(a) bike?

(b) Beemer?

(c)  the Bentley?

[photo]

DDA board action came at its April 2, 2014 meeting. The resolution of support will be used as part of an application, due April 28, for a U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER 2014 (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant.

The lead agency for the study, which is now in its second phase, is the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. This second phase is an alternatives analysis. 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 first winnowed down options to six different route alignments. At the April 2 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt reported from the technical advisory committee for the study, on which he serves, that those six routes had been further reduced to two possibilities. Additional modeling work is being done on those two alternatives.

Hewitt said at the meeting that the final report on the alternatives analysis would be expected by the end of the summer, adding that the project is over time but under budget.

Hewitt also reported that expectations were low that the federal TIGER grant would be received during this year’s funding round – but said it was important to put the project on the radar of federal agencies.

The first phase of the project – a feasibility study completed in 2011 – concluded that there was sufficient travel demand in the corridor to warrant some kind of high-capacity transit system.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

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!

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The other van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

The new vans will be purchased out of the FY 2014 parks & recreation services general fund budget, following operational savings that have freed up funds for this purchase. According to parks staff, the purchase follows guidelines of the city’s “green fleet policy” to reduce the amount of fuel used and to pay a premium for “greener” vehicles. The purchase will require final approval by the city council.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

The specific action taken by the council was to approve a contract with URS Corporation Inc. (URS) to conduct the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total approved for the Ann Arbor Station contract by the council – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – was $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000.

Councilmembers who might have otherwise objected to spending the money on the planning project indicated that they were persuaded by (1) the fact that there was to be no presupposed preferred alternative location for the station, and (2) that the public engagement process outlined in the project tasks was thorough.

This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved intercity service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line. The improvements – shorter travel times and more reliable service – are based in part on improvements the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is currently making to the tracks, which it purchased from Norfolk Southern in late 2012. An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future.

A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract approved by the city’s Oct. 21 action, the city’s share works out to approximately $165,000 – with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS will do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center.

The Fuller Park land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

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]

Transportation is also a highlight of the council’s work session on Monday, Oct. 14 starting at 7 p.m. The session will feature a briefing on regional transportation issues, including the topic of admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA. Council work sessions are broadcast on Channel 16, which is also streamed online by Community Television Network (CTN).

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board voted to approve new articles of incorporation, which include Ypsilanti Township as a member. But the AAATA’s approval was contingent on Ann Arbor city council approval. The revised articles of incorporation assign an additional board seat to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township – for a total of 10.

The admission of Ypsilanti Township to the authority would come just shortly after the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member. The AAATA board voted on June 20, 2013 to add the city of Ypsilanti, which followed approval by the Ann Arbor city council. Adding other geographically close jurisdictions – who request membership, and who have historically had purchase of service agreements (POSAs) with the AAATA – is a strategy the AAATA has adopted after an attempt to form a countywide authority in 2012 failed to gain much traction.

Adding membership to the authority is not just meant to change governance, but also to establish a more stable funding mechanism for the entire geographic footprint where the AAATA offers service. It would also establish a possible mechanism for increasing the level of transportation service in those areas beyond current levels – because the AAATA could itself put a millage on the ballot. Passage of such a millage to fund additional services – currently estimated to cost taxpayers about 0.7 mills – would need the approval of a majority of voters in all the member jurisdictions. The 0.7 mill tax would apply in addition to the taxes already levied by the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which are dedicated specifically to support public transportation.

The next meeting of the AAATA board takes place on Thursday, Oct. 17 starting at 6:30 p.m. in the boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The main voting item currently on the AAATA board agenda is approval of a purchase of additional vehicles to support the van ride program. Just before that meeting, from 4-6 p.m., the AAATA will be hosting the first of several public sessions to explain the kind of increased service that could be provided if more funding is approved by voters. A millage request to voters could come as early as May 2014.

AAATA board meetings are not broadcast live on CTN. However, they are available through CTN’s Video on Demand service. The Chronicle may be able to provide a demonstration of live text streaming from the Oct. 17 meeting. If that demonstration is possible, it will be available on a separate Chronicle web page set up for that purpose.

It’s not the AAATA, but rather the city, that is leading the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering increased inter-city service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line. An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future.

