John U. Bacon

It was a beautiful summer morning. I walked from my home in Ann Arbor, down State Street, to St. Thomas the Apostle Church. A crowd had already gathered outside, waiting to pay respects to our old friend, Mr. Brown.

No one told us to call him that. We just did.

In 1937, Mr. Brown’s father and grandfather opened a store called College Shoe Repair. Mr. Brown took over the business in 1951, the same year he married Dorothy – or Mrs. Brown, to us. They worked together every day. They had seven kids, and all of them worked at the store at some point.

When the shoe repair business slowed down in the ’70s, Mr. Brown started selling hockey equipment and sharpening skates. That’s how most of us got to know him.

Mr. Brown was gruff and sometimes grouchy. He had a temper, and he didn’t suffer fools too gladly. But if he was no glad-hander, he was no pretender, either. There was not a phony bone in that man’s body. If he got to know you – and he seemed to know everyone who visited his place more than twice – you soon discovered he was as loyal as a hunting dog, and good company.

Mr. Brown never played hockey himself, but he knew more about the local hockey scene than just about anyone in town. His store served as the nerve center for everybody who played or coached or reffed or drove their kids to some freezing rink at six in the morning. When I coached the Huron High School hockey team, he never had to ask me how we were doing, because he already knew – and on some days, he seemed to know better than I did.

Most of all, Mr. Brown cared. He cared about the quality of his work, whether he was re-soling a pair of shoes or re-palming a pair of hockey gloves. He cared about his customers, and the people who played the game, from Mites to Masters. Mr. Brown often grumbled about the homeless people around his store, but then you’d catch him slipping one of them a few bucks just for washing his windows.

I wonder who will care about all those people now.

After the service, I walked back from St. Thomas, right up State Street, to take another walk around Mr. Brown’s block. I strolled past Hank at Van Bovens, Jerome at the Diag Party Store, Dave at White’s Market, Marizio at New York Pizza Delivery, John at Gold Bond Cleaners and right next door, Pete at Frank’s Restaurant. I know them all by name, and they all know me – and hundreds of other customers, too, because they’re not customers to them. They’re friends.

The storefront of College Shoe Repair on East William in Ann Arbor.

When I coached the high school team, each fall we had to raise money to keep our team going. We learned pretty quickly that there was no point asking the franchise stores on that block, or anywhere else. They have no idea who you are, they don’t care, and they’ll tell you to call the people at corporate – who care even less.

But every one of those Mom and Pop stores bought an ad in our program, even though they’re all fighting for survival. That’s what friends do.

I fear their days are numbered. The rent on that block is astronomical, as much as $10,000 a month. The chain stores come in, and if it proves too much for them, what do they care? They just pull out – and leave behind a higher rate for everyone else, and an empty storefront, sometimes for years.

But that’s capitalism, and if you believe in the free market, there’s not much you can say. But you’d have to be blind not to see the cost.

We’re losing our community. We’re losing our sense of belonging. We’re losing our friends.

My last stop on my tour was Mr. Brown’s store. I looked down at my shoes, which Mr. Brown had shined himself a half-dozen times, and re-soled once. I looked up at the door, and read a hand-written sign that said, “Death in the Family. Closed Saturday. Open Monday.”

I hope it always is.

Editor’s note: Jess William “Bill” Brown passed away on July 4, 2010. The family has suggested memorial contributions to the American Diabetes Association.

About the author: John U. Bacon lives in Ann Arbor and has written for Time, the New York Times, and ESPN Magazine, among others. His most recent book is “Bo’s Lasting Lessons,” a New York Times and Wall Street Journal business bestseller. Bacon teaches at Miami University (OH), Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, and the University of Michigan, where the students awarded him the Golden Apple Award for 2009. This commentary originally aired on Michigan Radio.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner with Zingerman's Deli, talks about plans to apply to the local and state brownfield program as part of the deli's renovation plans. The business hosted a public meeting about the plans on June 21. (Photos by the writer.)

On June 21, Zingerman’s hosted a public meeting to answer questions about their plans for the brownfield application. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, was on hand as well, and distinguished between this project and those that are typically associated with the term “brownfield.” In the case of Zingerman’s Deli, “it’s economic development,” he said, “It’s not about environmental cleanup.”

Specifically, brownfield status would allow Zingerman’s to be eligible for tax increment financing (TIF), a mechanism that would let the business recoup certain qualified expenses related to the project – possibly as much as $817,000 over 15 years.

It’s a different approach than the brownfield application most recently approved by city council for the Near North affordable housing project on North Main. In that case, the site’s need for environmental cleanup qualifies it for a brownfield status. Zingerman’s application also differs from Near North’s in that Near North isn’t seeking reimbursement through TIF. Both projects plan to apply for Michigan Business Tax credits.

Though Zingerman’s mailed out 1,014 postcards to surrounding residences and businesses to announce the meeting, only three members of the public attended, plus The Chronicle. One of those attending was Ray Detter, head of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He offered at least a partial explanation for the low turnout: The city’s Historic District Commission was holding a reception at the same time for its annual preservation award recipients – lots of people were at the Hands On Museum for that event, he said. One of the winners – Quinn Evans Architects – is also the architect for the Zingerman’s expansion.

There’s perhaps an even more crucial HDC connection to the project: Assuming Zingerman’s secures site plan approval from city council, they would still need to seek a “notice to proceed” from the commission. If denied, the project can’t move forward as planned.

At a city of Ann Arbor brownfield plan review committee on Monday, the “what if” question was raised by Marcia Higgins, one of three councilmembers who serves on that committee. They were meeting to review the project’s brownfield plan and make a recommendation to council, which is expected to consider both the site plan and brownfield plan at their July 19 meeting. While affirming Zingerman’s commitment to that location, Rick Strutz, a managing partner in the deli, said that as a business decision, at the end of the day if the project doesn’t get HDC approval, they’d likely have to move.

How the Brownfield Program Works

The Michigan legislature passed the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act – Act 381 – in 1996. The law allows local municipalities to set up brownfield redevelopment authorities and to use various financing mechanisms to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties. It was later amended to include sites that are designated as “blighted” or “functionally obsolete” – Zingerman’s is seeking the “functionally obsolete” designation. The latter two categories are designed to promote economic development.

Brownfield status allows projects to get reimbursed for certain qualified expenses via tax increment financing (TIF). Redevelopment of a site increases its taxable value – the difference between its original taxable value and the new value is the “increment.” In the case of Zingerman’s Deli, the business paid $49,100 in real property taxes in 2009. A preliminary estimate by the owners is that their taxes would increase to $107,000 when the project is complete.

After tax revenues are collected, the owners of approved projects apply to get repaid out of the funds available from the “increment.” The TIF is authorized for only a certain period – after that, all tax revenue is kept by the taxing authorities.

The act also allows owners of brownfield properties to apply for Michigan Business Tax credits, which are granted by the Michigan Economic Growth Authority, or MEGA. Those credits – awarded to spur job growth and economic development – can amount to up to 20% of costs related to demolition, lead and asbestos abatement, infrastructure and other qualified expenses.

Locally, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners set up the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority in 1999. Within the county, 23 municipalities have joined the authority, including the city of Ann Arbor. Because these municipalities operate under the county brownfield authority, the county board of commissioners must approve the plan before it’s submitted to the state. But first, the county requires that the local municipality sign off on the project. [.pdf file of brownfield application used for projects in the city of Ann Arbor]

The county has never rejected a brownfield plan.

As part of the process, the county charges an application fee based on the total project investment – $3,000 for projects of up to $5 million, and as much as $5,000 for projects over $10 million. The county can also take up to 10% of the total tax increment annually, for the duration of the project, for administrative expenses.

Near North, Other Ann Arbor Brownfield Plans

The Ann Arbor city council has approved one other brownfield plan so far this year – for the Near North affordable housing project on North Main. That development, just north of the downtown district, is eligible for brownfield status because of cleanup needed on the 1.19-acre site along 626-724 N. Main St., south of Summit. [.pdf file of Near North brownfield plan]

Specifically, the plan cited results from soil and groundwater samples taken in April 2009 and February 2010:

Benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic and lead were measured in soil samples at concentrations above the Part 201 Generic Residential Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels (residential cleanup criteria) for Drinking Water Protection and/or Direct Contact.

Arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc were measured in groundwater samples at a concentration above the residential cleanup criteria for Drinking Water and/or GSI.

Unlike Zingerman’s, Near North developers – led by the nonprofit Avalon Housing – will not seek reimbursement through TIF. But Near North does plan to apply for Michigan Business Tax brownfield redevelopment credits, which require that the brownfield status is authorized at the local level. Near North developers have identified $720,000 in eligible expenses to which the tax credits can be applied. The plan must next be approved by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and will likely be considered at their Aug. 4 meeting.

Beyond that, no other brownfield plans have been approved in Ann Arbor since 2008, when city council authorized three projects for brownfield status: The site of the former Michigan Inn on Jackson Road, the 601 S. Forest housing development in the South University area, and Maple Shoppes at the northeast corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor Roads, where the Aldi grocery is now located. To date, only the Maple Shoppes site has been redeveloped.

The largest brownfield plan approved by the city was for the Broadway Village at Lower Town project, which qualified for environmental cleanup. The plan, approved in 2003, requested TIF reimbursement of up to $40.4 million over a period of up to 30 years. Existing structures on the site were demolished, but otherwise the development hasn’t moved forward. On the county’s brownfield project website, its status is listed as “unknown.”

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Zingerman’s Deli has been working on plans for its major renovation for about four years – managing parter Rick Strutz reports that when the project team first began meeting every Tuesday morning, they didn’t think they’d still be at it 200 weeks later.

Because it’s located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district, the project needs approval from the city’s historic district commission. Business owners officially approached the HDC in 2008, asking for permission to demolish two buildings on the site – a fire-damaged house at 322 E. Kingsley St., directly behind the main deli building, and a two-story building at 420 Detroit St., known as “the orange house” or the Annex.

That request was denied, and set in motion a different approach to first seek approval for the project from the city planning commission and city council, then to return to the HDC for a “notice to proceed.” [See Chronicle coverage: "Zingerman's: Making It Right for the HDC"]

Project Timeline To Date

At the same time, the city was working through an extensive revision to its zoning ordinances, known as A2D2. Among those revisions was the rezoning of the 322 E. Kingsley parcel from residential to D2, which allows for commercial development. Here’s a timeline of the Zingerman’s project over the past two years, and related city zoning initiatives:

• June 12, 2008: Historic district commission denies request for demolition of 322 E. Kingsley St. and 420 Detroit St. [Rocco Disderide's former residence, aka "the orange house" or the Annex]
• Feb. 19, 2009: Planning commission adopts downtown plan with various revisions but no change to existing R4C zoning of 322 E. Kingsley St.
• April 6, 2009: City council gives initial approval to zoning revisions to downtown requiring alterations to the downtown plan adopted by the planning commission; major alterations include changes in South University area, but also included a rezoning of 322 E. Kingsley St. from R4C to the new D2 classification. The amendment on 322 E. Kingsley St. is introduced by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and passes with dissent only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). [link]
• May 19, 2009: Planning commission approves revisions to the downtown plan to accommodate part of the city council’s South University zoning revisions, an East Huron zoning revision, and the 322 E. Kingsley St. revision. [link]
• June 15, 2009: City council adopts downtown plan as revised by the planning commission. [link]
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council gives final approval to downtown zoning revisions, including the D2 designation to 322 E. Kingsley St.
• Jan. 14, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents plan showing demolition of two houses.
• March 8, 2010: Zingerman’s holds a public participation open house on its proposed expansion.
• March 11, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents a plan showing demolition of one house only. [link]
• May 18, 2010: Zingerman’s gets unanimous approval for its site plan from the Ann Arbor planning commission. The plan includes renovation of the Annex and demolition of 322 E. Kingsley. [link]
• June 21, 2010: Zingerman’s holds public meeting regarding brownfield application.
• June 28, 2010: Zingerman’s meets with the city’s brownfield plan review committee, which recommends approval. Both the site plan and brownfield plan are expected to be on the council’s July 19, 2010 meeting.

The site plan now calls for tearing down the house at 322 E. Kingsley and building a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor.

All along, Zingerman’s executives have cited concerns over the project’s expense, particularly the cost of renovating the Annex. The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the house, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

That expense was one motivation for seeking brownfield status.

Brownfield Plan Review Committee Weighs In

Because Ann Arbor has been identified by the state as a “core community,” the brownfield designation can be applied more broadly – not just for environmental cleanup, but for economic development as well, to reimburse expenses such as public infrastructure improvements and stormwater management. That’s the path that Zingerman’s is pursuing.

They’re making their case based on their track record as well as plans for future growth. Since 1982, the business has grown from four employees to around 200. Because of added capacity from the expansion, they plan to add another 40 deli employees over the next five years, and a total of 65 employees throughout all of Zingerman’s operations, which include their mail order business, bakery and creamery, among others.

One of the first steps in the brownfield process was to ask the city assessor to designate the property at 322 E. Kingsley as “functionally obsolete.” Because that property is part of the entire parcel to be redeveloped, the whole site qualifies for a brownfield under that designation. The city’s assessor, David Petrak, is expected to submit a letter to that effect this week, after it’s vetted by the city attorney’s office.

The process also includes hosting a public meeting – that happened on June 21, at the second floor of Zingerman’s Next Door, which is adjacent to the deli. Three members of the public attended.

Zingerman's Deli managing partner Rick Strutz, left, and attorney Gary Bruder, the owner's representative on the deli's expansion project, at the June 28 meeting of the city's brownfield plan review committee, held at city hall.

The turnout was much higher at the June 28 meeting of the brownfield plan review committee, which is charged with making a recommendation to city council. The committee consists of three city councilmembers – Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). All of them attended Monday’s meeting, as did several city staff: Matt Naud, environmental coordinator; Tom Crawford, chief financial officer; and Matt Horning, city treasurer. Also at the meeting were Susan Polllay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and Brett Lenart, a Washtenaw County staff member who handles brownfield issues. Three members of the Zingerman’s team were there as well: Rick Strutz, managing partner of the deli; Gary Bruder, an attorney and owner’s representative; and Jared Belka, a paralegal with Warner Norcross & Judd, a Lansing-based law firm that’s helping with the brownfield plan.

In describing the project, Strutz told the group that their No. 1 priority is to preserve the historic brick structure that houses the deli. “We are beating the crud out of this building,” he said. The addition will allow them to move all cooking out of the old building, to eliminate the moisture and humidity that’s generated in the kitchen.

Bruder and Strutz highlighted several other aspects of the project: meeting ADA standards of accessibility; adding bathrooms and a staff breakroom; building a storage area which will allow them to take fewer deliveries, with an aim of reducing traffic congestion; sharing an area for trash and composting with neighboring Community High School, and working with students on an instructional composting project.

Strutz said the project’s general contractor, Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti, calls it a “surgical construction process” because of the tight site within a neighborhood setting, and the need to keep the deli open throughout construction. In response to a query, Bruder noted that it’s not a planned unit development (PUD), which prompted Higgins to say, “Thank god!”

But much of the meeting’s discussion centered on issues related to the historic district.

Challenges of the Historic District

Bruder reiterated that because the Historic District Commission had determined that 322 E. Kingsley and the Annex were “contributing” structures and could not be demolished, the only alternative for Zingerman’s was to request what’s called a “notice to proceed” from the HDC.

