8-hour Ann Arbor council meeting ends with no action on DDA changes or high-rise project
After several hours of debate, some bickering and little action, Ann Arbor City Council Member Chuck Warpehoski called it like he saw it at 3 a.m. Tuesday.
"We're not getting anything done," said Warpehoski, D-5th Ward, urging his peers on council to adjourn the meeting that started eight hours earlier at 7 p.m. Monday.
The unanimous decision to postpone the remainder of the council's agenda until May 6 came as council members were making little progress negotiating their way through proposed ordinance changes affecting the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.
The inside of the council chambers as it looked Tuesday morning toward the end of an eight-hour meeting.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Council Members Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, and Kailasapathy left the meeting early because they had to work Tuesday morning. Without them present, the divided council struggled to muster the six votes needed to amend the proposal on the table.
Mayor John Hieftje pushed for stripping out language that would place term limits on DDA board members. He argued term limits are ineffective and lead to inexperience.
The vote was 5-4 in favor of no term limits, with Hieftje getting support from Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall and Warpehoski, but that fell short of the six votes needed.
One change put forward by Briere did pass unanimously. It calls for having the DDA start submitting lists of its proposed capital projects to the city for review during the city's capital improvement plan process — and annual DDA budgets that break down capital costs.
"There's been a lot of question in the community about the DDA acting carelessly with their funds without council approval, and it's my goal to begin to address that," Briere said.
What mostly caused Monday night's meeting to run long was two back-to-back public hearings where dozens of residents and community leaders spoke for hours. One hearing was on the DDA ordinance changes and the other was on a 14-story high-rise proposed for 413 E. Huron St.
The overwhelming majority of those who spoke were against the 413 E. Huron project, which never came up for a vote before the meeting adjourned.
The overwhelming majority of speakers also came out in support of the DDA, urging council to vote against any proposal that would slow the DDA's tax revenue growth.
The fear among many who spoke was that could hinder the DDA's ability to find extra room in its budget to fund affordable housing grants and other programs.
Council members heard from representatives of downtown business associations, the Ann Arbor Art Fair, Zingerman's, Food Gatherers, Arbor Brewing Co., the Ark, the YMCA, the city's Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, Avalon Housing, Dawn Farm, and others representing the area's homeless population, including multiple people from Camp Take Notice.
The latest rendering of the 413 E. Huron high-rise showing recently incorporated changes.
Humphreys & Partners Architects
The changes Kunselman and Kailasapathy are proposing would take roughly $931,000 in TIF revenue away from the DDA in the next fiscal year starting July 1, according to the city's estimates.
That includes $559,000 going back to the city, $196,000 to Washtenaw County, $124,000 to Washtenaw Community College and $52,000 to the Ann Arbor District Library.
City officials said the DDA would lose another $173,000 a year starting in 2014-15 from the elimination of personal property taxes, but that's a separate issue.
Hieftje noted the TIF fund balance is expected to drop to $441,860 in 2015-16 and to $264,816 in 2016-17, according to the DDA's 10-year plan. He and DDA officials cautioned against doing anything that could drop the fund balance so low that the authority can't take on new projects.
Council Member Jane Lumm, an Independent who represents the 2nd Ward, suggested it's not so doom and gloom. Although roughly $931,000 would be redirected back to the other taxing authorities, most of that is new revenue that the DDA hasn't even budgeted.
Lumm, who supports putting new limits on the DDA, said the DDA would retain roughly $3.57 million in annual TIF revenue, which is about $280,000 less from what's projected in the current year.
"So what folks are characterizing as 'draconian', 'the sky is falling,' 'dismantling the DDA' — it's all about a $280,000 year-to-year reduction to the DDA's revenues, which is equivalent to about a 1 percent reduction for this $25 million annual operation," she said.
Kunselman at one point pushed for postponing the DDA ordinance changes to the council's second meeting in June, but he couldn't get support.
Hieftje said he had a better idea and urged Kunselman to go along with putting the issue off until after the August primary election to take politics out of the mix. Kunselman, who didn't appreciate the mayor's suggestion that his proposal is politically motivated, said he wants to get the issue taken care of by June so the TIF calculation method is clarified before July tax bills go out.
A few dozen residents still were in attendance early Tuesday morning after several hours of public commentary.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"You tried that with me once as well," Lumm told the mayor, "and I think you would be better served to simply argue the merits of your position, rather than attempt to personally discredit those who may occasionally disagree with you. I think it's unfortunate that the rhetoric has risen to such an uncivil level with personal insults and accusations."
Kunselman assured the mayor his top priority is bringing clarity to the TIF capture methodology. He said he's looking out for the other taxing authorities and also doesn't want to harm the DDA.
"It's not about playing politics," he told the mayor. "We can make it that way if you want to keep talking that way, but I explicitly asked for collaboration."
Kunselman said he feels like he's been the victim of an "outright character assassination" in the last month. He said he'd prefer to work with the mayor on the issue.
"I'm willing to try to collaborate — that's why I want to have this postponement to reach out to the treasurer and to the mayor, to find if there is something we can do to address the TIF calculation methodology," Kunselman said.
The DDA ordinance changes and the 413 E. Huron project will be back on the agenda when the council meets May 6, which also is when a public hearing will be held on the city budget. The public hearings for both the DDA proposal and 413 E. Huron will continue at the next meeting, but anyone who spoke Monday night or Tuesday morning can't speak again on the same hearing.
Even though the 413 E. Huron project has been scaled back, residents who spoke out said they still feel it's out of character with the historic neighborhood to the north.
The proposed building has been reduced by 8,351 square feet to 263,504 square feet — or a floor area ratio of 659 percent, down from 680 percent.
The number of apartment units has been reduced by eight to 208 and the total number of bedrooms has been reduced by 20 to 513.