The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would only pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget. The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda, the city’s share works out to approximately $165,000 with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

If the URS contract is approved by the city council, the environmental review phase of the rail station project grant is estimated to be completed in about a year, by October 2014. That would set up the project for the preliminary engineering phase, under the existing Federal Rail Authority’s High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant program.

In action taken by the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at its July 3, 2013 meeting, $10,000 was allocated to defray the cost of operating the shuttle service. The Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau is contributing an additional $10,000. The DDA board resolution describes the annual operating cost of the art fair trolley as more than $25,000.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301 where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

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!

DDA board chair Leah Gunn checks her cell phone before the start of the Nov. 7 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

But the DDA board’s agenda was relatively light. It did not include any voting items, and consisted of a series of reports and commentary – some of it in preparation for the board’s upcoming annual retreat on Nov. 16.

Sketching out the retreat for the board, Pollay told them that for the first time in the nearly 17 years she’s served as executive director, there is no “next big project.”

A big project the DDA is just completing is the construction of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. The construction bills for that project were included in last year’s (FY 2012) budget, but not all of them came in by year’s end. So as board member Roger Hewitt reported, the first quarter financial statements for this year include bills that were originally budgeted for last year. When all the construction bills are paid, a budget adjustment will be made, he said. In any case, he characterized the DDA’s financial position as strong.

The board was also briefed on the public parking system, which the DDA manages under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Chronicle coverage of the parking report came earlier in a preview article.

The board got an update on two projects recently proposed for the downtown, which have now undergone review by the city’s design review board, and for which citizen participation meetings have been held: 624 Church Street, next to Pizza House; and 413 E. Huron at Division Street. The next formal step for both of those projects will be submission to the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At the meeting it was reported that the developer of the 413 E. Huron project also has a possible interest in the city-owned properties that are included in the scope of the Connecting William Street (CWS) planning project, which the DDA is overseeing. The board got an update on CWS – the process is expected to result in a recommendation made to the city council before the end of the year.

The board also got an update on the review of an issue that mayor John Hieftje has pushed the DDA to address for the last three years: bicycle riding on downtown sidewalks. For now it looks like the DDA is not likely to move forward on that issue, until the problem is more clearly defined.

DDA Board Retreat

The board has scheduled its annual retreat for Friday, Nov. 16. The location will be Zingerman’s Events on Fourth from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Board Retreat: Executive Director

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, previewed the board retreat. Pollay told the board that the facilitator for the retreat, Kerry Sheldon, would be meeting with board members in advance of the retreat as well as with other stakeholders to arrive at a framework for the discussion. What are the things the DDA could be doing to achieve its mission – which is to make investments in public improvements to strengthen the downtown area and attract new private investments.

This retreat is a chance to take a step back, Pollay said. For the first time in her nearly 17 years at the DDA, there is no “next big project.” So Sheldon is shaping an agenda to allow the board to take a few minutes to think about strategies and then to think tactically about how to implement those strategies. The DDA is really good at some things, she said, so what are those things and how can the DDA do more of them? Another important consideration is to think about what the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor SPARK and other organizations need from the DDA in order for help those organizations be successful.

Board Retreat: Public Comment – Culinary Institute

A suggestion to the board for a topic of discussion at their retreat came during public commentary at the start of the meeting – from Elmer White. He hoped the program he’d be describing could be up and running by September 2013 with a small student body of 6-12 students. The three basics in life are food, clothing and shelter, he said. The economy is turning from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, he stated. In one of the latest issues of the Ann Arbor Observer there’s coverage of the St. Andrew’s breakfast program that provides food to indigent homeless people. Another Observer article mentions a young chef from Ecuador who is now preparing fine food at the restaurant that’s located where the Parthenon used to be, he said. [The new restaurant at the corner of Liberty & Main is called Lena.]

It had occurred to White that we have schools of architecture for shelter, schools of design for clothing, but what about food services? He allowed that there’s a culinary program at Washtenaw Community College, and a culinary program at Schoolcraft, but those programs, as good as they are, prepare people to be able to put food on a lot of plates in a banquet context, he said – cafeteria and buffet-style restaurants. He described such restaurants as restaurants “with a small ‘r’.” He told the board that he frequently eats at Applebee’s, but described the menu there as “How many different ways can we prepare chicken breasts?”

