Roger Hewitt, DDA board treasurer. (Photos by the writer.)

The proposed budget shows $19.3 million in revenues from the public parking system and $4.8 million in tax increment finance capture. Overall, it shows $24,237,186 in revenues against $26,531,972 in expenses. The use of fund balance to cover the difference leaves the DDA with an estimated fund balance at the end of FY 2015 of about $3.3 million. FY 2015 runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [FY 2015 DDA budget breakdown]

The expenses include $353,344 in salaries and $245,894 in fringe benefits for four staff members, $7,075,571 in payments to Republic Parking for management of the public parking system, and $2.1 million for parking facility maintenance. Accounting for $3.19 million of the expenses is a payment made to the city of Ann Arbor, equal to 17% of the gross revenues to the public parking system.

Included in the budget is a $200,000 grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission – as part of a $600,000 request from AAHAC to support improvements to Baker Commons and Miller Manor.

The budget also includes $676,000 for support of the getDowntown program. The board also approved a resolution that pledged to work toward maintaining or increasing the DDA’s support for transportation programs. That resolution came in the context of an approaching May 6, 2014 transit millage ballot question. The 0.7 mill tax was placed on a May 6 ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board on Feb. 20, 2014. The tax would be levied by the AAATA only if it wins a majority of support among voters across its three member jurisdictions: the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. The DDA board resolution came in part as a response to the fact that the DDA will be capturing a portion of the new millage under its tax increment finance (TIF) funding mechanism.

The board also approved the award to Republic Parking of the full $50,000 annual discretionary management incentive. Republic Parking’s contract with the Ann Arbor DDA covers just actual costs, but also includes a $200,000 annual management fee. Of the $200,000 management fee, $50,000 is awarded to Republic on a discretionary basis. It was last year, at the board’s March 6, 2013 meeting, when the DDA board decided for the first time in five years to award the full $50,000 of the incentive. The year before, at its Feb. 1, 2012 meeting, the board determined to award $45,000 of the discretionary amount. That matched the same figure awarded in 2011, 2010 and 2009.

The board also heard the usual range of reports from committees as well as public commentary. A highlight of announcements included the upcoming closure of the surface parking facility at the old Y lot, as the city-owned property is sold to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann. The closing is expected sometime between March 13-15. The lot is located on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across from the downtown library and south of the Blake Transit Center.

FY 2015 Budget

The board considered a resolution to submit its FY 2015 budget to the city council for approval. The 2015 fiscal year starts July 1, 2014.

The proposed budget shows $19.3 million in revenues from the public parking system and $4.8 million in tax increment finance capture. Overall, it shows $24,237,186 in revenues against $26,531,972 in expenses. The use of fund balance to cover the difference leaves the DDA with an estimated fund balance at the end of FY 2015 of about $3.3 million. FY 2015 runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [FY 2015 DDA budget breakdown]

The expenses include $353,344 in salaries and $245,894 in fringe benefits for four staff members, $7,075,571 in payments to Republic Parking for management of the public parking system, and $2.1 million for parking facility maintenance. Accounting for $3.19 million of the expenses is a payment made to the city of Ann Arbor, equal to 17% of the gross revenues to the public parking system.

The budget also includes $676,000 for support of the getDowntown program, as well as $300,000 in discretionary spending from parking revenues. Included in the budget is a $200,000 grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission – as part of a $600,000 request from AAHAC to support improvements to Baker Commons and Miller Manor.

The budget also includes $449,500 for a down payment on a possible elevator replacement at the southwest corner of the parking structure at Fourth & William, as well as possible debt payments on that project.

In taking the step first to submit the budget for approval by the city council, the DDA board is this year following the state’s enabling legislation for downtown development authorities: “Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality.” In this case, the governing body is the Ann Arbor city council.

This is the first time in several years that the statutory procedure has been followed from the start. Last year, the DDA board first voted at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting to adopt its FY 2014 budget (for the current fiscal year). That came in advance of the city council’s approval on May 20, 2013 of the city’s FY 2014 budget, which includes the DDA as a component unit.

The pattern followed last year – adoption by the DDA board of its budget in advance of the city council’s approval – had been the prevailing custom for several years. But the council decided at its May 20, 2013 meeting to revise the DDA’s budget in a way that made it significantly different from the one the DDA board had approved three months earlier. In addition to recognizing an additional $568,000 in tax increment finance revenue (TIF), the council’s action transferred an additional $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

Then at the DDA board’s June 5, 2013 meeting, a vote was taken to re-adopt the FY 2014 budget that had been approved by the city council. The council’s $300,000 transfer from the TIF fund into the housing fund was echoed in the revision the council made on Nov. 18, 2013 last year to the local law regulating the Ann Arbor DDA. The following passage was added:

Tax increment financing seed funds for the Housing Fund shall be budgeted effective tax year 2016 at an amount no less than $300,000. Every year thereafter the minimum amount budgeted shall be adjusted at the same rate of increase as the increase in the total TIF capture. …

The 2016 tax year corresponds to the 2017 fiscal year. So the $300,000 figure is not required by law for another two years. At the March 5, 2014 board meeting, however, the budget was amended to add $100,000 to the housing fund expenditure line, at the request of board member Bob Guenzel. He’s long championed the cause of affordable housing and wanted to give the board some additional flexibility to spend additional money on that area, without making a mid-year budget change. Such a mid-year change would, based on remarks at the meeting, require city council approval.

In addition to the $200,000 grant to the AAHC, other housing fund expenditures for FY 2015 include $75,000 for a housing needs assessment.

FY 2015 Budget: Board Discussion

Roger Hewitt, the DDA board treasurer, noted that the operations committee had met the previous week, before the continued board retreat. The committee had come up with a budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year. The fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30 each year. Based on the board’s discussion at the retreat, he and DDA executive director Susan Pollay, deputy director Joe Morehouse, and board vice chair John Mouat had frantically crunched some numbers, Hewitt said, trying to figure out how to incorporate the board’s ideas from the retreat into the upcoming budget.

DDA board member Russ Collins, who is executive director of the Michigan Theater. In the foreground is board member Al McWilliams.

Hewitt noted that some of the ideas would not be incorporated because the timeframe for design and construction would probably not fall within the next fiscal year.

Some capital funds were removed but enough for design and engineering was left to continue with the streetscape effort, Hewitt said. He noted that the budget was formatted according to the requirements of the city of Ann Arbor. [Considerable confusion unfolded subsequently about apparent mismatches between the totals shown in the two versions. The board's review of the budget was based on the kind of breakdown the board has historically used for its budget planning.] Hewitt then reviewed the more detailed breakdown – which is a version that the board has used historically to set its budget.

In addition to the standard budget elements, Hewitt ticked through several other highlights. He indicated that a $114,000 item was a marketing expense including some pedestrian counts and some discretionary funds. He noted that no money has yet been approved for that purpose but these were issues identified at the retreat.

Capital expenditures had been reduced a bit from the initial draft budget – because Hewitt felt it was going to be hard to get everything up and running and under construction for some planned sidewalk construction within one fiscal year. So the board is waiting on the sidewalks until the streetscape framework plan is done, Hewitt said. He indicated that the board wanted to get the results of the streetscape framework study – which would be completed by the end of this year – and then prioritize which sidewalk work should be done first. [The board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

For bonds and interest payments, Hewitt continued, those figures have been bumped up with the intention of doing the project on the Fourth & William parking structure – to replace the stairway and elevator tower as well as to undertake some pedestrian improvements on that structure. Hewitt noted that the project has not yet been approved, but money is being included in the budget for both the down payment on the bond and increased bond payments.

FY 2015 Budget: Elevator Project

John Splitt described the elevator replacement project in somewhat more detail later in the meeting.

Image from preliminary drawings by the Carl Walker design team for renovated southwest elevator and stair tower for the Fourth & William parking structure.

In addition to replacing the elevator and stairway tower, the board is considering doing some work on the south and east sides, using some surfaces that are more reflective and perhaps installing some awnings. The stairway and elevator towers would be glass-enclosed and would open up things significantly, he said. The design team from Carl Walker had been invited back to the next operations committee meeting this month, Splitt reported. He said the committee was expecting to see a more detailed schematic design with proposals on phasing of construction at its next meeting. He was not sure if the presentation would be ready at the April meeting of the full board – but he hoped so.

Mouat added that the current undertaking really is looking at a kind of a “master plan” for renovations to the structure and how they might be phased over time. Splitt ventured that the Fourth & William parking garage had at least 30 years – or possibly 50 – of life left in it. And he did not think it should live out the rest of its life with the current elevator and stair tower.

The project is estimated to cost on the order of $3 million, depending on whether it’s eventually approved by the board and the scope and staging of the improvements (which could include exterior cladding, awnings, and electronic real-time information signs for bus arrivals). Very preliminary drawings were provided to the DDA’s operations committee at its Feb. 26 meeting. That preliminary work was authorized by the DDA board at its Jan. 8, 2014 meeting. The team from Carl Walker Inc. will follow up with more detailed drawings and cost estimates for various options.

FY 2015 Budget: Housing

Roger Hewitt said that $200,000 would be transferred into the housing fund, with the intention of spending approximately $275,000 – including $200,000 as a grant to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission and $75,000 on a housing needs assessment. Hewitt noted that the housing fund balance from the previous year was anticipated at nearly $400,000, so there would be enough money to cover that.

DDA board member Bob Guenzel.

Later in the meeting, reporting out from the partnerships committee, Bob Guenzel reviewed the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s grant request made to the DDA’s partnerships committee. The request had come from AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall. Guenzel ventured that most DDA board members were aware that the AAHC had made a request of $600,000 to support improvements to AAHC’s Baker Commons and Miller Manor. At the most recent partnerships meeting, Hall had presented additional financial information, he reported. A lot of the focus of the discussion had been on the timing of the payments from the DDA, Guenzel said. Hall had indicated it could be done over three fiscal years – $200,000 per year. No final action had been taken, Guenzel reported, and discussion would continue.

Some back-and-forth among board members unfolded as Guenzel expressed an interest in adding $100,000 in discretionary spending for the housing fund. He indicated that he was not aware of a specific grant request that would tap that money, but he felt it might be useful to go ahead and budget the money to avoid the need for a midyear budget amendment. The back-and-forth between Guenzel and Hewitt indicated that the DDA board believes that such a midyear budget amendment would require approval of the Ann Arbor city council. The board agreed to add $100,000 to the housing fund’s expenditure line under discretionary spending.

FY 2015 Budget: Parking

Parking revenue is based on the current rate structure, Hewitt said. The “miscellaneous” item in the budget is money the DDA gets from the University of Michigan as part of the shared-use agreement for the Forest parking structure, Hewitt explained. He also highlighted the $3.19 million payment to the city of Ann Arbor, which is the 17% of gross revenues from the public parking system. That percentage payment is specified in the contract under which the DDA manages the parking system for the city.

Hewitt explained the difference between the “parking maintenance” line item and the “capital costs” line item in the parking maintenance fund. Parking maintenance is for relatively small items of less than $5,000 apiece. Capital costs are major repairs – like chipping out concrete and replacing it, putting new sealant on, or major painting jobs. These are the sorts of things that are needed in the parking structures to keep them in good shape, Hewitt explained. And the parking structures are in good shape because the DDA has been undertaking this kind of maintenance for a number of years, he said. It’s important to put enough money into the structures to maintain them so that they can live out their entire expected useful life, Hewitt said.

Hewitt noted that the FY 2015 budget reflects a deficit in the parking and the parking maintenance funds. But there are sufficient reserves in those funds to cover that gap, he added. Hewitt floated the possibility of increasing parking rates in the future. “Down the road we may – we are undoubtedly going to have to start looking at some at least inflationary increases in parking rates to cover our costs,” he said.

The total fund balance across all funds, Hewitt concluded, is about $3.3 million. That’s approximately 14% of expenditures, he said. Ideally, the DDA would like to be in the 18-20% range. But Hewitt called 14% reasonable, given that the major construction project of the Library Lane underground parking structure had been completed and the desire of the DDA to maintain some kind of momentum going into the future.

Board member Rishi Narayan asked if the percentage of operating expenses that should be held in reserve was evaluated across all funds or by each fund. Some back-and-forth between Hewitt and DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse established that the auditor looks at fund balances in each individual fund.

Morehouse was also called on to explain the difference between fiscal year and tax year in the context of a new ordinance requirement, approved by the city council late last year, that the DDA budget a minimum of $300,000 per year for the housing fund. The ordinance refers to tax year 2016, which corresponds to fiscal year 2017, Morehouse explained. [The assessor assesses values on Dec. 31 of a particular year. That sets the basis for the taxes collected the following July, which is the next fiscal year.]

FY 2015 Budget: Transportation

In reviewing the budget, Hewitt also noted that the alternative transportation line item of $676,000 is for the go!pass program, which has not yet been approved.

Reporting out from the operations committee, Keith Orr reviewed the getDowntown program’s funding request. The operations committee had some questions and had asked getDowntown director Nancy Shore to break down some of the categories of requests into more specific items. Shore was going to return for the March committee meeting so that the funding request can be considered at the next DDA board meeting in April.

That budget includes enough to cover a transportation funding request for the AAATA’s getDowntown program, which the board will consider at its April meeting. The bulk of DDA’s getDowntown funding supports the go!pass, a program in which downtown employers can participate to allow employees to take unlimited bus rides at no cost to the employee. Employers pay $10 per employee per year for the passes. An “all-in” clause requires employers to purchase go!passes for all employees.

The fares for rides taken with a go!pass are covered in smaller part by the employer payment and in larger part by an annual grant from the DDA. The total grant request this year reflects an 11% increase from last year:

                         FY 2014    FY 2015
getDowntown             $ 40,488   $ 43,000
go!pass                 $479,000   $529,000
Transportation Options  $ 91,174   $105,264
TOTAL                   $610,662   $677,264

-

The board is expected to vote on the go!pass request at its April board meeting.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved submission of its FY 2015 budget to the city council for approval.

Transportation Resolution

The board considered a resolution that pledged to work toward increasing the DDA’s support for transportation programs.

The resolution came in the context of an approaching May 6, 2014 transit millage ballot question. The 0.7 mill tax was placed on a May 6 ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board on Feb. 20, 2014. The tax would be levied by the AAATA only if it wins a majority of support among voters across its three member jurisdictions: the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.

The DDA board resolution came in part as a response to the fact that the DDA will be capturing a portion of the new millage under its tax increment finance (TIF) funding mechanism. The ballot language itself highlights DDA tax capture among other TIF authority capture:

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT MILLAGE

To improve public bus, van, and paratransit services – including expanded service hours, routes, destinations, and services for seniors and people who have disabilities – shall the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority levy a new annual tax of 0.7 mills ($0.70 per $1,000 of taxable value) on all taxable property within the City of Ann Arbor, the City of Ypsilanti, and the Charter Township of Ypsilanti for the years 2014-2018 inclusive? The estimate of revenue if this millage is approved is $4,368,847.00 for 2014. This revenue will be disbursed to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority and, as required by law, a portion may be subject to capture by the downtown development authorities of the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, and the local development finance authority of the Charter Township of Ypsilanti.

The city of Ann Arbor’s financial staff are currently projecting the DDA’s TIF revenue for fiscal year 2015 to be about $4.8 million. Given the roughly 28 mills of tax on which the DDA captures taxes, that works out to a 0.7 mill equivalent of $120,000 (4,800,000/28)*0.7=120,000]. That’s consistent with the AAATA’s estimates of about $119,000 that would be captured from the 0.7 mill transit tax by the Ann Arbor DDA.

The DDA “resolved” clause of the resolution as amended at the meeting read:

Resolved, If the voters support approval of a new five-year transit millage, the DDA, which has been a long-time supporter of transit as a key strategy to meet its mission, will work to maintain or increase its support for transportation-related programs and projects.

Transportation: Public Commentary

Martha Valadez spoke to the board on behalf of Partners for Transit during public commentary at the start of the meeting, reminding the board that she’d also spoken at board’s Feb. 5, 2014 meeting. She was there to tell the board about the importance of the campaign to support the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s millage proposal, saying she hoped to get the DDA’s support for the millage proposal that will be on the May 6 ballot. She reviewed how the millage would be 0.7 mills for taxpayers in the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. [For detailed background, see "Tax Question Focus of Transit Board Meeting."]

Valadez talked about how one of the goals of the millage is to create a better connected urban core in Washtenaw County. She described how the volunteers who are working on the campaign are very committed to the work that they are doing, saying that the increased service would change a lot of people’s lives. She described how a volunteer at a meeting the previous night who lived in Ypsilanti Township would be able to work more hours in Ann Arbor and not have to worry about getting home late in the evening. She asked for the DDA board’s support for the five-year plan that this millage would support. She asked for the board to endorse the millage proposal or for individual board members to make endorsements on behalf of their businesses. She offered to set up appointments one-on-one with board members after the meeting to talk about the millage.

Ray Detter reported out from the previous night’s downtown area citizens advisory council meeting, saying that the CAC would support voter approval on May 6, 2014 of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s request for a 0.7 mill tax to improve transportation service. The five-year service improvement plan, Detter continued, would provide an additional 90,000 service hours for the greater Ann Arbor area.

Transportation: Board Discussion

Keith Orr introduced the item by saying that it was largely in response to the fact that a millage was being proposed by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The last two “whereas” clauses are important, he said, because those clauses note that the DDA has a keen interest in supporting transportation:

Whereas, The Ann Arbor DDA has a keen interest in using these new millage funds for transportation-related purposes in support of the DDA’s Renewal Plan;

Whereas, These purposes may include and are not limited to such projects and programs as a future downtown circulator, repairs and enhancements to bus stops and bus shelters, the connector, bicycle facilities including bicycle parking, and other transportation-related facilities and services;

Orr explained that a certain portion of the new millage would be captured by the DDA. The resolution assures people that the DDA’s dedication to transportation would continue, he said, “recognizing that additional revenues would be coming our way.”

Russ Collins asked: “Why are we working to increase?” He ventured that the purpose of the resolution was to assure voters that the DDA would sustain its commitment, and that the DDA would not be withdrawing any funding. Orr responded to Collins by saying that about $90,000 of tax capture would come to the DDA – which he said coincidently was about the amount of support that the DDA had contributed to the LINK.

[The AAATA is estimating the DDA's capture of the millage at about $119,000. The city of Ann Arbor’s financial staff are currently projecting the DDA’s TIF revenue for fiscal year 2015 to be about $4.8 million. Given the roughly 28 mills of tax on which the DDA captures taxes, that works out to a 0.7 mill equivalent of $120,000 (4,800,000/28)*0.7=120,000], which is consistent with the AAATA’s estimate.]