Vehicle parking was reduced in an earlier revision by 8 below-grade spaces to 124 spaces. Bicycle parking has been increased by 10 Class-A spaces to 185.
There also have been a number of architectural changes, and the overall color palette of the proposed building has been lightened.
"Also, more wood is proposed at the street level, including wood windows and wood siding and ceiling for the covered southwest entrance," city planners wrote in a memo to council.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
15crown00
Thu, Apr 18, 2013 : 5:08 p.m.
sounds like the Hose and Senate in Washington D.C.. Lot of Talk,No Action
Colorado Sun
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 6:43 a.m.
Kudos to Tom Partridge for making Ann Arbor government his full time volunteer job.
cindy1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:42 p.m.
I disagree with Stanton's characterization of the meeting as having "some bickering." What happened last night is that after many years, someone finally stood up to the mayor.
lou glorie
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:25 p.m.
Regarding Ryan's figures. I read the same reports and thought the money doled out to non-profits was just enough to keep the N-Ps in business. It's cynical for the DDA and its boosters to call the bit-o-money given to N-Ps a sign of its commitment to sheltering the poor. Meanwhile the non-profits limp along without the resources needed for addressing the problems they have adopted as their missions. I would fault successive councils and city administrations as well. I feel strongly that we erred when our city outsourced these programs to N-Ps and the county. Housing the indigent and giving asylum to the mentally ill is a community responsibility. When we foist these responsibilities off on the private sector we like to think we've done our duty. All we've done is spread a bit of salve on our consciences. I'm not saying that housing the poor should be the DDA's job. I'm saying that the city needs to gather back the resources it has dispersed over the decades to other entities so that it can properly do what it should. What went on last night made me weep--I'm not kidding. I have come home from meetings perplexed, sometimes angry. But last night it was shame I felt.
Larry Ryan
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 9:44 p.m.
It was bickering. Pretty minor stuff but I don't fault them. After sitting through 6 hours of public hearings I would have been in the mood for some bickering too...
cindy1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.
The DDA has become suddenly generous to non-profits in 2013, after approximately 2 years of sorely needed public scrutiny.
Nancy Shiffler
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:17 p.m.
Ryan, I am curious about the process by which the DDA grants some of its money to the city. As I understand it, the DDA gets TIF funds from millages voted on by the citizens for designated services (including street repair and utilities?). Then, if it has some surplus available, the DDA negotiates with the city to turn some of that money over to the city's general fund, the result being that dedicated millage dollars get converted to general fund dollars. Is that correct?
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:19 p.m.
Sounds like bucket money laundering to me. Not in an illegal sense, just in an extremely disingenuous sense. Millage money in, general fund dollars out. Redirecting millage money after the fact just like with "percent for art".
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:41 p.m.
The DDA has a parking agreement with the city that calls for transfer of 17% of parking revenues from the DDA to the city's general fund. On top of that, there are times when the DDA agrees to partner with the city using TIF funds to help pay for certain projects, like the half million dollars a year the DDA is contributing toward the new Ann Arbor Municipal Center.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:27 p.m.
Jane Lumm was kind enough to share with me her notes on the financial impacts of these ordinance changes. Here they are: Comparisons to DDA's Current Year (FY13) TIF Revenues: - FY13 DDA TIF is $3.85M - FY14 DDA TIF would be: • $4.50M if not change ordinance - year-to-year INCREASE of $650K • $3.57M if change ordinance - year-to-year DECREASE of $280K • Impact on DDA for FY14 in adopting the ordinance is that rather than their revenues growing by $650K in FY14 vs FY13, their revenues will drop by $280K - a loss to yDDA of $930K - FY15 DDA TIF would be: • $4.61M if not change ordinance - $760K OVER FY13 • $3.68M if change ordinance - $170K UNDER FY13 • Impact on DDA is again $930K (but revenues just $170K below where they are in FY13) - FY16 DDA TIF would be: • $4.70M if not change ordinance -$850K OVER FY13 • $3.77M if change ordinance - $80K UNDER FY13 • Impact on DDA is again about $930K (but revenues just $80K below where they are in FY13)
timjbd
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 1:14 p.m.
Yes, indeed. Would the citizenry prefer that money go to essential services or to attract more big-name, out-of-town developers for further downtown high rise development? Simple question. And as Lou pointed out, the DDA loves to (and is adept at) take credit for things they had nothing to do with. It's plain to see where essential services have been cut. $930K could repair lots of sidewalks and roads; employ a dozen teachers, cops or firemen; clean up a lot of park space; etc..
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.
And some additional resources: www.annarbor.com/041513_TIF_memo_to_council.pdf www.annarbor.com/041513_downtown_projects.pdf www.annarbor.com/041513_DDA_answers_to_council.pdf
Rita Mitchell
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:14 p.m.
Lou is correct. Ryan, would you investigate the dollar amounts provided to both housing and development by the DDA, for the past five years? It may be true that the DDA has give some funds, but data showing the proportional distributions will help to inform the community. Take a look at the grants: http://www.a2dda.org/partnering_with_our_community/apply_for_a_grant/ Compare the grant amounts that support affordable or low income housing with other grants. It's great to thank a grantor, but the outpouring last night was out of proportion to what could be done. Perhaps the DDA would like to change the focus of its efforts to match the support from those who spoke in support of its grants. That would be a real community service.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:48 p.m.