The restaurants “with a capital ‘R’” are in downtown Ann Arbor, White said, and they’ve become a destination for people in surrounding counties. So how do those people get trained, who prepare food in downtown Ann Arbor restaurants? That food is prepared individually to order from a short menu that changes from week to week. He wondered if it were an apprenticeship program, or was accomplished through happenstance.

So White suggested creating something called the Culinary Institute of Ann Arbor, which he said would become the best culinary institute between Montreal and San Francisco. The word “cuisine” does not refer just to French food, White told the board, but rather it’s using food from the region. He saw the possibility of forming a partnership between Food Gatherers, St. Andrew’s and the Delonis Center, and other sponsors of a charitable nonprofit. [Though it does not appear to be exactly what White is suggesting, Food Gatherers currently operates a Community Kitchen job training program at the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in downtown Ann Arbor.] That money would be used to purchase the food to be prepared. It would generate very good publicity nationwide for the Ann Arbor DDA, White concluded.

Development

It’s not unusual at any given monthly meeting for development to occupy at least part of the discussion by the board of the downtown development authority.

Development: Church Street

Ray Detter reported from the previous night’s meeting of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. The meeting was almost entirely devoted to two student housing developments. One is located on East Huron Street at Division and the other is located on Church Street in the South University area.

A 14-story project that was filed for design review is located at 624 Church Street, next to Pizza House. Dennis Tice, owner of Pizza House, is listed as one of the developers, along with 624 Partners LLC and Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota. [.pdf of 624 Church Street proposal]

Detter noted that since the last meeting of the DDA board, both projects have gone before the design review board and have had citizen participation meetings. The Church Street project Detter described as having been treated “very gently,” supporting the DDA’s decision to accept the developer’s request to provide required parking offsite in the city’s public parking system, which is administered by the DDA. The major criticism of the project, Detter reported, was that it looked a lot like the two Zaragon projects.

Development: East Huron Street

By way of background, the 27-page proposal for 413 E. Huron calls for 213 apartments, about 3,000-square-feet of street-level retail space, and 163 on-site underground parking spaces. [.pdf of 413 E. Huron proposal to the design review board] The complex would consist of two main towers and an “inset upper level garden and pool courtyard,” according to the proposal. [.pdf of site rendering]

In the case of the East Huron project, the reaction of the design review board and the public was that the project needs to be redesigned. “Nobody likes this project,” Detter contended. The developer had made some minor changes after the design review board’s meeting and before the citizen participation meeting, Detter said, adding that most people present did not consider that to be nearly enough.

So the next morning, four members of the development team met at Sloan Plaza [an eight-story residential building standing just to the east of the proposed East Huron development] with seven members of the design guidelines citizen review committee – a group that is different from the design review board, and made up of representatives of the eight downtown and near-downtown residential organizations. The group included Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan college of architecture and urban planning. Detter described the meeting, held in a room on the eighth floor overlooking the location of the proposed project, as “very cordial.”

The message conveyed to the developers was in line with that heard at the design review board, Detter reported. Namely, the building’s massing and bulk needs to be reduced to allow sunlight to the north and improve the pedestrian experience on Huron Street. The project was trying to “cram too much” onto the site. It was suggested that the elevator be moved to the southwest corner of the building, with Detter suggesting that maybe the building could be built higher than the height limit constrained by by-right zoning, if the project were proposed as a “planned project” and provided for larger setbacks. The project should show greater respect to the character area where the site is located, he said. Detter noted that the developers had been mistaken about the character area initially – because they said they were supposed to design a building that related to the new Justice Center at Fifth and Huron.

The meeting at Sloan Plaza was followed by two additional meetings, both of which mayor John Hieftje had attended. One of those meetings was with the neighborhood groups and one was with the developer, Detter reported. The goal is to make the project better before it gets presented to the planning commission. Detter allowed that the design review board makes recommendations that have only voluntary – not mandatory – compliance. Detter said that the developer is also looking at the parcels in the Connecting William Street area, with an eye toward possibly developing one of those city-owned parcels. So the goal is to make the East Huron Street project as good as it can possibly be, Detter concluded.