By way of additional background, the DDA ended its support of the downtown circulator called the LINK in 2009 at its June 3, 2009 meeting. A breakdown of the cost of service funding for the LINK circulator from September 2008 to April 2009 was as follows:

$145,385  University of Michigan
$131,267  State operating assistance
$ 10,000  AAATA advertising revenues
$ 71,023  AAATA operating subsidy
$ 71,023  Downtown Development Authority

-

Orr stressed that the resolution was not a quid pro quo – that if the voters approve the millage that the DDA would undertake a particular action.

City administrator Steve Powers, who also serves on the DDA board.

Rather, Orr explained, the resolution was to make clear that the DDA understood that if voters passed the millage, then their expectation was that the millage would be used on transportation. John Mouat said Collins’ point was a good one, wondering if the DDA should commit to an increase.

The back-and-forth that ensued resulted ultimately in the addition of “maintaining” as an option along with increasing support.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the resolution was consistent with what the DDA has done with other taxing jurisdictions as far as investing the DDA’s tax capture back into facilities.

It’s also consistent with the discussion that’s going on now in Lansing, Powers said, involving DDA reforms.

This is the direction that the DDA might be forced to go in any case by the legislature, Powers ventured. He described pending legislation in Lansing as “an active possibility.”

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution on maintaining or increasing support for transportation.

Republic Parking Management Incentive

The board considered a resolution awarding Republic Parking the full $50,000 of its annual discretionary management incentive. Republic Parking’s contract with the Ann Arbor DDA covers just actual costs, but also includes a $200,000 annual management fee. Of the $200,000 management fee, $50,000 is awarded to Republic on a discretionary basis. [.pdf of DDA staff memo on Republic Parking management incentive]

It was last year, at the board’s March 6, 2013 meeting, when the DDA board decided for the first time in five years to award the full $50,000 of the incentive. The year before, at its Feb. 1, 2012 meeting, the board determined to award $45,000 of the discretionary amount. That matched the same figure awarded in 2011, 2010 and 2009.

The direct costs for Republic Parking budgeted by the DDA for FY 2014 – the current fiscal year ending June 30 – are $6,569,316 out of about $19,348,016 in budgeted gross revenue for the parking system.

Part of the basis this year leading to the recommendation to award the full $50,000 was improvement in bi-monthly customer surveys over the year:

2013
5-Excellent 42.8%
4 31.6%
3 13.3%
2 3.3%
1-Poor 2.8%
Non-Responsive 6.2%

-

The staff memo on the incentive notes that the DDA’s independent inspector’s cleanliness rates were 92.3% for the entire system, compared to 91.71% for last year.

The Dec. 31, 2013 accounts receivable balance for parking permit accounts was $22,920. That’s 4.4% of the average monthly billing, which is below the DDA’s target of 5%.

The memo also notes that the dead ticket average was 1.75% for the year, which is an increase from last year’s 1.01%. The target maximum for that statistic is 1.75%.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution awarding the $50,000 incentive cited additional factors:

• Completion and opening of the First and Washington parking structure, including overseeing the installation of equipment, managing final construction-related maintenance, coordination of opening operations with the final construction in the garage.
• Modernization of the parking equipment at two parking facilities.
• Completion of a Library Lane parking structure office.
• Implementation of reservation parking for Art Fair and the 1st NHL Winter Classic.
• Outstanding success with the first time events of New Year’s Eve “Puck Drops Here” and NHL Winter Classic, despite the weather obstacles presented.
• Maintaining of the parking facilities during the past extreme weather, which included removing large amounts of snow from the facilities and from parking meter areas in sub zero temperatures.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor. The contract calls for 17% of gross parking revenues to be paid to the city of Ann Arbor.

Republic Parking Management Incentive: Board Discussion

Roger Hewitt introduced the item by describing how the contract with Republic parking works: Republic’s costs are covered, but the contract also includes a management fee worth potentially $200,000 per year. Of that, $150,000 is guaranteed. The additional $50,000 can be awarded at the discretion of the board, based on performance. Hewitt directed everyone to the staff memo, which describes some of the objective and subjective criteria used for evaluating performance. Hewitt then reviewed the points of the memo in detail.

Hewitt noted that the surplus this past year was over $1 million, which he attributed in large part to the work of Republic Parking manager Art Low, working with new technology to make the operations as efficient as possible. Hewitt said he strongly endorsed awarding the full amount of the management incentive. “I cannot be happier with the job that Republic Parking has been doing on our system,” Hewitt said. He described Ann Arbor’s public parking system as one of the best maintained parking systems in the country.

Russ Collins added that a strict look at the statistics indicates that the parking system is generally on a very high level, and slightly above last year. Based on previous performance and current performance, Collins felt that the award of the full amount of the incentive was completely warranted.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to award the full $50,000 management incentive to Republic Parking.

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: Fifth & William Parking Lot

DDA executive director Susan Pollay announced that the Fifth & William parking lot (the former Y lot) would be closed starting sometime between March 13-15, 2014. That’s because the city-owned property is being sold to downtown hotelier Dennis Dahlmann. Pollay said it’s very exciting and the DDA is looking forward to the new project being built there.

By way of background, a project has yet to be submitted to the city, and will take several months to make its way through the approval process. The Ann Arbor city council approved a purchase agreement with Dahlmann for the city-owned land, for $5.25 million, at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. One of the terms of the agreement is that Dahlmann must complete construction and receive a certificate of occupancy for the project on the site by Jan. 1, 2018.

Dahlmann made a proposal for the DDA to lease the property from him for $150,000 a year – so that the DDA could continue to provide public parking spaces there until construction of Dahlmann’s project could begin. The response from DDA operations committee members on Jan. 29 was unenthusiastic. They felt it would provide an incentive for Dahlmann to delay developing the land. They also felt that in the immediate vicinity of that lot, there was adequate parking – at the Fourth & William and the Library Lane structures. Finally, the DDA had calculated that with the $150,000 rent payment to Dahlmann, the net annual income to the parking system – assuming all 141 spaces in use – would be just $12,333 a year. [.pdf of DDA financial analysis of Dahlmann's proposal]

Comm/Comm: 120 W. Huron Hotel

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Bob Guenzel described a request from First Martin Corp. Mike Martin had attended the partnerships committee meeting to make a request on behalf of the 120 W. Huron project – which Guenzel ventured most people knew was for a hotel. Martin had made a specific request for a DDA grant to support project elements that benefit the public – streetscape, additional lighting, LEED certification, historic preservation of the bus facade.

The committee had decided to defer the request while it considers whether it should create a new DDA partnership grant policy that would support projects like this, Guenzel reported. Guenzel indicated that a draft policy would likely be considered at the next committee meeting. A brownfield grant policy that had previously been generated – in response to the 618 S. Main project – was circulated as a possible template to use for the new policy.

Comm/Comm: Footing Drain Lawsuit

Ray Detter reported out from the previous night’s downtown area citizens advisory council meeting. He reported how there had been discussion of the recently filed lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor, which challenges the legal foundation of the city’s footing drain disconnection ordinance. He reviewed how the ordinance was enacted in 2001, which established a program under which property owners can be required to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system. The intent of the ordinance, he continued, is to diminish the risk of sanitary sewer overflows into the Huron River and sanitary sewage backups in homeowners’ basements.

Detter pointed DDA board members to the Feb.28 Ann Arbor Chronicle coverage of the issue. [See "Lawsuit Filed on City Footing Drain Program."] Detter noted that a motion for a preliminary injunction had also been filed in connection with the lawsuit, asking the court to order the city to stop enforcement of the footing drain disconnection ordinance. Among the lawsuit’s many claims, Detter continued, is that it violates the U.S. Constitution. Detter called it a very serious lawsuit. If the preliminary injunction were granted, he contended, it would have the immediate effect on downtown development as well as the development plans of the University of Michigan.

Comm/Comm: Courthouse Square

Ray Detter also reported that the CAC supports age diversity in the downtown. Courthouse Square – an apartment building for senior citizens at the southwest corner of Huron and Fourth – has been sold to Wickfield Properties, he said. The CAC was urging Wickfield, the DDA, the city council, and the entire community to help support housing projects that can help further age diversity in central Ann Arbor. He ventured that it’s not known yet what will happen with Courthouse Square.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

An alternatives analysis is currently being conducted by the AAATA for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. The study has winnowed down options to six different route alignments.

Roger Hewitt reported out on the connector study, for which he serves on an advisory group. The group had reviewed some very preliminary cost estimates, and received a status report on the modeling project. The modeling project took a lot of demographic and transportation data to try to determine what ridership would be, based on placement of stations at different locations, Hewitt explained. It’s a very complex modeling that is used in the analysis, he said. The group is using the modeling techniques of the Washtenaw Area Area Transportation Study (WATS). The modeling project should be done by the middle of March, he said, and the information would be available by the end of March – as the group tried to determine what the final alignment of routes would look like. “We’re kind of slogging through the technical part now,” he concluded.

Comm/Comm: TiniLite

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Changming Fan introduced himself as president of TiniLite World Inc., which been registered in Ann Arbor since 1996. He said he appreciated being in a democratic country and felt like he wanted to stand up and say something because he felt like he had the freedom to do that.

He told the board he was a graduate of the University of Michigan. He described himself as an entrepreneur and an inventor. He also said he loves the politics involved with public art and public safety. He wanted to contribute what he learned in China and at the University of Michigan to the city of Ann Arbor. He has developed the LED technology made by TiniLite since 1996, he said. There are a lot of things that we should do to make Ann Arbor be the best town it can be, he said. In 2005, Ann Arbor had become the first city to install LED streetlights. He said that Ann Arbor should continue that legacy by using LED lights to create art, using his technology. He wanted to make a positive impact in that way, he said.

Comm/Comm: Puddles

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti told the board he wanted to talk to them about snow. [He was reprising his remarks made at the Jan. 7, 2009 DDA board meeting.] He pointed out that there’s a lot of it and at some point it’s going to melt, and it would try to drain into the catch basins downtown. Some of the basins are currently blocked by snow and ice, he noted. There also are large and small piles of snow blocking pedestrian paths downtown. He said he’s tried to figure out who’s responsible for dealing with this issue and it’s hard to figure out. At that point DDA board member Russ Collins joked: “Engineers!”

Vielmetti said that sidewalk clearance is the responsibility of property owners, and clearing the street is the responsibility of the city. But Vielmetti said he wasn’t sure who is responsible for dealing with the puddles in the street that people have to walk around or not come downtown because it’s hard to cross the street. He thought that the DDA has a role in that.

As far as the narrow question of who should clear the catch basin, Vielmetti proposed that the DDA look into possibly partnering with the Huron River Watershed Council, which has an adopt-a-storm-drain program administered by Jason Frenzel. [Frenzel recruited volunteers for the program at last year's Green Fair.] Vielmetti described the HRWC’s program as for residential areas right now, but ventured that HRWC would be a point of contact for the DDA.

Vielmetti mentioned the intersection of Church Street and South University as one that had been bad in the past. It’s not a situation that can be looked at with pride, he said, and where we can say that all of Ann Arbor citizens can easily cross the street. He said he did not know who is responsible for it but he ventured that a better job can be done. And he figured that the dollar amounts involved would be small, compared to the benefit.

Comm/Comm: Public Art

In his report from the previous night’s downtown area citizens advisory council meeting, Ray Detter said the CAC wanted to state it supports continued efforts of the city – despite recent actions of the city council – or other groups and individuals to make sure that additional public art installations remain an important city goal.

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

Ray Detter also reported that the CAC reaffirmed its support for a public plaza, with a walkway to Liberty Plaza, as part of a plan to create tax-producing private development on a major part of surface of the Library Lane parking structure. The CAC also believes that any future private development should be pursued cooperatively, and should be integrated with an adjoining plaza, the Ann Arbor District Library, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority and all nearby public and private spaces.

Comm/Comm: Welcome to New UM President

Ray Detter said the CAC wanted to welcome the new University of Michigan president Mark Schlissel to downtown Ann Arbor. He said the Schlissel family would be “inhabitants of Sloan Plaza.” His family would live there while the university president’s historic home on South University Avenue is being renovated.

Present: Al McWilliams, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Rishi Narayan, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, John Mouat.

Absent: Cyndi Clark, Joan Lowenstein, Sandi Smith.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

A poster generated at the Jan. 30, 2014 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board retreat. (Photos by the writer.)

A communications and marketing strategy for the downtown was the focus of Rishi Narayan’s report from the board’s partnerships committee, which had invited representatives from the four downtown area merchant associations to it most recent meeting. The message from those groups, Narayan reported, was a desire to see more events take place downtown.

A desire to see more signature events take place, especially during the winter, had been one of several items identified by board members at a recent retreat, held on Jan. 30, 2014 in the jury assembly room of the Justice Center, from noon to about 3:30 p.m. At its Feb. 5 monthly meeting, the follow-up discussion about the retreat also focused heavily on the idea of events and the possible role the DDA might play in facilitating more frequent events downtown. An initial reaction that appeared to be shared by several board members was this: The DDA should not necessarily be in the event-hosting business, but rather provide assistance to those organizations that are already hosting various events.

Board chair Sandi Smith also floated the idea of hiring an additional staff member to focus on marketing. City administrator Steve Powers stressed the importance of having a clear idea of the financial basis for the DDA’s capacity to undertake various projects on the list of its five-year plan. That five-year project plan, which Smith characterized as always in draft form, will be a focus of discussion when the board continues its retreat on Feb. 19. In addition to the five-year project plan, the board will focus on its 10-year financial projections at the Feb. 19 session. [Updated: The board has decided to continue its retreat on Feb. 26 at 1 p.m. at the DDA offices.]

Transportation was a topic addressed by the sole speaker during public commentary at the Feb. 5 monthly meeting, as Martha Valadez, an organizer with Partners for Transit, asked the DDA board to support a millage proposal that’s expected to be placed on the ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Late last month, the board’s operations committee had been briefed by AAATA staff on the five-year transit improvement plan – the set of service increases that are driving the likely request that voters approve an additional 0.7 mill tax.

Also related to transportation was a report from the board’s operations committee that included an update on the go!pass program, which the DDA has funded historically. Last year, the DDA granted the AAATA about $560,000 to pay for rides taken by downtown employees through the go!pass program. A request will be coming up soon for this next year’s funding.

In another transportation-related topic, the board also received an update on a possible part-time conversion of downtown on-street loading zones into taxi stands. Somewhat related to on-street right-of-way, the board was briefed on city council action to impose a fee on developers who cause the removal of on-street parking meters – unless the development has a more general public benefit. It will be up to the DDA to define what constitutes a public benefit – a task the board will now take up.

Related specifically to the public parking system, which the DDA manages under a contract with the city, the board reviewed the parking revenues for the second quarter of the fiscal year, compared to last year. It was the first full quarter for which the year-over-year comparison was for periods that did not include any parking rate increases. Revenue was essentially flat, showing just a 0.7% increase.

It’s not clear how much longer the former Y lot – located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues – will continue to be used as a surface parking lot. Not mentioned at the Feb. 5 board meeting, but discussed at the Jan. 29 operations committee meeting, was a proposal from Dennis Dahlmann about leasing the lot back to the DDA after he completes the purchase of the city-owned land. The idea would be for the DDA to lease the property and continue to operate a surface parking lot on the parcel until Dahlmann is able to move a site plan forward. At the operations committee meeting, the idea was not warmly embraced.

Other updates included the regular report from the downtown area citizens advisory council. Chair of the group, Ray Detter, reported that the CAC was generally supportive of an effort now being made by Will and Mary Hathaway to work with some city councilmembers on a resolution about the future of the surface level of the Library Lane underground parking structure. The resolution would establish a significant part of that level – but not all of it – as an urban public space.

DDA Board Retreat Review

Board members used their communications time toward the start of the Feb. 5 meeting to review their retreat, which was held from roughly noon to 3:30 p.m. in the jury assembly room of the Justice Center on Jan. 30, 2014.

In condensed and summarized form, the substantive part of the retreat was organized under three main headings.

• Trends: What local, regional, and national trends might influence downtown Ann Arbor? What have you observed about the evolving social, physical and economic fabric of downtown Ann Arbor?
• Looking forward: What are your hopes and dreams for downtown? What would you like to see more of or less of by 2024?
• DDA’s role: How can the DDA help downtown advance toward a preferred future?

At the board’s Feb. 5 meeting, board chair Sandi Smith indicated that she wanted to review the retreat’s discussion and to put a bit more flesh on the bones of the discussion so that the DDA staff would have a clearer direction. Smith indicated that board members had a draft version of its five-year project plan in front of them and stressed that “it is always in draft form.” She called the plan an “organic, living breathing document.” To frame the discussion, Smith asked: “How do we direct the staff to be able to begin [refining the document] and have that in line with our priorities here?”

John Mouat ventured that it would be useful to ask what ideas generated during the retreat were not on the five-year plan, that needed to be added to the plan. He asked if the five-year project plan and the 10-year financial projections would be a good basis for the conversation going forward. [.pdf of draft five-year plan from Sept. 4, 2013]

City administrator Steve Powers sat between John Splitt, far left, and Rishi Narayan at the Feb. 5 DDA board meeting.

City administrator Steve Powers, who sits on the DDA board, told Mouat that he did think it was very important for the DDA to have a five-year plan of projects. “Very selfishly from the city’s perspective,” Powers continued, “that then allows for better incorporation and coordination with the city’s planned projects, and we have a very robust capital improvements plan.” It’s important that the DDA have some indication of what it’s thinking about doing, Powers said.

Some of the items in the five-year plan are capital projects and some are not, Smith noted. For example, repairing the bricks on North Fifth Avenue is an expensive and capital-intensive project to be carried out. But hiring downtown ambassadors was not on the five-year project list and would take staff time to implement, Smith said.

Another question is marketing, Smith said: “Are we hiring somebody? Does that belong in this plan?” [Subsequently, Keith Orr drew out the fact that an updated five-year plan now included both ambassadors and a marketing position. It was reported later in the meeting that an RFQ (request for proposals) is being developed for the ambassador program.] Smith also said it was important to tell DDA staff how to move the projects forward. [.pdf of background on ambassadors]

Bob Guenzel asked DDA executive director Susan Pollay how the finances fit into the plan. Some of the projects could require a lot of money, while others would be more affordable. But he cautioned: “We haven’t been very successful in projecting our revenue.”

Pollay allowed that “we need to get real.” She reported that DDA staff is now working with city staff on next year’s budget. It’s not likely there will be a lot of money in the next couple of years for a lot of big projects, she said. But that should not prevent the board from continuing to work on the plan. She asked if the board would like the staff to tackle one or two larger projects or rather focus on several smaller projects that would not cost as much. “We can’t just write a big check for big projects,” Pollay said. An approach of taking smaller bite-sized chunks over a multi-year span would be needed.