The criteria for issuance of such a notice, from the city code, are as follows:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

Before Zingerman’s can make a request for the “notice to proceed,” their site plan must be approved by city council and their financing must be in place, among other things. Bruder said they’d held four working sessions with the HDC – the project as it stands is one that Zingerman’s is comfortable with, he said, and one that they think the HDC will be able to support.

At the June 21 public meeting, Detter had said he couldn’t imagine anyone on the HDC who’d be against the project – only an “extreme historic preservationist” wouldn’t want it to proceed, he said. He also said the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council – which he chairs – supports the project, and he felt it undoubtedly had the enthusiastic support of the entire community. But members of the Zingerman’s team indicated that they didn’t take approval for granted.

During Monday’s meeting of the brownfield plan review committee, Sandi Smith clarified that it was possible for the HDC to turn them down. “We really hope they don’t,” Bruder said, “But they could.”

Bruder pointed out that Zingerman’s is taking a big risk – if the HDC denies their request, their investment of time and money in the project so far will be for nothing.

Smith asked how much additional cost was added to the project due to preserving the Annex. About $500,000, Bruder said – or $550 per square foot. That doesn’t include all of the fees and expenses spent up until this point, he noted, related to working with the HDC and revising the site plan based on the rejection of Zingerman’s original plan, which included tearing down the Annex.

Smith asked whether it was fair to say that they were seeking tax credits because of those additional costs. Bruder responded by saying that the Zingerman’s team had recently met with the DDA’s operations committee, which had asked the question more bluntly: Will the project proceed if Zingerman’s doesn’t get the assistance it’s seeking? The project will go forward, Bruder said, but not necessarily as it’s now envisioned. Contrary to urban legend, he added, Zingerman’s does have finite resources. And if they get TIF reimbursement and state tax credits, it would allow them to do other things to enrich the project.

Strutz noted that at one point they’d talked about putting in a geothermal system, but when they found out they’d have to “put lipstick on the pig” – referring to the renovation of the Annex – that removed some options in other areas, he said.

Smith suggested that keeping the Annex was actually costing taxpayers. Kunselman then asked whether Zingerman’s planned to apply for historic preservation tax credits. They’re pursuing it, Bruder said, but they might not qualify. He noted that because they’re committed to that site, they realize that it adds to their costs.

Kunselman said he recalled the time before Zingerman’s was founded – he went to Community High School, and remembers the site before it became the well-known deli. The historic district helps give Zingerman’s its ambiance, he noted, saying he didn’t want the discussion to become one about how costly a historic district is.

Strutz said that after their staff, the most important thing to the business is its look and feel. They’ve spent a lot of time making sure the Annex won’t look out of place in the new campus, he said, but it’s been challenging.

Higgins asked what would happen to the business if the project weren’t approved. Bruder said they’ve never wanted to come to the city and threaten to move if they weren’t approved – Higgins assured him that she wasn’t getting that impression.

Strutz reported that at one of the working sessions, they’d been told by a member of the HDC that the greenest building was one that was already built, and that Zingerman’s should move to another location if it wanted to expand – the vacant commercial space at Liberty Lofts was suggested, he said.

The Chronicle has attended two working sessions between Zingerman’s and the HDC, and reported the exchange that Strutz referenced. From coverage of the Jan. 14, 2010 meeting:

Commissioners discussed how far the notion of “necessity” in the criteria for a notice to proceed extended – was it “necessary” that Zingerman’s undertake the expansion at that location?

Commissioner Ellen Ramsburgh wondered if the expansion was more than the site could take. She noted that the Zingerman’s Creamery and Bake House had moved to peripheral locations. “Do you need to be there?”

In her remarks, Ramsburgh was echoing sentiments expressed by then-commissioner Michael Bruner back in June 2008, when he had made the suggestion that Zingerman’s think of moving their operations. The specific location he had in mind was the Old West Side structure adjoining the Liberty Lofts development:

“Commissioner Bruner – [...] This may be less than what they need, but there stands today, a project that we reviewed and was approved, a development that includes a 20,000 square foot commercial retail area with parking that is begging to be occupied. [An apparent allusion to the Liberty Lofts greenhouse building.] As preservationists that want to encourage the success of economic projects in the city, perhaps Zingerman’s should consider moving their location as they have with their Creamery, which is at a satellite location, their Bakery which is at a satellite location, their Roadhouse that is a satellite location – this could be relocated as a satellite component at another location, nevertheless retaining this location as it is.”

Ken Clein [a Quinn Evans architect who's handling the Zingerman's project] responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations. Ramsburgh: “That’s a threat!”

On Monday, Strutz said that at the end of the day, as a business decision they probably would have to move if the project isn’t approved. They’re losing business because they lack capacity now – you can see it when people are waiting in lines that wrap around the block, he said. Bruder added that there’s a breaking point, but they haven’t hit it yet.

Kunselman wondered if rejection of the plan would lead to a Glen Ann scenario. [He was referring to Glen Ann Place, a project that won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the HDC. The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in the summer of 2007 in a way that allowed the project to move ahead. But so far, nothing has yet been built on that vacant lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue, where two houses previously stood.]

Strutz replied that he didn’t think they had the time to deal with it in that way.

Other Issues: Pro Forma Analysis

Matt Horning, the city’s treasurer, said that in the past they’ve looked at a project’s pro forma income statements with and without the brownfield TIF capture, and he wondered whether councilmembers wanted that kind of anaylsis on this project. Higgins suggested making it part of the committee’s recommendation to council.

With that, the committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the brownfield plan, pending the pro forma analysis. “It’s moving forward!” Higgins said.

What’s Next?

One pending issue is related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The property straddles the boundary of the DDA, which also gets its funding, in part, from a TIF. The DDA is first in line to get new TIF revenues, which would amount to about $407,000 from that site over a 15-year period.

Rather than asking the DDA to forgo those revenues, Zingerman’s is asking that it identify other things of equivalent value to contribute to the project. They discussed possibilities with the DDA’s operations committee at a meeting last week.

Following Monday’s brownfield committee meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay told The Chronicle that the project is attractive to the DDA for several reasons, including the number of new jobs it will create and the amount of tourism dollars it attracts to the downtown, as a destination for visitors. The business has become an iconic identifier for the city, she said – and building a unique identity is one of the DDA’s strategies for creating a vibrant downtown.

On Tuesday, Strutz sent a letter to Pollay outlining some specific requests for the DDA board to consider. They include:

• $100,000 to reimburse Zingerman’s for costs associated with LEED certification.
• $160,000 for costs associated with on-site water detention.
• $50,000 to install ADA-compliant curb ramps at the Detroit and Kingsley intersection.
• $45,000 for sidewalk removal and replacement.
• $10,000 for wayfinding signs pointing to the deli, plus a roof sign on the addition that can be picked up by Google maps.
• Several other items with a cost to-be-determined, including parking spaces for contractors and a staging area, plus replacement or repair of brick pavers, curbs and water/sewer lines on Detroit Street between Kingsley and Catherine.

The letter states that support from the DDA would significantly improve their changes to receive Michigan Business Tax credits. Pollay expects the DDA board will consider and vote on a resolution of support for the Zingerman’s project at their July 7 board meeting.

City council is expected to consider the site plan and brownfield plan at their July 19 meeting. The county board of commissioners will likely vote on the brownfield plan at their Aug. 4 meeting – if approved, the brownfield plan would then be forwarded to the state.

Bruder said they hope to have the project considered by the historic district commission in September.

Assuming all approvals are in place, site work would begin in the late fall of 2010, with work on the addition starting in February of 2011. The goal is to complete the project by March of 2012, in time for the deli’s 30th anniversary celebration. They plan to keep the deli open during construction.

More information about the Zingerman’s project is available on a section of the deli’s website.

William S. Burroughs looms large for Arthur Nusbaum – in this case, literally. The portrait of this Beat Generation iconoclast hangs in the lobby of Nusbaum's Third Mind Books and Steppingstone Properties.

A real estate guy with a thing for William S. Burroughs, Jack Kerouac and the rest of that reckless crew? Incongruous, on the face of it. But a closer look reveals a certain ironic harmony.

“I used to be an activist,” says Nusbaum. No surprise there – this is a fellow whose dazzling energy will find an outlet.

Born in Detroit, he grew up in the suburbs, attended the University of Michigan and returned to Ann Arbor for good in the early 1990s as the concept of New Urbanism was gathering steam in Ann Arbor and across the country. Those principles resonated with him, and as he made the connection between his own business and the intensifying local efforts to rein in suburban sprawl, Nusbaum says, “real estate became more meaningful for me. And that’s reflected in buildings like this.”

He’s speaking from his second-floor suite of offices in Ashley Square, at 123 N. Ashley St. The building – Nusbaum believes it was an auto showroom in its original incarnation – was rehabbed in the 1980s and purchased in the late 1990s by Nusbaum, who relocated Steppingstone there in 2000.

“To make a long story short, that’s the direction I took for the last decade and a half in my business,’’ he says.

Nusbaum is 51. His passion for the Beats – and, specifically, Burroughs – dates to his days at UM, where he was an Honors English student in the late 1970s and “awakening to the counterculture. I became aware of the Beats. It snowballed,” he says, “parallel with my regular life.” And for 30 years he has been building a personal collection of Beat literature and artifacts that he believes “is one of the most comprehensive and one-of-a-kind in the world.”

Hung carefully on the walls of the Ashley Square suite are pieces from Nusbaum’s collection of original artwork, posters and prints (Jesse Crumb and his father, Robert, are represented) and a carefully edited sampling of counterculture and avant-garde artifacts that date back decades. (Ever heard of The Residents? Me neither. Nusbaum totally digs them.)

Prominent on a wall in his office (and on the website) is a photo of Nusbaum with Burroughs that marks what he calls “the lifetime peak of my Beat experience – meeting the master.” Nusbaum had made an attempt to get in touch with Burroughs via Allen Ginsberg in 1994, when the poet was in town for a reading and was signing autographs beforehand at Shaman Drum. “I met him there and had him sign something, and then I wanted to give him an envelope for Burroughs.” When Ginsberg gently waved him off, Nusbaum didn’t press it.

“I just up and went, and knocked on his door” in February 1995 – Burroughs was living in Lawrence, Kansas – “and the rest is history.”

His account of the day can be found among Nusbaum’s writings on ThirdMindBooks.com, along with an obituary he wrote for “Dharma Beat” about the man he calls the “Big Bang; Ground Zero” – the mentor of the Beat Generation.

“Today it means nothing, but to be an iconoclast during the age of extreme conformity, of the ‘gray flannel suit’ and the Red Scare” – Burroughs was beyond the edge, Nusbaum says. “And he was a junkie, he was gay at a time when that was really shocking. And yet,” he says, “here was this reserved, three-piece-suit-wearing guy.”

Nusbaum says “a really thorough and deep biography has yet to be written” of Burroughs – and he might get to it “if I live to be 500.” For now, though, Nusbaum is “whittling” down his real estate interests to downtown Ann Arbor and some other properties and focusing his energies on Third Mind Books. The store’s logo honors the master.

The logo for Third Mind Books tips its hat to William Burroughs.

“My first idea was a brick-and-mortar store on Huron Street,” Nusbaum says. He envisioned a shop “like Shaman Drum that specialized in the Beats and also had consigned art and a (performance) venue .… I had all these ideas.

“But you know Ann Arbor, of course. They always find a reason why you need to spend an extra quarter-million or so converting the zoning to this and that and what have you, and then I thought, ‘this is not the time and place to do a brick and mortar.’”

Enter ThirdMindBooks.com.

He credits his staff and their technological savvy for getting ThirdMindBooks.com up and running, and applauds them for their willingness to go along for the ride: “They made the transition from real estate to surrealism very well.”

To stock his store, Nusbaum turned to the connections he has made over the years as a collector (his private collection, very emphatically, is not for sale). And on the Web, he tracked down “all of the Beat-related sites – some of which are very active and up to the minute and really of high quality.” Links to and Nusbaum’s comments on some of those sites have led to some sales, he says.

“I’m hoping that somewhere in this world of 6.5 billion people there are maybe 50 to 100 like me who could carry a business like this, who are really passionate about it,” he says.

“I know it’s going to take a while,” but Nusbaum envisions a broad purpose for ThirdMindBooks.com: “I want to combine sales with scholarship and writings and linkages.” As a longer-term project, Nusbaum says he intends to present “a museum-like tour” of his own collection on the Web site – “not for sale, but as a way of cataloging and showing it.”

“The educated customer is important and I want to educate,” he says, “and connect the dots for the aficionado – and that will make a more passionate customer.”

Arthur Nusbaum with some of the Beat literature that's sold online through his business, Third Mind Books.

Nusbaum’s focus and passion is evident in the presentation of his inventory on the website. The Ashley Square suite contains a de facto studio where photos are made of each item in the inventory. That list includes a sharp image of each piece along with descriptive text that details the condition of the item, its history and significance to collectors and, often, its provenance. “We lavish a lot of attention on every single item,” Nusbaum says.

In this new age of virtual browsing, that’s a valuable service for an online bookstore. And the Web is the perfect way to reach Nusbaum’s core market: Beat enthusiasts like himself who know what they’re looking for.

And yet (and here’s an opening to lament the lost Shaman Drums of our culture): Nusbaum made a sale on the day of my visit when a box on his shelves, covered in paper the color of terra cotta, caught my eye. The paper was textured with thin, horizontal folds that undulated like low waves on water; the box was a couple of inches thick and as tall as my hand.

And then I pulled the book itself from its handsome case. “Six-Pack 1-5,” published by Bottle of Smoke Press, gathers in one loosely sewn volume five issues of “Six-Pack,” the publisher’s five collections of a half-dozen very short poems, letterpressed in a range of colorful typefaces onto various shades and textures of cardstock. Each little poem-on-a-card is mounted on its own page with photo corners; almost all the cards bear the signature of the poet. Encountered online, this little jewel wouldn’t have been nearly as captivating, no matter how conscientiously presented.

Luckily for locals, Nusbaum says he’s pleased to open the real-life doors of Third Mind Books to the old-fashioned browser for whom the tactile pleasures are still so bound up in the book-buying experience. Just make an appointment. “I’m not sure,” he jokes, “but this may be the world’s only hybrid real estate office and rare-book store.”

Third Mind Books is gold mine of first editions, photographs and postcards, hand-made books, magazines and literary journals and poetry collections created by the super-celebrated and the sometimes-unjustly obscure. From Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Patti Smith (“She just came to Borders!” Nusbaum crows. “I gave her my card!”) to Irvine Welsh (“Trainspotting”) and, of course, a lavish abundance of one-of-a-kind Burroughs, Nusbaum’s inventory holds hundreds of treasures.

So if you still haven’t tracked down that first-edition complete transcript in comic-book form of Allen Ginsberg’s testimony at the 1969 Chicago Seven trial, look no further. Arthur Nusbaum will be thrilled to help you out.

About the writer: Domenica Trevor is a voracious reader who lives in Ann Arbor and has been known to own a copy of “Howl” and wear a beret, back in the day.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner of Zingerman's Deli, sits next to Zingerman's co-founder Paul Saginaw as the planning commission deliberates on a proposed expansion of the deli, which was ultimately approved. Behind Saginaw is Michael Quinn of Quinn Evans Architects, who is working on the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The farmers market has no further steps to take – it opens on June 3, from 3-7 p.m. But the approval process for the deli expansion is far from over. After seeking approval from city council for its plans, deli partners will need to circle back to the city’s historic district commission – the site is located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. The Chronicle has previously reported on their earlier efforts down this path: “Zingerman’s: Making It Right for the HDC.”

