at the city, assured council that there would be kiosks (instead of meters) deployed as appopriate to the DDA’s rollout of their kiosks.

Project Already Paid For: The first amendment proposed was actually Amendment #3 in the packet, and it was, as its sponsor, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) put it, “an easy one.” It involved eliminating $85,000 from the general fund community services area administration budget for FY 2010, because the project for which the money had been allocated had already been paid for out of FY 2009′s budget – through a resolution that very same evening.  That project was a capital and operating needs assessment for the housing commission.

Present: Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, John Hieftje.

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, June 1, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Also related to parking, the author of a recent letter from the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, which raised the possibility of an environmental lawsuit based on the planned underground parking structure, came to caucus to respond to any questions councilmembers might have. And the developer for City Apartments, a residential and parking project approved for the First and Washington site, attended caucus to ask for an extension to the option agreement.

In the course of the evening’s conversation, council heard again the criticism from a resident that the focus on smaller budget items costing as little as $7,000 distracted from the focus on the bigger picture.

Councilmembers had no issues among themselves they wanted to discuss publicly at caucus.

Senior Center

Several people spoke in support of the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which is to be closed in summer 2011 according to the current budget plan. After one woman had said her piece calling upon council to replace the current shabby facility with new construction similar to the senior center in Plymouth, she got no substantive response from councilmembers. That led her to express a certain amount of apparent frustration: “I take it there are no answers?”

In the last several weeks since the budget proposal for FY 2010 was announced, several speakers at public forums have made reference to the aging population as an argument for maintaining the senior center. At caucus Sunday night that generalization was given quantitative form. A former demographic forecaster for SEMCOG appeared before caucus to walk councilmembers through an analysis of the 2035 forecast for Ann Arbor [SEMCOG 2035 Forecast for Ann Arbor]. He noted that the forecast for total population in Ann Arbor was essentially stable from 2005 through 2035. In 2005 the total population of Ann Arbor was 113,275 with a projection of 115,218 people in 2035. In absolute numbers that’s a 1,943 gain or 1.7%.

But it wasn’t the essentially flat projections for total population that were the focus of the discussion. He asked council to reflect on the breakdown of that total by age. Every age bracket under the age of 65 showed projected decreases from 2005-2035 ranging from 11% to 20%. The one category showing a robust increase was that of age 65 and over. That population is expected to grow from 10,050 in 2005 to 15,209 in 2035. He compared the rising number of seniors to a rising river. If the river is rising, it doesn’t make sense to lower the dike, he said.

One woman who spoke in support of the senior center is a relatively new resident in Ann Arbor who moved here in 2007 from Rockville, Md. She reported that she paid more taxes for a two-bedroom house here in Ann Arbor than she did for a four-bedroom house in Rockville and had received more services in Rockville. Something she got in Rockville was a senior center, she said. Part of the reason she moved to Ann Arbor was that it appeared to have all the ingredients, including a senior center. She urged council to really think about the aging population. “Is there a director of elderly affairs?” she asked. She also wanted to know if there was someone looking at ways to make the senior center more viable.

Mayor John Hieftje, responding to the support expressed for a senior center, said that the city was planning something like a committee or a task force to look at ways to keep it open. He said that after the budget for 2010 is adopted, council would begin to look at a way forward. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) declared, “The door hasn’t been closed on the senior center.”

During caucus, The Chronicle attempted to elicit from council members what the status of the FY 2011 budget planning doccument was.

A bit of background. Council will be voting Monday night, May 18, just on the formal budget for FY 2010. The plan that has been presented by the administration for FY 2011 will not be addressed in the budget resolution they pass on Monday – assuming they finish their work that evening. If council fails to pass a resolution, the budget proposed by the city administrator would, per city charter, automatically be adopted.

The city of Ann Arbor budgets in two-year cycles. It’s worth clarifying that the two-year chunks of the city’s budget process don’t overlap. That is, one could imagine a process that every year would provide a budget plus a plan for the next year. That’s not the case for the city’s budget.

So every two years, a budget plus a plan for the following year is presented to council. The council then adopts the first-year budget. In the following year, the budget proposed is based on the plan already outlined. After the caucus meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told The Chronicle that based on her experience dealing with adoption of the budget for FY 2009 – which was planned at the same time the FY 2008 budget proposal was made – very little discussion took place for the second year of a two-year cycle. That was Briere’s first year on council, thus she did not deliberate on the FY 2008 budget.

What The Chronicle wanted to know was: What is the formal status of the planning document for the second year of the budget cycle? Why that question? The FY 2011 plan calls for the elimination of the senior center. The senior center would have been proposed for closing in fiscal 2010, but once a decision is made to close the facility, it would take about a year to transition the seniors who use the facility to other options. This has been explained by the city’s director of community services, Jayne Miller, at multiple public meetings.