Pollay pointed out that there are immediate, pressing needs. Ten years ago, she said, retail was a “different kind of animal” with the increased availability of online options like Amazon.com. “What role can we play?” Pollay asked, adding that’s why marketing is a question to explore.

A few years ago, downtown was also a bit more “free standing” Pollay said. Regionalism is now something that is much more front and center. So she asked what the role of the DDA is in a regionally centered downtown, which is a center of prosperity for a larger area. The DDA wants to encourage vitality and quality of life. A vision of that would be helpful, she said, before the DDA gets to the actual dollars and cents.

Bob Guenzel asked about housing. He asked if DDA staff could draft a proposal for how to work with the DDA’s partners, now that the economy is a little past the recession. There’s an idea the DDA could influence progress in development of more housing, he said. Pollay reported that the previous day she’d met with Mary Jo Callan, director of Washtenaw County’s office of community and economic development. Callan and her staff are creating an RFP for housing needs assessment. Post-recession, it’s important to have a clearer idea of what the needs for housing are. [Later in the meeting, the board was briefed on an upcoming request from the Ann Arbor housing commission for $600,000 of support for two of its largest properties: Baker Commons and Miller Manor. The item had been discussed at the AAHC board's Jan. 15, 2014 meeting.]

Mouat suggested that the consultant who’d been hired by the DDA to work on the streetscape framework plan might find it useful for the board to “pluck off” some of the relevant items from the board’s retreat work and provide that information to the consultant.

Smith said she wanted to make sure the final point on the retreat agenda was to transform what the board had done at the retreat into something concrete – because the retreat could be just a waste of time if the board doesn’t take its work and leverage it into some kind of action.

The DDA board will be holding a follow-up to the Jan. 30 retreat on Wednesday, Feb. 19.  [Updated: The board has decided to continue its retreat on Feb. 26 at 1 p.m. at the DDA offices.]

Pollay indicated that the five-year project plan and the 10-year financial plan would be documents provided at the continuation of the retreat. Powers weighed in, saying: “Personally, I think we’re at a point where some of that financial grounding is going to be very important. You can do visioning and trending and all that, but we need to bring in the financials here pretty soon.”

Mouat asked for an indication of when the revenue picture would be clearer. Pollay responded by saying that deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse was working on that at the moment. Pollay felt that by the time of the continuation of the retreat the necessary information would be in place.

Al McWilliams asked that for the purposes of the continued retreat, each item could be provided on notecards, categorized by cost: inexpensive, medium and huge. He felt it would be easier to prioritize the items in the plan. Mouat added that categorization of projects by construction versus planning would be useful.

Events

The idea of causing more downtown events to take place came up during the board’s review of the Jan. 30 retreat, as well as during a report from the partnerships committee.

Events: Retreat Review

During the discussion about the Jan. 30 retreat, Joan Lowenstein said she didn’t think the board had talked much about events. The DDA doesn’t sponsor events, she said, because the merchant associations handle events. The DDA board had, however, been batting around the idea of events after returning from the International Downtown Association conference in New York City last year. One specific idea she’d mentioned was a “Geeks Night Out” to encourage technology districts. She gave the East Liberty Street corridor of an example of where that’s happening in downtown Ann Arbor. Lowenstein called events relatively inexpensive compared to re-bricking a whole street.

Sandi Smith said the idea of a “Geeks Night Out” is not far from her thought of getting a regular group of residents together who live downtown, who are new to downtown, to find out what their needs are. In thinking about whether a downtown residential go!pass program would be useful, Smith cautioned that such a transportation program might be irrelevant. Downtown residents might already have one from their downtown employer or their affiliation with the University of Michigan. Without data, making a guess about what downtown residents might want seems foolish, Smith ventured.

Circling back to the topic of events, Smith said that perhaps smaller “seed events” could be hosted to touch base with people in different sectors. Responding to Smith’s mention of smaller events, Russ Collins quipped: “Or a big-ass film festival!” [Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater on East Liberty.]

Events: Partnerships Committee Discussion

Rishi Narayan reported out from the previous month’s partnerships committee meeting. The four area merchant associations of downtown Ann Arbor had been invited to come and talk to the committee about what they do. Each association has different resources, staff and budgets, he said. By way of background those four groups are: Main Street Area Association, State Street Area Association, South University Area Association and Kerrytown District Association.

Rishi Narayan is one of the newer members of the DDA board – appointed in August 2013. At the Jan. 30, 2014 board retreat, a game of Two Truths and a Lie revealed that he has never worn a pair of jeans. (Photo by the writer from Jan. 30, 2014 DDA board retreat.)

The committee wanted input from those associations as the DDA tries to figure out what to do to market the downtown – and reaching out to them was a first step. Narayan stressed that the DDA did not want to duplicate the efforts that are already in place. The committee had approached the conversation by asking: What do you do and what do you need help with? Narayan characterized the conversation with the representatives from the merchant associations as “very enlightening.”

What the committee heard from the associations is that they want more events because that’s what brings people downtown and that’s what creates a culture for making things happen. The question is how the DDA might help facilitate additional or more diverse events taking place downtown

Narayan also reported that the merchant associations felt like they knew how to market to the local Ann Arbor community: “They felt like they have that down. That’s not something they felt was out of their wheelhouse.” Marketing to the nation and the farther reaches of the state was something the merchant associations felt the Pure Michigan campaign was doing pretty well.

Marketing to the nebulous “outside local” area – nearby locations like Plymouth and Novi – so that people can come as repeat customers is a gap, he reported. For businesses who need repeat customers, that’s important, he said. The other big partner for marketing is the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau. So the committee is thinking about inviting the CVB to its next meeting.

Russ Collins encouraged the committee members to remember The Ark, the University Musical Society, the Kerrytown Concert House and a “plethora of student groups” that host events. Sometimes these events that are already happening are thought of as simply part of the “background.” Collins ventured that a little application of resources could result in an acceleration of events that are already happening. Collins gave as an example the idea of asking The Ark what it would take to expand the Folk Festival by a few extra nights.

Narayan agreed with the point that Collins was making, saying that the DDA does not want to go into the business of producing events. Narayan said the question is how to tie events into the downtown and unify them.

DDA board member Russ Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater.

Prompted by Smith, Collins talked about the role of events in the State Street area. Collins explained that several years ago, the State Street Area Association realized that UMS and the Michigan Theater were driving traffic to the area, and they provided institutional support. The reasoning was that it was better to invest in the stability of those organizations, instead of investing in creating new events. State Street merchants look down at Main Street and see car festivals and food festivals. Collins talked about the idea of expanding existing events. Sometimes people look at going from zero to something big, when they could instead pour gasoline on a fire that’s already burning to add that extra “skosh” more.

Collins spoke of what he perceived as governmental reluctance to get involved in arts activities. He didn’t think that reluctance reflected community values. But some people feel there’s no appropriate role for funding of the arts in the Ann Arbor community. Collins felt that it’s a vocal minority.

Public art had come up at the start of the meeting, during the time the board allocates for a report from the downtown area citizens advisory council. Ray Detter reported that at the previous evening’s meeting of the CAC, members asked him to express the CAC’s continued support for public art in downtown Ann Arbor as well as throughout the city. Long before the city’s public art program existed, it was one of the CAC’s major goals to support art, he said.

The CAC had played a role in setting up a public art committee. [CAC's members include Marsha Chamberlin, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission, and her husband John Chamberlin, as well as former AAPAC member Jim Kern.] Some of the decisions of the city council recently might stall some projects in the works, Detter said. The CAC appreciated the efforts of the public art commissioners over the years,  he said – they had made valuable contributions to the community. The CAC would continue to support efforts of the city and individuals, groups and organizations to make sure that a commitment to more public art remains an important community goal.

Transportation

Transportation was a major theme of the DDA board’s Feb. 5 regular meeting.

Transportation: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the Feb. 5 DDA board meeting, Martha Valadez introduced herself as a transit organizer for the Ecology Center, working with Partners for Transit. She described Partners for Transit as a coalition of grassroots organizations advocating for expanded and improved bus services countywide, but focused on urban core communities – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township. She thanked DDA executive director Susan Pollay for inviting her to speak. She told the board she was hoping for support from the DDA. Her understanding was that the DDA is very supportive of transit. As an example, she cited the DDA’s funding of the go!pass.

Transit supports getting workers to the community – back and forth between their homes, she said. Her group’s focus last year had been about raising awareness and participating in community meetings, she said, pointing out that those meetings included the planning effort for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s five-year improvement plan. She said her group saw that comments they’d made had affected how the final plan looked. She stressed that the five-year improvement plan would need additional funding. She encouraged people to attend the Feb. 20 meeting of the AAATA board, when it’s expected to take a vote on the question of putting a millage on the ballot. She said it was imperative that the millage question be placed on the ballot and be approved by voters in May.

Board chair Sandi Smith ventured that it was the operations committee of the DDA board that focused on transportation, and that Valadez should attend the next meeting of that committee.

Keith Orr summarized AAATA financial analyst and planner Bill De Groot’s presentation of the five-year plan to the operations committee at its monthly meeting. It’s an ambitious plan that resulted from a lot of community input, Orr said. It would expand service on weekends and during peak hours. It would expand the reach of public transit, because of the way the feeder routes are being redesigned. Orr, who manages the \aut\ BAR, said he hears from his employees that with the already implemented frequency of service on Routes #4 and #5, they have an easier time getting from city center to city center between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but it’s not as easy to get around within each city. The improvement plan would need an additional millage, he noted. It’s expected that at its next meeting, the AAATA board will vote to place a question on the ballot – likely in May. [For recent Chronicle coverage, see: "Survey: Majority Favorable on Transit Tax."]

Bob Guenzel added to Orr’s remarks by noting he’d been part of a financial task force that had formed during an effort in 2012 to expand the AAATA to a countywide authority – and a subset of that task force has continued to meet. That subset has concluded that a 0.7 mill tax would be adequate to fund the planned additional services. That morning, Guenzel said, the group had forwarded its finding on the currently contemplated 0.7 millage to the AAATA. [.pdf of Feb. 5, 2014 financial task force memo]

Besides Guenzel, who is former Washtenaw County administrator, the current configuration of that group mentioned in the memo includes Mary Jo Callan (director of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development), Norman Herbert (former treasurer of the University of Michigan), Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK), and Mark Perry (president of Perry & Co.).

Transportation: go!pass

Reporting out from the operations committee, Keith Orr noted that getDowntown director Nancy Shore had given the operations committee its annual update on the go!pass, which is administered by getDowntown.

By way of background, the two getDowntown program staff members are employees of the AAATA. Last year, the DDA granted the AAATA about $560,000 to pay for rides taken by downtown employees through the go!pass program. So a request will be coming up soon for this next year’s funding. The previous approval for funding came at the March 6, 2013 DDA board meeting.

The slight dip in ridership from two years ago to last year was analyzed by Orr as attributable to the increased cost to employers for participating in the go!pass program. [It had increased from $5 per employee to $10 employee.] Ridership had bounced back for the most recent year, Orr said.

Orr noted that one of the highlights of the report is that the profile of go!pass users had changed over time. In the last few years, it’s been mostly service and restaurant workers, but over the last year it has evened out more, he said. Part of the goal of the program is for it to be a community-wide program, not just for one job sector.

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

At its February meeting, the operations committee will be looking at next year’s go!pass costs and the funding ramifications, Orr said. Board chair Sandi Smith was particularly struck by the report that the people who would be driving alone to downtown if not for the go!pass: That’s more than 1,000 cars, she said. If you think about the number of parking spaces in the Library Lane parking structure that had been built at great expense – nearly $50 million – Smith indicated that the expense of the go!pass program didn’t come close to the cost of building the parking structure.

Orr agreed that funding the go!pass makes economic and ecological sense. The go!pass is also something that has been touted by downtown businesses as a program that makes it possible for them to locate downtown.

Al McWilliams added that 20% of decision makers said the go!pass was a significant factor in their decision to locate or stay downtown. Orr noted that stat was up from 14% last year.

Transportation: Taxi Stands

Reporting out from the operations committee, John Splitt told the board that a draft policy is being developed on the use of loading zones as taxi stands during certain times. [.pdf of draft policy on use of loading zones as taxi stands] The initial recommendation is that in some locations, loading zones could be used as taxi stands as follows:

• 6 a.m-6 p.m.: Commercial plates required, or passenger loading and unloading.
• 6 p.m.-3 a.m.: Taxis only.
• 3 a.m.-6 p.m.: No parking/Street maintenance.

[The idea stemmed from an inquiry made by city councilmember Stephen Kunselman at a fall 2013 work session. Kunselman is the city council appointee to the taxicab licensing board.] Splitt said DDA staff would be attending a future meeting of the taxicab board to discuss the proposal.

Transportation: Meter Removal

Reporting out from the operations committee, John Splitt told the board that the city council had approved a meter removal policy for on-street parking meters at its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting. [The fee amounts to $45,000 per space plus added payment to compensate for the projected revenue over the next 10 years, generated by the space to be eliminated. For an average space that would work out to around $20,000 in addition to the $45,000. The revenue portion of the payment to the city will be passed through to the DDA, but reduced by 17% – in conformance with the contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city.]

Part of the policy is that the fees would be imposed unless a public benefit were determined. So it’s important that a clear public benefit be defined. That work will go forward now, Splitt said. [.pdf of draft public benefit policy for on-street meter removal]

Transportation: Bike Share

Keith Orr reported that the bike share program is planning a June rollout. By way of background, the bike share initiative is also supported by the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor-based Clean Energy Coalition (CEC).

The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station location near their destination.

A recent press release from CEC announced that a name for the program has been chosen: ArborBike.

Parking

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. So parking is a point of discussion at most meetings.

Parking: Board Discussion

Reporting out from the operations committee on parking activity, John Splitt noted that for the second quarter of the fiscal year, hourly patrons were down slightly (by 1.12%) and revenues were up slightly (0.73%). The current fiscal year runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, so the second-quarter figures were for October through December of 2013.

The first half of fiscal year – from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2013 – showed hourly patrons up by 1.38% and revenues up by 4.28%, Splitt said.

The number of monthly permits sold per structure will in the future be provided with standard parking reports, Splitt said.

Sandi Smith ventured that the quarterly numbers might be influenced by the additional precipitation from October to December in 2013 compared to 2012. Splitt indicated that based on a report from a recent meeting of the downtown marketing task force, crime was probably down for the same reason. Weather affects everything, including parking numbers, Splitt ventured.

Al McWilliams asked about the fact that the number of monthly permits sold at the First and Washington structure showed that the structure had filled up quickly. DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse told McWilliams that anyone who had a monthly permit in that location prior to the construction project was offered first opportunity to purchase a monthly permit – and most of them are taking advantage of that. [Below, the chart of monthly permits sold by structure shows declines in permits for other structures, as the First and Washington structure has come on line. Public parking is included as part of the City Apartments project.]

Splitt also noted that Republic Parking manager Art Low had given an update on parking activity for the NHL Winter Classic on Jan. 1, held at Michigan Stadium. At the most recent downtown marketing task force meeting, Ann Arbor Area CVB director Mary Kerr had said the NHL was complimentary of Republic Parking’s performance during the event, he said.

Parking: Charts

For several years, The Chronicle has been regularly charting activity and finances within the city’s public parking system, based on data from the DDA via Republic Parking, which manages the system for the DDA. These charts reflect the most recent data available.

Year over year for the last four and a half years, the number of hourly patrons – those paying by the hour, not with monthly permits – has been essentially flat. (Data from the DDA, chart by The Chronicle.)

The second quarter of the FY 2014 fiscal year, from October through December 2013, was a period when rates were identical to the corresponding period in the previous year. (Data from the DDA, chart by The Chronicle.)

The two large surface lots downtown show the highest revenue per space of any of the facilities. (Data from the DDA, chart by The Chronicle.)

The Library Lane parking structure revenue per space has started to settle in at a level that’s slightly above the average revenue per on-street metered space. (Data from the DDA, chart by The Chronicle.)

The number of monthly parking permits sold continues a generally upward trend. (Data from the DDA, chart by The Chronicle.)

Parking: Former Y Lot

At the Jan. 29, 2014 meeting of the DDA operations committee, a proposal from Dennis Dahlmann was discussed: Would the DDA lease the former Y lot for $150,000 a year? By way of background, the former Y lot – located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues – is currently used as a 141-space surface parking lot in the public parking system. Right now 54 of those spaces are being used by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority as construction staging for the Blake Transit Center.

The Ann Arbor city council approved a purchase agreement with Dahlmann for the city-owned land, for $5.25 million, at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. One of the terms of the agreement is that Dahlmann must complete construction and receive a certificate of occupancy for the project on the site by Jan. 1, 2018.

The proposal from Dahlmann is for the DDA to lease the property from him for $150,000 a year – so that the DDA could continue to provide public parking spaces there until construction of Dahlmann’s project could begin. The response from DDA operations committee members on Jan. 29 was unenthusiastic. They felt it would provide an incentive for Dahlmann to delay developing the land. They also felt that in the immediate vicinity of that lot, there was adequate parking – at the Fourth and William and the Library Lane structures. Finally, the DDA had calculated that with the $150,000 rent payment to Dahlmann, the net annual income to the parking system – assuming all 141 spaces in use – would be just $12,333 a year. [.pdf of DDA financial analysis of Dahlmann's proposal]

Housing

Joan Lowenstein reported out from the partnerships committee on a request that would be coming from the Ann Arbor housing commission. AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall had indicated that the AAHC would be making an additional request from the DDA for $600,000 for improvements to Baker Commons and Miller Manor – which are the two largest AAHC properties.

Hall will be returning to the February partnerships meeting to provide more information. A decision will be needed from the DDA by April so that a tax credit application by the AAHC can be made. Lowenstein said she felt the best use of the DDA’s housing fund money is to leverage it – by conditioning it on a match by the city of Ann Arbor. [For additional recent Chronicle coverage of the AAHC, see: "Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step"]

Quarterly Financial Statements

In Roger Hewitt’s absence, John Splitt gave the summary of the second quarter’s financial statements. The TIF (tax increment financing) revenue is “right on track” in terms of revenue, he said. The parking fund is over on its expenses – and that was related to the timing of the First and Washington parking structure construction.

Parking maintenance is under on expenses, compared to the budgeted amount. DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse clarified that the bids for some work came in under budget by a total of $150,000. Elevator repair work had come in at $100,000 less, he said.