The DDA regularly doles out money from its housing fund (money that gets shifted over from the TIF fund) for projects it deems worthwhile. Here's a story I wrote about Dawn Farm, which is doing good things with some of that money. http://www.annarbor.com/news/the-chapin-street-project-dawn-farm-transitional-housing-program/ Here's a list of other grants from the DDA's housing fund: 1999 - Avalon $136,500, LISC $50,000 2000 - LISC $50,000, Courthouse Square $150,000 2001 - LISC $200,000 Dawn Farm $135,000, AA Chamber of Commerce $5,000 2002 - Courthouse Square $100,000, AA Chamber of Commerce $5,000, Washtenaw Housing Alliance $22,725 2003 - Ashley Mews $75,000, Housing Coordinator $10,000 TIF Repairs & Holiday Lights 2006 - Community Needs Study $15K 2007 - Dawn Farm $45,000 2008 - Avalon $153,950, 426 S. First Street 2008 - Avalon $60,000 819 S. Third Street 2008 - Avalon $35,263 Energy Grant 520 & 522 S. Division 2009 - Avalon $90,000 201 W. William 2010 - Avalon $607K - 66 unit rehab 2010 - Homeless Shelter $20K Beds 2013 - AAHC Baker Commons Roof $246K 2013 - Village Green Affordable Housing $400K 2013 - Dawn Farm $150K 2013 - AAHC Baker Commons $300K If you lump it in with the DDA parking fund that's bringing in more than $17M in revenue every year, a few hundred thousand dollars here and there for affordable housing might seem like small potatoes. But in the context of the TIF, which has ranged between $3M and $4M annually, it's not an entirely insignificant amount of money percentage-wise, and it's one of those areas where, as many have pointed out, these dollars do in fact have the ability to go a long way. If the DDA's TIF decreased by $280K next year, it's entirely possible that could have a real impact on these grants, so it's fair to discuss whether the council and the community are OK with moving in that direction.
lou glorie
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
Last night's stream of DDA supporters, speaking of the miracles and acts of mercy performed by the DDA, created the most offencive spectacle I have ever witnessed in this town. The DDA's gifts of $400K here, $9million there to private interests, were portrayed as acts of courage and compassion. DDA is an engine of financial revitalization and a social welfare agency without peer--a blessed union of Warren Buffet and Mother Theresa. I don't know who's idea it was to tell Camp Take Notice members that the DDA was funding their housing and that without its grace and favor, they'd be out in the rain. Whoever she was, I hope she is suffering from a hangover of shame today. Housing vouchers come not from the DDA, but from HUD, by the way. The DDA may throw a bare chicken bone to a housing non-profit, now and then, but these scraps don't begin to address the problem of homelessness. And they are not intended to. The intent is to keep non-profits hat-in-hand, and the homeless out of their brave new downtown. How about these figures: $9million gift to Village Green for its parking structure and $11million extra into the 5th Ave parking structure for the sake of a future developer. Dear "housing advocates" if the DDA cared for the homeless, it could have used this money to build two downtown buildings to house them. The DDA is in the welfare biz alright, but it's corporate welfare. A few years back there was a telling letter from a downtown merchant to Susan Pollay. He thought it was a bad idea to house the homeless downtown. Then the old Y was disappeared. The DDA will support "affordable" housing outside the DDA boundaries, but not within. Members of the DDA have continually bashed the idea of a central park in Ann Arbor. Why? They don't want to see unwashed, hungry people enjoying the sunshine on a bench. The DDA is about development downtown. It is neither defender nor savior of the poor.
timjbd
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.
"We'll give them bread and circuses, and they'll not notice Rome falling.."
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 3:33 a.m.
@Lou Glorie: The Garage Mahal is all about building "homeless shelters" for cars not people. The 763 spaces (711 underground and 52 above ground) cost $50,000,000 to build or $65,530 per space! It's a parking palace.
cindy1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.
Stanton writes: "The changes Kunselman and Kailasapathy are proposing would take roughly $931,000 in TIF revenue away from the DDA in the next fiscal year starting July 1, according to the city's estimates. That includes $559,000 going back to the city, $196,000 to Washtenaw County, $124,000 to Washtenaw Community College and $52,000 to the Ann Arbor District Library." Phrases like "would take" and "revenue away from the DDA" imply that the funds belong to the DDA. The debate is over the calculations that determine the amount of funds the DDA would capture in future years. Reporting that $941,000 would be taken away from the DDA seems a bit biased and inflammatory. And future DDA funds are not going back to the other governmental entities, based on the proposed calculation method, the entities would keep more of their tax collections.
Veracity
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
You can not have taken away what you do not have already. The ordinance will reduce the TIF that the DDA takes away from the city, county, AATA and AADL but will still allow TIF receipts to the DDA to increase. The DDA will be told not to grab as much money from other government agencies and authorities. The dynamics associated with the ordinance has not been explained clearly to the public who otherwise would not worry as much about the DDA possibly losing money.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:23 p.m.
Without these ordinance changes, it seems the DDA is in line to get that money. With these ordinance changes, that money would be taken away. I'm just stating facts. No hidden agenda.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
I hope Ryan had a good seat cushion for that meeting. And enough No-Doze. And maybe a dinner, and a midnight snack. And pajamas.
JRW
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:24 p.m.
So, this monster apartment building reduces the number of apartments from 216 to 208, reduces the number of bedrooms from 533 to 513, and reduces the number of parking spaces from 132 to 124, and these are supposed to represent significant changes? If this monstrosity goes through, there will be 389 bedrooms without parking spaces. To think that these will be occupied by someone with only a bike (there will only be 185 bike spaces) is ludicrous. Students have BOTH bikes and cars in this town for the most part. Students bring their cars to UM! When multiple students live in one apartment, there are multiple cars for that apartment! Just look around the city at other student high rise apartments where students live in multi-bedroom apartments and count the cars! This is not rocket science. That puts several hundred cars into the neighborhood looking for parking. This alone is a very irresponsible aspect to this project. Not to mention the monster dimensions and the complete dominance of the surrounding neighborhood by this horrendous project.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:24 p.m.
Try parking in that very same neighborhood on the night of a well-attended council meeting! The city should ask the private lots adjacent to city hall be opened to the public, on council meeting nights.
