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

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

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church Street Parking Permits

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

The original proposal for 624 Church St., which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. [The architect for the project, Brad Moore, attended the Nov. 6 DDA board meeting, as did the owner, Dennis Tice. Neither of them formally addressed the board nor were they asked to respond to any questions. The new version of the project could be coming before the planning commission in later in November or December.]

The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

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

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

624 Church Street Parking Permits: Board Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract

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

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

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

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

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

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract: Board Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quarterly Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parking Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications, Committee Reports

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

Comm/Comm: Bike Share

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

Comm/Comm: Abandoned Bikes

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

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: NHL Winter Classic

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

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

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

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

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

Hieftje ventured that Canadians are generally more polite than Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: IDA Conference

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

Ann Arbor DDA board members Joan Lowenstein and Bob Guenzel.

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: FOIA

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Transit Update

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

Comm/Comm: Conquer the Cold

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

Comm/Comm: Civic Tech Meetup

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

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

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

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

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti.

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

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

Comm/Comm: Ambassador Program

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

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

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Ashley Terrace On-Street Parking

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

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

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

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

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

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

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

Does More Parking Meters Mean City v. DDA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The resolution was unanimously passed.

Data Access and Communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automated Trash Cans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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