Library Lot

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council’s meeting, Ray Detter said the group had received a presentation from Will and Mary Hathaway. The Hathaways have been working with some councilmembers in support of a resolution to approve designating urban public space on the ground level of the Library Lane parking structure. Detter recounted how, over the last several years, a number of people and groups have lobbied CAC to establish the ground level of Library Lane as a public park. Detter told the DDA board that the CAC had refused to give support to that idea, but allowed that the CAC did support establishing a significantly-sized public plaza on the Fifth Avenue side of the site, that is as green as it can possibly be. Detter indicated that the green element might be potted rather than planted.

The CAC also supported using the pedestrian cut-through of the lot for scheduled community activities. Development of the site, Detter continued, should be sensitive to needs of the Ann Arbor District Library, the Blake Transit Center and nearby historic districts. Detter said the CAC also believed that planning for the Library Lane site should include the possibility of a major new, tax-producing private development on the major portion of the property. Any future private developer should be encouraged to work collaboratively to integrate with and complement the adjoining public plaza.

There are still some people in the community who would like to turn the entire Library Lot into a public park, but Detter stated, “We don’t.” So Detter indicated the CAC was pleased that the Hathaways don’t want to transform the entire surface into a public park. The resolution that the Hathaways are working on with members of the city council, Detter said, is moving in a direction that significantly agrees with that of the CAC and, he hoped, eventually with the DDA. The CAC had provided some input on the resolution, he said.

Contacted by The Chronicle via email, Will Hathaway confirmed that he was working with Jack Eaton and several other members of city council. A draft resolution has been circulated to relevant staff by city administrator Steve Powers, Hathaway wrote. Hathaway hopes that a new draft resolution would be ready for a city council meeting in March.

Present: Al McWilliams, Bob Guenzel, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Rishi Narayan, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Cyndi Clark, Roger Hewitt.

Next board meeting: The DDA’s next regular monthly meeting is at noon on Wednesday, March 5, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The setting of that fee was postponed by the Ann Arbor city council at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting after previously postponing at its Dec. 2 meeting.

The council will eventually be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would have be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

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

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

The council had postponed the item from its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Taylor at that meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes. Only one speaker – Thomas Partridge – spoke at the Dec. 16 public hearing.

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

Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman (left) attended the Sept. 4, 2013, meeting of the DDA board. He chatted with mayor John Hieftje before the meeting start. Hieftje is a member of the DDA board. (Photos by the writer.)

The renovation is part of the county’s overall space plan, approved by the board of commissioners at its July 10, 2013 meeting. The space plan calls for modifications to the Annex so that it can house the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) department. The cost of the renovations at the Annex, which would include a new lobby and “client interaction” space, would be about $1 million, according to the DDA board resolution. [.pdf of DDA resolution on the Annex] The Annex has housed the county’s office of community and economic development, office of infrastructure management, and the public defender’s office. Those offices are being moved to other leased and county-owned space.

Not described at the DDA’s board meeting was the backdrop of the grant award to the county, which evolved from a conversation between county administration and the DDA about ways the DDA could help the county address its budget deficit. A pitch from the county had been to re-open the agreement under which the county purchases monthly parking permits in the city’s public parking system, which the DDA manages. The alternative proposed by the DDA was to make a one-time $300,000 grant  – to help fund a project for which the county had already identified funding.

Also not mentioned among the several updates given during the Sept. 4 DDA board meeting was an Aug. 26 meeting of a joint DDA-council committee. That committee had been established by the Ann Arbor city council at its July 1, 2013 meeting to work out a recommendation on possible legislation to address an ongoing controversy about DDA tax increment finance revenue. Not much forward progress was made at that committee meeting.

The city council has already given initial approval of changes to the ordinance language that would clarify the amount of tax increment finance capture (TIF) revenue received by the DDA . The clarification currently under consideration does not work out in the DDA’s favor. A final vote of approval appeared on the council’s Sept. 3, 2013 agenda – the day before the DDA board met – but the council decided again to postpone a final vote.

At their Sept. 4 meeting, DDA board members also got a look at a draft five-year plan of projects that has now been generated, partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance.

Highlights of other updates that were given at the Sept. 4 DDA board meeting included a review of the preliminary end-of-year figures for the public parking system and the rest of the DDA’s funds. Overall, the DDA’s financial picture was better than budgeted. That difference is due to the timing of various capital costs.

For the parking system, the year-end picture was consistent with the trend throughout the year. Revenue generated by the parking system was up by 11.9% ($19.09 million) compared to the previous fiscal year, while the number of hourly patrons was down by 1.96% (2,232,736).

Low attendance at the board’s meeting was partly a function of the fact that two of the seats are currently vacant. One of the seats could potentially have been filled by the city council through confirmation of Al McWilliams’ nomination at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. However, as the nine councilmembers present debated his confirmation, mayor John Hieftje withdrew it, at least for the time being.

McWilliams’ confirmation would have needed six votes on the 11-member council – and the outcome was dubious based on conversation among the nine attendees at the council table. Some councilmembers questioned whether McWilliams’ might have a recurring conflict of interest based on the work his advertising firm, Quack!Media, does for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority and the allocations that the DDA makes to the AAATA’s go!pass program. That allocation amounted to $479,000 this year, and was approved at the DDA board’s March 6, 2013 meeting.

The Sept. 4 DDA board meeting was somewhat unusual in that no one from the public chose to address the board during the session at either of the two points on the agenda for public commentary.

Washtenaw County Annex Grant

The board was asked to support renovations to the building at 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex) so that it can house the county’s Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) department. [.pdf of DDA resolution on the Annex] The cost of the renovations at the Annex, which would include a new lobby and “client interaction” space, would be about $1 million, according to the DDA board resolution.

Washtenaw County Annex Grant: Background

CSTS provides a variety of client services to individuals with mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. The Annex has housed the county’s office of community and economic development, office of infrastructure management, and the public defender’s office. In the space plan approved by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at its July 10, 2013 meeting, those offices are being moved to other leased and county-owned space.

The County Annex building at 110 N. Fourth was built in 1904 and recently has housed several county units, including the public defender’s office and the office of community and economic development. (Chronicle file photo.)

When the county board approved the renovations associated with the county’s space plan, they were briefed that the total cost of all the renovations – not limited to those at the Annex – would be around $5 million. At the time Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, said no county general fund dollars would be used for the projects. Funding would come from several sources, Dill explained: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the office of community & economic development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves.

According to the county’s website about the space plan, the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) – which has a contract with CSTS to provide treatment services – was planning to fund the entire build-out of the Annex as well as the relocation of CSTS staff to the Annex.

The DDA became involved when county administrator Verna McDaniel and other senior staff met with DDA executive director Susan Pollay within the past few weeks to talk about how the DDA might help address the county’s projected structural budget deficit of $3.9 million in 2014. The county pays the DDA nearly $400,000 annually for parking permits, and had proposed the possibility of opening up a long-term parking agreement to renegotiate that amount. McDaniel told The Chronicle that the DDA proposed offering the grant for the Annex renovations instead.

Bob Guenzel, former Washtenaw County administrator, is a member of the DDA board. Guenzel was absent from the Sept. 4 meeting.

Washtenaw County Annex Grant: DDA Board Discussion

The grant to Washtenaw County for improvements to the Annex building was introduced by John Splitt.

Splitt asked executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay to explain the resolution. Pollay said that one of the roles of the DDA is to support all of the various uses of downtown – business and residential – and also government services. She called Washtenaw County an ally of the DDA, and described how the county is very committed to the downtown. Many of the county’s operations have been brought to the downtown, she said. She described how many of the county’s outreach services are planned to be provided in the Annex building.

The challenge that the county has been struggling with, Pollay continued, is that the building is currently not configured in a way that’s suitable for the CSTS clients. So the county has developed a plan to retrofit the building, which includes a lobby and other space. Pollay reported that she’d been talking with Washtenaw County administration members to try to find a way to be supportive. The plans of the county are now at the point where they can begin moving forward, Pollay said. The project as a whole has about a $1 million budget, she said. She described the $300,000 as consistent with the DDA’s 10-year plan and also in keeping with the DDA’s mission.

Joan Lowenstein asked Pollay if it was fair to say that without the DDA’s contribution, the county probably wouldn’t go forward with the renovations. Pollay declined Lowenstein’s gambit by saying, “I don’t know that.” But Pollay did describe the DDA’s contribution as a “significant part” of the project moving forward. It absolutely helps makes it possible, Pollay contended.

John Mouat described his downtown office as providing a good vantage point to see the connection between the Annex and the rest of downtown. You can watch the number of people who go by out his window, he said. [Mouat is an architect with offices at 113 S. Fourth Ave.]

Mayor John Hieftje indicated support for the grant, saying that it’s consistent with the goals of the DDA. Washtenaw County has some significant budget issues that it’s working through right now, he said. He also noted that the DDA Act explicitly highlights the ability of a downtown development authority to help finance government buildings in the downtown area. So Hieftje felt that the grant met the criteria of the statute.

Outcome: The seven members of the board who were present at the meeting voted unanimously to approve the $300,000 grant to Washtenaw County for improvements to the Annex building.

Washtenaw County Annex Grant: Connection to Council, Light Poles

In attendance at the DDA’s board meeting were two city councilmembers – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Neither addressed the board formally during the meeting. Briere typically attends the meetings, while Kunselman does not.

Kunselman told The Chronicle he attended the meeting partly out of interest in the question of whether the DDA had the ability to pay the entire cost of the replacement of decorative pedestrian light poles on Main Street, given its allocation to the Washtenaw County Annex project. In early 2012, two of the light poles had fallen – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

At its July 3, 2013 meeting, the DDA board had approved a resolution allocating $300,000 for the replacement of decorative light poles on Main Street. The total estimated cost of the project is $516,000 for 81 light poles. Based on the DDA board’s resolution, it was DDA’s expectation that the city of Ann Arbor would make up the difference of $216,000.

DDA board member Joan Lowenstein.

The DDA’s July 3 resolution indicated that the city of Ann Arbor’s budget approval process this year had determined that the city would allocate $216,000 for the project. What the Ann Arbor city council actually did on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement.

In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated back in July that the city council would be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. That timeframe has slipped, and no council action has been taken on the Main Street light poles. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, responding to the same query, explained back in July that it wasn’t yet clear if the council action would include an additional appropriation, or if it could be handled within the existing budget.

At the DDA’s Sept. 4 board meeting – during discussion of a five-year draft capital plan – DDA board member Joan Lowenstein characterized the light pole situation from her perspective. She was responding in part to the idea of staying flexible with respect to which projects were implemented, and she indicated that flexibility could be compromised if the DDA were “hogtied” in some way. As an example of the hogtying, she cited the street light poles on Main Street, which the DDA was planning to replace. Lowenstein said: “But then the city council decided to screw around with our budget, so that we couldn’t spend our money on replacing those.” For people who are wondering what is going on with the streetlights, Lowenstein said, they are tied up in the bureaucracy of the city.

Five-Year Draft Project Plan

The DDA has developed a draft list of projects partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance. The project list was introduced at the Sept. 4, 2013 DDA board meeting.

By way of introducing the draft plan, which had been reviewed at the operations committee meeting the previous week, DDA executive director Susan Pollay said that one of the things discussed this spring after many years of focusing on very large capital projects, was the fact that the DDA would be ending a cycle of major projects. She alluded to the metaphor of the “pig in the python” used to describe the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed last year.

This summer, the DDA had acquired the First and Washington garage, which is located in the City Apartments development. What had been done at the previous week’s operations committee meeting, Pollay reported, was to assemble all of the projects so that they were listed all in one place. The goal was not to compare one project versus another. Pollay felt the committee had done a good job of setting forward the idea of why the projects are on the list and how they support the vision that the DDA is striving for.

Pollay read aloud from the vision statement that’s a part of the draft document:

A walkable, vibrant, authentic, attractive, historic, inclusive, growing, diverse, multi-season downtown, full of lots of things to do, teaming with downtown residents and healthy locally-owned unique businesses, the community’s job and commercial center, a place of shared prosperity, and nationally known as a center for innovation and entrepreneurism.

In outline form, reduced from the more detailed description [.pdf of draft five-year plan], here’s what the draft five-year project plan covers:

Near Term Projects (2013-2018)

Streetscapes

• South University: $2.5-$3 million
• William Street: $5 million
• Huron Street: $5 million
• N. Fifth Ave. (brick streets): $5 million
• S. Main Street: $500,000-$800,000

Sidewalk Maintenance

• Routine maintenance annual cost: $50,000-$75,000
• Wayfinding updates: $50,000
• E. Liberty Street tree pit expansion: $75,000
• Traffic signal box wraps: $50,000

Infrastructure

• Fourth & William parking structure elevators: $2.25 million
• E. William sanitary sewer: $250,000
• Bell Tower alley: $250,000
• W. Huron alley repair and improvements: $300,000
• Additional ePark machines: $850,000

Transportation

• Restore the LINK (circulator bus) annually: $100,000-$250,000
• Add electric vehicle charging units to parking structures: $100,000
• Express bus annually: $50,000-$100,000
• Bike House #2: $30,000
• In-street bike racks: $4,000 each
• Crosswalk repairs: $15,000 per intersection
• Pilot Ypsi/Ann Arbor passenger rail project (initial study): $50,000

Business Encouragement

• Fourth & William parking structure. Build out first floor space along 4th Avenue and William Street: $600,000
• Business Improvement Zones: $50,000 each
• Lodging/conference feasibility study: $50,000
• Marketing campaign for downtown annually: $50,000

Housing

• Grants to encourage the creation of housing affordable to individuals: Grant program to be determined.

Downtown Parks

• Liberty Plaza Park: $175,000
• Farmers Market winter enclosure study: $90,000

Community Services

• County Annex lobby improvements: $300,000
• City Hall environmental controls upgrade: $90,000
• S. State St. road resurfacing and sidewalk expansion: $675,000
• S. Division resurfacing: $320,000
• Liberty/First intersection: $362,000

John Mouat call the draft a terrific start, saying that it pulls together a lot of the things the board has talked about.

Sandi Smith wondered if it was realistic to expect that the projects would be completed in five years. Back and forth between Smith and Pollay indicated that even if some projects might not be completed within a five-year time frame, it was still important to plan for them now. They indicated that if a pressing need comes up, the DDA needs to be flexible and nimble enough to re-priortize.

Russ Collins felt that the five-year plan was not a policy statement, but rather was a way to anticipate what might be a good way to invest the DDA’s money – noting that the DDA doesn’t have any planning authority. The DDA needs approvals from the city council to undertake projects. Collin said the DDA is trying to anticipate needed work as best it can – in coordination with city departments, city council, and private developers. Sometimes the DDA produces documents and they are misunderstood as a statement of policy, Collins said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Parking System

The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. A joint DDA city council work session is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2013 under the terms of the contract, which state in part:

Joint Working Session. As part of the annual established calendar for City Council Working Sessions, City Council shall designate one working session in the fall of each calendar year as a joint working session with the DDA. The agenda for the working session shall be prepared by the City Administrator in accordance with Council Rules and in consultation with the Executive Director of the DDA, provided that such agenda shall include
(i) the DDA’s evaluation of any meter parking rate increases effected during the foregoing year, including, without limitation, the public input associated therewith; and
(ii) a discussion regarding any then-contemplated future meter parking rate increases, which discussion shall satisfy the DDA’s City Council consultation obligation under Section 2(k). It is recommended that a portion of such agenda be dedicated to a discussion of operations under this Agreement and the utility of creating a joint study committee to address areas of mutual interest.

Parking: Year-End Report

John Splitt gave the parking report in Roger Hewitt’s absence. For the last quarter of the fiscal year, he noted revenues were up, as were expenses. He attributed increased expenses for the quarter to grants, capital costs and costs related to bond payments and the installation of new automated equipment.

For June 2013 – the last month of the fiscal year – Splitt noted that revenues were up 7.41% and hourly patrons were down by 7.7% compared to the same month last year. He described the pattern as staying on track in terms of revenues. He ventured that the reduction in hourly patrons could mean that fewer people are staying longer. “That’s a statistic that you can take for what it is,” he concluded. For the last quarter of the fiscal year, revenue was up 11.67% and hourly patrons were slightly down, by about 0.42%, Splitt said.

John Mouat noted that obviously there had been a big drop in revenue at the Washington and Fourth Street parking structure. He ventured that was probably due to the street closure on Fourth Avenue during the major street reconstruction work over the summer. Mouat suggested that it would be great in the future, if the DDA knows about street closings that would be implemented during the year, if impact on revenues could be built into projections for the year.

Splitt summarized the art fair parking numbers as not quite matching the numbers from the previous year, but he felt that the parking system had done quite well during the period of the art fair, considering the weather this year. [.pdf of parking system revenue including 2013 art fairs]

Parking: Four-Year Summary in Charts and Graphs

Total Revenue by Facility. (Graph by The Chronicle with data from the Ann Arbor DDA)

Revenue Per Space, Focus on Structures. (Graph by The Chronicle with data from the Ann Arbor DDA)

Revenue Per Space, Focus on Surface Lots. (Graph by The Chronicle with data from the Ann Arbor DDA)

Total Hourly Patrons. (Graph by The Chronicle with data from the Ann Arbor DDA)

Total Revenue. (Graph by The Chronicle with data from the Ann Arbor DDA)

Parking: Pilot Permit Program

DDA executive director Susan Pollay described how last spring there had been a robust dialogue about how to provide monthly permits in a fair way, when demand is larger than supply. So this summer, the DDA had started a pilot program in the South University area. The concept behind the pilot program was that instead of selling parking permits to individuals, the DDA would engage property owners and assign a number of parking permits to them based on the square footage of their buildings. Letters have been sent out to property owners, Pollay said, and she thought the DDA would be flooded with requests. [For general background on the monthly parking permit system, see: "Column: Rules, Parking, Transportation"]

However, Pollay reported that almost none of the property owners were interested in managing the parking permits on behalf of their tenants. From the point of view of property owners, Pollay ventured that it is easier to have the DDA to manage the demand and to maintain the waiting list.

During the Sept. 4 board meeting, it was also reported that the newly-built Library Lane underground parking garage now has a waiting list for monthly permits. Pollay recalled that when the structure was being planning, there were those who were concerned that the city would have too much parking. Now 50 people are on the wait list for Library Lane permits, Pollay said, because of the DDA’s commitment to keeping spaces open for Ann Arbor District Library patrons. [The structure is adjacent to the downtown library, but owned by the city.]