So if the idea is to use the rest of the summer and fall of 2009 for task-forcing and to come to a final decision in the spring of 2010, implicit in the strategy is a decision not to close the center in FY 2011 – because of the year it would take for the transition of center users. A decision made in spring 2010 to close the center would mean a closure in FY 2012. Given that the budget planning document for FY 2011 specifies closure of the senior center, the intention to task-force and study the issue for as long as a year reflects a deviation from that budget planning document. Our more specific question then, was: Would there be any amendment undertaken by city staff or council to the budget planning document?

Higgins maintained that no one had said there was a need for a one-year transition, despite the fact that Miller has given this characterization at multiple public meetings. Briere clarified that point for Higgins. Then, in summarizing the nature of The Chronicle’s questions for a resident across the chambers, Higgins characterized what we said as suggesting that we wanted council to make a decision now. In fact, our point is that there’s an implicit decision being made now to keep the senior center open until FY 2012 – unless by “study and task force” the council means “transition to closure.” And that could be clarified with an amendment to the plan – perhaps through council direction to staff to take the center’s closure off the table for FY 2011.

Commentary from other councilmembers on the possible revision to the budget plannng document for FY 2011 seemed not to recognize the possibility of revising that document at this time, instead focusing on the fact that they would not adopt the FY 2011 budget until this time next year. The answer to the question seemed to be: No revision to the budget planning document for FY 2011 will take place.

Parking

Noah Hall, who wrote a notification letter on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center in Detroit alerting city council to a possible lawsuit about the underground parking structure, appeared at caucus to make himself available for an open dialogue. He stressed that his goal was not just to get the situation resolved but to try to take advantage of a missed opportunity to demonstrate environmental leadership on Ann Arbor’s part. Hall mentioned the upcoming federal cap-and-trade bill, which calls for a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2020, with respect to which the underground garage represented a possible financial liability. He said that his group was asking for the city to engage in a reason-based process to address questions. Examples of such a questions: To what extent would the proposed underground parking structure increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT)? Would the new parking structure undermine the city’s own goals or the federal goals to be introduced in the cap-and-trade legislation? In light of the major investment being made by the city, he said, the concern by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center is that the investment is not consistent with the direction coming from Washington D.C. In response to his invitation to questions, councilmembers had none.

Ray Detter, who chairs the downtown citizens advisory commission, was also at caucus to discuss parking, but not in garages. He was there to address the proposed installation of parking meters in residential neighborhoods. Parking meters were equivalent to designating an area as commercial, Detter said. Detter agreed with Hall, in saying that parking has something to do with the bigger picture. The city had to examine its need for parking, Detter said. It shouldn’t be based on the need for money.

Hieftje asked Detter if there were motorists who park in the areas proposed for parking now. Detter allowed they did, but said that there were various means to get the cars out of those spaces, though Detter and his neighbors didn’t use them in every instance. It basically entailed calling parking enforcement. There were violations which the neighbors had some time to report, but they did not use that as a systematic strategy. Detter suggested that residential parking permits were a possibility, but not parking meters. Hieftje noted that residential parking permits systems don’t pay for themselves. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that in a residential parking permit area, it becomes a privilege to park on the street.

Detter characterized parking meters as “an affront to the neighborhood character.” To which Hieftje responded, “That’s what I’m trying to get a grip on.” Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to pin down the difference between parking meters in a purely residential neighborhood completely outside of downtown versus residential areas inside the central area. He suggested to Detter that the recognition of the usefulness of residential parking permits in the higher density central area was a recognition that there was a difference between purely residential and central area residential neighborhoods. Detter said that the only reason he  mentioned the central area was the city had not proposed to put parking meters in other areas of town.

Bob Snyder, president of the South University Area Neighborhood Association, appeared at caucus to address the issue of parking meters as well. He said that he always enjoyed following Ray Detter, because Ray usually said everything that needed to be said. Snyder noted that the South University area was not yet on the “hit list” for installation of parking meters. But his specific concern for the South University area was that meters, should they eventually be proposed, would increase the phenomenon of backyard parking. He also stated that based on his gut reaction, introduction of parking meters into an area “cheapens” the area.

Mark Hodesh, owner of Downtown Home & Garden, appeared before caucus to encourage council to focus on the shape of the proposed loading zone ordinance. He said that he had quite a number of small vendors who delivered one or two times a year, or perhaps four times a year. “They make me different from big-box stores,” he said. He contended that these small vendors should not pay the same fee as, for example, Sysco. If they did, he warned, he would have to charge $30 for a bale of straw.