Development: Connecting William Street

An update on the Connecting William Street (CWS) project was provided by DDA board member Joan Lowenstein. She reported that the public outreach phase has been completed. From August through October, a total of 20 events had been held.

DDA board member Joan Lowenstein.

The form of those events included traditional meetings, webinars, and small group presentations. [For Chronicle coverage of one presentation, see: "Planning Group Briefed on William St. Project."] Over 170 people participated, she said. History and context was provided, along with draft scenarios. Feedback on various components of the project as well as general thoughts were collected. The feedback has been summarized and is currently being digested, and will be available on the DDA website soon.

The CWS leadership outreach committee had met in October to start reviewing the feedback and begin thinking about the draft recommendations. The staff and the DDA’s consultant have been working on draft recommendations and will meet on Monday, Nov. 12 at 3 p.m. Lowenstein felt it would be one of the more important meetings, because the committee would see a draft of the presentation that would ultimately be made to the city council.

Development: Beyond Downtown

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ray Detter told the board that the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council had started considering the nature of who they are as a council, given that their interests goes beyond the downtown. He cited as examples the desire to be a part of conversations about rail transit and the future of the North Main corridor.

Financial Status Report

The quarterly financial report for the first three months of FY 2013 was presented by Roger Hewitt. He prefaced it by saying it had been anticipated that the transactions for the entire Library Lane underground parking garage were going to be completed in the previous fiscal year. That had been done to ensure there were no negative fund balances for the previous fiscal year. In fact, not all of the construction costs were billed during the previous fiscal year, so some of those costs are showing up as expenses on this year’s balance sheet.

The current year’s budget was set based on the assumption that the construction invoices would already be paid. So Hewitt described the quarterly report as “not overly helpful at this point.” As soon as all the bills have come in on the construction for the Library Lane garage and the Fifth and Division streetscape projects, a budget revision would be presented that accurately reflects what actual expenditures have been – he hoped that would happen in the next three months. [.pdf of FY 2013 first quarter financial statements]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

After walking the board through highlights of the financial statements, he concluded that overall the DDA’s financial position, measured by fund balances, is much better than had been anticipated two years ago.

The TIF (tax increment finance) fund balance stands at $6.8 million. The housing fund balance is a little over $1 million. The parking fund balance is about $5 million. And the parking maintenance fund stands at about negative $0.5 million, because a transfer of funds to that fund has not yet been made. All those fund balances would decrease once the final payments are made in connection with the Library Lane parking structure, Hewitt said. Still, when all is said and done, the DDA would have healthy fund balances, he said.

Hewitt attributed the better financial picture to a combination of increased usage of the public parking system and rate increases. Hewitt also reviewed the parking report in detail, which The Chronicle previewed in earlier coverage: “Ann Arbor Parking Data: Slower September.”

Transportation

Transportation was a theme common to a number of reports.

Transportation: Bicycles on Sidewalks

Reporting out from the operations committee, John Mouat summarized some discussion that the committee has had recently on the topic of bicycles on sidewalks.

By way of background, the issue has been pushed by mayor John Hieftje as one that the DDA should be addressing. He’s been bringing it up for at least the last three years, including mentions at the Jan. 6, 2010 and Dec. 7, 2011 meetings of the DDA board, and more recently at the Sept. 5, 2012 meeting.

Mouat reported that he and DDA research and planning specialist Amber Miller had talked through the basic parameters of the issue – which is perceived mainly as a safety challenge related to bikes on sidewalks downtown. They’d talked about where the problem areas are: South University, South State Street and Main Street. So it’s not all of downtown that is perceived as problematic. Miller has also pulled together information about existing ordinance information, and maps of bike routes and “sharrows,” as well as information about what other communities are doing.

DDA board member John Mouat.

Mouat told the board that in his mind, there are three elements to consider for this issue: education, enforcement, and design. He noted that Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, had touched based with the Ann Arbor police department on the topic of ordinance enforcement. But Mouat indicated that he thinks it’s a real challenge to define the problem. His understanding is that the police department doesn’t have a record of people calling in complaints or a record of injuries.