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: New Board Member – Rishi Narayan

At the start of the meeting, DDA board chair Sandi Smith invited the board’s newest member, Rishi Narayan, to give a 30-second synopsis of who he is. [Narayan's appointment to the DDA board was confirmed by the city council at its Aug. 19, 2013 meeting.] Narayan quipped that he could be summed up in less than 30 seconds. He told the board that he had come to Ann Arbor from the Okemos and Lansing area to attend college, and had remained in Ann Arbor during that time, with a brief stint in Berkeley, California after he got married.

He had moved back and forth between Berkeley and Ann Arbor while his wife was finishing her Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley. He described himself as involved in various things in Ann Arbor but his main business is Underground Printing. He had founded that business with a business partner who was his best friend growing up, who also lives in Ann Arbor now. They are no longer Lansing-ites. “That’s me in a nutshell, and I’m looking forward to joining the board,” Narayan concluded.

Comm/Comm: Year-End Financials

In Roger Hewitt’s absence, John Splitt gave the update from the operations committee, which included the year-end unaudited financial figures. Splitt indicated that Joe Morehouse, the DDA’s deputy director, could answer any specific questions from board members. He described the TIF budget as slightly over budget with respect to the excess of revenues over expenditures. But the parking budget was significantly over, Splitt reported.

He confirmed with Morehouse that the better-than-budgeted financial picture relates to the timing on items that the DDA needed to pay. [This includes a delay in acquiring the parking deck portion of the City Apartments project at First and Washington, as well as delay until after July 1 of some parking structure maintenance work.] Splitt summed up the budget variances as a matter of timing.

Based on The Chronicle’s arithmetic, the entire DDA budget looks to be better than budgeted by about $4.8 million. [.pdf of unaudited year-end FY 2013 figures] Overall, based on its most recently revised budget, the DDA had projected expenses would exceed revenues by $5.1 million in a $24.6 million revenue budget. Instead, the unaudited figures for the end of FY 2013 (which ended June 30, 2013) show the deficit amount will be closer $0.38 million.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main Project

Joan Lowenstein, reporting out from the board’s partnerships committee, gave an update on the 618 S. Main project. The project team attended the last partnerships committee meeting, she reported, and they had proposed some streetscape improvements for the project site, extending up to Ashley Mews. Those improvements included paving, widening, and planting enhancements. The committee had given some input on the proposed design and asked questions about the project timing, she said.

The streetscape plan is going through review with city staff members, Lowenstein continued, and is part of the DDA’s brownfield grant to the 618 S. Main project. The DDA board would be up considering approval of changes at a future meeting. She characterized the brownfield grant as input and money from the DDA that has allowed the project to be built.

Comm/Comm: Streetscape Framework Plan

At its July 3, 2013 meeting, the board had approved $200,000 of funding for developing a streetscape framework plan. John Mouat reported that in the following week, an RFQ (request for qualifications) would be issued for the streetscape framework plan. When responses come in, an evaluation process would take place, he said, to narrow down the list of consultants, who would then be invited to make proposals.

Comm/Comm: State of the Downtown

In her report out from the DDA’s partnerships committee, Joan Lowenstein said that the committee had reviewed the newest version of the State of the Downtown report. It had been released in August. Lowenstein described how the report really highlights the DDA’s role as “the place to go for information about the downtown.” Among the statistics she highlighted from the report were: 73% of all city special events take place downtown; 26% of jobs in the city are downtown; and 107 sidewalk cafes are located downtown. In the past year, 26 new businesses have been started in the downtown area. Supporting that activity, she continued, population downtown has grown by 56% since 2000.

Board chair Sandi Smith acknowledged DDA planning specialist Amber Miller for her work on the State of the Downtown report. Lowenstein called the report a great reference document with a lot of facts and figures.

Comm/Comm: Economic Collaborative Task Force

Reporting out from the DDA’s partnerships committee, Joan Lowenstein said the committee had received an update on the Ann Arbor economic collaborative task force. [The task force was established through a council resolution passed on May 20, 2013.] Lowenstein described the group as composed of the city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the DDA. The task force had met once before the July partnerships committee meeting took place, Lowenstein said. Primarily the task force had focused on the Ann Arbor SPARK five-year strategic plan, including various overlaps with the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA. That included helping to sell and develop the city property in the downtown.

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Repair

John Splitt gave an update on sidewalk repair work in the downtown. This summer the DDA had been paying for mostly minor repairs to sidewalks, taking care of trip hazards and the like. All of the Americans with Disabilities Act sidewalk ramp work has now been finished, he reported. The final four ramps – the most difficult of them – had been completed this summer. Trees were being trimmed and planted. Essentially it was those issues that are visible that were being addressed this summer, Splitt concluded. The work is about to conclude for the season and next season it will start again.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Zoning Review

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council (CAC), Ray Detter reminded the board that at its previous meeting, he’d told them that the city planning commission’s executive committee was in the process of hiring a consultant to organize a public process to re-examine the downtown zoning changes, which were adopted in 2009. The downtown design guideline task force had also been reconstituted by the city council to make recommendations on the design guideline review process.

Detter indicated that the CAC was disappointed that the design guideline review task force had not yet met. However during July and August a consulting firm, ENP & Associates, led by Erin Perdu, had conducted a series of events, community coffees, workshops, and online surveys of residents, businesses, and employees of downtown businesses. The discussion at those events focused on what’s working and isn’t working with respect to the current downtown zoning. Detter indicated that the consultant had released a summary of some of those findings.

At the previous night’s meeting of the CAC, those preliminary findings had been reviewed, Detter reported. Not surprisingly, he said, a set of private interviews with developers and downtown real estate professionals – as well as two unnamed members of the DDA board – thought that the current zoning regulations were meeting their intent of developing more density downtown. That group had felt that there were still too many limitations on downtown development. At larger public focus group meetings and workshops, Detter continued, people had largely agreed that the north side of Huron Street between Division Street and South State, the south side of William between Main and Fourth, and the Ann Street site adjacent to city hall should be rezoned. Possible zoning for those sites, he said, would include D2 or possibly a newly-defined D3 zoning. Most people felt that near downtown neighborhoods needed to be protected through proper zoning, Detter reported.

There was also general agreement, Detter said, that the current application of residential premiums [greater floor area ratios allowed for residential uses] was not generating the right kind of diverse housing mix. Premiums were encouraging too much student housing and not enough affordable housing, he said. Most people also supported the idea that the design guidelines should be followed in order to qualify for eligibility for any of the premiums that could be granted. Across the board, most people in all phases of the public process, including online surveys, agreed that more diverse housing should be encouraged in the downtown area, Detter said.

Members of the citizens advisory council were very encouraged by the planning commission’s inclusion of mandatory adherence to city design guidelines as a condition for any request for proposals (RFPs) for the future sale and development of the former YMCA site at Fifth and William. Detter noted that ENP & Associates has now scheduled a series of coffee hours, bag lunches, and public focus groups over the next two weeks as part of the continued work on the downtown zoning review.

Present: Russ Collins, John Hieftje, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat, Rishi Narayan, Sandi Smith, John Splitt.

Absent: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Keith Orr.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

Residents attended the July 16, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission to express concerns about the proposed Glendale Condominiums project. A public hearing on the project lasted about an hour. (Photos by the writer.)

In a public hearing that lasted about an hour, neighbors cited a range of issues, including concerns about increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. One resident told commissioners that she already has a sump pump “that could probably pump pudding to Ypsilanti, it’s so powerful.” She’s concerned it will need to run continuously if the project gets built.

The proposal for the 2.54-acre site at 312 Glendale Drive includes demolishing two single-family homes on the south end of the property and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site.

The project is located in Ward 5, and both city councilmembers representing that ward – Mike Anglin and Chuck Warpehoski – attended the July 16 meeting. Warpehoski was among the speakers at the public hearing, but was cut off by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws. The bylaws state: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who had been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium but stayed for the remainder of the public hearing and the commission’s deliberations on this item.

After discussing the proposal, commissioners followed a staff recommendation and postponed action on the project, to allow for time to address unresolved issues related to the site plan.

In other action, commissioners recommended approval of a drive-thru addition for the Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, near the I-94 interchange. As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area near the intersection, with two park benches and shrubbery. Some commissioners questioned whether anyone would use that spot, given its location next to heavy traffic. Wendy Woods, saying she had family nearby, indicated that there is a fair amount of pedestrian and bike traffic in that area. She also floated the idea of putting public art on that corner, given that it’s a “gateway” to the city. Sabra Briere indicated that the city wouldn’t fund public art on the privately owned site, but would “applaud” the owner if he chose to put artwork there.

Also gaining unanimous approval was a request by the Glacier Hills retirement community for adding 31 parking spaces to its property, near US-23 on the city’s east side. A representative from the nearby Earhart Village spoke against the project, saying that the parking is primarily for commercial uses, even though the area is residential. He argued that Glacier Hills is drawing customers to the property, who use the cafe there and other services, and that it negatively impacts the adjoining neighborhoods. He also complained about changes to the site that can be approved via administrative amendments, with no oversight by the planning commission. One such change – an addition to one of the Glacier Hills “villas” – is currently pending with the planning staff.

Commissioners also approved minor changes to their bylaws, and got updates on the R4C citizens advisory committee and the review of A2D2 zoning. Just prior to the July 16 regular commission meeting, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) had met with Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the Ann Arbor consultant that’s been hired to handle the city council-mandated review of downtown zoning. The work includes a series of events aimed at seeking public input. Upcoming events include Thursday morning coffee hours with consultants that are open to the public from 8-10 a.m. at the new Zingerman’s Deli building, starting on July 25. And two focus groups are scheduled for next week: on Monday, July 29, 8-9:30 a.m. at Kerrytown Concert House, 415 N. Fourth Ave.; and on Tuesday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in city hall, 301 E. Huron St. More events are listed on the city’s website.

Glendale Condominiums

The proposed Glendale Condominiums at 312 Glendale Drive was on the July 16 agenda, with a recommendation by the planning staff for postponement.

Aerial view of proposed Glendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

The project is located south of Jackson Avenue and east of Hillside Terrace on the city’s west side. The proposal calls for tearing down two single-family homes on the south side of the 2.54-acre site and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site. There would be one driveway into the site off of Glendale, for an internal drive connecting the duplexes within the site. There are no interior sidewalks in the development, but there is a sidewalk planned along Glendale, on the property’s east side.

The property is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling).

In giving the staff report, Jill Thacher highlighted the site’s topography, noting steep slopes on the north side of the property.

Eighteen of the 23 landmark trees in a former orchard on the site would be removed, but many are in poor health, Thacher noted, and the city requires that only six of those be replaced. However, because of the city’s conflicting land use buffer requirements, 105 new trees will be planted on the property’s north, south and west sides. The developer also has agreed to make a $9,920 contribution to the city’s park system.

Thacher noted that there’s currently a cut-through used by pedestrians, located at the west end of the current driveway and leading to Hillside Terrace, where pedestrians can then continue walking west on Charlton Avenue. Although the developer initially rejected making a pedestrian connection there, plans now call for putting in a pathway from Glendale to the Hillside Terrace property. A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale Drive, but there are no internal sidewalks proposed within the development to connect the duplexes.

The planning staff had requested that the site’s drive connect to the driveway at Hillside Terrace to the west. The project’s architect, Scott Bowers, reported that Hillside Terrace will not agree to a driveway connection.

There will be an on-site stormwater management system consisting of an underground detention basin designed to handle runoff from a 100-year storm. The developer would be required to pay for footing drain disconnects in four homes located in the vicinity of the site.

The development, which is targeting “empty nesters,” is estimated to cost $2.3 million. The owner is listed as Jeffrey Starman of Ann Arbor.

Rendering of the front of a proposed Glendale Condo duplex.

Planning staff had recommended postponement to resolve several outstanding issues. Among those issues are the protection of landmark trees and unresolved utility and sidewalk easements. The developer also had submitted a revised site plan recently that the planning staff hasn’t had time to review. That revised site plan – which Thacher described as “quite a bit different” from the previous version – was developed in response to feedback in the staff report that was included in the planning commission’s meeting packet. The revised plan still calls for eight two-bedroom duplexes. [.pdf of written staff report]

Other concerns about the project – related to design, traffic, pedestrian access and other issues – had been raised during two citizen participation meetings earlier this year. [.pdf of citizen participation reports]

Neighbors also have concerns about possible soil contamination from the former Barnard Plating Company building at 1943 Jackson Ave., about 300 feet west of the site. Thacher noted that an environmental site assessment report that was done in 1989 identified heavy metal soil contamination on the Glendale property. There might be other contaminants on the site, such as pesticides used on the orchard, she said, but the city doesn’t regulate soil contamination or removal. That’s the purview of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, and it’s the developer’s responsibility to follow MDEQ rules and regulations.

Glendale Condos: Public Commentary

More than 40 people attended the commission’s July 16 meeting, and 14 residents spoke during a public hearing on the project that lasted about an hour. Most of their remarks focused on problems of flooding, sewage backups and drainage in that area, which they fear will be exacerbated by this new development. Other issues related to traffic and the preservation of landmark trees and open space.

Diane Robins expressed concern about stormwater runoff and sewage overflow, saying that water-related issues are very problematic in the neighborhood. Residents expect those problems will increase if the site is developed. The plans for underground stormwater detention are inadequate, she said, given the amount of impervious surface that’s planned.

To document their concerns, residents created a flood, stormwater and sewage survey modeled after the city’s water survey. The surveys were distributed via email and a door-to-door campaign in April and May. They got 51 responses out of 100 surveys distributed, Robins said. Of those, 33 respondents indicated they had basement flooding, 24 had yard flooding, 13 had flooding in the adjacent street, 11 had sewage overflow, and about 18 needed extensive repairs due to water damage.

From this data, residents created a map showing where the affected houses are located. It shows sewage overflow concentrated on Charlton, and basement flooding problems on Abbott, Robins said. Those streets are downhill from the site, which currently “acts as a giant 2.2-acre sponge,” she said. She requested that the project be postponed until a stormwater evaluation is undertaken. [.pdf of email from Robins and Kira Slovacek regarding neighborhood survey results] [.pdf of email from Robins highlighting concerns about grading]

Lynn Borset, a resident who lives near the proposed Glendale Condo development, spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Mark Hieber identified himself as a landscape architect and land planner. He had reviewed the plans online and said the topographic survey doesn’t appear to include trees that are off-site but near the property line. It appears that drip lines of those trees extend significantly onto the property. It looks like the proposed grading on the north side would be altered near those trees, so he suggested that the implications of that grading be understood in order to preserve the trees.

Hieber recommended that the developer provide more detailed renderings for each unit, showing how the building would look within the site’s topography. Some residents had met with the design team and discussed a more sensitive arrangement of buildings – that would follow the topography, to limit the amount of grading. He encouraged a driveway connection to Hillside Terrace, and to align the driveway entrance off Glendale so that it would be directly across from one of the streets, rather than facing a house.

Tom O’Connell told commissioners he’s lived on Orchard Street for 47 years. He expressed concerns about flooding in the neighborhood. More than 20 years ago, he said, there had been a class action lawsuit against 1939 Jackson Ave., where Hillside Terrace is located, and against the city of Ann Arbor. Most people involved in that lawsuit are deceased or have moved, he said. Houses are still having problems because of 1939 Jackson Ave., he said, and residents will have more water in their basements if this new project is built.

The next speaker was Vince Caruso, speaking as coordinating manager of the Allen Creek Watershed Group. He lives on Glendale Circle, near the proposed development. He advocated for a watershed study to be done before the project is allowed. Such a study has been in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) since 2008, he noted, but it’s been postponed. Most neighborhood groups on the city’s west side have signed on for such a study, he said.

Caruso referenced a range of flooding issues, saying that these issues aren’t very well understood by city planners. As an example, on June 27 10,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Huron River, he noted – “and this was not even a 100-year rain.” Caruso cited several other projects in the Allen Creek watershed that have experienced or contributed to flooding problems, or that have resulted in problems due to their location in the floodway. The city needs to protect existing homes and the existing tax base, Caruso said.

The Allen Creek Watershed Group is also concerned about climate change, Caruso said, mentioning studies that show Michigan will have much more rain in the future, and Ann Arbor needs to plan for that. Public health, safety and welfare is clearly at stake with unaddressed sewage and stormwater issues, he concluded. [.pdf of email from Caruso]

Robert Beane lives at the corner of Abbot and Glendale, directly across the street from the proposed project. He said his house was built in 1948 with a footprint that’s almost six times smaller than the buildings at Glendale Condos. His comments focused on concerns about the steep slope on the property’s north side. One of the proposed buildings would cut right into the slope, he said, so it’s hard to see how the slope is being protected. The slope runs directly down to the houses on Orchard Court to the north, and then further down to Orchard Street to the northeast. Nearly half of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, he noted, and it’s hard to see how the proposed stormwater management system will capture all the runoff. Beane also pointed out that for 40 years – until Hillside Terrace was built – the orchard was directly connected to the former Barnard Plating Company, so heavy metal contamination is a concern.

From left: Ann Arbor Ward 5 city councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin with Robert Beane, a resident who lives across from the proposed Glendale Condos site. The project is in Ward 5.

Gretchen Hahn told commissioners that she lived at the corner of Abbott and Virginia, in a house built in 1926. She has a sump pump “that could probably pump pudding to Ypsilanti, it’s so powerful.” It runs non-stop when it rains, she said.

The fact that four footing drain disconnects are recommended by the city to help mitigate stormwater runoff just adds insult to injury for the neighborhood, she said. Residents are being asked to do something else to accommodate a plan that doesn’t fit well. Hahn also reported that residents have requested a traffic study. She noted that the staff report indicates the developer won’t connect a driveway to the Hillside Terrace property because of liability concerns. “What they’re really saying is they’re willing to push those traffic concerns right off onto the neighborhood,” she said.

Hahn’s other concern was the proposal to eliminate lanes on Jackson Avenue, a project to be undertaken by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. She teaches at the middle school that’s four blocks from her home. There are no stop signs on Abbott, Charlton or Orchard for the east- or westbound traffic, and it’s a route used by lots of kids, she said. Hahn is concerned that traffic will increase on those roads, and noted that MDOT didn’t do a traffic study about the impact that changes on Jackson will have on these residential streets.

Ethel Potts, a former planning commissioner, said she assumed the commissioners had followed the usual tradition of visiting the sites of projects that are on their agenda. The entire site is a hill, she noted, and the city’s code considers steep or medium slopes to be natural features to be protected. There’s a 22-foot difference in height on the site, or about two stories, she said. The site plan doesn’t show how the buildings will be made level, Potts noted, which will require either digging into the slope or filling it up. It will require major moving of earth, she contended. The site plan should indicate how much of the land will remain untouched, she argued – that information is what site plans are for. Without that information, there can be nothing to enforce later, she said.