Larry Ryan
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
Demistify: It sounds like the "organized special interest groups" that spoke at the meeting are one in the same as the residents, citizens, voters, etc., of the city. I commend the council for their stamina and patience as they listened to them. In our local government the city council stays up to listen to the people until the very last one has spoken. Seems right to me. Very different than what happens in Lansing where they lock the doors to the chamber then pass over 100 bills in three days.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:17 p.m.
I agree, it is a pain for some, and a rules change might help; but the bright side view is yours, at least citizens are afforded the right to speak. And if there was a better connection between the council reps and the citizens, those who could not attend until the wee hours would at least feel as though they had been heard.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
Question: two people left early because of their day jobs. Does the Mayor even have a day job any longer? Just curious.
timjbd
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 1 p.m.
If your goal is to be "Mayor-for-Life," you're gonna need a lot more than $18.3K.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 10:46 a.m.
Ryan, so we're talking a 40%+ raise for the Mayor's salary in the past nine years?
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:15 p.m.
Thanks for the additional information Ryan.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 6:20 p.m.
If you recall, Hieftje left behind a career in real estate when he first was elected more than a decade ago, and he essentially made the mayor's position a full-time gig. It used to be more of a ceremonial role. The position paid just $18,300 when Hieftje was elected through 2004, then the salary was bumped up to $28,000. In January 2005, the mayor's salary increased again to $40,000, and then ticked up to $41,200 in 2008. Since 2009, the salary has remained $42,436. He also has taught one class every fall at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy and has been paid a little over $16,000 a year for it.
Ian
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:50 p.m.
Mostly I feel bad for Mr. Stanton having to sit there for 8 hours and listen to this crap.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:16 p.m.
Indeed, Ryan... You deserve at least the Purple Heart.!
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.
I appreciate your sympathy, Ian. My recovery is going well.
demistify
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
It is clear from this story that organized special interest groups are adept at turning out for the public comment part of Council meetings. That succeeds in dragging out the meetings unconscionably and prevents the Council from taking any action. The Council needs to attend to its business in a timely manner (and before 3 AM). Perhaps the answer is for regular meetings to complete their agenda before opening up to outside comments. IF the lobbyists object to waiting till 3 AM, set up special public comment meetings.
easy123
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
I seen A2's skyline changing, and I do not think I care for it much. We are actual changing from a affectionate town to a city -ugh!!
Sla2
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.
Everyone keeps talking about the DDA "skimming off our taxes.." I fail to see it this way. The DDA gets paid by the City for a service. Its paycheck is a percentage of what it makes in increased taxes for the City. Simple as that. Anybody who has worked as -or with- a commission-only sales person should get this. It seems absurd to me that, after we tell the DDA "go out there and grow the city's tax base- we'll let you keep .30 out of every dollar you get us" that we come to look at their fair share as something we are entitled to.
Steve Bean
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:49 p.m.
Dave, that's another topic. And like the 'fee for service' model that Sla2 suggests (and to turn around Sla2's assertion), it's not as simple as that. I don't imagine that the DDA is solely responsible for the TIF growth. For starters, the DDA's initial 18 years of existence coincided with the longest bull market in history. More recently, development patterns and zoning changes have directed new development to the DDA district. In addition, the debt incurred for the underground parking structure (which is backed by the city—us taxpayers) places some of that increment in jeopardy. Finally, given that they captured more of the TIF funds than an objective interpretation of the existing ordinance language would dictate, they've been able to invest more than otherwise would have been into downtown infrastructure and services. The debt, in particular, could become a drain on future revenues. The stock market has topped and is in for a long drop, to be followed by extensive deflation of property values. Even with the new developments (and assuming that they don't go through bankruptcy in the near future) the overall tax base will deflate. New development of any significance will likely end after this current round that's underway. When the assessments drop in a few years the bond payments will still be there. Parking revenues, meanwhile, will decline. The DDA will be in a bind regarding parking rates as raising them would further destroy demand and lowering them would only lower revenues. They overspent at the peak, and we will pay the price for that lack of understanding of the broader context in which they operate.
Dave Koziol
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.
@Steve, and the DDA has been growing their revenue as well...
Steve Bean
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
The city isn't the only taxing jurisdiction that the DDA captures TIF funds from. The AADL, the county, and WCC also 'contribute'.
the major
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:55 p.m.
I like Lumm, she is really to call the mayor out on real issues. I think a 1% reduction is totally reasonable considering the state of the economy.
craig stolefield
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:09 p.m.
A major problem with this is it can easily come back to bite the city council right in the general fund.
craig stolefield
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
Retiree: The public hearings went until after midnight.The city council has no control over that and I would hope you would not want to stifle comment from citizens either.
Retiree Newcomer
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 8:58 p.m.
Craig - I certainly did not mean to imply that the public should be prevented from testifying, but to make the public, particularly older people, sit and wait their turn to speak for five our more hours is not democracy. The council should have a limit on time for meetings to end and stick to it. The Mayor should announce that at the beginning of the meeting and state that if at that time, a public hearing is still in process with residents waiting to speak, the hearing will be recessed to a date certain and will be the first item/hearing on the agenda for that recess date. In addition, there should be a five minute time limit on public comment, with any person who wishes to prsent more than can be said in 5 minutes be welcome to present more info in written form. Also, no person should be allowed to speak a second time until all who wish to speak have been allowed their first time at the microphone. The five minute time limit should not include Q & A from council members after the original testimony has been completed. Forcing the public to endure an 8 hour meeting, and up to five hours of waiting to testify is not reasoinable.
Bertha Venation
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:46 p.m.
Eight hours with THAT crew, and I'd be nuttier than I already am!
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
I agree. I commend Ryan for his dedication to the civic process here. Talk about above and beyond the call of duty!