Pending approvals, Zingerman’s hopes to break ground on the project early next year.

Also at last week’s meeting, commissioners reviewed the site plan for the Windsong affordable housing project off of Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth. They ultimately approved plans for building 32 townhomes financed in part by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. But concerns were raised over problems that some residents in the site’s existing 12 townhomes are causing for their neighbors. Three of those neighbors spoke at a public hearing, saying they’d like a higher fence around the property, at the least, to deal better with harassment, fighting, graffiti and other issues.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

The owners of Zingerman’s Deli are seeking site plan approval for a major expansion at their Detroit Street location. The roughly $3.5 million project calls for tearing down a small fire-damaged house at 322 E. Kingsley – directly behind the brick deli building – and putting up a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. A six-foot-tall privacy fence would be built between the site and the neighboring residences.

At left is 322 E. Kingsley, next to the alley behind Zingerman's Deli. The house, which has been damaged by fire, would be torn down if the deli's site plan for expansion is approved by city council and permission is granted by the historic district commission. In the background is the "orange house" between the deli and Zingerman's Next Door. The site plan calls for it to be integrated into the new building's design.

The two-story “orange house” located at 420 Detroit, between the deli building and Zingerman’s Next Door, will be worked into the design, according to the proposal. A green roof will be added to the deli’s existing one-story wing.

The city’s planning staff recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement, with one issue related to loading zone access off of Kingsley yet to be resolved.  If Zingerman’s decides it needs a curb cut and driveway off of Kingsley, they’ll need a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals to allow a one-way drive opening.

Zingerman’s Deli: Public Hearing

Ten people spoke during the public hearing, including neighbors who supported the project, though some had concerns. There were also several speakers with ties to Zingerman’s.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner for the deli, thanked commissioners for their time and noted that the expansion plans had been in the works for four years. She recounted the history of the deli, how it had been founded at that location – the corner of Kingsley and Detroit – in 1982 by Paul Saginaw and Ari Weinzweig. They sold 2,000 sandwiches that first year, she said, compared with about 300,000 in 2009. They started with three employees, and now have 180. Over the years, they’ve added on in a piecemeal way – acquiring the building that houses Zingerman’s Next Door in the 1990s, for example.

The main goals for this expansion, Singleton said, include creating an efficient, unified design to take them through the next 25-50 years while preserving the key elements of the current campus. They’ll also be building a larger kitchen, receiving and storage area, as well as additional seating space, better ADA accessibility and a staff breakroom. Singleton said they’ve always been committed to Kerrytown and Ann Arbor, and want to give back to the community.

Both Christy Summers of Beckett & Raeder Inc. and Michael Quinn, a principal of Quinn Evans Architects, walked commissioners through highlights of the site plan and design. Summers noted several features, including better accessibility between buildings, a service alley to the east, some vertical landscaping elements mounted on the buildings, and the use of sustainable design techniques that could lead to LEED certification. Quinn said the expansion will be difficult to build, but will maintain the same “delightful feel” that customers now experience at the deli. He said they’ve met informally with the historic district commission to discuss aspects of the design, including removal of a building on Kingsley [one that's been gutted by fire]. He said he believes they have the HDC’s support.

Bernard Puroll was one of several neighbors who spoke. He described the expansion as an attractive, desirable plan intended to maximize profits, which was entirely appropriate. It would fit into the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the planning staff report indicates there are no nuisances created by the project, but he disagreed. He said his home overlooks the loading dock, and there are already significant nuisances created by noise and traffic from deliveries – that will only increase as the deli expands, he said.

Traffic management should be part of the site plan, Puroll added, especially at the intersection of Kingsley and Detroit. Large trucks often park in the loading zone along Kingsley east of Detroit, creating noise and traffic congestion. Also, noise abatement from the deli’s HVAC system isn’t addressed in the site plan, he noted. Hopefully as they build more storage, some of these problems will be diminished.

Jim Mogensen reminded commissioners that at their most recent working session, he’d talked to them about how processes can make people feel like processed cheese. He noted that the process for Zingerman’s had taken four years so far. The owners have strong roots in the community, he said, and have listened to residents and designed an expansion that is at least within the scale of other buildings in the neighborhood.

Mogensen asked commissioners to imagine how the Glen Ann Place development would have turned out if it had used the same process. [Glen Ann Place won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the historic district commission. The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in summer of 2007 in a way that allowed the project to move ahead. The lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue is now denuded of the two houses that previously stood there, but nothing has yet been built.]

Zingerman's Deli, left, and Zingerman's Next Door. The proposed site plan calls for eliminating the curb cut between these two buildings.

Noting that he lived nearby on Detroit Street, Peter Pollack said he had spoken in favor of the Zingerman’s project in the past and he was there to do the same thing again. Historically, “this site has always been a bit adventuresome,” he said, bringing retail into a residential neighborhood. The proposed expansion is consistent with the site’s past. Pollack said he’s lived on Detroit Street since 1980, and the fact that it’s a busy location is part of the joy of living there. He said the issues of noise and traffic are being addressed, and he hoped that the planning commission would approve the site plan.

Chris Crockett identified herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Neighborhood Association. She lives about a block and a half away from the deli, and was glad that the owners had worked with the historic district commission on this project. The size and scale seem appropriate, she said. However, she had two concerns: 1) that there will be an increased nuisance to the neighbors, and 2) that the project sets a precedent. Owners of houses on Kingsley east of Detroit are “chomping at the bit” to turn the houses from residential into commercial use, she said. Crockett asked that the approval be framed in such a way as to indicate clearly that it was a special exception, not a precedent.

Patrick Thompson said he was a neighbor directly to the north of Zingerman’s, on Kingsley. The loading zone and activity from the front of the business spills over into the residential area, he said. There’s an alley created when delivery trucks park on both sides of the street on Kingsley, creating a blind spot that pedestrians have to navigate – two people have been hit there, he said. Clarifying that he didn’t want to impede the project in any way, Thompson said he was asking for greater restrictions be put on the residential side of the street – perhaps additional signs, or painting the curb yellow. He said that he and Paul Saginaw are great neighbors, but they do need to address the issue of traffic.

Rick Strutz, who’s also a managing partner at the deli, said that they’ve been working on these issues with Thompson, and that nothing Thompson said is untrue. They also are concerned for Zingerman’s staff, who come through that intersection too, he said. There isn’t one simple solution, he added. Creating a new receiving area will help make deliveries faster, and having a bigger storage area means that they won’t need deliveries as frequently. In some cases, vendors make 3-4 deliveries a week, which could be reduced significantly.

Noting that he was a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Gary Boren said he was speaking as an individual in support of the expansion. He lives in a house on East Washington that was built in 1890 – he mentioned that to show he’s also concerned about historic preservation. He echoed Crockett’s concerns about setting precedent, but in this instance, it was a very clear case and not something that could be confused as a precedent. He cautioned that there’s only so much you can exact from Zingerman’s, and that a lot has to be taken on faith. They aren’t a franchiser putting down a building without worrying about local implications – they’ve chosen to invest their energy and money and heart into this community because they live here and want it to be a good place.

Boren said he believed they would put their best efforts into dealing with the traffic problems. He said he strongly supported the project, saying it would bring more jobs, more customers, more tourists and more of the good type of density.

Zingermans’ Deli: Commissioner Deliberations

Bonnie Bona, the commission’s chair, began by asking staff about concerns that had been raised regarding noise from the HVAC system. What assurances did they have that it wouldn’t be a nuisance? Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the building code covers mechanical equipment – it’s not a planning and zoning issue.

Bona noted that Glen Ann Place had been referenced during public commentary in regard to the approval process. She asked Jill Thacher of the planning staff to describe the approach that Zingerman’s is taking regarding the historic district issues. Thacher said that in 2008, Zingerman’s had asked the historic district commission for permission to demolish two buildings – at 322 E. Kingsley Street, which had been gutted by fire, and another at 420 Detroit Street, referred to by many people as the “orange house.”

The HDC determined that both houses are contributing structures in the historic district, Thacher said, which meant that the HDC couldn’t authorize the demolition via a “certificate of appropriateness” – the typical approval process. Instead, Zingerman’s is first seeking site plan approval from the planning commission and city council, and will then return to the HDC to seek a “notice to proceed.”

From the planning staff report on Zingerman’s site plan proposal:

There are only four circumstances under which a Notice to Proceed may be granted. Zingerman’s will apply under one that reads “The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.” (From Section 8:416.) All approvals are required so that the HDC has as many assurances as possible that the applicant seriously intends to build the project and is in a position to do so. This is necessary since the Notice to Proceed will result in the permanent removal of historic resources.

In order to apply to the HDC for a notice to proceed, the project must have an approved site plan from City Council, have proof of financing, and have any other zoning or environmental approvals that may be necessary to build the project. In order for the HDC to grant the project a Notice to Proceed, Zingerman’s must prove that their project will be of substantial benefit to the community. How that benefit is defined and whether it is substantial enough to warrant the removal of contributing resources is determined by the HDC.

Picking up the discussion, Eric Mahler said Zingerman’s had a great site plan, fitting in with the character of the area. He appreciated their efforts at energy efficiency, and the wise use of space. He said everyone on the commission had likely traversed the intersection at Kingsley and Detroit, either by car or on foot, and knew about the issues there. He asked Zingerman’s owners to address in more detail how much deliveries would be decreased.

Grace Singleton said they hadn’t quantified the reduction in terms of percentages, but that off the top of her head she expected it could be as much as 30%. She said 60% of vendors deliver multiple times a week. The hope is that if vendors deliver three times now, they’ll reduce deliveries to twice a week. Those who deliver twice a week now would only come once. She said the 30% reduction was probably a conservative estimate.

Erica Briggs agreed with Mahler, and said she felt that Zingerman’s was doing everything it could to address the traffic concerns. Perhaps it was something the city or the Downtown Development Authority could help with too, she said.

Other commissioners also expressed support. Diane Giannola liked the green roof, saying it was a unique feature. Tony Derezinski said the site plan reflected an incredible use of space, packing a lot onto the site yet retaining a “homey” quality.

Jean Carlberg asked about the function of the alleyway behind the new building, on the east side of the site. Singleton explained that it would be a service alley, with an entrance to the kitchen. Currently, there’s overlap between the staff access and guest access, she said, and that’s a challenge. The new design would allow the staff to do its work more efficiently and behind the scenes.

In response to another question from Carlberg, Singleton said they plan to have a large portion of the new building’s second floor available for customer seating, both inside and on a deck.

Bona again raised the issue of mechanicals, saying that in the past the commission has required noise restrictions on rooftop mechanical systems. Michael Quinn of Quinn Evans Architects said that on the new addition, they’ll have a six-foot screen to create a visual and acoustic barrier. He also described design efforts aimed to reduce the need for intense heating and cooling. The building will be super insulated, he said, and they’ll use high-efficiency equipment. They’re considering a geothermal system as well. He also said they’d be relocating the HVAC system to a building that’s more remote from the residential neighbors, which should help improve noise issues.

Bona said she’d like to see something more specific in the plans, beyond what’s required by code.

Briggs wrapped up the discussion by praising Zingerman’s citizen participation report, saying they’d gone beyond what most petitioners do. [.pdf file of report from March 8, 2010 citizens participation meeting] In addition, during the meeting Zingerman’s co-founder Paul Saginaw distributed 13 letters of support from neighbors and business owners, including Timothy and Maureen Riley, who live in a home adjacent to the site; Elaine and Carl Johns, owners of Treasure Mart at 529 Detroit Street; Debra Kirk, owner of Emerald Dragonfly at 419 Detroit, directly across the street from the deli; Joe O’Neal, developer and chair of Kerrytown Market & Shops; and Jennifer Hein, dean of Community High School.

A letter from Randy Trent, executive director of physical properties for the Ann Arbor Public Schools, describes how Zingerman’s is working with AAPS and Community High School to develop a program that would consolidate solid waste management and recycling on the two sites. He noted in the letter that Zingerman’s has offered to pay for all costs.

Outcome: Commissoners unanimously approved the site plan and development agreement for Zingerman’s Deli expansion. It will be voted on by city council at an upcoming meeting, and also require a “notice to proceed” from the city’s historic district commission.

Westside Farmers Market

Also on Tuesday’s planning commission agenda was another item with a Zingerman’s connection . The Westside Farmers Market, located next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse at the intersection of Jackson and Maple, has been operating for the past four years every Thursday during the summer and early fall. However, last year the city notified organizers that they were in violation of zoning codes. The issue was initially addressed during a July 20, 2009 city council meeting. From a Chronicle report of that meeting:

The council’s agenda included an item to allow temporary outdoor sales and displayed goods and services as a special exception use for C3 commercial zoning districts. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked the city staff for moving the change along quickly. The impact of the change included the ability to hold a farmers market in the Westgate parking lot next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse.

Council unanimously approved that change. The city allowed the market to be held last year without getting the special exemption use, and now market organizers are applying for their first one as they head into the 2010 season. This year, the market opens on June 3 and runs through Sept. 30. It’s open on Thursdays from 3-7 p.m.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave a report to commissioners, noting that the market would occupy 28 parking spaces and that Westgate Shopping Center, where the market is located, has 40 spaces above the number required by code.

A special exemption use is required because the primary building there – Zingerman’s Roadhouse – doesn’t sell fresh produce. If it did, then temporary outdoor sales would be allowed without approval of a special exemption use. The staff recommended approval of the application.

Westside Farmers Market: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during the public hearing. Rodger Bowser, a founder of the market and a Zingerman’s Deli chef, said he represented the market’s steering committee. Going into their fifth season, they’ll have about two dozen vendors this year, he said, compared to 10 when they started. The idea was to have a new market for small and medium-sized vendors, and to provide customers on that side of town with fresh produce. They would appreciate the commission’s support, he said.

Westside Farmers Market: Commissioner Deliberations

There were no deliberations. Jean Carlberg observed that since the market had been operating for a few years, they knew what was intended on the site and had no questions. It was great to have a market on that side of town, she noted, especially since Fresh Seasons Market had closed last year.

After commissioners voted unanimously to approve the special exemption use, Carlberg quipped: “Now you’re legal.”

Windsong Affordable Housing Project

The planning commission considered site plan approval for a 32-unit affordable housing complex called Windsong, located off of Stone School Road, south of I-94 and north of Ellsworth.

The city had approved a site plan in 2005 at that location for a 44-unit project called The Oaks of Ann Arbor. However, only 12 townhouses were built and the site plan expired in 2008. The current proposal calls for the development to be financed in part by low-income housing tax credits administered by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

Windsong: Public Hearing

Three residents of the surrounding neighborhood spoke during the public hearing. All expressed concerns over problems they’ve encountered with residents of the existing 12 townhouses.

Map showing the location of the Windsong townhome site. (Links to larger image)

Audrey Lucas told commissioners she lived behind the current buildings on that site and has a “terrible time” with trespassers – people from the complex will jump a fence between the properties, or tear it down. It’s a disconcerting feeling to no longer have peace of mind in your home, she said. The developer has promised to build a new six-foot fence, but she hoped it would be 10 or 12 feet. Lucas described the situation as a “terrible nightmare” for neighbors, who frequently call police because of fights that break out.