Farmers Market Stall Fees

Peter Pollack, who is chair of the public market advisory commission, appeared at caucus to convey a resolution passed unanimously by the commission, 4-0, expressing the group’s lack of support for the increase in fees for stall rental as proposed in the city budget for FY 2010. Pollack explained that the commission’s lack of support was based on a substantial bank account of the farmers market and the timing of the decision – neither the public nor vendors had had sufficient time to contemplate the fee increase. They’d had to do so within a month.

The resolution states that the commission does not support the fee increases at this time and requests a quarterly financial report of expenses and revenues to be accompanied by an annual review with a cost adjustment up or down based on that review. The idea is to minimize the percentage of any proposed change in any one period. Another goal of the commission is to achieve equity between the farmer stall fees and the rental rates charged to others who use the facility – for example ,as a wedding venue. Sabra Briere asked Pollack to clarify when the fees would go into effect – she had met with Molly Notarianni, the market manager, and had understood that the fee increases would not take effect until next year. Pollack confirmed that bills had been sent out for the 2009-10 season with the existing rates.

The new rate would appear on the next market bill, he said. Pollack said that the commission’s point was that the data did not yet exist to support the proposed fee increase. Hieftje asked Pollack what kind of data he was looking for. Pollack clarified that the additional dollars to be generated through the new fee increases are attached to the full-time position of market manager and a part-time allocation of an assistant manager, so Pollack wanted to see those numbers as they related to the revenues and expenses of the market. “We need to track it,” he said. “We assume staff made the analysis,” he said, “but we haven’t seen it.”

Building

Jon Frank of Village Green, who is building the City Apartments project at First and Washington Street, began by acknowledging that it was not the very best time for him to be addressing council with all of their current focus on the budget in very hard economic times. However, he reported to council, “Sadly, our option agreement is over at the end of this month.” He was there to ask for an extension. One bright spot: Village Green had lined up a construction lender who had signed on to the deal. In addition to the construction lender, Frank told The Chronicle after he addressed council that an equity provider would need to be identified who could make the $3 to 4 million down payment.

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]

This sticker will soon be removed from a metal coin collection bin that's due for a paint job.

A couple of weeks ago, The Chronicle ran into Cheryl Clifton and Jim Musser walking along Liberty Street near Ashley. They work for Republic Parking as meter collectors – you’ve probably  seen them making the rounds as they transfer coins from the city’s 1,900 or so parking meters into portable metal collection bins.

What they also transfer, it turns out, are stickers. Namely, stickers that people affix to parking meters. Rather than throwing them away, Clifton and Musser (and others who’ve done this job previously) have slapped them onto the 21 collection bins. The day we chatted, the bin they were using had stencil-style stickers of a smiling Ronald Reagan. Apparently, it’s one of the tamer ones they’ve come across.

We thought it would be cool to see the entire set of sticker-adorned bins, but by the time we got around to calling, well, things had changed.

Mark Lyons, general manager of Republic Parking’s Ann Arbor operations, told us the bins had been overdue for cleanup, and that the stickers were being scrapped off and the bins repainted. However, not all had been rehabbed yet, so he graciously indulged us in our request to drop by and have a closer look.

That closer look took place at the Forest Street parking structure, in the office of Judy Comstock, Republic Parking’s on-street operations manager. Clifton, Musser and Lyons were there too, as were two rusty, beat-up, not-yet-scraped-and-repainted collection bins. They’d seen some street.

Political stickers are a popular thing to plaster on parking meters. We're guessing Obama/Biden stickers outnumbered McCain/Palin in Ann Arbor, but we didn't ask.

It turns out there’s a cycle to stickers, if you’re paying attention. When Jimmy Johns passed out promotional stickers, a lot of them ended up on parking meters. Ditto for stickers distributed last fall urging voters to support a medical marijuana ballot initiative. And, of course, political stickers were ubiquitous last year – there was evidence of those on one of the bins in Comstock’s office.

When The Chronicle asked for details about the range of things found on meters, no one really wanted to venture an example. “Just about anything goes,” Lyons said. This was a polite group. When pressed, Musser recalled one sticker that said “Save a trash can. Bang a drummer.” Funny, but not shocking – so we’ll have to leave it to your imagination.

For security reasons, they didn’t want to talk about how the coin collection works, except to say that it’s hard to get into the keyhole if there’s a sticker over it. Or airplane glue, Clifton noted. But whatever someone puts on the meters, Clifton and Musser will be along to take it off.

We didn’t see the freshly painted collection bins, but we did learn that there’s a fair amount of gray paint in stock that needs to be used up. So don’t look for maize and blue color schemes anytime soon.

Jim Musser and Cheryl Clifton, at a meter near the Forest Street parking structure.