Gardener1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
I wish there were better housing options for people in the 50-70 age group in the downtown area.
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.
Another eight hours of council time devoted entirely to downtown issues. What about the other 90%+ of the city? Who is worrying about that?
SonnyDog09
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
If Ann Arbor is the center of the universe, then Downtown Ann Arbor is the Center of the Center of the Universe. Downtown is all that matters to Hizzoner. Well, that and bicycles and choo-choo trains.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:41 p.m.
There were/are a lot of comments about how bad Ann Arbor used to be, and how great it is now after years of DDA assistance. Having lived in Ann Arbor for 30 years, I have seen both sides of that, and I agree. The DDA has done such a good job with downtown development, that they have put themselves out of a job. The conversation we should be having will begin with a thank you to the DDA for their years of fine service, a recognition of their achievements, and maybe a gold watch for Ms. Pollay. Then we should begin to reduce the scale of their activities, and the amount of funding those activities receive, in direct proportion to the continued need for the DDAs services. There comes a point in the life of a city where it has it's own momentum, where the success and vitality of the downtown takes on a life of its own, without the need for expensive stewardship. Ann Arbor has reached that point, and it is long-since past time to steer those needed tax dollars back to the municiple bodies where they will do the most good for the most people. Last nights city budget presentation characterized the balanced city budget as being a "maintainence budget", I would suggest that this is the budget model the DDA should pursue.
Steve Bean
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
Another interesting 'angle' on this is that the DDA has captured (and perhaps already spent) a higher amount than was intended, which could account for some of the positive impacts that many people applauded.
Retiree Newcomer
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.
Meeting until 3AM - outrageous - this is the public's business and meetings, whether decisions are made or not - should have a curfew of 11PM.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.
Well, there is this: "What mostly caused Monday night's meeting to run long was two back-to-back public hearings where dozens of residents and community leaders spoke for hours" The people have a right to speak and be heard. Allowing the meetings to run too late excludes many of the public. Long meeting times are sometimes used as an excuse to limit public input, as with the Umich board of regents. 3AM is too late, and they need to have more meetings, with less on the agenda.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
hats off to the staff, who were hustling to accommodate the large crowds and heat last night btw
Boy Scout
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
It's also abusive of the staff involved who must return to work five hours later with little or no sleep.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
I agree, they need to get a grip on the meeting length. It certainly does not encourage public participation, where it is needed most.
ordmad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
"The overwhelming majority of speakers also came out in support of the DDA, urging council to vote against any proposal that would slow the DDA's tax revenue growth." In the "not surprising" category it turns out that the majority of folks on this board do not represent the will of the people, or at least those that are willing to get involved other than sitting at their keyboard spewing. And one has to wonder about the motivations of the person that's nearly invariably at the top of the comments section: one would have to sit and wait for stories to be posted to continually pull that off.
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:53 p.m.
If the Majority continues to get us things like third-world roads but $750,000 fountains that don't work, I'm all for drumming up and commiserating with the Minority. Perhaps, as has sometimes happened, the minority will become the majority. Otherwise it's just fighting for status quo, and isn't that what is typically the complaint about what I'm assuming is Ordmad's gun-toting taunting party (whoever that might be...the hyperbole party? The stereotype party?)
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:30 p.m.
@ordmad: I do a lot work behind the scenes that you don't see. A local investigative reporter made a FOIA request last year to see who had asked the city manager questions about the new budget proposal document he had recently released and was surprised to learn that the first questions that came in to the city manager were not from a member of city council, but from me. Often you can achieve a lot quietly behind the scene. Sometimes you need a megaphone to marshal public opinion. I do both and I think I've achieved a lot working with many allies in an uphill fight. Of the strategic priorities and objectives I publicly set as proposed goals for our city leaders for 2012 in a post on January 1st 2012, 4 and perhaps a half of these were accomplished or mostly accomplished. A lot can be accomplished with an iPhone, iPad and email account and the occasional public meeting I attend (I do actually you know)!
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
"As we see time and time again, the majority viewpoint in these comments isn't the actual majority viewpoint in town " Yes, you do repeat that time and time again. I really wish you'd stop trying to speak for this "majority".
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
@Ordmad: To respond to your latest reply, I raise former Mayor Lou Belcher's comment about a police car to your location in an emergency in two minutes because it *was* the city's policy at that time. The sad fact that I am pointing out is that the city's leaders currently don't know or are hiding from us the peer performance metrics on the local policy with respect to crime levels (many crimes are not being recorded by the officers due to time pressure), crime solving and response times. If you can measure and monitor something, you cannot management that properly. Without those stats we don't know for sure whether we need more or less police (and we never need more than what is truly required). Based on the best metrics I have available, it is clear that we have cut overall police levels (including the U-M police) more than the crime rate has fallen, and the numbers if officers in patrol cars per shift is extremely low for a town our size geographically and in numbers (the last time I checked we had only five patrol cars in duty each shift). @sla2: To be clear I was on a plane and then a train heading to DC and then eating dinner at my hotel in DC from midnight to 1am while last night's city council meeting was occurring. Wanting to know how the meeting came out but being out of town and not wanting to wake anyone up, I was very curious to know the outcome of the meeting so was waiting eagerly for @Ryan Stanton's article.
ordmad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:50 p.m.
@ SLR: I've got young children and a 70 hour a week job. I also make a lot of City meetings and get involved. And to call commenting on stories here "issue advocacy" is plain wrong. As we see time and time again, the majority viewpoint in these comments isn't the actual majority viewpoint in town and most people involved in town read the comments for laughs more than anything else. If it was, people would freely taunt homosexuals on the street, guns would be mandatory in every home, we'd have a different mayor and we'd lock people up for life for committing petty theft.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.