Rob Finch identified himself as president of the nearby Stone School Townhomes condo association. Residents of his neighborhood have many complaints about the current situation, he said, including people from the 12 existing units yelling after midnight on school nights. There’s little to no supervision of children there, he said, and kids throw rocks into the parking lot, deface the area with graffiti and one time even turned off power to a building. Residents in his complex are frightened and intimidated – but they don’t want to start a war, he said. When one young mother questioned a boy who had come into her yard, he pulled a knife on her – she later moved out, he said.

Finch objected to expanding the number of units in Windsong and making them all Section 8 eligible. Many people in his condo complex had worked hard to better their lives, and they didn’t want to live in an unsafe environment. He said Windsong was known for drug trafficking, and he couldn’t believe the police were excited about expanding the development. At the very least, he said, make the developers put up an 8-foot fence on the south side of Windsong.

Stacey Vanwashenova said she lived in the nearby Stone School Circle development and had a young family. The neighborhood dynamics have changed since the 12 units were built – having more housing there would just add to the problem, she said. She echoed Finch’s remarks, saying at the least the developers should built a taller fence.

Windsong: Commissioner Deliberations

Peter Jobson, president of Excel Realty Group – the new lead developer in the project – was on hand to answer questions. Commissioner Jean Carlberg began by asking whether the new units would be rental or owned. Jobson said they were planned to be rental townhomes. He also clarified that his firm had been asked to take on the project by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) – his firm hadn’t been involved in the initial development.

Peter Jobson is president of Excel Realty, the new lead developer of the proposed Windsong townhome complex.

Carlberg asked – in light of what he’d heard from neighbors during the public hearing – how Jobson intended to select residents to live in the new units. Jobson replied that there’s nothing wrong with the existing property, but that people who are living there are causing disturbances.

The city’s planning staff had recently forwarded to him an extensive police log about incidents there, Jobson said, so he was now aware of the problems. It’s a matter of screening the residents, he said – if there are lease violations in those 12 units, then that needs to be dealt with. His firm had a long history of working with MSHDA, he said, and the state agency had confidence in their management and development skills.

With a 44-unit complex – the existing 12, plus the proposed 32 – it might be possible to have an on-site manager, Jobson said, which would help the situation. He also noted that the present owner was absentee, living in Florida. Jobson said his firm planned to take a strong role in managing the property.

Carlberg pointed out that Jobson’s firm was also out of state – it’s based in Ohio. How is that different, she asked, and when does the closer on-site management begin?

Jobson initially said it begins now, then modified that to say as soon as they started construction on the 32 new units. They don’t have ownership of the existing parcel at this point, he said. Eventually, however, they’ll take over asset management of the 12 units.

What does “asset management” mean? Carlberg asked – what will that enable them to do? Jobson replied that they know the existing owners well, and that they’ll be able to demand that the property be managed in ways that don’t create conflicts with residents of the 32 new townhomes.

At that point, Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – asked Jobson to clarify his firm’s ownership status. They’ll be the managing general partner of the 32-unit phase, he replied. Rampson said she was perplexed, because that’s not how it had been presented to planning staff. Staff had been led to believe the entire site would be a single condo development, but now it seemed that the site would be divided into two parcels. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t meet the location’s R4B (multi-family) zoning, she said.

Jobson said that though the actual ownership of the 12-unit property isn’t theirs, if there’s one condo association and they control 32 of the 44 units, then they’ll have the majority vote in the association.

Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council, asked whether Jobson’s firm had ever worked with the owner of the 12-unit site, Epic Development Co. No, they hadn’t, Jobson replied. But they had developed several properties throughout Michigan, including the Armory Arts Village in Jackson, Mich. The important thing is to have strict residency rules, he said. They’d been brought in by MSHDA, which had made a loan to the previous developer, in order to finish developing the property and make a positive contribution to Ann Arbor, he said.

Evan Pratt asked if Jobson had met with public safety officials about the problems at the site. Rampson noted that the planning staff had just been made aware of the police reports the previous day, and had forwarded them to Jobson. She said they could also talk with the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, which administers the Section 8 voucher program for this region. When asked by Pratt if they should address this problem before voting on the site plan, Rampson suggested moving ahead. MSHDA was interested in moving the project forward, she said, and behavioral issues really were out of the planning commission’s purview.

Jobson assured commissioners that he’d be contacting Epic Development immediately. He would forward them the police reports, saying the last thing he wants is a chaotic situation.

Pratt wanted to include some of the behavioral issues in the development agreement with the city. When Rampson said those issues weren’t typically included in the development agreement, Pratt replied that they don’t typically encounter these concerns. He was worried that if there’s a change of ownership, it wouldn’t be addressed.

Erica Briggs pressed Jobson on his ability to manage the problems in the existing townhomes. She wondered why he hadn’t already picked up the phone to call the current property owners. It seemed like a recipe for disaster, she said, to build and fill an additional 32 units for Section 8 housing, before the situation was addressed. She added that it seemed to her like they should put the brakes on the project and deal with these issues.

Rampson said they’d just recently received the police report. MSHDA’s timeframe might be tied to financing issues, she said.

Eric Mahler expressed concern that the discussion of the Windsong development was stigmatizing people who used Section 8 vouchers. To the left is Jill Thacher of the city's planning staff.

Eric Mahler noted that a fence would not be an absolute deterrent to the problems on the site. However, he said he was concerned about the tone of the discussion, which he felt was possibly stigmatizing people in Section 8 housing. He didn’t want the public to think that everyone in Section 8 housing caused problems, or that MSHDA properties were inherently problematic. They shouldn’t have a “throw-the-bums-out mentality” toward everyone in the existing 12 units.

Jobson said he didn’t mean to suggest that they wanted to get rid of all the Section 8 tenants. He also noted that there’s no requirement that the housing complex be filled with Section 8 tenants. He noted that the owner of the 12-unit property is a partner in the new 32-unit phase, but doesn’t have a controlling interest. That’s why his company will have a lot of influence, Jobson said.

Diane Giannola asked whether they might postpone a vote until the city attorney looked at the issue of ownership. Jobson characterized the property as “fragile” in terms of closing the deal, and noted that KeyBank was a big player and wanted to move forward quickly.

Bonnie Bona said she had similar concerns to those cited by Briggs, and was uncomfortable feeling pressure to move forward, in light of the concerns that had been brought forward. She wanted the developer to come back with specific ways in which the problems would be addressed.

Saying he was glad another company had stepped in to take on the project, Derezinski noted that if the deal falls apart, nothing gets done. Though he had concerns, he was in favor of moving ahead with a project that provides affordable housing, which the community needs.

Carlberg pointed out that they were in a Catch-22 – they couldn’t get an on-site manager until the additional units were built. The site looks like a wasteland now, she said – the actual townhouses are nice, but the undeveloped property around them, which includes some foundations that are overgrown with weeds, looks abandoned. She wanted to add a contingency asking the developer to show concrete evidence that they were working on problems with the existing tenants.

It’s also important, Carlberg added, that the two councilmembers representing that area start working with police and neighbors to deal with the problems there. [The site is in Ward 3, represented by councilmembers Stephen Kunselman and Christopher Taylor.]

Briggs said she hadn’t been saying anything negative about Section 8 housing. Rather, it was unacceptable to her that people who had few housing choices – like those who used Section 8 vouchers – were forced to live in that type of situation. The city talks a lot about affordable housing, she said, but it’s unfair to locate that housing in areas where there are already problems.

After some further discussion, Pratt proposed three amendments stating that final site plan approval would be subject to: 1) review by the city attorney’s office regarding the project’s ownership structure, 2) recommendations from the city’s public safety department – incorporated into the development agreement, and 3) the owner of the existing 12 units and the new developer reaching an agreement about how to deal with the problems on the site.

Mahler objected, saying the commission was overstepping its bounds in trying to establish affordable housing policy. They can implore, but they can’t legally bind the new developer to work with the owner of the 12-unit site as a condition of site plan approval, he said. Derezinski agreed.

Briggs suggested putting together a memo outlining the commission’s concerns, so that council would be made aware of these issues. Bona noted that the minutes of the meeting would also reflect their discussion.

Mahler said he was quite uncomfortable with a public safety requirement. When Carlberg observed that it was standard in the past, Rampson clarified that years ago the site plans had been reviewed by the “crime prevention through environmental design” team, but those jobs had been eliminated.

Derezinski characterized the first amendment – regarding the ownership structure – as valid, but the others were “warm fuzzies.” He was concerned that their actions might discourage MSHDA and KeyBank from pursuing the project.

The amendments were voted on separately, with the amendment on reviewing the site’s ownership structure passing unanimously. The amendment requiring the development agreement to reflect recommendations from the city’s public safety department also passed, with dissent from Mahler and Derezinski. The third amendment – requiring a report from the new developer and current owner on efforts to address problems on the site – failed, with only Bona, Briggs, Carlberg and Pratt voting in favor of it.

Overall site plan outcome: The Windsong site plan was approved, with dissent from Mahler. Commissioners Westphal and Woods were absent.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt.

Absent: Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 1 at 7 p.m. in city hall council chambers, 150 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Firefighters held an informational demonstration Monday afternoon before the city council's meeting at Station 1, which is located across the street from city hall. Firefighters from Flint, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Ann Arbor Township, Ypsilanti, Battle Creek and Ann Arbor took part in the demonstration. (Photos by the writer.)

And Margie Teall (Ward 4), who faces two challengers in the August Democratic primary, announced a planned amendment to the city’s proposed budget that would maintain human services funding at FY 2010 levels. The amendment, which will be brought forward at the council’s May 17 meeting, would also avert as many layoffs in the police and fire departments as possible, she said.

The previous evening at the council’s Sunday night caucus, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had already indicated they would support using part of a possible $2 million payment from the Downtown Development Authority to avoid police and firefighter layoffs.

The council’s plan for funding the amendment, reported Teall, is to use a $2 million payment from the Downtown Development Authority that it hopes the DDA board will approve at its May 5 board meeting. Even if the DDA board approves the payment, which is very likely but not certain, not all safety services layoffs in the city administrator’s proposed budget could be covered. Averting the elimination of 35 positions across police and fire departments combined would require $3.6 million. The restoration of human services funding would require another $260,000. And that would still result in the city tapping its general fund reserves for $1.5 million.

In its business for the evening, the council passed a resolution added late Monday to the council agenda, which strikes an agreement between the city and the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment for the future of the embankment along Argo Dam. It will allow the headrace to be re-opened by the end of this week.

The council also approved on first reading a revision to the city’s sidewalk occupancy permit system to include sandwich board signs. And the residential development now called Heritage Row – proposed along Fifth Avenue south of William Street – was approved at the council’s first reading with no discussion, but with dissent from Mike Anglin. Both of those measures will need to come back before the council for a second reading to gain approval.

The council also approved received the mayor’s nomination of the appointment of Anya Dale to the AATA board, replacing Paul Ajegba, whose term expired on May 1. Ajegba had been elected by his colleagues last fall to chair the board. Dale is a Washtenaw County planner. Her appointment will be presented for confirmation at the council’s May 17, 2010 meeting.

The council also approved some additional road closures for the June 6 Dexter-Ann Arbor Run.

FY 2011 Budget

The city council received a formal presentation of the proposed city budget from city administrator Roger Fraser on April 19, 2010. It will be formally adopted, with any amendments made by the city council, on May 17.

FY 2011 Budget: Council Discussion

Margie Teall (Ward 4) began the city council’s communications time by reading some prepared remarks on budget amendments:

Saturday was a great day for Ann Arbor and our nation’s democracy. At the beginning of his speech, President Obama spoke of the country being in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, something that all of us in Michigan are familiar with. Cities in Michigan have been hit especially hard by state revenue-sharing cuts and other declining revenues, while expenses continue to rise, especially for health care. To cope with a long downturn, many Michigan cities are facing cuts in core services. Several cities have initiatives on the ballot tomorrow in an effort to avoid closing city facilities along with layoffs in safety services and other areas of city government.

The residents of Ann Arbor should know that the mayor and members of city council and city staff have been working hard to ensure that core city services are not cut and that city facilities remain open. As my colleagues here know, I have been working with councilmember Taylor, Hohnke, and Smith on the city council-DDA working group that has been discussing mutually beneficial solutions. We presented a plan at the DDA operations meeting last week that will continue the $2 million transfer of parking revenues to the city for the 2010-2011 budget. I’ve also been working with the mayor and councilmember Higgins on the city budget.

While we still have some work to do, in refining the numbers between now and the next meeting on May 17, I want to let my city council colleagues know that we will be submitting an amendment to the administrator’s budget that will eliminate, or at least minimize, layoffs in the police and fire department. I want to keep our fire stations open and make sure that firefighters are prepared and ready to fight fires, and that response times are not compromised.

The mayor and I will also be bringing an amendment that will fully fund human services at the 2010 budget level. I know that other councilmembers feel the same way, and may want to co-sponsor this amendment. Councilmember Higgins and I have been working with neighbors in the Fourth Ward, and we will be bringing an amendment that will eliminate the need for football parking at Allmendinger and Frisinger parks. Of course, there is still a lot of work to do. Compromises and some sacrifices will be necessary, but I’m hopeful  councilmembers will support these amendments on May 17.

Mayor John Hieftje emphasized that he had been working together with Teall on the proposed budget amendment that would eliminate or at least minimize any layoffs in the safety services area. He said that some might wonder why the city administrator has even proposed so many layoffs in that area. He attributed that to the uncertainty of the outcome of the conversation that had been going on with the working group between the city council and the DDA, which has resulted in an additional $2 million for the city to work with. Hieftje noted that the DDA vote still needed to be taken.

In her communications time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was pleased to hear of the planned amendments to the budget. She reported that she and her Ward 1 colleague, Sabra Briere, had conducted a town hall meeting in their ward. What attendees were most interested in was the retention of safety services and human services. So she would be happy to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) also indicated that he was pleased to hear of the planned amendments to the budget, in their general form. He said he had received a great number of e-mails about the smallest of the items in the amendment, namely the provision to eliminate a proposal for football Saturday parking in Frisinger and Allmendinger parks. He praised the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) for putting the proposal for football parking in the parks into their budget recommendation.

Taylor allowed that it seemed like a funny thing to praise them for putting that proposal in the budget. However, PAC had a responsibility, he said, and that was to deal with a very limited budget. They needed to figure out how to make that parks budget work, he said, with material and substantial reductions. The challenge was made more difficult, he added, by the fact that they were trying to make the budget work even while adding back in two items that had previously been slated for removal – the Ann Arbor Senior Center and Mack Pool. Taylor concluded by saying he thought that PAC had done an honorable and diligent job.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanked Teall for bringing forward news of the budget amendments sooner than the meeting when the council would actually vote on the budget. He said that in years past, amendments were always kind of a surprise, with very little opportunity for review for councilmembers like himself. He described her action as a “shining moment” in governmental transparency.

FY 2011 Budget: Public Hearing, Commentary on Human Services

Thomas Partridge told the council that they need increased funding for the city, for the county, for southeastern Michigan and for the entire state. He called for tax reforms on all levels. He contrasted the size of the University of Michigan football program budget with that of the Ann Arbor city budget and questioned whether our priorities were in order.

Paul Lambert encouraged the council to maintain a basic commitment to human equality.

Caleb Poirier told the council he was grateful to them for doing a tough job. He thanked Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, and John Hieftje for preserving the human services funding in the budget amendment that’s coming up. He wanted to draw the council’s attention to a metaphor. He said he saw the world partly through a job that he used to hold as emergency room technician. When you have a whole bunch of folks who come into the ER, he said, and they get put on stretchers after their workup is done, the ER would get clogged, because they could not send them upstairs, because the upstairs was full.