Matt Keefe lives on Abbott one block east of Glendale. He read a statement from his 86-year-old neighbor, Griselda Cuadros, who has lived in her house since 1965. He said her thoughts, written by her son Paul, are representative of others in the neighborhood. Her house began experiencing basement flooding in the 1970s, but her father regraded the back yard to prevent stormwater from leaking into the house. This solution worked for decades, but in the past three years the basement has again experienced flooding. She suspects that erosion, construction and other factors have taken a toll. She urged the city to carefully consider the impact that the Glendale Condo project would have on long-time residents, people who have paid property taxes over their lifetimes and created an attractive neighborhood close to downtown. The city needs to develop a plan to deal with these stormwater issues before the project is approved. Keefe concluded by saying that the comments by Cuadros should remind the city to protect the property of existing homeowners who have invested so much for so many years.

Doug Aikenhead thanked the city planning staff, commissioners and the design team for trying to respond to community concerns. However, “I think it’s a puzzle that might not be fixable.” His neighbors have already addressed concerns about stormwater and traffic. He noted that the stretch of Glendale where this project would be located is pretty narrow, and street parking is inevitable – adding to concerns about congestion and pedestrian safety. Glendale is also very steep where it intersects with Jackson, and it’s already challenging to enter Jackson there. Proposed lane reductions on Jackson will exacerbate the situation, he said.

Aikenhead noted that the proposed condos are much larger and disproportionate to other buildings in the neighborhood, and will quadruple housing density in the two-block stretch of Glendale. Another major concern is that the land is a unique, valuable piece of landscape, filling aesthetic and recreational needs. “It calms my soul when I walk through it, when I drive by it,” he said. If the development proceeds, this priceless natural landscape will disappear forever, he said. “Once it’s gone, there is no bringing it back. Please, don’t allow this to happen.”

Priscilla Parker, who lives on Charlton, argued that the proposed development doesn’t meet goals A and B in the land use element of the city’s master plan. Goal A states: “Ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems.” This project will destroy natural systems, she said – increasing air pollution, reducing green space, increasing stormwater and sewage overflow, destroying landmark trees.

Goal B of the land use element states: “Promote land use designs that reduce reliance on the automobile… Improve the safety, accessibility and desirability of walking, biking or using mass transit.” The Glendale Condos project does the opposite of this, Parker said. Nor will the project help the city achieve its non-motorized transportation plan, she noted. Parker urged commissioners to recommend denial of the Glendale Condos.

David Gold lives on Orchard Street, one block east and downhill from the proposed project. He wanted to reiterate the need for a traffic study. He talked about the character of the neighborhood east of the site – on Orchard, Abbott and Charlton streets. His family moved there because it’s a quiet neighborhood of mostly single-family, owner-occupied homes. There are seven children on his street under the age of 10, and as many dogs. Children can play safely on all three streets, which are narrow and would not easily accommodate more traffic. On Orchard, parking is allowed on only one side of the street, so already there are parking issues, he said. Because Glendale is so steep at Jackson, it’s nearly impassable in the winter, Gold said. That means the residents of Glendale Condos would be driving down Orchard, Abbott or Charlton to get to Virginia and ultimately to Jackson. It will change the character of the neighborhood.

Kathy Boris, who lives on Charlton, stressed problem with stormwater and sewage backup – saying it makes no sense to approve this development that’s upstream from the neighborhood. Many residents have invested considerable money to mitigate the flooding on their properties, she said. Will their efforts be undone? One would suspect so, she added.

One of her neighbors also had raised concern about the West Nile virus, and the need to eliminate standing water that becomes a breeding ground for mosquitoes. It’s a public health issue, she argued. City code states that a development can gain approval only if it doesn’t create a public or private nuisance, she said, and won’t have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. Boris maintained that Glendale Condos will undermine public health and welfare in her neighborhood. She urged commissioners “to first, do no harm.” Don’t make flooding problems worse by approving this project.

Ward 5 city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski.

Lynn Borset spoke as the representative of the Virginia Park neighborhood. She mentioned an email that commissioners had received that included a Power Point presentation about how the project’s grading and rooflines will make stormwater problems even worse. [.pdf of email from Diane Robins highlighting concerns about grading] Borset said she’s lived on Virginia Avenue for 30 years and has served on the advisory committee to help the city develop an urban forestry management plan. She focused her remarks on how the loss of mature trees and green space will impact the neighborhood, reading from the city’s website about the benefits of an urban forest. There are over 60 trees on this site, most of them 10 inches or more in diameter, but over 80% of them would be removed. There are 24 black walnut trees on the site ranging from 9 inches to 28 inches in diameter, and that collectively provide 27,160 gallons of stormwater mitigation, and 8,640 pounds of reduced carbon dioxide levels each year, she said. The underground detention basin on the site might address stormwater issues, she said, but it won’t replace the other benefits that the trees provide.

Borset also cited concerns about the sidewalk configuration on the north side of the site. They’ll have to build a retaining wall that will be seven feet high, she contended, and digging into the slope for that wall will harm nearby trees. She concluded by reading an excerpt from the planning commission bylaws – Article III, Section 3, which states that the commission’s recommendations “shall consider the impact which such development shall have on the physical, social, economic, and environmental condition of the City.” The Glendale Condos project will have a negative impact on all these conditions, she concluded.

Chuck Warpehoski began speaking next but was quickly interrupted by commissioner Diane Giannola, who raised a point of order. She said that according to the commission’s bylaws, city councilmembers can’t speak at planning commission meetings. Giannola cited Section 9 of Article V, which covers ethics and conflicts of interest:

A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

Warpehoski – who lives southwest of the proposed project, on Winewood – is one of two councilmembers representing Ward 5, where the project is located. The other Ward 5 councilmember, Mike Anglin, also attended the July 16 meeting. Anglin does not live in that part of the ward.

Susan Cybulski lives on the section of Charlton that’s west of the project, and reported that her mother is a resident of Hillside Terrace. About 100 of those residents are shut-ins because of their physical condition, she noted. The dining room of Hillside Terrace faces the orchard, and is a beautiful view, she said. If a development is built there, it will impact the quality of life for these residents who can’t easily leave Hillside Terrace. Cybulski asked commissioners to consider that issue.

The final speaker was Scott Bowers, the project’s architect. His associate Susan Bowers was also on hand to answer questions. As the design team, they didn’t take the neighbors concerns lightly, he said. The original plan was four buildings with four units in each building. But after the first citizens participation meeting, they immediately realized it was not something that would be well received. So they ultimately proposed duplexes. It allows the buildings to follow as much of the existing topography as they can, he said. They’ve turned in a new site grading plan, he reported, which now proposes no grading at all on the north slope. Additional soil borings will be done to prove that the site has the capacity to handle all the stormwater for the site.

Regarding pedestrian access to the Hillside Terrace site, Bowers reported that the developers were originally concerned about liability, but now they’re willing to put in a walkway for pedestrians. However, Hillside Terrace doesn’t want a vehicle connection to its property, he said. “I can’t make that work out.”

He noted that there’s room in front of each garage for a vehicle to park, and there is additional parking throughout the site. Bowers also stated that the design team has worked to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, Kirk Westphal – the planning commission’s chair – noted that if the item is postponed, the public hearing would continue at the meeting when the project is reconsidered.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion

The discussion lasted about an hour and covered a range of issues, primarily focused on stormwater, natural features and traffic.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Stormwater

Sabra Briere began by noting that many residents had raised concerns about stormwater, and the site’s ability to manage runoff within the site as well as water flowing onto the site from uphill properties. She asked the project’s architects to explain how the site’s stormwater management system is supposed to function.

Scott Bowers, project architect for the proposed Glendale Condos.

Susan Bowers explained that runoff from all impervious surfaces will be contained within the site’s stormwater management system. The latest proposal, submitted on the Friday prior to the July 16 meeting, is to leave the north side of the property undisturbed, rather than grading it. Toward the center of the site, an underground catch basin will be installed that’s connected to the city’s stormwater system, to control runoff from that undisturbed higher ground as well as the rest of the site.

Scott Bowers noted that runoff on the site, including runoff from downspouts and gutters, will be directed into a drainage field – essentially a grassy area, with the catch basin underneath it. The basin is permeable, with 72-inch diameter pipes that temporarily store the water before it infiltrates deeper into the ground. He indicated that additional soil borings are being taken to verify that the infiltration will work.

Scott Bowers described the stormwater system as oversized for the site.

Briere noted that neighbors will be concerned about whether the water will flow out of the drainage field and onto Glendale, then from there into other nearby streets. “That’s an area that we will all be thinking about,” she said. Scott Bowers replied that the system is designed so that water won’t leach out.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architects had accounted for water that might flow onto the site from other properties. Susan Bowers replied: City code doesn’t require the developer to do that calculation. However, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office is reviewing the site plan as part of a broader picture, she said. Scott Bowers added that the site plan keeps the natural grade as much as possible, and with the site’s stormwater management system, they’re not worried about flooding on the site.

Bonnie Bona asked if there will be less runoff from the site after the project’s stormwater system is installed. “More than likely, yes,” Scott Bowers replied. Some of the site will be regraded so that runoff is redirected into the drainage field. Susan Bowers noted that currently water flows down the existing driveway onto Glendale “like a river” when it rains – and that issue would be eliminated. Bona again stated that it would be safe to say that the runoff should be less after the development than it is today.

A resident from the audience called out: “Were you expecting something different from them?” Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said he hoped the audience could accord some respect to the speakers. He noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Bona clarified with the architects that the developer will pay for the four footing drain disconnects. The developer also paid for a flow analysis that the city used to calculate the number of footing drain disconnects that are needed, Scott Bowers said.

Bona wondered if the disconnects could be targeted specifically for houses downstream of the site. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff confirmed that the disconnects would be downstream. She noted that Troy Baughman in the city’s systems planning unit did the analysis, which is available online. [.pdf of Baughman's report]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the footing drain disconnect program is a sanitary sewer mitigation program, not stormwater mitigation. The purpose is to remove connections so that stormwater won’t flow into the sanitary sewer system.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Westphal noted that one of the residents had spoken about runoff from the roofs, and that the angle might cause runoff to spill outside the proposed catch basin area. Scott Bowers replied that the building’s 6-inch gutters are designed to direct runoff into the site’s stormwater system.

Westphal clarified with staff that the proposed stormwater system is a standard requirement for new developments of this kind. He also pointed out – addressing his remarks to the residents who were attending the meeting – that the commission’s purview is isolated to the site plan, rather than the broader capital improvements or other actions that the city might be taking. He asked whether planning staff could provide resources for residents, if they wanted more information about stormwater or other issues.

Thacher cited Troy Baughman in the city’s systems planning unit, saying that he’s been working with some of the residents in this neighborhood already about stormwater issues. There’s a citywide stormwater modeling and analysis project underway, she said, and Baughman is leading that effort. Rampson added that the systems planning staff has appreciated the flooding survey information that residents of that neighborhood have collected. The information is very helpful as staff try to identify solutions to the flooding issues.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Soil Contamination

Wendy Woods asked about the possible soil contamination. She hoped the planning commission would be given more information about this issue, even though she understood it’s not something the city regulates. She knew that soil borings were being done to determine the type of soil, but she wondered if soil would be analyzed for contamination, too.

Scott Bowers reported that the developer had done an environmental analysis several years ago before buying the property, and another one was conducted about two years ago when the developer refinanced. The studies found that the site isn’t contaminated, he said, and he indicated that those reports could be made available to the city.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Natural Features

In response to a query from Westphal, Jill Thacher said that the project’s alternatives analysis hadn’t provided the information required by city code. It needed to be tweaked in order to make it a viable alternative, she said, rather than just a different building configuration. The project’s design team needed to do more to preserve the natural features on the site.

From the staff report:

The alternatives analysis provided as justification for selection of the current layout is insufficient. Consider building orientation, grading options that will achieve the storm water management requirements and also protect the landmark trees that are located outside of the building footprint. If the alternative is not feasible, provide a detailed explanation on why it is not.

Westphal asked about concerns related to a retaining wall next to the Glendale sidewalk, and whether the wall might damage nearby trees. Scott Bowers indicated that it wouldn’t be necessary to dig into the ground to build the wall, so the roots wouldn’t be affected.

Bona asked for clarification about the city’s requirements that protect trees on adjacent properties. Rampson explained that the city’s natural features requirements state that the site plan must show vegetation within 50 feet of the property line. In this case, the critical root zone of landmark trees would need to be shown. Mitigation is not required, she said, but the city requests developers to follow the same mitigation requirements for off-site trees as for trees that are on the site.

Susan Bowers told commissioners that no off-site landmark trees are affected by the current design, which leaves the site’s north side undisturbed.

Paras Parekh echoed comments in public commentary, hoping the project can preserve more of the orchard while meeting the needs of the development. He wanted an alternatives analysis to address those issues.

Scott Bowers replied that although this was the first presentation to the planning commission, he estimated that the design team had gone through at least 10 different site plans. The current version is the least harmful to the site, he said. They’ve been working on it for over a year, and the only way to preserve more land is to have bigger buildings – perhaps four-unit structures instead of the duplexes. “We love the trees,” he said, and the design team has worked to save as many as possible. Susan Bowers added that the trees in the middle are large, but not in great condition.

Briere noted that some people are concerned in general that development on open space is a problem for neighborhoods. If residents were given a choice, some would require the city to make that kind of space into parkland. This is another situation where there’s open space that the neighbors see as a community value, she said, but “it’s in private hands, and we don’t have a plan for park acquisition in this location.”

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Pedestrian Access, Sidewalks, Drives

Briere was concerned that there are no interior sidewalks, and that there’s only one walkway that gives pedestrians access to the site. Ease of walking or biking – both within a development and through it – are important, she said. The design is so oriented toward vehicles that it would be hostile to anyone trying to walk out to Glendale, unless they used the one pathway. Why aren’t there any interior sidewalks? she wondered.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Scott Bowers indicated that there are now two proposed pathways through the site, because this concern had been raised by neighbors. A sidewalk will go from the main entrance at Glendale through to the Hillside Terrace site on the south side of the site. Another sidewalk will be on the site’s north side.

Paras Parekh pressed Bowers about the lack of interior sidewalks. More sidewalks would help create a better sense of community, he said. Bowers explained that the developer didn’t think the sidewalks would be well used, and the design is intended to minimize the amount of impervious surface.

Bona said she appreciated not wanting to add to impervious surfaces, “but I think sometimes we forget that we should be eliminating roads instead of eliminating sidewalks.” She indicated she’d like to see the alternatives analysis for the site. Bona wondered if the architects had considered designing two driveways onto Glendale instead of one, and eliminating the long connector drive that runs throughout the site. The priority should be on pedestrians, she said. This development has probably 2-3 times more driveway pavement per house than anyone in the neighborhood, Bona said. “That’s not very pedestrian friendly.”

Scott Bowers replied that earlier designs did have two entrances, but the topography made it difficult to do. Another design had been for parking underneath an apartment building, which resulted in a bigger building but less driveway. Bowers also said the developer approached Hillside Terrace about making a driveway connection, but “we got a big no,” he said.

Bona noted that the current design is perfectly symmetrical in terms of the building layout, and she wasn’t convinced that it was necessary to take that approach. A less symmetrical design might eliminate some of the driveway so that sidewalks could be added. She thought the sidewalks should be “very intentional, and look very inviting – like the neighbors are supposed to use them.”

Bona also asked whether the developer would be willing to include a statement in the site plan or development agreement, indicating that if Hillside Terrace changed its mind and agreed to a connection, then Glendale Condominiums would be willing to make that connection too. Bowers indicated a willingness to do that.

Briere wondered why permeable pavement wasn’t considered for the drives. Scott Bowers cited maintenance and cost issues. They did not look into the possibility of permeable sidewalks, he said. Briere responded, saying that creating connections for this “mini-neighborhood” – both within the site and with the surrounding neighborhoods – should be one of the design team’s primary goals.

Bowers said he had a problem with putting sidewalks “all over the place” on both sides of the drive, but he didn’t have a problem with sidewalks crossing the site.

In response to a question from Bona about the location of the driveway entrance, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that generally the city tries to align driveways so that they’ll be located across from each other. But in the case of aligning with a public street, she wasn’t sure what’s preferable from a traffic engineering perspective. Scott Bowers said the design team had looked at aligning the driveway with Charlton, but it hadn’t worked out. The entrance is toward the south end of the site, but not directly across from Charlton.

The owner of the house directly across the street from the proposed entrance had attended one of the citizen participation meetings, and had expressed concern about lights shining into her home, as well as concerns about cars coming out of the driveway quickly while her children are playing in the area. Bona hoped that landscaping or some other option could be explored to help address this issue.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Misc. Site Design

Woods asked about how the duplexes are situated within the site. Scott Bowers described them as being “stepped” throughout the side, following the topography. That’s one reason why the plan is for duplexes, rather than one apartment building, he said. A larger, single building would require a bigger “tabletop,” which would mean significant regrading. Woods was interested in seeing an image of how the buildings would look within the overall site.

Briere observed that the drawings in the commission’s meeting packet show single buildings. She recommended providing a view from the street looking toward the development, and including the surrounding buildings. Often, commissioners see site plans with no context, Briere said. It would be helpful to have a good rendering of what the architects think the development will look like.

Westphal noted that the project is proposing about half the number of units and half the height that’s allowable under city zoning. Susan Bowers explained that one of the project’s alternatives analysis plans had been for a building with two stories above ground and parking underneath – more of an apartment-style project, with 32 units rather than the 16 that are now being proposed.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Glendale Condominiums proposal.

Glendale Condos: Final Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, two residents gave additional public commentary. Robert Beane thanked the city staff for being responsive. The whole experience working with the city has been wonderful, he said. Citing the comment by architect Scott Bowers that stormwater runoff from the site would be less than it is now, Beane called that statement “pure speculation.” Sidewalks are another major concern. Beane’s family regularly walks to Westgate Shopping Center and the Kroger on South Maple. There’s no sidewalk connecting South Maple to the Kroger building, he noted, so they have to walk through the large Kroger parking lot. That’s the exact same feel that the Glendale Condo site will have, he said. It’s not something he should have to feel in his own neighborhood.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Beane also criticized the location of the proposed driveway into the condos, noting that because of the difference in grade, car headlights would be shining directly into the windows of the house across the street, which he called irresponsible. And citing comments that the trees on the property are unhealthy, “that’s mainly due to negligence of the current owner,” he said. When branches fall off, it’s the neighbors who go in and haul off the brush. “That’s how we are connected to this orchard.”