Oops! "too land" should be "too and". Hey AnnArbor.com where's that edit button when you need it? :-)
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
@ordmad: I am in DC on business (currently listening to a boring presentation ;-). Because the economy is still in relatively poor shape, many busy people are out doing their job trying to make some money and can't make it to a political meeting, so they do what they can such as writing the city leaders when they have concerns or blogging here. I know it's the same with other frequent thoughtful commenters such as @DonBee. If you had young children and a tough job, you might get up very very early every day too land get a running start on your work and then take a break to read the local news (when keeping up with that is also a requirement of doing your job well). I've decided that since I need to be informed about local affairs I might as well share my observations on them when they are at variance with the official public line and it's a problem that actually does needs to be addressed and my "issue advocacy" can make a difference. I've stated repeatedly my goals with my comments is to help change problems I see so that Ann Arbor can be as great and vibrant a town as it can be.
Sla2
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
I agree with Ordmad on the SLR thing. I have been at every one of these meetings, and I have yet to see SLR at a single one. If he aspires to be involved in this process, then by all means, participate! Armchair quarterbacking from your laptop does not count.
ordmad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
I've been trying to. He's been advocating for, among other things, a cop at your door in two minutes. He's got no idea what it costs and can't point to any national standard, guideline, etc...., just something a former mayor held out as a goal. And it wasn't a sideswipe: he's often first (or near) on stories but basically absent from city meetings, etc.... He, like most here, just sit back, sip their coffee, complain and pontificate on the "if I were king" tip. Total nonsense.
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
Of course those people were there - they're protecting their trough. Talk about "not surprising"! As far as your sideswipe at SLR, that's just sad. I'm sure if you could debate his facts that you would be doing that.
DJBudSonic
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:23 p.m.
There is a problem with lack of affordable housing in Ann Arbor, but continuing to allow the DDA to skim taxes from the city and others is not the solution. If the DDA was really interested in helping with affordable housing, they would be doing more to stop all of the buildable land from being covered with $1200 per month apartments. We will never get our $50 million back from the library lot fiasco, but just think of all the affordable units that could have been had with that amount. Meanwhile, one third of their budget (that could be our money remember) goes toward debt servicing. The word on the street is that the DDA is threatening to drop all funding related to assiting lower income residents (bus passes, grants to Avalon, etc.) first, if any restrictions are put on their spending decisions by city council. If true, that shows you how much they really care about affordable housing, it would be the first thing they cut!
Veracity
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 7:01 p.m.
Well said!
Orangecrush2000
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:50 p.m.
No wonder why the affordable housing proponents are worried.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:22 p.m.
Good - and quick - write-up, Ryan!
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.
You're welcome! Thanks for reading.
craig stolefield
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
being done by the A2 DDA. A2's downtown almost died in the late 70's and into the 80's but now it is the best to be found. The politicians should back off and let the DDA get back to making it even better.
B2Pilot
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 9:45 p.m.
Craig I must of missed that & I have been here since the early 70's there was a recession during that time but downtown was still buzzing, it is pretty recession proof with the univeristy being a constant draw. I'd argue there was more to do downtown during those years
craig stolefield
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
Decades ago when the state put legislation in place enable DDA's because so many downtowns were rotting away, they designed it so it would have some insulation from politicians trying to micromanage. The legislation that has been proposed would do just that. There must have been a 50-60 people at the meeting last night to support the great work being done by the DD
Steve Bean
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.
None of those rise to the level of micromanagement. By "greater control over board decisions" are you referring to the proposed requirement that the DDA file an annual TIF account report? That and the clarification of the excess TIF capture calculation are good government. Is there something else in the proposed language that you see as being more intrusive? I agree that term limits for elected officials are a bad idea. (I'd call it contrary to democracy.) However, for appointed positions the considerations are different. I don't feel strongly about it, but many city commissions have term limits, and I'm not aware of any dissatisfaction with those rules.
craig stolefield
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.
Greater control for council over DDA board decisions (DDA has done a great job), term limits (bad idea) reducing the TIF to the DDA to give council more $$ to play with even though that might fact be hurting the general fund, etc.
Steve Bean
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
Craig, what do you understand the proposed ordinance amendments to be about?
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.
Sounds like they may need one of those "boardsmanship" thingies, too.
Orangecrush2000
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:47 p.m.
Plus, a "jump to conclusions" rug.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
Only if it means that hizzoner announces his "retirement" after it passes.
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.
Yeah, let's wait until after the primary. Wait, didn't we do that with the "public art" stuff last year? And aren't they *still* dragging their feet on that instead of doing what the voters told them they wanted? C'mon, mayor - who is playing politics here?
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:54 a.m.
Perhaps this is outside the purview of the DDA, but if everything they do is such a rousing success, I'd like to know how a street can be in the condition that Forth is in between the Arena and the assisted living building. The only excuse for a street being like that is an earthquake. If someone's concerned about downtown, that one section of road (and there are plenty of others) is like a glaring beacon of money not being spent right. We pay a LOOOTTT of property tax in this town, and I am just not seeing what we're getting for it.
foobar417
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 12:24 p.m.
http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/project_management/annual/Documents/StreetRepairMapandList_March2013.pdf
Veracity
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.