We have a similar situation, Poirier said, with the homeless population. There’s a lot of folks, he told the council, whose “workup” is complete, and who are awaiting housing options. But the city doesn’t have those options and they are still in the system. He asked the council to consider the continued funding of the affordable housing trust fund.

Lily Au cited the Biblical passage from Isaiah 58:7, which calls on people to feed the hungry and house the homeless. She reported that a homeless camp, Camp Take Notice, had been forced to move last Wednesday before President Obama’s Saturday visit. She said she was not claiming that there was any connection.

But she noted that if Obama’s family visited the camp, they would have a new experience. She said that Michelle Obama would have to hold her kids tight, lest they be hit by a car, and that she would have to take off her high-heel shoes in order to navigate the steep path down to the camp. They would also need flashlights, she said, because it is really dark. Obama would have the experience of a “pain in his butt,” she said, because the campers had not yet set up their public bathrooms. She had peed there last week, but had not been able to stand back up because her butt was stuck on a thorn bush. It really hurt, she said.

Last Friday, she reported, the Vineyard Church had donated five boxes of food. She said she had parked near the camp and that several police cars had arrived, along with a fire truck and one ambulance. One of the officers, she reported, had told the campers that if they did this again, the officers would drive them to Lansing or drive them up north. No matter where they go, she said, they cannot run away from the authorities. She praised the efforts of the city councilmembers, the county, and state officials to find a solution to the problem of just pushing the homeless from one place to another.

Au also was against any cuts in human services, noting that the level of civil society is judged by how well we treat those who are most in need.

Ned Staebler introduced himself as chair of the housing and human services advisory board. He said he’d been encouraged to hear that a budget amendment would be coming forward to restore human services funding and avert safety services layoffs. He noted, however, that he’d not heard anything about the affordable housing trust fund in the budget amendments that might be coming forward. So he reminded the council that in past years there had been a $100,000 contribution every year to the trust fund. This year that money had been used to increase the number of affordable housing units, to increase the number of beds in the shelter system, as well as to fund foreclosure prevention programs.

The proposed amount that was to be cut from human services, Staebler said, was $260,000, which represents more than a 20% cut – more than the 8% applied to the rest of the budget. That showed the wrong priorities, he said. One of the reasons he was proud to live in Ann Arbor was that the city made it a priority to take care of the least fortunate. He asked the council what good a social safety net was if you pull it out from under people when they need it most. He noted that human services agencies are also an economic engine in that they leverage other funds. More than $10 comes into our community, he said, for every dollar that we fund to one of these agencies.

Katie Doyle introduced herself as executive director of the Ozone House, telling council that Ozone House was celebrating its 41st anniversary, largely because of support from the city of Ann Arbor. Ozone House works with young people who are homeless and runaways, and tries to prevent them from entering costlier systems. She pointed to the leveraging effect of dollars allocated locally. For Ozone House, it’s even higher than the $10 that Ned Staebler mentioned, she said.

Lori Bush introduced herself as the director of family support programs for Child Care Network. She said she wanted to echo the comments of the many speakers who had come before her. The city had funded the child care network for over 25 years, she noted. The organization gives childcare scholarships to low-income families, so that they can continue to work in the community.

Michael Appel, executive director of Avalon Housing, a local nonprofit that provides affordable housing throughout the city, addressed the council on the topic of human services funding. He urged councilmembers to try to avoid thinking of the budget picture as completely either-or: We can fund human services, we can fund public safety, we can fund parks, but we can’t find everything. He urged them to resist that kind of thinking, even though it was a time when the budget choices tended to move a person in that direction. For example, the city council had given Avalon Housing support for starting a community center program. One of the effects of starting a community center, Appel said, was to reduce police calls to the area. It was a more appropriate use of public spending to put human service dollars towards a human services goal. It was a more appropriate use of police time, responding to police issues rather than what were essentially management and tenant problems that could be better resolved without the use of police time. He encouraged the council to apply that kind of logic to other areas of the budget.

Julie Steiner introduced herself as the executive director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network Alpha House, one of the community’s three homeless shelters for families. She thanked the council for all the support that they had given to the IHN and other human services agencies that they worked with. She thanked the council in particular for the emergency support that the council had approved for last winter.

Steiner said her daughter had in the past encouraged her to get on city council and that the reason she didn’t want to is that she could not imagine being in their position, with the choices that they had to make. She reminded the council that human services are their safety net for the entire community. Two years ago, she said, 50% of the people who came to the shelter had a job when they came. Now less than 1% have a job. She said they had the help of a full-time job developer, who works with all of the housing agencies, with the support of the Michigan Rehabilitation Services and the county’s Employment Training and Community Services (ETCS).

The job developer says she’s never before seen the kind of trouble people are having finding jobs, Steiner reported. Even people who come to the shelter with a job can’t make ends meet. She reported the case of a woman who had a full-time job at Arby’s but whose husband had lost his job at a construction site. They could no longer support their babies in housing.

If the council eliminates affordable housing in the budget, Steiner warned, the community is really going to be in bigger trouble. She reminded the council that there are three things that human services partners do for IHN: (i) they make it possible to bring in $32 million of other funding; (ii) they volunteer – at IHN 2,000 people volunteer every year; and (iii) they provide the shelter with $1.5 million worth of in-kind support.

Ellen Schulmeister introduced herself as the executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance and of the Shelter Association of Washington County at the Delonis Center. She thanked the council for its past support on issues regarding housing and homelessness. She also thanked the council for the work on the budget during a very difficult time. There were 4,212 homeless people in the county in 2008. Of those, 1,494 were children, she said. That’s a 20% increase from 2007 levels. The increase came mostly in families and unaccompanied youth. There’s been a 138% increase in requests for food since 2006, she reported, which is one of the highest increases in the country. She noted that there is some stimulus money coming to the community that’s been allocated to prevent people from becoming homeless. They’ve interviewed over 600 families and given 232 of those families some help. They’ve spent over $.5 million. But she cautioned that the stimulus money will run out soon. When it does, she warned that some of those folks may end up homeless. She concluded by saying, “We can’t really take a cut at this time.”

Jim Mogensen began with his trademark, “So, here we are again!” He noted that as everyone knows, all cities are struggling. Ann Arbor has had a structural issue with its budget for a very long time, he said. So, Mogensen said, some of the issues faced by the city are “enhanced” by the financial crisis, but there are still some basic structural issues. One of the themes in the current budget cycle, said Mogensen, is: When in doubt, outsource everything.

Mogensen said that 20 years ago he worked in Washington D.C. as a consultant for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) working on regulatory analysis. They had a company that wanted them to conduct a mock inspection like OSHA would do it, and so they did. And he said he remembered the phone calls he got from the corporate legal department, asking him to please modify his report. He quipped, “I used to work in West Virginia doing mine inspections.” As they relate to planning, the conflicts of interests are like Goldman Sachs, he warned.

Looking at the two-year cycle for the budget, he asked: What will happen next year? The city has already outsourced its social safety net to local nonprofits. And the nonprofits, in turn, have to make contingency plans for what’s going to happen. He cited Michael Apple’s comments about how if you make cuts in human services, you end up spending those dollars on police instead. He warned that it would eventually cause a situation where they would not be able to respond. If all of a sudden there is a tipping point, there will be no mechanism to respond.

For example, Mogensen said, think about the affordable housing trust fund – you have the Avalon Housing and Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corporation issue, plus the Housing Commission. The city would need money in the housing trust fund if they wanted to do something with those areas. He asked that the affordable housing trust fund also be incorporated in possible budget amendment resolutions. Those are immediate issues that could have an impact next year, he cautioned.

David Blanchard, who also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board, said he wanted to echo a lot of the comments that had already been made. He noted that there are dozens of agencies that are funded in part with the city’s dollars. He asked the council to not pull the safety net out from under people when it is needed most. If the $100,000 cut to the affordable housing trust fund were included in the cut to human services, he said it would reflect a 30% cut. He pointed to the documented increase in need, with several agencies reporting their needs had become 30-50% greater. There is no way that need is going to be served, he warned, if there is a cut now when those services are needed most.

Budget FY 2011: Public Hearing, Commentary on Safety Services

Doug Warsinski, representing the Walden Hills Condominium Association, said that before 2007 there was virtually no problem with crime in his neighborhood. Then they were suddenly faced with a series of auto thefts and auto break-ins over the span of only a few months. There had also been isolated incidents, he said, of burglaries, attempted sexual assault, and robbery. He said that while the community had returned to a relatively normal, quiet state, the board of directors had taken some costly steps to improve their own security.

Locations of Ann Arbor's five current fire stations. Colored shading correspond to wards. The circle with the slash is the location of former Station 2. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Taxpayers have reasonable expectations of levels of service from their police department, Warsinski said. A national survey that he cited showed what citizens expect as reasonable response times: 5 minutes or less for a crime that’s in progress or if the suspected criminal is still at the scene; 15 minutes, in a case where a suspected criminal has left; 30 minutes for nuisance calls. A performance metric should be established for the city that is in line with these national expectations, he said.

With respect to fire safety,Warsinski reported that neighboring condominiums had had a serious fire with a trapped occupant, who was rescued by the Ann Arbor fire department. They themselves had experienced several small arson fires and a roof fire that had been caused by a contractor. As multi-family structures with a significant number of older residents, he said, the potential for catastrophic fire is great.

As one of 50 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) certified fire protection specialists in the state of Michigan, Warsinski said, he wanted to point out that their condominiums, along with apartments, offices, mercantile, and industrial occupancies – and generally any other building except single family dwellings – are classified by the NFPA as “medium hazard occupancies.” Such structures had a recommended minimum initial response as follows: three pumpers, one ladder truck, staffed by 16 firefighters, a chief officer, plus a safety officer and a rapid intervention team. As far as regionalization went, he said, surrounding fire departments had too few personnel and equipment, and were too far away to effectively protect the residents of Ann Arbor.

John Maguire told the council that he was born and raised in this town and that his parents live in this town. Some of his reasons for choosing to raise his family in Ann Arbor, he said, included the things the town had to offer – parks, sporting events, art fairs, Top of the Park, museums, as well as other activities. But the most important reason he had decided to raise his family here, he said, was the ability to enjoy all those activities and also feel safe. He asked the council to not make any more cuts to public safety. He noted that the city had already closed a fire station and closed police substations. He contrasted nice-to-have items with need-to-have items. Parks, art, and a transit center are nice to have, while police and fire protection we need to have, he concluded.

Jamie Adkins introduced herself as a police officer with the city of Ann Arbor, speaking on behalf of the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association. She noted that the city council has a lot of hard decisions that are coming up and told them that she had attended all of the work sessions on the budget. She told mayor John Hieftje that he had been quoted in the local media as saying that Ann Arbor had never laid off a police officer.

While that might be true, Adkins allowed, what has not been discussed was the staggering reduction in personnel over the last nine years. In 2001, she said, the police department employed 191 sworn officers. Currently, that number is 124. One way services had been reduced, she said, was that patrol response times had increased. Other ways: the city has eliminated downtown beat officers; response to private property crashes has been eliminated; the animal control officer has been eliminated; public housing dedicated patrols have been eliminated; the domestic violence advocate has been eliminated; fingerprint services has been eliminated; detective bureau case follow-up has been reduced; and gun registration services have been reduced.

While addressing the city council during a public hearing on the budget, Jamie Adkins asked everyone on the police layoff list to stand. In the foreground is Tom Fegan, former planning director with Washtenaw County. (Image links to photo of Fegan when The Chronicle encountered him the previous Saturday when he was ushering at Michigan Stadium for Obama's commencement address.)

With the proposed layoffs currently in the budget, Adkins said, on July 1, 2010 the total number of sworn officers would be reduced to 111. That reflects a reduction of 42% over the last nine years, she said.

She told the council that many of the officers who were on the layoff list were not there at night, due to their lower seniority – they were out on patrol. She ran out of time to introduce each officer individually as she’d planned, but did note that the first person on the layoff list had been hired on Oct. 23, 2000. That’s 10 years, she said, that they had served the city. The least senior person on the layoff list, she reported, was hired on Jan. 30, 2006.

She finished her remarks with an invitation: “All those on the layoff list, please stand up!”

It earned them a round of applause, which was met with Hieftje’s standard admonishment that applause was not encouraged during public hearings.

Patrick Maguire introduced himself as one of the police officers who was due to be laid off, and asked the council to seriously reconsider the idea of laying off police and firefighters in Ann Arbor. He told the council that he been born and raised in Ann Arbor and gone on to earn a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice. When considering his career choices, he said, he considered federal law enforcement jobs, jobs in other states, and police jobs in cities around the state of Michigan.

But Maguire said he felt a special connection to the city of Ann Arbor and eventually decided that because he was from Ann Arbor, and knew Ann Arbor, he wanted to come back to Ann Arbor to work and give back to the community that had raised him. He was hired in 2000. He’s currently one of the city’s two K-9 handlers.

While people are attracted to Ann Arbor for a variety of reasons, Maguire said, one of the main things that makes Ann Arbor a great city is its overall relative safety. He attributed its safety to the hard-working dedication of those police officers who come to work every day to protect the citizens of Ann Arbor. He called the Ann Arbor police department one of the highest educated and best trained police departments of any city around.

Maguire described police officers in Ann Arbor as smart, compassionate and willing to invest themselves with those with whom they come into contact. He described the detectives as highly trained who are able to solve a high percentage of their cases. What it comes down to, he said, is that Ann Arbor has a great proactive police department that is able to address the specific needs of the city.

With the proposed cuts, Maguire warned, the city’s department would be transformed from a proactive department to a reactive one, providing levels of service that would be unlikely to satisfy anyone. In his 10 years as a police officer in Ann Arbor, he reported, someone had tried to run him over with a car, and he’d been hit, kicked, punched, sat on, attacked by pit bulls, and so on.

Keith Harr weighed in against the proposed police and fire cuts. He said his neighborhood was between two stations that were being considered for closure and that it would affect his neighborhood a great deal.

FY 2011 Budget: Public Hearing, Commentary on Other Fiscal Issues

During the public hearing on community services fee increases, Karen Sidney warned that the city kept raising prices, apparently thinking that the increased prices would have no effect on people’s behavior. She recalled that a few years ago the city staff had recommended that the parks fees all be raised, and in fact the fees were raised. The next year, she said, less revenue was actually generated, despite the higher rates. That was because people stopped using the parks. For example, people stopped going to Vets Ice Arena and started using The Cube. Once those customers are lost, she cautioned, you don’t get them back right away. “Use some business sense, for god’s sake!” she admonished the council.

Sidney also spoke during the public hearing on the budget. She told the council there were so many things wrong in the spending priorities for the proposed budget that it was hard to choose what to talk about: reducing police and fire positions to below the minimum levels recommended by former chief of police Dan Oates in a February 2005 press release; spending over $330,000 to redo the city’s development rules, while turning off 2,000 streetlights to help pay for it; water and sewer capital spending that meets the needs of new developments but ignores the needs of people who are living here.

The item that stood out for Sidney this year, she said, was over $1.3 million in the general fund budget for three items that should be covered by the $47.4 million police/courts building project budget. The general fund reserve, she warned, is already below the level recommended by the city’s outside auditor.

The public was told, Sidney said, that the police/courts project would cost $47.4 million and that that amount would cover all costs. Now, she contended, the city is redefining “all.” After it finished redefining “all,” she quipped, it could tell us what the meaning of “is” is. The items Sidney ticked through totaling the $1.3 million were: $165,000 to fix the sixth floor Larcom Building roof; $185,000 in moving costs; $975,000 for audiovisual and security equipment.