Gretchen Hahn spoke again, reiterating her concerns about traffic. It seemed that commissioners were responding to concerns about stormwater issues, but she wasn’t hearing the same resonance about traffic.

It’s a quiet neighborhood with lots of kids and dogs, Hahn said. Because she’s a teacher, she has the summers off, so she sits on her porch in the morning. She watches people drive through the neighborhood and “barely tap their brakes” at the stop sign at Virginia and Charlton. There was no MDOT neighborhood traffic impact study for the Jackson Avenue project, and approaching Jackson from Glendale will become more of an issue when the lanes on Jackson are narrowed. Traffic will come down Charlton or Abbott to Virginia, then up to Jackson, she said. Several children play near the corner where she lives. She didn’t want the traffic issue to have a tragic end, so she urged the city to require a traffic study.

Hahn also asked for clarification about the stormwater flow, which she said would leach back into the system “at the point at which we’re already overwhelmed with water.” She’d like to know how long it takes to empty the catch basin after it’s filled. She wondered if the sump pump in her home would end up pumping continuously.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson also reported that the staff had received a phone call late in the day from Jan Curry on Fair Street, who expressed concern about traffic on the gravel portion of that street. Fair Street runs between Glendale and Virginia, south of Charlton.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

A revised PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway were on the July 16 agenda.

The Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower. Owners of the property, which includes a Shell station, hope to add a drive-thru.

Proposed changes to the supplemental regulations for this 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing Shell convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. The property is located in Ward 4.

A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant.

If approved by the council, the drive-thru lane would be screened by a 30-inch high hedgerow, berm and landscaping, according to a staff memo. The plan also calls for installing a brick-paved pedestrian path from the Ann Arbor-Saline Road public sidewalk to the north entrance of the building. A paved patio area would be located in the center of the drive-thru loop for outside dining.

As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area at the site’s southwest corner – near the intersection of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road – with two park benches and shrubbery. Up to 15 jobs might be added as a result of the drive-thru, which was also cited as a public benefit. PUD projects require some kind of public benefit, in exchange for this type of customized zoning.

The plan also entails building a new sidewalk “stub” from the south of the building, which could possibly be used in the future to connect to the Cranbrook Village Shopping Center located to the east of the site. However, planning staff noted that a sidewalk between those two parcels might not be viable, given the steep slope between the two properties. Nor have the owners of the shopping center given permission for such a connection.

No one spoke at a public hearing on this project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh said he liked the concept of the paved brick space and benches as a public benefit, but it’s quite a busy corner with a high volume of traffic. Having a pleasant conversation there might be challenging. He wondered if other locations had been considered. Chris Cheng explained that there’s really no other viable option. There’s a stormwater detention area in the southeast corner, and the drive-thru would be located on the north side of the site.

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., with an image of the proposed Tim Hortons drive-thru.

Sabra Briere described the location as “not particularly a place one would normally walk.” It’s adjacent to a giant parking lot, she observed, so she was struggling to imagine this as a true public amenity. Putting something in place that nobody uses isn’t a public amenity. Are there alternative amenities that might actually benefit the public? she asked.

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., the project engineer, responded. At a citizens participation meeting for the project, he said, people indicated that there was a lot of foot and bike traffic up and down both Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, especially on game days in the fall – a reference to University of Michigan football games. The seating area would create a “welcoming atmosphere as a gateway site,” he said.

Jeremy Peters wondered if the owner had considered putting the park bench area in the northern corner of the site, saying that he knew the berm would make that difficult. He indicated it might be a better location, closer to the Whole Foods that’s located in the Cranbrook Shopping Center. It might be a space where people could eat food from both Tim Hortons or the Whole Foods hot bar. Cousino pointed out that picnic tables and chairs are located in the area adjacent to the drive-thru. There’s a significant grade on the north side, which actually offers a great buffer between the drive-thru and Ann Arbor-Saline Road. And a pedestrian connection between the property and Cranbrook “would be beyond our capabilities,” he said, because of the steep slope.

Wendy Woods reported that she goes to that area often, because her granddaughters live nearby. There actually is bike and pedestrian traffic at that corner, so she thought the paved area and benches would, in fact, provide a public amenity. She appreciated the fact that this is a gateway into the city that’s more pleasant than some other areas.

Bonnie Bona said it’s nice to hear that there’s bike and pedestrian traffic in this “heavily vehicular-trafficked area.” She suggested putting in a landscaping buffer between the seating area and the street, “so you didn’t feel you were sitting on the edge of the road.”

Planning manager Wendy Rampson expressed some concern about doing design during the meeting. Also, “if you are inviting people to stay in a space, you do not want to make it so that it’s obscured in any way.” Bona clarified that she was just looking for something to soften the space from the road. Cousino noted that the proposed seating area is about 10 feet away from any pavement.

Kirk Westphal asked that the city’s parks staff review the proposal for this seating area.

In response to another query from Bona, Cousino described where the pedestrian walkway would be located, coming from the public sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road and into the picnic table area by Tim Hortons. The path would cross the drive-thru lane, but he indicated that they don’t expect much foot traffic coming into the site. He also identified the location of two existing bike parking spaces. Bona suggested adding more spaces for bikes, even if it wasn’t required.

The entrance off Eisenhower to a Shell station/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower. This view is looking northwest toward an area where public benches are proposed.

Peters expressed concern about the possibility of drive-thru traffic backing up onto Ann Arbor-Saline Road. He noted that according to the staff report, there are possibly 15 jobs being added because of the drive-thru, and an anticipated 60 customer trips during the peak morning hours – including 30 for the drive-thru. He was worried that there might be back-up, especially since the location is near I-94, with people coming into Ann Arbor for work. Is there a way to mitigate that?

Cousino noted that the drive-thru lane provides for stacking of up to 10 cars, which he described as generous. If people see that the drive-thru lane is full, they’re more likely to park and come into the shop, he said. Mark Kellenberger, a representative of Tim Hortons, told commissioners that traffic studies have been done in past years at other sites, and the largest stacking capacity was 10 vehicles. Most of the drive-thrus accommodated seven vehicles. Their experience and research doesn’t indicate it will be a problem, Kellenberger said. The last thing they want to do is inconvenience customers by having cars stick out into the road, he said.

Westphal recalled that in the past, there had been some compliance issues on this site regarding signs and displays, and he wondered if those issues had been resolved. Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff said he’d had discussions with the owner, Abe Ajrouch, about possibly screening the ice and vending machines that are outside the building. The planning staff has also held “numerous” discussions with the owner about banners and pennants on the site that aren’t in compliance with city code. Westphal suggested that the site should be brought into compliance before the project is reviewed by the city council.

Woods wondered whether the site might be a possible location for public art, given that it’s a gateway location. Cheng said there hadn’t been any discussions about it. Briere added that it isn’t a city capital improvement project, so the city wouldn’t consider funding public art there. However, it would be possible for someone to donate art or pay for artwork through crowdsourcing, she said. If the owner chooses to put public art there, “we would be happy to applaud,” she said.

Outcome: The project received a unanimous recommendation of approval from planning commissioners. It will next be considered by the city council.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills

A site plan to add 31 parking spaces at the Glacier Hills retirement community was on the July 16 agenda.

The spots would be added on the west side of an existing driveway in the north part of the property, which is located at 1200 Earhart Road. There are currently 486 parking spaces throughout the 31.5-acre site. The property is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling) and includes 227 apartments and two-family residences, 155 nursing rooms, and 197 nursing care beds. The site, near US-23, is adjacent to Greenhills School and a residential neighborhood.

Aerial view of Glacier Hills. Earhart Village residents are located on the southwest border of the site, with the Greenhills School property on the southeast border.

A skilled nursing care facility, approved by the city in 2010, is under construction near the proposed parking addition. A temporary gravel parking lot in that area will be removed, with landscaping added.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the most recent site plan was a “planned project” designation in 2000 to add The Meadows senior housing. That planned project included the requirement that the overall site maintain a minimum of 67.5% open space. According to calculations by Glacier Hills, the site currently has 68% open space. DiLeo told commissioners that the planning staff had asked Glacier Hills to verify that percentage, and that the staff’s concerns had been satisfied. Because the development is very close to the 67.5% threshold, she said, the staff emphasized that future building additions or parking expansions will be severely limited, and might only be possible on top of existing structures or parking areas.

The staff also has encouraged Glacier Hills to explore alternative transportation like van pools, park-and-ride and public transit options. The 31 additional parking spaces appear to be needed, DiLeo said, adding: “They have a voracious appetite for parking.”

DiLeo noted that an administrative amendment is under review by planning staff for an addition to the rear of Villa F, located in the southeast part of the site.

The addition of the 31 parking spaces is not an item that requires city council approval.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Public Commentary

One speaker – Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village homeowners association – addressed the commission three times on this topic, at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He alerted commissioners to the practice of administrative amendments handled by the city’s planning staff, including amendments that relate to Glacier Hills and that affect the adjacent Earhart Village neighborhood. One of those is a planned 2,300-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing building that’s within three feet of an existing conservation easement, he said.

Sabra Briere, a city councilmember who serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission, talks with Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village homeowners association.

He expressed frustration that previous agreements between the city, Glacier Hills and Earhart Village were being ignored. Glacier Hills can say anything in order to get its plans approved by the planning commission and city council, then come back later and make changes through administrative amendments, he contended. These amendments can be made without informing neighbors, without citizen participation, and without planning commission review, he said. Sorge hoped this “sleight of hand” does not escape the commission’s attention, and that commissioners will review in general how administrative amendments are used. If these amendments prevent the city from keeping faith with its agreements made with citizens, “something is seriously wrong with the rules,” he said.

At the project’s public hearing, Sorge told commissioners that Glacier Hills has a history of noncompliance and numerous administrative amendments. When the large project on the site’s north side was proposed, neighbors were told that no additional construction was possible, he said. But now there’s an administrative amendment being considered for a villa addition, which the Earhart Village homeowners association opposes, Sorge said – saying that it violates conditions of the site plan approved in 2000. He disputed the calculations related to the percentage of required open space.

Sorge also contended that the parking expansion primarily serves the commercial enterprises at Glacier Hills, including outpatient services and an open-to-the-public cafe. He wondered what impact this development would have on the nearby residential community, and on the already difficult intersection of Earhart and Glacier Way, especially when Greenhills School is in session. Given the demographics of the residents at Glacier Hills, the new parking likely isn’t needed for them, he said. It might be for employees who don’t want to take the six-minute AATA bus from the park-and-ride to Glacier Hills, or it might be for increased customer traffic, he said. Sorge urged commissioners to reject this proposal until they had a complete view of the entire enterprise. The parcel is overdeveloped, he said, with inappropriate commercial uses in a residential zone, and it negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood, Sorge said.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola began by asking if Glacier Hills is zoned for commercial uses. Alexis DiLeo replied that the site is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling), which allows for nursing homes, assisted living facilities and hospital-type uses. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that the term used in the zoning code is “convalescent care,” which can include anything from physical therapy facilities to nursing care. This is the first time the staff has heard that Glacier Hills is anything more than a convalescent or nursing home, she said. DiLeo noted that it could include in-patient or out-patient services.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting was the only representative at the meeting for Glacier Hills. When called to the podium, he said he didn’t know anything about the operation in terms of commercial or non-commercial activities. There’s a large restaurant for residents that the public can use when visiting, he said, but he wasn’t aware that it was advertised for the public.

Sabra Briere read a list of amenities and services that are posted the Glacier Hills website, including a cafe, gift shop, beauty salon, library, chapel, wellness center. She noted that those are listed as amenities for the residents. She assumed that if she visited someone at Glacier Hills, they could take her to eat at the cafe, or she could buy a gift for that person at the gift shop. One of her friends is planning to move there, Briere said, so she’s more aware about what’s offered. The amenities are advertised to lure potential residents, she added. “That doesn’t mean the public can’t use them.”

Kirk Westphal asked for more details on the pending administrative amendment. DiLeo explained that it’s an addition to an existing duplex on the southeast part of the site. It’s a two-story addition, but only one story is above grade, she said. The other story is a walk-out basement. The threshold for an administrative amendment is 10% or 10,000 square feet of a building, whichever is less – so this addition qualifies, she said.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting attended the July 16 planning commission meeting on behalf of Glacier Hills.

Briere asked Ophoff to explain the need for the parking spaces, as well as to talk about the villa addition. Ophoff noted that 31 parking spaces had been previously approved as part of the most recent major site plan, but they hadn’t been put in.

The conservation easement along the south side of the site is 100 feet wide, widening on the end toward Earhart Road. Ophoff explained that the villa where the addition is being proposed, near that easement, is actually adjacent to the Greenhills property, not Earhart Village.

Wendy Woods asked if a public meeting was required with residents of Earhart Village, or whether any communications were received from Greenhills School. Ophoff replied that postcards were mailed to residents or property owners within 500 feet of the parking project. No communications were received in response to that, he said, but he had talked with Rod Sorge of Earhart Village. There were no concerns raised by officials at Greenhills.

Westphal wondered if Glacier Hills was aware of alternative transportation options for its workers. DiLeo assumed they were, because the issue had been brought up during the previous site plan approval process. She said she couldn’t speak to the “depth of their knowledge,” however.

Briere noted that Glacier Hills is located in an important creekshed, describing it as “short but intense.” There are problems keeping it healthy. [The site is in the Fleming Creek watershed.] She was curious what’s being done for stormwater management. Would permeable pavement be used, or are there other infiltration plans?

Ophoff described it as an extremely small project in the overall context of the site, and he reviewed the existing stormwater management strategies. Permeable pavement won’t be used.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the parking expansion at Glacier Hills. No city council approval is required.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Final Public Commentary

Rod Sorge also addressed the commission during the final public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. He said he appreciated that the commission listened to all the public commentary about the Glendale Condo project. “As you know, in administrative amendments, that’s prohibited.” He urged commissioners to review how administrative amendments threaten the Earhart Village residents, as well as the process of administrative amendments overall. He doesn’t understand how it can be allowed, and he trusted that planning commissioners feel a responsibility to the public about how the city’s planning process is conducted.

Planning Commission Bylaws

At the commission’s July 2, 2013 meeting, planning staff had presented proposed revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws, which are reviewed annually. The revisions were on the July 16 agenda for approval. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws, with revisions highlighted in red]

Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson.

One minor change related to the order of business in the commission’s agenda. It’s being recommended to reflect the agenda template in a software program used by the city.

Another change would amend Article VII: Meetings, Section 16 – an item regarding the provision of special accommodations for the public, such as a sign language interpreter. The proposed amendment would change the advance notice required for special accommodations from 24 hours to 48 hours. This change is consistent with recent changes adopted by the city clerk’s office, according to planning manager Wendy Rampson.

On July 2, Bonnie Bona had questioned the change regarding special accommodations. The additional time seemed to add a burden on the public, she said, and she had asked for more information about why this change was necessary.

On July 16, Rampson said she’d checked with the clerk’s office and had been told that there are very few sign language interpreters who are readily available on short notice. The clerk’s office has experienced some difficulty in securing interpreters for city council meetings within 24 hours. That’s why the clerk’s office had changed its standards, and why the planning staff was recommending the same change.

Jeremy Peters wondered what would happen if the bylaws keep the current 24-hour standard: Are there legal ramifications if an interpreter can’t be secured during that time? Potentially, Rampson replied. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city is required to make reasonable accommodations. If the city indicates that it can meet those accommodations within 24 hours but it isn’t actually able to do that, someone could file a complaint, she said. That complaint would go through an internal review, but ultimately could go to the U.S. Dept. of Justice if it can’t be resolved at the city level. “I think that’s pretty unlikely, but that would be the process that someone would go through,” she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the revisions to its bylaws.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: A2D2, D1 Review

Kirk Westphal reported that the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) met earlier that evening with Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the Ann Arbor consultant that’s been hired to handle the city council-mandated review of downtown zoning. He said public input would be solicited for the review, though outreach was still being planned.

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates at a July 16 meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee.

The planning commission had been intending to review the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning sometime this year. But in response to a controversial 413 E. Huron apartment project, on a site zoned D1, on April 1, 2013 the city council directed the planning commission to address three specific questions: (1) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; (2) whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and (3) whether a parcel on the south side of Ann Street adjacent to city hall should be rezoned “to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood.” That parcel, currently a surface parking lot, is now zoned D1.

The council set a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council.

The July 16 ORC meeting was attended by commissioners Westphal, Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Sabra Briere, as well as planning manager Wendy Rampson. Perdu got feedback on concerns or issues that commissioners wanted to address in the review, as well as suggestions for key stakeholders that should be included in outreach efforts. Those stakeholders include property owners in the D1 districts, neighbors, developers, merchant and neighborhood associations, the downtown citizens advisory council, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Other categories of people mentioned by commissioners were empty-nesters, downtown business owners like Menlo Innovations and Barracuda Networks, and students who live in new downtown apartment buildings.

According to a draft work program distributed at the ORC meeting, Perdu and her associate Megan Masson-Minock plan to hold one-on-one interviews with stakeholders as well as small focus group meetings with constituent groups during the weeks of July 15-29. They will also hold coffee hours and post information for feedback on A2 Open City Hall.

On July 22, the city issued a press release with more details about public input sessions on the A2D2 review:

• Two focus groups are scheduled: (1) Monday, July 29, 8-9:30 a.m. at Kerrytown Concert House, 415 N. Fourth Ave.; and (2) Tuesday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in city hall, 301 E. Huron St.
• Coffee hours with consultants are set for three Thursday mornings – July 25, Aug. 1 and Aug. 8 from 8-10 a.m. – at the new building in the Zingerman’s Deli complex, 422 Detroit St.
• A public workshop will be held on Monday, Aug. 5 from 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in the Washtenaw County administration building, 200 N. Main St. The purpose is to review and prioritize issues identified in the focus groups.

Updates will be posted at the A2D2 website. Citizens can sign up for email updates by clicking on the red envelope “subscribe” icon on the city’s home page and selecting the “A2D2 Updates” option.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager’s Report

Wendy Rampson reported that the city council reconstituted the R4C advisory committee at its July 1, 2013 meeting, with a “slightly different” membership. The committee will conduct a short-term review of the planning commission’s recommendations regarding R4C zoning changes. They will also have “the opportunity to complete any discussions that may have been incomplete when that group disbanded,” Rampson said. The committee will be chaired by Julie Weatherbee, and will hold about four meetings.

Members of the R4C advisory committee appointed on July 1 are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), representing the planning commission; Chuck Carver representing rental property owners; Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5).