What a love fest! Never have so many supporters for the DDA found their way to City Council chambers to laud the DDA for all it has done for everyone. The homeless had a particularly large group express their concerns that the new ordinance being considered would take money from the DDA that would be used to support affordable housing. How so many knew of the issue and its scheduled vote can only be attributed to DDA efforts to generate support. How did so many homeless supporters find their way to the City Council meeting anyway? Was transportation provided? Those benefiting from heavily subsidized bus transportation through the DDA's getDowntown and go!pass programs expressed worry that the program would end with passage of the new ordinance. Others reviewed the DDA's success history especially the improvements to parking structures and street scapes. Much credit for Ann Arbor's award winning status was errantly attributed to the DDA. No one was aware of the series of deficit budgets that the DDA has generated over the past five years which has resulted in depleting the DDA's reserve fund. Too much indebtedness incurred by building several parking structures and borrowing money from Republic Parking has left the DDA finances dangerously close to insolvency. Over $6.6 million in debt payments each year can not be met by the DDA's two sources for revenue, parking fees and TIF payments. The latter could be used for affordable housing and grants for worthy projects but instead is consumed by debt obligations. The new ordinance which would slightly trim the DDA's TIF revenue and consideration of term limitations remain for future action. In the interim perhaps Ann Arbor citizens can be educated about the actual DDA financial problems that threatens its very existence. While the DDA may have accomplishments in the past it's more recent imprudent spending deserves criticism.
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:38 a.m.
So the main beneficiaries of the DDA's "largesse" were there speaking on their behalf? They are in favor of the DDA continuing to skim tax dollars and redirect them solely to benefit the downtown merchants and the homeless? Shocking. Et tu, Zingerman's?
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:30 a.m.
Can I ask just why in the absolute heck members of Avalon are not being booed out of the room as soon as they attempt to speak? They used our money to buy those main stareet houses w/ 3 Oaks, and now we're paying to tear them down for them, while they STILL own the property, and now they're speaking at council about not wanting the DDA to lose any money or have limits? That BY ITSELF should be enough to push this through. Open your eyes, people. Were any residents speaking about this, or was it all downtown businesses? I feel uncomfortable with the relationships between a few downton businesses and the unappointed, non-term limited DDA. If this amounts to 1% of the DDA budget, it's time for themm to start accepting the typs of arguments they use on us, e.g. the "1 % per art." C'mon, DDA, it's just a few bucks per year per person per project per buddy. Isn't the mayor one of the DDA? Anyone against term limits for UNELECTED officials who are appointed by one of the people who also serves in the same capacity is not working for the people he/che claims to serve. I mean, that's just a bad idea right out of the gate. I serve on this authority, I appoint other members of the the authority, this authority gets tax revenue, and I don't want any of them having term limits. Why is this even a debate? Forget term limits, this DDA should not exist. And what's with all the affordable housing talk? Where are these several affordable housing skyrises that must exist by now, since that's so often touted as one of their great successes? The biggest affordable housing project I remember is the old Y, which we lost incredible amounts of money on, and is now a parking lot. Enough already. ENOUGH!!
dotdash
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.
You make really good points. Have you thought about going to the council meeting yourself? (Not snarky, really just encouraging...)
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:11 a.m.
City Council Member Chuck Warpehoski should recuse himself for any conflict of interest he has with his wife's position and connections with the DDA. Uh huh...don't hold you breath on that one. Apparently City Council has zero conflicts of interest guidelines other than deciding for themselves. Follow the money..
Colorado Sun
Wed, Apr 17, 2013 : 6:42 a.m.
Look at all the conflicts of interest involving U-M and Ann Arbor City Council members. The Hieftje household pulls in 100k per annum from U-M. Steve Kunselman works for U-M. Marcia Higgins has worked at U-M in the School of Engineering.
cindy1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
It's my understanding that Leigh Greden recused himself now and then when issues relating to his employer were voted on.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.
@Steve Bean: As in this being like a junior high cafeteria with one or two politician wanting to sit at the popular kids' table?
Brad
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.
He could always just not show up or leave early. That's how it's done in the 4th ward.
Steve Bean
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 12:55 p.m.
Council rules prevent members from recusing themselves (as it's their duty to vote on all matters before them). Their colleagues must make the motion. You have two council reps who could do that. Are you up to stepping outside the cafeteria?
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:07 a.m.
"You tried that with me once as well," Lumm told the mayor, "and I think you would be better served to simply argue the merits of your position, rather than attempt to personally discredit those who may occasionally disagree with you. I think it's unfortunate that the rhetoric has risen to such an uncivil level with personal insults and accusations." Ms. Lumm is right. The Mayor is a political puppet and lapdog for special interests in this City, he has a childish contempt for anyone who disagrees with him on any issue and has put the interests of downtown over those of other neighborhoods throughout the City. It's doesn't matter if it's looting tax dollars for the DDA or building a million dollar urinal at the City Center building. Everyone is 'political' or a 'hater'. Citizens of Ann Arbor are fed up with his junior high school cafeteria attitude. No one is surprised at his actions. But shame on for her emails exchanges with the DDA and being a political hack on this issue. We know you want to be Mayor, but don't have the guts to run against Hieftje one on one in a primary. I guess this deal with the devil has more to do with your future political goals than looking out for voters. Good luck with that.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.
Of course in my rant I was talking about Sabra Briere wanting to be Mayor but her name got deleted accidentally. Sorry for the confusion.
Rod Johnson
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
"Her" presumably being Sabra Briere here and not Jane Lumm (just pointing out potentially confusing wording).
cindy1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.
"But shame on for her emails exchanges with the DDA..." Who is the "her" you refer to?
A2anon
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:04 a.m.
Just one comment -- PLEASE do NOT build another giant student high-rise in our downtown! PLEASE!
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11 a.m.
Sabra Briere, thanks for your Profiles In Courage moment. Lol.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:44 a.m.
I agree with Councilwoman Sabra Briere's amendment as described in the article to have the DDA's capital requests approved annually by city council as part of the budgeting process. That ought to happen with *all* separate accounts (a/k/a "buckets") of the city. City council should set all spending priorities and not delegate them to ensure the limited funds available go to the top citywide priorities and are not frittered away on lower priority items of interest using cash stashed away in a bucket as has happened too frequently in the past!
cindy1
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.