Sidney suggested that if the $47.4 million was not sufficient to cover the entire “wish list,” then the solution should be to cut costs out of the police/courts construction budget, not to use the general fund. A start, she said, would be to eliminate the conference center and the gym in the basement of the Larcom Building. She suggested that a security system could be achieved for less than $975,000 – the county had achieved that, she contended.

Sidney addressed mayor John Hieftje directly, saying that he had said the project was within budget. She asked the mayor to share with the rest of the community the data he’d used to reach that conclusion.

Libby Hunter again rendered her public commentary in the form of a song. This time the melody was from “Help Me, Rhonda” – the Beach Boys tune from the year 1965. Lyrical highlights included “Help us, Roger, help us get out of this mess.”

Lou Glorie, a candidate for a Ward 5 council seat in the Democratic primary, said she thought there were some things in the budget that could probably be trimmed a bit. She wondered about the $6.299 million in IT charges and figured that a couple million could be cut out of that part of the budget. In fleet services, she suggested that a couple of new garbage trucks could wait a bit. She also pointed to the Smart Zone and LDFA (Local Development Finance Authority), and wondered if the city was getting enough “bang for the buck” out of that. As for alternative transportation, she said, she wondered what kind of improvements they would get. She said she really hoped they were not going to be laying off police and firefighters.

Argo Earthen Embankment: Consent Agreement

During her communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the topic of the earthen embankment along Argo Dam by reporting on her activities the previous weekend – not the weekend of the University of Michigan commencement, but the one prior to that. She’d had the pleasure of helping clean up the Argo Dam earthen embankment, she said.

Briere described how she had worked with volunteers from the high school rowing teams and their adult mentors, helping to clear underbrush off the embankment. She noted that it was now possible to actually glimpse the river from the path that runs along the earthen berm. The volunteer efforts are part of the city’s strategy to put a woody vegetation management plan in place for the earthen berm in response to directives from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE).

Before the council on Monday was a resolution that charts out a plan resolving the up-to-now ongoing conflict between the city and MDNRE, which resulted in the closure of the headrace along the earthen embankment in the fall of 2009. The headrace is used by canoeists and kayakers to circumnavigate the Argo Dam, which requires a short portage at the end of the headrace. With canoeing season starting, the city would stand to lose a significant part of the revenue from the Argo canoe livery with the headrace closed.

Briere also led off deliberations on the resolution before the council by saying that she was really happy to see the resolution, even though it came too late to be published on the agenda. She said it’s the kind of item that is worth doing at the last minute and she was delighted to see it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) also indicated that she was excited to see the item on the agenda. Sue McCormick, public services area administrator for the city, was asked to come to the podium. Mayor John Hieftje asked her about Section 10 of the agreement, which covers reconstruction and repair of the embankment. He asked for clarification on that section. McCormick said that as the city looked at its options, they have looked at primarily two approaches.

The first would be essentially a maintenance project whereby toe drains in the earthen embankment would be daylighted and extended so that they would be more efficient and meet the minimum standards. The city had previously gone out for bids on a similar kind of project, she said. The city have delayed moving forward with that project the last time.

The second approach involved the creation of a different kind of amenity, she said – that had come from the community and had evolved through the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) Committee  process. Instead of retaining the existing headrace, a different amenity would be created that might remove the need to portage at the bottom of the headrace. That might make it more amenable to canoeists.

The consent agreement allows the city to consider both kinds of options. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he had had an opportunity to look at one of the proposals about a year ago, which involved a series of ponds. He thought it might work around some of the problems that the current headrace has, and expected that it could benefit a lot of people. He asked McCormick to outline the timetable in the consent agreement.

McCormick explicated the following milestones:

• Oct. 1, 2010: Send out a request for proposals (RFP) for one of the two options.
• Feb. 1, 2011: Select a construction option.
• May 15, 2011: Obtain MDRNE permits for the construction.
• June 1, 2011: Start construction of the selected option. But McCormick cautioned that it is contingent on receipt of the MDNRE permits.
• Nov. 15, 2011: Construction will be complete

Between now and the request for proposals, she said, there would be a lot of community discussion about that process. The city would be requesting that the MDRNE also hold a public hearing in connection with the permitting process, McCormick indicated. That meant there would be plenty of opportunity for public input all along the way, she said.

As Briere had noted, the resolution had been added late the same day to the council’s agenda.

City administrator Roger Fraser reported that McCormick and Sumedh Bahl, who’s unit manager of the water treatment plant and interim community services area administrator, had met with the “folks in Lansing” on a conference call that morning. That had been a follow-up to a series of meetings that they’ve had trying to hammer out an agreement. He contended that it had been recognized early on that the original approach being taken by the regulatory offices was more extreme than the city of Ann Arbor thought was justified.

That morning, he said, when they got to a point where they had something they felt they could recommend, they recognized that the council would probably like to see it as soon as possible. So they parked in the office of Abigail Elias – who’s on the city attorney’s staff – and spent the better part of Monday working on the details. That was how they got the document to the council as early as they did, Fraser said.

Bascially, he said, it was all done that day. McCormick indicated that the city hopes to be able to remove the stop log that closes off the water to the headrace and to have the headrace restored to operation as soon as the end of the week. The consent agreement, however, specifies that the stop log must be re-installed on or before Oct. 15, 2010, but may be removed again after May 1, 2011.

After Fraser and McCormick had sketched out the main points of the consent agreement, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked for a short recess to evaluate the proposal, saying he had not had a chance to do so, because he’d received it so late in the afternoon.

In regard to the recess requested by Hohnke, the proceedings mirrored a previous council resolution brought on Oct. 19, 2009 that sought to effect the repairs that the MDNRE (then called the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, or MDEQ) had required the city to undertake. Hohnke asked for a recess on that occasion as well, due to the late hour at which the resolution had been brought before the council.

The October 2009  resolution was tabled, with the council unable to reach an agreement amid confusion about the significance of the resolution regarding a commitment to keeping the dam or eventually remove it completely.

During Monday’s recess, Hohnke and Margie Teall, both of whom have advocated for a dam-out option for Argo, retreated to the council workroom to discuss the resolution. On returning from the recess, Hohnke said that the piece he had not had a chance to absorb was the question of whether the resolution opened the city up to significant costs. For example, if the city issued an RFP, did that mean they had to accept whatever came back. He’d satisfied himself, he reported, that this was not the case.

Outcome: The city council unanimously approved the resolution to accept the consent agreement on repair or reconstruction of the earthen berm at Argo.

Sandwich Board Sign Sidewalk Occupancy

The city council had considered a revision to its sign ordinance at its Feb. 16, 2010 meeting, that was ultimately defeated. The task force that had been established at the council’s Oct. 5, 2009 meeting and then appointed on Oct. 19 had brought that resolution forward.

The goal was to find a way to make legal the fairly common practice of using portable sandwich board signs. The revised strategy was to look at the city’s sidewalk occupancy permitting system as a mechanism to allow sandwich board signs – within the area of the city’s Downtown Development Authority. [Recent Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Give Me a Sign"]

Before the council was the first reading of a revision to the city’s sidewalk occupancy permitting system.

Sandwich Sign Boards: Public Commentary

James Agnew addressed the city council on the topic of sandwich signboards. He introduced himself as co-owner of Aunt Agatha’s mystery bookshop at 213 S. Fourth Ave. On Fourth Avenue, he said, very often on a Saturday night he would leave the store and there would be maybe two or three people. Walking up to Liberty Street, there’d be a stream of people, and up on Main Street there typically is a stream of people. That’s one argument, he said, for sandwich boards – increased visibility of places that are not among the spots most often thought of as retail.

People often think of the retail areas just as State Street, Main Street and Liberty, Agnew said. A sandwich sign board, he said, gives you some visibility to people who are passing by, who might not otherwise be aware that you are there. He reported that his bookstore used sandwich boards mostly for special occasions like book signings. It’s helpful for people who don’t know where the store is, who read about the event in the newspaper or online.

The larger context, Agnew said, is retail. It’s not a dirty word – rather, it’s very helpful to the city. People who come in on a Saturday night are not coming here for the university, but rather for the stores and the restaurants. These stores and restaurants are unique – Aunt Agatha’s is the only mystery bookstore in Michigan, he said.

Agnew said the store often sells books off of carts in front of the store and that they would be willing to pay the same amount for a sandwich sign as they do for the book carts. Small unique stores like his, he said, did not typically have the kind of advertising budget that would allow planes towing banners at football games, so they had to do what they could – a sandwich sign board.

Nina Juergens introduced herself as owner of Acme Mercantile at 111 W. Liberty and Salon Vertigo at 212 S. Fourth Ave. She said she felt a big part of the charm of the Main Street area was the eclectic variety of businesses that you don’t find in other places. Sandwich sign boards, she said, allow businesses to express their unique character. She noted that sidewalk permits can’t really be used most of the year due to the weather, so she relied on signboards to announce sales and highlight products, or whatever is happening in the store.

Juergens said that recently they had not been putting their signboard out, because right now it’s being refurbished. As a result, sales had been about half of what they normally are when the sign is out. That’s because no one can see the store, she said. At the salon, she said, it’s hard for staff to build a clientele when nobody knows that salon is there – it’s located in a hallway.

Dawn Nelson introduced herself as a salon owner in the Washington Building. She told the council that her salon is on the third floor, so without a sandwich signboard, no one would know that she was there. She had signed a five-year lease there, but probably would not have if she knew that she would not be allowed to advertise on the street. She said she believed in regulation, but sandwich boards were an option, whereas it was not an option to put signs on the building itself – it’s in an historic district.

Vicki Honeyman introduced herself as a 26-year tenant on East Ann Street, operating a small retail and haircutting business – Heavenly Metal and Vicki’s Wash-and-Wear Haircuts. It’s right across the street from the Hands-On Museum, she said. She described her situation as unique. Her operation is the only retail on the block, so there’s very little foot traffic on the street, except for people from city hall who are going to get lunch and come back to work. The building and entrance, she said, is set so far back from the street that there’s literally no visibility at the corner of Ann & Fourth.

Honeyman asked the council for a reasonable and local-business-friendly ordinance for signage, but also asked for consideration to be made to allow her to place her sandwich sign boards on her landlord’s private property next to her neighbor’s sign. She also asked to be able to place her Heavenly Metal sign at the end of her walk. When shoppers see the signboard at the corner of Fourth & Ann, she said shoppers would realize that there was actually a business down the block. She reported that 90% of her new customers tell her that it was the signs that drew them to her store. Without the signs, she feared, she really could not make it. She encouraged the council to allow for atypical situations.

After the council deliberations at the very end of the meeting during public commentary unreserved time, Jim Mogensen urged the council to get some input from the Center for Independent Living before the ordinance comes before them for its second reading. [At the council's February 2010 meeting, when an earlier ordinance had been voted down, speakers during public comment had addressed the issue of sandwich signs obstructing accessibility for handicapped people.]

Also addressing the council at the end of the meeting was Michael Slaughter, who weighed in for tasteful sandwich board signs, saying that they were allowed in other Big Ten college towns as well as in other Michigan cities. He also raised the issue of commercial-free speech in the context of the First Amendment.

Sandwich Sign Boards: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) led off discussion of the sandwich signboard ordinance by asking why the resolution was coming back to the council outside of the context of the signboard review task force that had been assigned to take up the matter.

In February, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said, they been assured that the referral to the task force would result in follow-up within four months. Since then, she reported, the task force had not met. To wait through the summer until the sandwich signboard task force meets or is reconstituted, she said, would be a burden to the council and also to the merchants involved.

Higgins said she had heard very compelling arguments during the public commentary for the sandwich boards, in particular for businesses that are not in the city’s most walked-about streets. She had some concerns, however, in locations where there was sidewalk dining, bicycle hoops, and also sandwich boards. Just how pedestrian friendly are we making that area, she wondered. She asked if that issue was addressed in the ordinance revision.

Briere noted that she had not designed the ordinance. But on reading it, she said there was a certain amount of sidewalk available in front of the business. There is only a certain amount of sidewalk available as a maximum amount. It’s limited because it’s part of the sidewalk occupancy ordinance.

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, was called to the podium by Higgins. Rampson explained that the way the ordinance is drafted, if the sidewalk is reserved for dining, a sandwich board sign would have to be inside the dining occupancy area.

Businesses that front onto the sidewalk would have first priority. After that, Rampson said, other businesses would have the opportunity to bid and put in a permit request. The other piece includes a limit of two signs. There could be multiple businesses on those signs, but it would preclude five or six different signs being lined up on the sidewalk. The third piece that’s addressed, said Rampson, is that many of the signs get placed right next to the entrance of the building, which causes pedestrians to have to jog back and forth on the sidewalk. For that reason, that ordinance was drafted to require at least a 6-foot path from the “right-of-way edge,” which is essentially the building face.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked if there was a process to allow a variance that would accommodate the kind of situation that Vicki Honeyman had explained for her business. Rampson clarified that as drafted, there’s no opportunity for a variance. However, there is a possibility for a variance under the sign ordinance, as opposed to the sidewalk occupancy ordinance – something that was drawn out also by mayor John Hieftje. Smith said she supported the ordinance and suggested that the council revisit the issue in November and evaluate how things are working.

Hieftje asked how the sign that Honeyman wanted to place on her landlord’s private property would be viewed in the meantime. Rampson explained that it would not be allowed.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) drew out the fact from Rampson that the usual sidewalk occupancy season lasted from April to November, but for the sandwich board permits, it would be an annual system. It would run from July 1 through June 30. That offsets it from the application process for other sidewalk occupancy, which will allow the city staff to process both kinds of permits efficiently.

Rampson explained that in contrast to the regular sidewalk occupancy system, permission would be required for a sandwich board to be placed in front of a neighbor’s property, as opposed to a simple notification. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if a business outside the DDA could ask permission from a business inside the DDA to place sign on a neighboring property. Rampson explained that the draft specified that it’s a business inside the DDA area that can seek such an occupancy permit.

Kunselman had questions for the city attorney about whether it was possible to have an adjacent property owner provide permission to use a public right of way – he was a little concerned about the legalities. City attorney Stephen Postema said that Kristen Larcom, a senior assistant city attorney, had looked at the issue but that he would discuss it further with her.

Focusing on the language “as is available,” Kunselman wanted know who would make the determination about what is available on the public right-of-way. Rampson clarified that the applicants are supposed to provide a diagram, which would allow the determination to take place. Based on observations of current usage, she said, when there are conflicts, they are worked out among co-tenants in the building.

As an example, Kunselman noted that he’d seen a sandwich board sign recently advertising for one of the businesses inside Nickels Arcade. He asked what would happen if all the businesses wanted to have a sign and they could not all fit on one board – who would pick and choose? The property owner? Would it be the person who processed the permits? Rampson indicated that the staff would not be mediating among tenants of a property.

Rampson clarified that the permits would be issued to business owners, but they provide a place on the application for the property owner to acknowledge the application. If there are two signs that can be issued at a given location and they are already taken, Rampson said, it was up to a business owner who did not have a sign to work it out with those who did. Kunselman concluded that “not everybody will be happy.” Rampson deadpanned back: “That’s rarely the case.”