The original committee included Tony Derezinski as the representative for city council, and Jean Carlberg as the planning commission representative. Derezinski is no longer on city council, nor is Carlberg now on the planning commission. The only other membership change is for a Ward 1 member – Ray Detter replaced David Merchant on the committee.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible that there might be additional membership changes, but any changes to the committee would require city council approval.

The advisory committee had been briefly discussed at the planning commission’s July 9 working session, when Diane Giannola questioned why the exact same membership hadn’t been reappointed. She wondered if people with opinions that differed from the majority of the committee hadn’t been asked to return. Giannola also offered to serve on the committee as another representative from the planning commission, but there was no discussion of that at the commission’s regular meeting on July 16.

At the working session, Rampson also had reported that the planning staff will offer only as much staff involvement as the committee members want. She had indicated that when the committee had done its original work, some members felt that “staff cut the conversation off unduly, so we don’t want to reinforce that by being on the committee if we’re not needed,” she said. So planning staff will attend the meetings only if asked. However, they will handle the logistics of posting information about the meetings, which are open to the public.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters (arrived around 9:15 p.m.), Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Flags flying over Pittsfield Township Hall on June 27, 2013. Political winds were also blowing (indoors, and not quite as hard) at a meeting also attended by representatives of Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, Saline and Ypsilanti Township – on “urban core” transportation.

Easiest to quantify are rule changes affecting speaking time limits. For the public, the time per speaking turn will drop across the board – from three minutes to two minutes. For each councilmember, the total speaking time per item of debate will drop from eight minutes to five minutes.

Whether those quantitative changes will have a qualitative impact on the city council’s meetings is an open question. More likely to have a positive qualitative effect, I think, is a rules change that adds an opportunity for public commentary at the council’s work sessions.

The exchange of viewpoints among councilmembers during those work sessions is currently tentative and spare, often in the guise of merely asking a question. That’s because Michigan’s Open Meetings Act does not allow a gathering of councilmembers to include deliberations, unless an opportunity is provided for the public to address the council. By giving the public an opportunity to comment during those sessions, councilmembers will be free to engage in unfettered exchanges of viewpoint. And that will be a benefit to the public and to the city staff.

However, in this column I’d like to focus on a different proposed amendment to the rules – one that could potentially improve local governance, not just change what happens at city council meetings.

Among the rules changes is one that would move the mayor’s communications from a slot on the meeting agenda after all regular business to one that precedes all regular business. That’s important because the mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions. That agenda slot also includes the council’s vote to confirm those appointments – typically at the following council meeting. This rule change will ensure that interested residents will not need to stay up until midnight or 3 a.m. – or whenever the council finishes its voting business – to find out who the mayor has nominated.

And that bit of extra spotlight on the nominations could lead to an interest on the part of the mayor – whoever might hold that position – in offering a better explanation of each nomination. It’s reasonable, I think, to get a better explanation than the kind we typically hear – generally a brief comment at the end of a meeting, when everyone is barely awake.

For example: What is it about the nominee’s philosophical orientation to the board’s subject matter that makes this person a good fit for the position? How was it that this person came to be chosen? Who is this person? To the extent that residents are given a clearer idea of how and why nominations are made to boards and commissions, that might increase the inclination of other qualified residents to offer their service.

In the near future, nominations to two significant boards will be made by mayor John Hieftje. One nomination is needed due to the expansion of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s board – from seven to nine members. Of the two additional seats, the city of Ypsilanti will make one appointment. For that seat, Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber will be nominating Gillian Ream at the Ypsilanti council’s July 2 meeting. Hieftje will be making the nomination for the other new AAATA seat. He will also need to make nominations to replace two departing members from the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – Leah Gunn and Newcombe Clark.

The public policy areas of the two boards overlap – not just because transportation is related to land use and development. The overlap also stems from the fact that the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, and the availability of parking is integral to the area’s transportation system.

So in this column, I’d like to sketch out some current policy issues to be faced by new appointees to the boards of these organizations. For the AAATA board, a pressing question will be: Should we ask voters to approve an additional transportation millage in November 2013? For the DDA board, an ongoing question will be: What’s an appropriate balance among users of the parking system – downtown residents, retail customers, and employees of downtown businesses?

But first, a little history.

Some Recent History on Appointments

The confirmation vote on Eric Mahler’s appointment to the AATA board this spring was 7-4. It was the most dramatic recent signal that the council seems to be taking a keener interest in mayoral appointments. Usually, confirmation votes are unanimous. But in the last three years, other nominees have also been met with dissenting votes. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) opposed Anya Dale’s appointment to the AATA board. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) opposed Eli Cooper’s appointment to the AATA board. And Jane Lumm (Ward 2) opposed Tony Derezinski’s appointment to the planning commission.

Mahler’s nomination to the AATA board was made on April 15, 2013 – at around 3 a.m. In making the nomination, Hieftje’s remarks consisted of clarifying that Mahler would serve out the remainder of his planning commission term through June, but would not seek another term on that body. By way of explanation for Mahler’s nomination, Hieftje said only that he thought Mahler would serve the community on the AATA board as well as he had on the city planning commission.

The lack of any specific rationale offered by Hieftje for Mahler’s nomination opened the door for some dysfunctional deliberations on his confirmation by the council on May 13. I think that’s a fair characterization, because the conversation went off into the weeds – as councilmembers struggled to find the appropriate vocabulary to describe members of the disability community. They needed that vocabulary because councilmembers opposed to Mahler’s appointment cited a preferred alternate candidate – who would, they thought, be in a better position than Mahler to represent the disability community. Though not mentioned by name, the alternate candidate was LuAnne Bullington.

It’s worth pausing a moment to think about the AATA board member that Mahler replaced – David Nacht. At more than one board meeting since I started covering the AATA for The Chronicle, Nacht clearly stated that he felt he had been appointed to the AATA board specifically be a champion for regionalism. And Nacht cited that perspective in pushing for last year’s general countywide transit initiative (now demised), as well as the more specific AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro Airport (thriving after a year).

If Hieftje had nominated Mahler to the AATA board by saying that Mahler would be expected to lift the regional banner that had previously been carried by Nacht, then the council’s confirmation deliberations might have focused on actual transportation policy – instead of identity politics. For example, Mahler could have been discussed as a candidate with a regional perspective – one informed by an appreciation for the impact of transportation on land use and future planning. Bullington could have been discussed as a candidate who’s more focused on the transportation needs of Ann Arbor residents who need to get around within the city.

The difference between those perspectives is a policy difference that is worth taking more time to grind through. I think it’s less important to talk about who’s a minority or is a person with a visual impairment.

AATA: Millage

Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber’s nominee to the expanded board of the local transit authority – now called the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority – will be put forward at the Ypsilanti city council’s July 2 meeting. Gillian Ream was most recently communications coordinator at the Michigan Suburbs Alliance & Regional Energy Office. She has a new position as communications and development coordinator for the Ypsilanti District Library.

Gillian Ream and Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber.

Ream was among those in attendance at a June 27 meeting of “urban core” communities held at Pittsfield Township Hall. It was the third in a series of such meetings this year on the topic of improvement and expansion of transportation services in the immediate area of Ann Arbor. And it was these “urban core” meetings that formed the most recent impetus toward expansion of the AATA board. The meetings have been attended by Ann Arbor city councilmembers, Ypsilanti city councilmembers, as well as representatives from the townships of Pittsfield and Ypsilanti and the city of Saline.

The effort to focus on improved transportation within a narrower geographic footprint near Ann Arbor – instead of the whole of Washtenaw County – came after an attempt to establish a countywide transit authority unraveled in the fall of 2012. And of the communities in the more narrowly focused urban core, Ypsilanti has been the most assertive in pushing for action. On April 23, 2013, the Ypsilanti city council requested membership for the city in the AATA. The final step in that process was completed with a June 20 vote by the AATA board to adopt revisions to its articles of incorporation. Those revisions had earlier been approved by the city councils of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

While the change to the articles will affect the governance of the AAATA, the goal of the governance change is to provide a way to generate additional funding for transportation. The AAATA could, with voter approval, levy a uniform property tax on the entire geographic area of its membership – something the AATA never did. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti now levy their own millages, which are transmitted to the AATA. However, Ypsilanti is currently at its 20-mill state constitutional limit. A millage levied by the AAATA would not count against that 20-mill cap.

Ann Arbor’s perpetual charter millage was approved at a rate of 2.5 mills, but is levied at a rate of just over 2 mills due to the Headlee rollback. Based on information provided to Ann Arbor city councilmembers for their June 3 meeting, the local share of Ypsilanti’s transportation services – the part for which Ypsilanti is responsible – would come to $325,983 for FY 2014. Ypsilanti’s dedicated millage, which is levied at a rate of 0.9789 mills, generated about $308,000 in FY 2012. So there’s some interest in establishing an additional funding source, just to maintain existing levels of service.

However, current discussions indicate that the intent is to increase levels of service – both frequency and the hours of operation – within the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city boundaries. The additional amount of local funding for the planned increases in service would be the equivalent of around 0.6-0.7 mills. One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

An AAATA millage proposal would require voter approval. There’s an outside chance for the AAATA to place a millage on the November 2013 ballot, but that decision would need to be made by late August. [Ballot language must be certified to the county clerk by Aug. 27, 2013.] The practicalities of mounting a successful millage campaign mean that a decision to make a millage request would likely need to come sooner than late August, however.

At the June 27 “urban core” meeting, the question of floating a millage was discussed, along with the challenges a millage campaign might bring.

AATA staff noted that extending hours of service is one of the easiest kinds of service change to implement. But that kind of change, as well as increased frequency of service, is hard to portray to voters, because the lines on the map don’t change. The people who ride the service notice the difference, but the public at large likely won’t. When a new route is introduced in an area where no service was available before, that’s easier to explain to voters: Here’s the additional service that will be provided. And once it’s implemented buses running where they didn’t previously run are more easily noticed.

Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman said he wouldn’t oppose a millage proposal, but wondered what the argument was against asking Ann Arbor voters for a Headlee override on the existing millage. He allowed that it wouldn’t generate as much revenue as a uniform extra 0.7 mills levied in both Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, but the additional 0.5 mills from an Ann Arbor Headlee override would still generate over $2 million.

The fact that Kunselman framed his current position on a possible millage request in terms of “not opposing” as contrasted to “fully supporting” is not the best endorsement a millage proponent could hope for. But Kunselman might come around to a more (but also less) enthusiastic position – as more details of a specific proposal are put forward.

On a possible millage question, staff and board members are currently having “feeler” discussions with some members of the community who have strong interests in transportation. One of those community members was Jack Eaton, who’s competing this year with incumbent Marcia Higgins for the Democratic nomination to city council in Ward 4.

Eaton reported the sentiments he’d conveyed during the “feeler” conversation in a comment written on The Chronicle’s website. Overall, Eaton stressed the importance that AAATA be able to make the case that it was currently providing high value for local tax dollars – something about which he indicated some skepticism.

The AAATA board will decide whether to put a millage proposal on the ballot. That’s not a decision of the Ann Arbor city council. But if Ann Arbor’s nomination to the additional seat on the expanded AAATA board were made in a timely way, it could provide the mayor and city council with a mechanism for conveying their view to the community and the AAATA board about a possible millage question.

If a high-profile nominee with “dollars-and-cents” credentials were willing to endorse the AAATA as providing high transportation value for local taxpayer dollars, then a city council confirmation would provide implicit support for the AAATA board to place a millage on the ballot. And if the AAATA were to float a millage with the support of a new, additional board member who has a reputation for financial acumen, that would increase the likelihood of success.

But if this kind of a nominee says the AAATA first needs to show better financial performance before asking voters for additional funding, then a city council confirmation would provide implicit direction for the AAATA to delay placing a millage on the ballot. And that would provide the AAATA with a reason to delay that’s different from: “We got scared into thinking it wouldn’t pass.”

In any event, it’s clear that a main policy issue the AAATA board will face – whether a millage is floated and if so, whether it passes or fails – will involve fiscal problem solving.

DDA: Parking

The DDA board faces its own need for problem solving and policy making based on hard numbers.

The total inventory of parking spaces in downtown Ann Arbor includes around 7,800 public parking spaces and about 3,200 privately owned spaces. The 7,800 public spaces are managed by the Ann Arbor DDA under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. The DDA contracts with Republic Parking to provide the day-to-day operating oversight. Of the 7,800 public spaces, about 2,000 are on-street metered spaces. The rest are located in surface lots or parking structures.

For those off-street spaces, motorists can pay by the hour, or they can purchase a monthly parking permit. The DDA makes monthly permits available at prices that yield less revenue per space than the DDA would otherwise receive, if all spaces were paid at the standard hourly rate. For example, the standard hourly rate for a parking structure is $1.20 per hour. A standard monthly permit in some structures costs $145 per month. So a downtown worker who used a permit for eight hours daily would break just about even after three weeks, compared to paying hourly. [145/(1.2*8)]

The number of hourly patrons in the system has shown relatively flat performance over the last four years (See Chart 1 below). However, in the most recent month for which data is available (May 2013), the number of hourly patrons was up about 4% compared to May 2012.

Chart 1: Ann Arbor Public Parking System – Hourly Patrons. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

The amount of revenue generated by the system has consistently shown year-over-year increases for the last two years as shown in Chart 2 below. That’s attributable at least in part to the rate increases that have been implemented over that period. But when DDA board member Roger Hewitt reports out the revenue increases each month at DDA board meetings, he typically notes that the amount of the revenue increase exceeds the amount expected based just on the rate increase.

Chart 2: Ann Arbor Public Parking System – Revenue. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

When the number of hourly patrons is flat or shows a decrease compared to the previous year, a common speculation put forward by board members at monthly board or committee meetings is this: The revenue increase should be interpreted as an indication that hourly patrons are staying longer. Fewer hourly patrons, who stay longer, could theoretically generate more revenue. However, the DDA does not on a routine basis make publicly available any hourly usage data that Republic Parking might be extracting for analysis. So it’s an open question whether hourly patrons are, in fact, staying longer.

The theory of longer-staying hourly patrons depends in part on an assumption that revenues from monthly parking permit sales are constant. And it was portrayed as recently as the May 29, 2013 DDA operations committee meeting that monthly parking permit numbers were being kept essentially unchanged. That’s a factor the DDA can regulate, by limiting the number of permits sold in each structure and maintaining wait lists.

But in response to a request from The Chronicle, the DDA just recently produced monthly parking permit data by month and by parking facility, dating back to September 2011. And that dataset shows a steadily increasing upward trend for total monthly permits: 3,122 in September 2011 compared to 3,901 in April 2013 – an increase of 779 permits.

Chart 3 shows that upward trend (red line), plotted against the total system inventory (blue line), which saw a 738-space increase from July to August of 2012 when the new Library Lane underground garage opened:

Chart 3: Ann Arbor Public Parking System – Monthly Permits. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

So the number of additional monthly parking permits that have been sold systemwide since September 2011 exceeds the capacity of the Library Lane garage.

If the data is broken down by facility (as in Chart 4 below), it’s easy to see graphically the strategy that the DDA has deployed in order to free up spaces for hourly patrons in some structures: Offering permit holders in those structures a discount to shift their permits to the new Library Lane structure.

Chart 4: Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Permits by Facility. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

After the initial decrease in monthly permits sold in some structures, the upward trend resumed – across all facilities in the structure. That trend is even clearer when the number of monthly permits is plotted as a percentage of the total spaces in a parking facility, as in Chart 5:

Chart 5: Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Permit Percentage by Facility. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

What Chart 5 also makes clear is that monthly permits are sold in the same way airplane seats are sold – by managing the “oversell” margin. In some structures, more monthly permits are sold than a structure has spaces – because not every permit holder parks every day at the same time. From the dataset it appears that Republic Parking has been increasingly optimizing this margin.

Measured as a percentage of total inventory, the total number of permits has also increased from September 2011 to April 2013, illustrated in Charts 6 and 7.

Chart 6: Ann Arbor Public Parking System Permits: September 2011. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

Chart 7: Ann Arbor Public Parking System Permits: April 2013. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

In balancing the use of the parking system by downtown residents and workers (monthly permit holders) and by retail customers and other visitors (hourly patrons) and determining policies that are fair, equitable and that achieve community goals, I think it’s important to have a firmer handle on the way the parking system currently functions.

So in thinking about new appointments to the DDA board, it would be useful to recruit additional DDA board members who are interested in understanding the parking system through actual hourly usage data. That is, the DDA board would be well-served by new appointees who want to see usage data broken down by hours parked – by monthly permit holders and hourly patrons – instead of being content to look at usage only through the proxies of revenue and the number of hourly patrons.

I think it’s important to recruit board members who are also interested in the patterns of revenue per space by parking facility, as shown in Charts 8 and 9 below. For example, it’s striking how lucrative the Huron/Ashley/First (Brown Block) surface lot is on a per-space basis, compared to other facilities:

Chart 8: Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Revenue per Space – Focus on Structures. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

Chart 9: Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Revenue by Space – Focus on Surface Lots. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

But in terms of the parking system’s overall financial health, the Huron/Ashley/First surface lot is not that crucial – because its total revenue doesn’t stack up to that of many other facilities, as shown in Chart 10 below.

Chart 10: Ann Arbor Public Parking System: Total Revenue by Facility. (Chart by The Chronicle from data provided by the Ann Arbor DDA.)

And you have to add to the mix the fact that the DDA incurs additional costs for that facility – because the Huron/Ashley/First lot is leased from First Martin Corp. That means the DDA’s approach to that lot could be a function of longer-term policy goals as opposed to shorter-term financial needs. So the DDA board would be well-served by new appointees who are interested in taking a different approach to Huron/First/Ashley – one that would increase the likelihood that First Martin would explore a greater and better use for that land than a surface parking lot.

Coda: July 1, 2013 Meeting Appointments

Even if the council adopts the rule changes at Monday’s meeting, the nominations and appointments will – for that meeting – still be slotted onto the agenda after all the other voting business. The new regime won’t be implemented until the council’s July 15 meeting.

And on July 1 there won’t be any nominations put forward by Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje for the new seat on the AAATA board or the open seats that will be left by Leah Gunn and Newcombe Clark on the DDA board. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Hieftje indicated that there was “no rush” on those appointments.

But he did expect to be nominating Michigan Theater executive director Russ Collins for a reappointment to the DDA board. I can think of many good reasons that could be offered to explain that re-appointment. For example: Collins knows the difference between a suburb and a downtown. Or if you’re looking for something more technical: When you hand Collins a page filled with numbers, he only needs a quick glance to spot those that are out of line or possibly just a mistake.

When the other nominations are announced, I hope we’ll hear a rationale that reflects a thoughtful consideration of the policy roles that the new appointees are expected to play on these boards.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided onsite. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

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