Right. But, she is unfortunately also a supporter of the mayor: "The vote was 5-4 in favor of no term limits, with Hieftje getting support from Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall and Warpehoski, but that fell short of the six votes needed."
a2grateful
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:35 a.m.
@Bill: Your Lumm quote happened after mayor undressed and flogged Kunselmann for having unjust political and personal agenda, regardless of city well being. Too bad the mayor doesn't listen to, and live by his own speech. He really should apply that to himself.
Carole
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:32 a.m.
Disgusting -- 8 hr. and nothing accomplished. Hmmmm.
vivian
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:27 a.m.
Glad we're not paying for them by the hour.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:52 a.m.
@Carole: To the contrary, the Mayor accomplished HIS goal of preventing the ordnance from being approved last night (unfortunately). We'll see what happens on May 6th!
Bill
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:28 a.m.
Finally a council person who tells the mayor the way it is. . ."You tried that with me once as well," Lumm told the mayor, "and I think you would be better served to simply argue the merits of your position, rather than attempt to personally discredit those who may occasionally disagree with you. I think it's unfortunate that the rhetoric has risen to such an uncivil level with personal insults and accusations." Thank you Jane Lumm.
a2grateful
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:28 a.m.
Thank you council and staff for your vigorous/rigorous discussion last night/this morning. The DDA issues are worthy of this discussion, as are many other important issues facing our city. Long live this type of discussion, with hopes of ending the shallow-thinking rubber-stamp monotone that we have witnessed repeatedly, in style and action, over the past several years.
B2Pilot
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
I agree dialogue is important and the DDA being unaccountable to any citizen is wrong. Unfortunatly I think this dialogue will cost Kunselman his position which is a travesty since he is standing up for the people not only his precinct but the citizens across the city. As you can see every big time democrat contributor is coming out against him. Which makes me wonder even more where is the money really is going to get them this rattled up.
Kai Petainen
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:24 a.m.
I'll try to say something non-political... *applause* to a2.com and chronicle for staying up late and covering this... thanks for keeping us updated on what is going on...
Kai Petainen
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 9:39 p.m.
Alan... When one goes to a restaurant and orders food, do you say 'Thank you', or do you remind the person that they are doing their job, to shut up and just give you the food? As much as I believe in asking questions and raising critical commentary and ideas in a civil manner, I also believe in thanking others for the work that they do. I don't think the work that they do is easy, and even if they make it look easy, I'd still thank them. And so yes... in all sincerity, I thank Ryan and others for the work that they do. At times I'll still voice questions and concerns, but I'll wish them thanks as well. And even when Ryan interjects some of his personal ideas -- that's not all that bad -- as it gets us talking, and we... the community... start to get involved.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
Glad to know my ability to endure is appreciated, Kai.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
"*applause* to a2.com and chronicle for staying up late and covering this... thanks for keeping us updated on what is going on..." Yep, let's applaud our low expectations for journalists. Staying up late. Lol.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:22 a.m.
Is the DDA well run and are they a good steward of the public's money? Should they be allocated another $1 million a year for their plans, or do other units of government such as the city's General Fund have more urgent needs for their operations to ensure basic services such as fire, EMS and police are properly funded? All excellent questions in light of the following: In a January piece on the DDA in A2Politico it is asserted that: "In July 2012, DDA officials borrowed $1.3 million from Republic Parking officials at 6 percent interest to fund the installation of new automated pay equipment in the city's parking garages." Is this true the DDA borrowed $1.3 million at 6%!? Why so high? Why borrow at all from a vendor when the city is sitting on $207.5 million in idle funds (according to the city's most recent audited financial statement (The 2012 CAFR see: http://tinyurl.com/A2-2012-CAFR)? Of course the fact that the equipment has had "issues" in deployment in other cities is an entirely different issue. If the city can borrow for 5 years at 2%, that means they threw away $52,000 a year or $260,000! Why? See: www.a2politico.com/2013/01/high-overhead-debt-load-push-dda-parking-revenues-98-percent-below-national-average/
Jack
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 10:49 p.m.
I was listening until you used a2politico as a source. From my perspective, that blog is not a solid source of information.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:30 a.m.
I would also add the multi-millions that the DDA contributed to the Rog Mahal building, which helped make that fiasco possible. To add to this growing list of questions, I am reposting @Veracity's comment from yesterday's article: 8:32 AM on 4/15/2013 THE DDA'S IMPRUDENT SPENDING includes: $47 million for the library parking structure capable of supporting a 14-story luxury hotel/convention center even before Valiant Partners proposed hotel construction; $20 million in addition expense was incurred above the cost of a conventional parking structure. Now the DDA is paying $3.6 million in bond debt obligations yearly which is not covered by parking fees or TIF receipts, the major reason for annual budget deficits. $407,000 grant to Zingermans for its expansion which helped pay for LEED certification, signs, and a new sidewalk. The largesse was justified because Zingermans has been a good friend to Ann Arbor. Similar gifts are not planned for other Ann Arbor businesses. $9 million to build a parking structure for Village Green City Apartments at First and Washington that will offer 270 parking spaces. When complete, 144 spaces will be reserved for private use. The annual bond servicing cost will be about $600,000 which will not be covered by parking fees generated by the parking structure. $54,000 annually to lease its office space privately after refusing free use of space in the new municipal building. $540,060 subsidy to the AATA which allows employees of downtown businesses to purchase annual go!pass bus passes for $10 thus saving about $750 in cost for daily use of buses. The DDA is able to decide on expenditures without any oversight or need for approval. Previous use of tax payer funds have been criticized as injudicious. The City Council resolution provides a first step at restraining the DDA's previous unfettered ability to spend tax payer monies."
Goober
Tue, Apr 16, 2013 : 11:02 a.m.
Why? Because they can. Until the leadership of our city is changed, we will see much more of this happening.