There are things that people hear about and feel, Mouat allowed, and there’s a real safety issue that someone could come out of a door and get hit by a bike. But there’s also a perception that’s involved. If you’re walking down the street and there’s a bicycle “bombing toward you,” do you feel endangered? But defining the problem is a real challenge – because asking the police to commit resources to enforcement is important to think about, he said. If a police officer is in a patrol car and sees a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk, is that something that the officer should stop and address?

Mouat reported that he’d talked to Stephen Dolan, executive director of parking and transportation services at the University of Michigan, to see if Dolan thinks bicycle riding on sidewalks is an issue on campus. According to Mouat, Dolan perceives it as a cultural and educational issue. “I don’t know quite where that leaves us,” Mouat said. It would be possible to talk about everything from signage to “this, that and the other thing,” he said. His own view is that very likely, a high percentage of people who are riding a little bit recklessly on the sidewalks are students. How you educate a new group of thousands of people is a challenge. Mouat concluded that he was a little bit at a loss as to how to proceed, until the problem could be better defined.

Transportation: Bicycle Cage

Mouat gave an update on the bicycle cage for the Maynard Street parking structure. By way of background, it’s a 50-bike storage facility that would have the footprint of two automobile parking spaces. [.jpg of footprint]

The authorization of $30,000 from the DDA’s parking fund – for design, fabrication and installation of the bicycle storage facility – was given at the board’s Oct. 3, 2012 meeting. Similar “cages” in other cities use a chain-link fencing material. However, the DDA hopes a more aesthetically pleasing option can be identified.

At the DDA board’s Nov. 7 meeting, Mouat reported that the cage is currently being designed.

Transportation: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt gave an update on the transportation connector study, noting that the Ann Arbor city council has now funded the final piece of the project. The $60,000 remaining for the $300,000 local match required by the $1.2 million grant to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had essentially been split 50-50 between the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA. The DDA board had authorized $30,000 for the study at its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting.

The corridor that’s the subject of continued study runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding approved by the council on Oct. 15 would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops.

The next steps will include public process, Hewitt said. A series of workshops will take place in the first part of December at locations like Briarwood Mall and downtown Ann Arbor. The format might be more of a “drop in” style, which would involve placing some dots on maps. The goal of the outreach is to get as much community input as possible about where people want to go.

Transportation: Blake Transit Center Groundbreaking

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, getDowntown director Nancy Shore alerted the board to the groundbreaking that would be taking place for the new Blake Transit Center downtown – on Nov. 19 at 11 a.m. [The AATA board gave final approval of a roughly $8 million budget for the transit center at its Oct. 18, 2012 meeting. The location will house offices for getDowntown.]

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

Absent: Newcombe Clark.

Next regular board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012, 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 council actually voted twice on the issue at the same meeting. On the first vote, the resolution failed. But a few minutes later, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who had initially voted against it – asked for reconsideration of the vote, and she changed her vote to support it, as did Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Voting against the proposal on the second and final vote, which got more than the eight yes votes it needed to pass, was Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was absent. The key votes in favor were those of Higgins, who had been absent when the funding had been considered and rejected at a Sept. 4, 2012 meeting, and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had voted against it at that Sept. 4 meeting.

The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The funding approved on Oct. 15 would support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops. A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit, or elevated automated guideway transit.

The council’s choice to help fund the project came at least partly as a result of a decision by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – made as its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting – to contribute $30,000 to the study. The DDA’s contribution had been contingent on the city making a $30,000 commitment as well.

The total of $300,000 in local funding sources for the $1.5 million study is now: $150,000 from the University of Michigan; $90,000 from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; $30,000 from the Ann Arbor DDA; and $30,000 from the city of Ann Arbor. The $300,000 satisfies a 20% matching requirement for a $1.2 million federal grant the AATA has received to complete the $1.5 million project.

The AATA had already given approval of a contract with URS Corp. to start the work, contingent on lining up the remaining $60,000 in local matching funds.

The city of Ann Arbor had initially been asked to contribute the entire $60,000. But the council voted on Sept. 4, 2012 to reject that request. Then the council reconsidered that vote two weeks later on Sept. 17, 2012. But on reconsideration of the vote, the council decided to postpone a decision until Oct. 15.

The timeline for completion of the study would be about a year and a half.

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]