Briere brought up the fact that the ordinance had been drafted in a way to require signs to be placed at least 18 inches from the curb, with the idea that this would help mitigate against blockage of car doors opening and wheelchair access to the curb.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that the size of allowable signs is specified in the ordinance. He wanted to know how that compared with what’s currently used in actual practice. Rampson said that it would likely cover 80% of existing signs. Those that are larger, she said, were actually obstructions and probably should be ruled out.

Taylor also drew out from Rampson the clarification that permits are parcel-based, as opposed to street-frontage-based because it was specifically businesses located on upper stories who might be most interested in having sidewalk sign boards, but they have no street frontage.

Taylor said that he thought the ordinance should read “building-side edge” instead the “right-of-way edge,” because the right-of-way had two edges. Rampson replied that staff who dealt with it on a day-to-day basis understood that the edge of the right-of-way is the edge of the right-of-way, but assured Taylor that they would try to find some language that was more descriptive.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d been receiving indications from people outside the downtown, who had been asked to take down their sandwich board signs. He asked if the city staff might not be a little bit more “negotiable” on the issue. Anglin was specifically concerned about Dragon’s Lair Futons.

Rampson noted that Dragon’s Lair had no frontage on Liberty Street. She also noted that the staff can’t negotiate what the code says. A directional sign in the case of Dragon’s Lair was okay, Rampson said. But for portable signs throughout the entire Liberty Street corridor, the city has been asking others to take them down and not use them. They had to be fair to everyone.

Outcome: The sidewalk occupancy ordinance designed to accommodate sandwich board signs passed unanimously on first reading.

Fuller Road Station

The topic of Fuller Road Station arose during council communications as well as during the budget hearing and general public commentary time.

Fuller Road Station: Council Communications

During her communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) acknowledged that the Ann Arbor planning commission would be considering an amendment to the city’s zoning code that would revise the definition of public land (PL). The proposal was to broaden a use currently specified as a “municipal airport,” changing it to a “transportation facility.” The change would rule in the Fuller Road Station as a possible use for public land. [At its May 4 meeting, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the change. The topic was also discussed at the council's Sunday night caucus.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), during his communications time, said he wanted to give some updates on the Fuller Road Station project. He reminded the council that the University of Michigan board of regents had been presented with a plan in January 2010 totaling $46,000,550. Of that, he continued, the university had agreed to pay $36,000,309.

That meant, said Anglin, that the city would be putting up around $10 million. He said when he first voted in agreement with the intermodal transportation center, it was after it had first been presented to him at the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) meeting. [Anglin serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, along with councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).]

The PAC discussion, Anglin said, went on and on and included the potential of having things like a bar where people could go after they had played soccer. The whole thing had become a “tremendously glorified project,” Anglin said. There was a long-range plan, Anglin stressed, even though it appeared right at this moment that it was simply a parking deck. He stressed that the meeting on Thursday, May 6 on the Fuller Road Station should be a public hearing and that the public should be heard from.

Anglin said he did not believe that there had been a public hearing on the topic, yet. He said he did not want the city staff to come and explain what was going on, because people already know what is going on. What the staff should do, Anglin said, was listen to the public’s concerns. There’s a lot of disappointment, Anglin cautioned, that the city had moved so quickly ahead with something involving the parks, that could perhaps set something in motion that they don’t really fully understand yet. And for that reason, he said, it was important to have that discussion.

At first, Anglin said PAC thought it was a great idea. But now, he said, PAC is wondering if Ann Arbor is giving up a park.

During the budget hearing, Ann Arbor resident Rita Mitchell told the council that at a time when all of these budget cuts are proposed for essential services – police and fire and human services – she was concerned. She asked the council to direct its attention to funding those kinds of things and not undertake something like a parking structure on Fuller Road.

It’s been proposed that the city would contribute $10 million to the project, Mitchell said, which would primarily benefit the University of Michigan to address its parking needs for its commuters. But it would not provide a benefit to citizen taxpayers, who would be providing that funding, she contended. She asked the council to consider dropping that project. The project also represented a giving away of parkland to the university, she said.

John Satarino led off his comments during general public commentary by saying that he was a bit depressed. He had not thought of coming to address the council that night, but he’d been reading up on municipal immunity. He said he was a supporter of Fuller Park, and that he was against an eight-story, 1,600-car parking structure that was planned to be built there by the University of Michigan, with the city’s help.

Satarino noted that the next evening, on May 4, there would be a meeting of the planning commission where they would change a few words to make it possible to build a transportation center there. He told the council that he did not think that was a good way to go. He contended that there was a deed with a restriction on it, and that the parcel was designated in the master plan for the area as a park. [City staff have stated that a title search did not show any deed restrictions on the property.]

DDA Bylaws Revisions

Before the city council was a resolution that approved changes to the bylaws of the Downtown Development Authority, which the DDA board had itself approved back in February 2010.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to the podium to clarify what was meant by “financial systems.” Pollay explained that the DDA runs its checkbook out of her office, and that the financial systems consisted of a method for separating out the three main funds of the DDA – the TIF (tax increment financing) fund, the parking fund, and housing fund. Higgins also asked about the preparation of the annual financial report by the “treasurer or their designee.” She wanted to know who the designee could be.

Pollay indicated that what the phrasing was meant to suggest is that the staff does the work and the board treasurer ensures that it gets done. Higgins confirmed with Pollay that the revised bylaws reflect what the practice already is. Hearing Pollay’s confirmation of that resulted in Higgins’ conclusion: “Perfect, thank you.” Sandi Smith (Ward 1) – who also serves on the DDA board in addition to the city council – said that in general, all of the changes to the bylaws reflected the practice that had been in place for several years.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Pollay what the current bylaws required of her. Pollay explained that in the previous bylaws, her role as executive director is not designated. The executive committee of the DDA board, she said, had brought to the full board the idea that it probably made sense to actually state what the role of the executive director is.

Kunselman inquired whether the issue was addressed in the enabling legislation. Pollay said that the executive director is certainly mentioned in that legislation in the context of the DDA hiring for itself an executive director and explaining what retirement and benefits director might be entitled to. But she said it’s not specific about what the person does.

Kunselman asked Pollay if she was a city of Ann Arbor employee. Pollay allowed that it was an interesting question but said she did not believe so. She indicated that she was an employee of the DDA, but all of the DDA staff follow all of the city rules and the paychecks come through the city finance office. She said they actually did not take a lot of time reflecting on the question. They function as if they were a part of one whole organization.

Pollay indicated, however, that she worked at the pleasure of the DDA board. Her job, then, was to make sure that she met their expectations and goals, as expressed in their resolutions. Mayor John Hieftje added that the board of the DDA in a very real way serves at the pleasure of the city council – given that the city council appoints DDA board members. “So you can feel better about that,” he told Kunselman. Quipped Pollay, “I’m not sure I do!”

Outcome: The revised bylaws of the DDA were unanimously approved.

Dexter-Ann Arbor Run Road Closures

At the previous city council meeting, Hal Wolfe, race director of the Dexter-Ann Arbor Run, had appeared to ask for the street closures necessary for the race, which will be held on June 6, 2010. At Monday’s meeting, he reminded councilmembers of that previous appearance before them. He was there this week, he said, to discuss additional requested road closures.

He quipped that he was not going to stop until he achieved the closure of every road in the county. Returning to a more serious demeanor, he told the council that the road closure in question involved the exit ramp from M-14 to Main Street. He reported that they had been working on a plan to get the ramp closed for the race for the last six months. He noted that it is a hospital exit as well as a major interchange, so they were taking it very seriously.

The stretch along Main Street, he explained, is about 1.1 miles of the race course. Along 0.9 of those 1.1 Main Street miles, he said, there are runners, cones and cars. In particular, where the off-ramp comes off of Huron River Drive there’s a lane of runners and a lane of cars going at close-to-freeway speeds getting bottlenecked before they can get over to the other side of Main Street.

Wolfe reported that he had been working with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Ann Arbor police department over the last six months to develop a successful plan to get the closure accomplished properly. The difference between two weeks ago and tonight, he said, was that the University of Michigan Hospital had given their consent to allow the approval, based on the plans they been shown.

MDOT had provided the requirements for the closure sign designs, and there would be a police officer stationed at the off-ramp, he said. The approval that night, he said, would be an authorization to go back to MDOT to finalize plans to make sure that everything was done properly. He thanked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) for helping him get the item onto the council’s agenda. He told the council that he would stay until the vote in order to answer any questions they might have.

Later towards the end of the meeting, councilmembers had several clarificational questions, but ultimately approved the road closures.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the M-14 exit ramp closure for the Dexter-Ann Arbor Run.

Delinquent Charges Added to Tax Rolls

Before the council was a resolution to move a total of $204,821 in delinquent fees to the July 2010 tax rolls. Residents with charges on the list for water utility, alarm, board up, clean up, vacant property inspection and housing inspection fees would have 30 days to pay the delinquent fees or face having the charges added to their tax bills with a 10% penalty fee. With the penalty, that translates to a total of $225,303.

City treasurer Matthew Horning explained that a letter would be sent out the following day to everyone who has a “receivable” with the city, and from that point they will have 30 days until it goes onto the tax rolls with a 10% penalty.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked what the vacant property inspection meant. He noted that there were more buildings in town that seemed vacant, and it could become a concern. Horning allowed that it was a concern – it’s part of the planning and development services area. On a monthly basis, vacant property is inspected to make sure there are no fire hazards and that everything is still safe. There is an inspection fee associated with that service, he explained.

Anglin asked if there was any consequence to the inspection. Horning explained that the “consequence” was the fee, which ranged from $40-$50. Anglin described a particular building that he found to be an eyesore. Horning indicated that once the building became categorized as a nuisance, then it became the city attorney’s responsibility.

Anglin said he felt that the $40 fee was perhaps not adequate to convey that the city took the issue seriously. At a time when more houses are becoming vacant, he said, it was not appropriate to relay a message that it was okay to simply walk away from a property and that the city would look after it for a $40 fee per month. He said he was not satisfied with the situation and would be willing to increase the fees quite dramatically.

Horning clarified that the inspection fee was exactly that, namely, an inspection fee. If there’s something about any property or a structure that is lacking, then the owner of the property is given a time frame in which to rectify the situation. If the property owner does not do so, continued Horning, the city has the right to cause improvements to be made.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that with many people struggling with foreclosure situations, she would not want to have the city be the one to tip the balance by applying these fees. She advised to proceed with caution.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) clarified with Horning that water utility delinquencies were quarterly water bills that were not paid as of Jan. 1 of this year. Higgins asked if water had been shut off. Horning said that the shut-off process is one method to get payment. He deferred the specifics of the water shut-off program to the public services department. He said that shared meters for multiple dwellings in many buildings in the city made it impossible to shut off water, because it would mean shutting off water to a large number of dwelling units.

Sue McCormick, the public services area administrative for the city, came to the podium to explain that the addresses on the delinquency list were probably a result of a variety of different circumstances. Some could be residential or small commercial, she said. Nothing goes to the tax roll if it is not aged over six months, she explained. Addresses on the list are past due and owing for more than six months.

Outcome: The resolution to move delinquent charges to the tax rolls passed unanimously.

Greenbelt Advisory Commission Re-Appointments

Before the council was a resolution to re-appoint four members of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC). Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council’s representative to GAC, noted that the city was fortunate that all four had agreed to devote their time and specific domain knowledge on the commission.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked if anyone else had expressed interest in the positions, noting that these are city council appointments. That contrasts with most other appointments, which are nominated by the mayor and then confirmed by the council. Hohnke said that the openings on the commission had been communicated at the last city council meeting during his communications time. The terms are posted on the city website and the application materials are available on city website.

Higgins asked if any other applications had been received. The city clerk, Jackie Beaudry, confirmed that no others had been received. With that, Higgins was content.

By ordinance, Hohnke said the positions are specified to be a real estate development professional (Peter Allen), an environmental organization representative (Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council), an agriculture landowner representative (Tom Bloomer), and a public-at-large representative (Dan Ezekiel).

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all four GAC re-appointments.

Other Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold reported that a site visit had been made to the crosswalk at King Elementary School, which is at a mid-block location. Griswold has addressed the council on the following previous occasions, encouraging the city to move the crosswalk to an intersection in the interest of safety:

• 2009 Aug. 16 city council caucus [link]
• 2009 Nov. 5 city council meeting [link]
• 2009 Dec. 21 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Jan. 4 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Feb. 1 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Feb. 16 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 March 15 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 April 5 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 April 18 city council caucus [link]
• 2010 April 19 city council meeting [link]

Present at the site visit on April 23, 2010, reported Griswold, were the mayor, as well as Ward 2 councilmembers Stephen Rapundalo and Tony Derezinski, plus six parents of King School students, the principal, as well as local media.

It was her understanding, based on communication with Rapundalo, Griswold said, that more background was needed. She offered that the transportation safety committee, which had recommended moving the crosswalk to the intersection from its mid-block location, had been created in the 1960s and she’d served on it since 1994. She’d been hired by the Ann Arbor Public Schools system in 2000 as a safety consultant. She told the council that she hoped they would respect the process established by the committee.

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

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo.

Next council meeting: May 17, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Vicki Honeyman gives Doug Wathen a haircut in her shop, Heavenly Metal, which shares space with her other business, Vicki’s Wash & Wear Haircuts. In the background to the left is a sandwich board sign for Heavenly Metal, tucked into the corner since Honeyman was notified that it's illegal to put it outside the store.

Vicki Honeyman’s Heavenly Metal is easy to miss. Not only is it the sole retail shop on East Ann, but the business is also set back from the street. Until recently, Honeyman relied on a portable sign she set up on the northeast corner of East Ann and Fourth Avenue to bring in business. But earlier this month, a city official told her she had to take her sign down. In Ann Arbor, it’s illegal.

Honeyman says that since the city made her take her sign down, she’s seen a significant drop in the number of customers coming into Heavenly Metal. Without the sign, people don’t know her business is there.

“It’s completely affected my business,” Honeyman said, describing it as “devastating” to her income.

The Ann Arbor city council considered a measure in February that would have amended the sign ordinance to make portable signs legal, allowing businesses to buy annual permits to use them. But when that resolution was voted down, city officials decided to step up enforcement of the existing sign ordinance. Business groups and retailers have protested – it’s likely that city staff will propose a new permitting system for council to consider next month, one that’s based on sidewalk occupancy permits.

Sign Ordinance: Some Background

Honeyman’s sign was in violation of Chapter 61, Section 5:508 of the city code, which prohibits a variety of signs: exterior banners, pennants, spinners and streamers; portable exterior signs; and signs erected in the public right-of-way (excluding portable “open house” signs).

The ordinance hasn’t been strenuously enforced – in fact, the chair of the city’s sign board of appeals quit out of frustration about the issue.

There have also been efforts – so far unsuccessful – to change the ordinance. At its Feb. 16, 2010 meeting, Ann Arbor city council discussed a measure brought forward by councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) to amend the sign ordinance. It would have regulated, through a permitting system, the placement of portable “sandwich board” signs, which are widely used.

During a public hearing that night, council heard from people on both sides of the issue. From Chronicle coverage:

Kathy Griswold raised concerns about possible interference of such signs with sight distances. If the system were to be complaint-driven, she warned, there could be delays in getting signs removed that obscured sight lines.

Also during the public hearing, Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority, read a brief statement on behalf of the DDA, saying that sandwich board signs are part of what makes for a vibrant downtown experience. She suggested that the system be adopted without permits and then reviewed after one year to determine if there was adequate compliance.

Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living pointed out that sandwich board signs can pose a problem for people with disabilities – for the blind, the signs are in unexpected places, and for those who use wheelchairs, the signs can pose access issues. Grawi cautioned that vibrancy did not necessarily mean cluttering.

During deliberations, several councilmembers – including Briere – said they felt the ordinance needed more work. It was unanimously defeated, and an increase of enforcement was foreshadowed:

What would the effect of defeating the measure be on those who were already using such signs? The city attorney’s office is recommending that the ordinance – which does not allow use of such signs – be enforced. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed her concern that business owners be made aware that there would be enforcement efforts starting.

The issue was also discussed at a March 30, 2010 retreat of the Ann Arbor planning commission. From Chronicle coverage:

Commissioner Jean Carlberg questioned plans to dissolve the current Sign Board of Appeals and move their work to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chris Cheng, project manager for efforts to amend Chapter 61 of the city code on sign and outdoor advertising, said one goal was to reduce the number of committees and boards. [...]

Wendy Rampson reported that the former chair of the [Sign Board of Appeals], Steve Schweer, had quit because he was unhappy over a lack of enforcement of the sign ordinances. That’s about to change, she added – Cheng would be starting to ramp up enforcement in April. Looking somewhat glum about that prospect, Cheng said, “There are a lot of illegal signs out there.”

Enforcement Picks Up, Businesses Protest

The city’s Community Standards Unit and Planning Division began issuing written warnings concerning portable signs on April 1. Business owners in violation were told to remove the illegal sign within 24 hours. The warning informed them that if they failed to do so, city staff would remove the sign and the offending individual would receive a citation and face a fine ranging from $100 to $500. City officials would also confiscate the sign in question without notifying the business owner if the warning wasn’t heeded. The code violation would qualify as a misdemeanor.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, told The Chronicle that at this point no tickets have been issued, just warning letters. She said several people have contacted her to say they feel the timing of the enforcement is less than ideal, given recent economic conditions. Those who have voiced complaints have said businesses are doing everything they can to bring in customers right now, and making them take down their signs isn’t helping.

Rampson explained that the city decided to start enforcing the ordinance in part because members of the public – including people with disabilities – have complained about signs obstructing the pedestrians’ right of way in the downtown area. Another factor, she said, was the city council’s unanimous rejection during its Feb. 16 meeting of the proposed ordinance amendment that would have made sandwich board signs legal.

“We felt we needed to move forward with a comprehensive enforcement,” Rampson said.

Separately, the city’s planning and development staff has been working for the past year to amend the sign ordinance in order to remedy inconsistencies, unrelated to the portable sign prohibition.

Businesses Weigh In

Honeyman said her sign was in a garden off the sidewalk, so it didn’t create an obstacle for pedestrians or create a hazard for handicapped individuals. The city’s actions in enforcing the sign ordinance are hurting small businesses, she said, and by extension the local economy and even the city’s personality. She accused the city of shirking responsibility for shops like Heavenly Metal in favor of big corporate entities like Google.

“The city of Ann Arbor needs us,” Honeyman said. “We’re the people who add color to the town.”

On the same day that she was issued the warning because of her sign, Honeyman said she sent letters of complaint to mayor John Hieftje, city council and Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. She has not received a response.

“Now I just have to wait and see what’s going to happen,” Honeyman said. “I’m not doing anything bad. I’m just trying to make a living. I’m not trying to be a rebel. Please, city of Ann Arbor, support me.”

Jeff Pickell, outside of Kaleidoscope Books and Collectibles, his shop at the corner of North Fourth and East Ann.

Jeff Pickell, who owns Kaleidoscope Books and Collectibles on the northeast corner of North Fourth and Ann, just down the street from Honeyman’s Heavenly Metal, also received a warning about his sign usage. Pickell expressed confusion at the city’s action, saying that his sign had been on private – not city – property, and didn’t pose a threat to pedestrians.

“It’s not part of the traffic process,” Pickell said of his sign. “It’s not a danger or impediment. It’s off the sidewalk area. What’s the city trying to say?”

Pickell said he had contacted the city about the issue but also has not received a response. He said that taking down his sign likely won’t have a major impact on his business, since his store is more visible than Honeyman’s. However, he understands how the prohibition on signs hurts those whose shops have less of an obvious presence. Like Honeyman, he said the city doesn’t treat small businesses as kindly as it should.

“People are drawn to the city in part by the differences of the stores that are downtown,” Pickell said. “Small businesses should be protected. Not harassed. Not fined. It’s not only unnecessary. It’s stupid.”

City Backs Off, New Sidewalk Permitting System Possible

In light of the conflict surrounding the sign ordinance issue, Rampson said the city administration, planning staff and police department agreed to hold off on issuing any tickets or giving out any more warnings in order to discuss new approaches to portable signs. She said the Main Street and State Street area associations and the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce have shown interest in finding a way to make portable signs legal in the downtown area.

Members of the downtown merchants associations have suggested adding portable signs to the city’s current sidewalk occupancy permit system, Rampson said. Businesses currently file for sidewalk occupancy permits to reserve space in front of their establishment for dining or outdoor sales.

City officials are considering allowing business owners to use the same system, which would allow them to pay a fee for an annual or temporary permit to place portable signs on the sidewalk (with certain restrictions on, for example, the size of the sign). [.pdf file of current sidewalk occupancy permit application] A daily permit for sidewalk occupancy costs 5 cents for every square foot of sidewalk space. An annual permit costs $1 per square foot.

Although that’s the only solution to the portable sign issue being considered at this point, Rampson said other ideas might come up. In any case, city officials are looking to take action in the next couple of weeks.

“There is an interest in moving quickly,” Rampson said.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she has drafted an ordinance that uses the same concept: changing the language of the sidewalk occupancy law to allow for portable signs. Briere said she sent the draft to city administrator Roger Fraser last week. Subsequently, she was notified that city staff will present the council with a memo on May 3 outlining a permit system that would make portable signs legal.

This week Fraser confirmed that his staff is working on a draft of an ordinance that would address the sign issue by modifying the rules for sidewalk occupancy permits, similar to the proposal that Briere has drafted. He also confirmed that city staff hope to present the ordinance draft to the city council for action at council’s May 3 meeting.

A Sense of Urgency

Briere said the legality of portable signs has been an issue for a long time. Not long after Briere first became a councilmember in 2007, Honeyman contacted her about finding a solution to the sign problem. In the summer and fall of 2009, Briere chaired a committee to come up with a way to make portable signs legal. The committee included Honeyman, South University Area Association director Maggie Ladd, Linda Briggs from the Ann Arbor Commission on Disability Issues, members of other merchants associations and the city’s planning department.

They concluded their meetings in November 2009. The proposal they drafted – which focused on changing the language of the city’s existing sign ordinance, rather than altering rules for sidewalk occupancy permits – was the one the city council voted down during its Feb. 16 meeting. Briere said the city attorney’s office and city staff had objections to the draft.

After voting down the proposed amendment, councilmembers asked city staff to continue working on the issue. Originally, Briere said, Rampson told the council that staff could have a revised ordinance ready in four months. Briere and other councilmembers, along with Ann Arbor business owners, felt that wasn’t fast enough. Though Briere said she understands that staff has a lot to do, she feels the city needs to take action soon.

“It’s getting to be warm weather,” Briere said. “People are walking around a lot. The city has a need to enforce the law. So, we should make it clear what the law is. Right now, we have not been enforcing the law for a number of years, so people believed what they were doing was legal. Now, people feel like we’re taking their rights away.”

And what about Honeyman and Heavenly Metal? Briere said including portable signs in the sidewalk occupancy permit system might allow Honeyman to place her sign on the corner of Fourth and Ann (something that the sign ordinance would not permit, since business owners are not allowed to place a sign on someone else’s property or on a street where they don’t have frontage).

Under the sidewalk occupancy permit rules, however, businesses that have frontage and/or a street-level presence on a certain street simply have first dibs on the sidewalk space. It’s possible for others to obtain permits for the space – this happens most prominently during the annual Art Fairs.

“[Honeyman] could get permission from the people on Fourth,” Briere said. “So, in theory, this could work for her. But whether people would allow it to happen, I just don’t know.”

Ann Marie Sastry, CEO and co-founder of Sakti3, at her company's booth at the Detroit auto show. (Photo by the writer.)

But Sastry and her company, Ann Arbor-based Sakti3, is far from “out in the cold.” They are in the auto business for the long haul and do not plan on being relegated to a basement booth forever. Eventually, if all goes well, her company’s battery technology will be powering the cars upstairs on the main show floor’s Electric Avenue.

What is it about the “Eureka moment” in her UM lab that prompted her to help found a company two years ago? What is it that turned the heads and opened the wallets of the Michigan Economic Development Corp. and cleantech venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who chipped in $2 million out the gate? What exactly is her company’s battery technology?

Here’s her answer: “We’re interested in both materials and manufacturing technologies at Sakti3. So, we’re sort of looking at the intersection of those things.”

She pauses. She grins slightly, then says somewhat apologetically: “Sorry, I know that’s not good enough.”

This is Sastry’s polite way of saying that any further information is proprietary. She will only add that, “We are working on a manufacturing technology, and we think that’s one of the bottlenecks.”

It’s not surprising that she is guarded. The future of the auto industry is electric – at least, so says Michigan’s governor – and the future of electric plug-in vehicles depends on some big technological leaps in battery technology. If you think you have the secret sauce, you’re not going to tell everybody. Eventually, Sastry says, “We’ll all duke it out in the marketplace.”

Technology Transfer: From Academia

That kind of unabashedly capitalistic tough talk would have been practically unheard-of coming from a university professor in eras gone by – when academics were supposed to be in research for purely academic reasons.

David Cole, who heads the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, remembers the ’70s, when it seemed like a dirty little secret for an academic to commercialize a technology he or she developed. In some cases, Cole says, it’s about academic purity. In other cases, it’s jealousy. “Some people work on technologies that can be commercialized, others do not.”

Sastry says the technology developed in her lab could have gone a number of ways, but in the end she chose automotive battery development rather than pure academics.

“When the founders looked at some results we had, some technology we were looking at, they thought, ‘OK we could absolutely write more papers on this subject and go down that road and try to really focus on this as an academic exercise or we could really go down another road, which is to take what we have and see if we can build it in the steps required for commercialization.’ Both things are difficult. They’re just different.”

Sastry is fortunate enough to work in an academic culture where commercialization is not only no longer frowned upon, but actively encouraged – especially by UM President Mary Sue Coleman.

“The culture has totally turned around,” Sastry says, and not just at UM but in academia broadly.

“There is this space between what we do in our laboratories and getting into commercialization that we have to address,” Sastry says, speaking of a disconnect between the basic research done at universities and their transitions into tangible benefits for consumers. “And we have to help address it. It can’t be all just (marketplace) pull. There has to be some (academic) push.”

Sastry credits Coleman for pushing this cultural turnaround at UM. “Our president has been very specific. She believes that we need to enable tech transfer, and has funded more offices and centers to do that.”

But, she says, no matter how much help a company gets, it’s tough out there.

“It’s a high degree of luck, there’s a high degree of naïveté, there’s a high degree of optimism,” Sastry says, of founding a company.

“In our case, we want to put batteries in cars, so we have a lot to learn about cars.”

The university did not push her in the direction of automotive, she says. The University of Michigan has to rely on the “passion and vision of researchers” to determine where things are going to go. The university, as a whole, starts up very diverse types of companies, from nanotech to biotech to energy and materials.

Cole says that most technologies emerging from blue-sky research can go in multiple directions.

Technology Transfer: What Direction?

“I don’t think Sakti3 would see themselves as … a battery manufacturer,” Cole says. For that to happen, it takes extra push – a combination of public and private funding, in Sakti3’s case – to transition from idea to an actual company that makes things. And Sakti3 is still early stage.

“You see, the one thing that is true with intellectual property is that it’s actually fairly inexpensive,” Cole says. “It’s when you go to commercialize it, put in manufacturing capabilities, that it becomes a different story.”

To help move the “story” along in 2008, the MEDC designated Sakti3 as a Michigan Center of Energy Excellence and awarded the firm $3 million to accelerate its efforts to move to a prototype and to partner with the University of Michigan. This was added to an initial $2 million in financing from Khosla Ventures, led by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Khosla has his hands in many alternative energy and automotive enterprises, including Fisker Automotive.

“We were really lucky to engage with Khosla Ventures almost as soon as we decided to do a company,” Sastry says. “There’s a real similarity in approach there, which is great.

“Working with KV is incredible because they really know what they’re doing. They really know a lot about building businesses. We think we know something about building batteries, so that’s really good,” Sastry laughs.

It’s a marriage that works out because there is only so much a bunch of academics can do. You need expert venture capitalists to take it to the next level. “In terms of the mechanics of a business, how to raise funds, how you price real estate, these are things that venture capitalists know a lot about,” she says.

Technology Transfer: Timing

So, when will Sakti3’s materials, or manufacturing technology, or process, or combination of all of them – she is still vague on that “proprietary” stuff – actually see the marketplace?

“We’re a few years off yet,” she says.

Five years? 10 years?

“A few years off,” she repeats.

Then Sastry decides to be somewhat more charitable with her information.

“To be very honest, it depends on a lot of things,” Sastry says. “Depends on how fast we run, depends on the dollars that come in, it depends on how successful and, sometimes, how lucky you are in doing the technology. So, there are a lot of variables. You know, starting a business is very risky.”

It also helps that Sakti3 has a development agreement with GM and – with her university hat on – she runs a development center called ABCD (Advanced Battery Coalition for Drivetrains) to help the automaker develop next-generation batteries.

Sakti3 currently employs fewer than 20 people in Ann Arbor, but Sastry expects that number to grow. And it will grow in Ann Arbor.

But what if, say, a Boston-based company eventually wants to buy the business, she is asked.

“It’s a fair question,” Sastry replies. “I mean, what we decided to do is to start a company to advance our technology to get it into vehicles. And so, where we’re at as an entity five or 10 years from now, I hope that we’re kicking out a lot of batteries that are going into really good cars. There’s a lot of steps between now and then.”

So, at this stage of the company’s development, Sakti3’s goals match those of the University of Michigan to commercialize its basic technology and the goals of the state of Michigan to make the state a center for next-generation automotive battery technology and manufacturing.

“The thing that’s nice about our situation is that the government of the region that’s most important to us – where our customers live – is also strongly supportive of what we’re doing,” Sastry says. “How often does that happen?”

Veteran journalist Howard Lovy has focused his writing the last several years on science, technology and business. He was news editor at Small Times, a magazine focusing on nanotechnology and microsystems, when it first launched in Ann Arbor in 2001. His freelance work has appeared in Wired News, Salon.com, X-OLOGY Magazine and The Michigan Messenger. His current research focus includes the future of the auto industry.

The entrance to the John Leidy shop at 601 E. Liberty, next to the Michigan Theater. (Photo by the writer.)

Just after noon on Sunday, several people had already assembled in the John Leidy gift shop on East Liberty: three generations of the family-owned business, and two self-described “Leidy Ladies” – long-time staff at the 58-year-old store.

A Chronicle reader had contacted us with news that the store planned to close. So we stopped by to talk with the Leidy family, who were gathering there after coming from church: John Leidy’s widow, Ann Leidy, their daughter Liz Arsenault, who manages the store, and son Peter Leidy, who’s acting as spokesman for the family.

Postcards were mailed to their customers over the last few days announcing plans to close at the end of February, when their lease is up. But on Sunday, Peter Leidy told The Chronicle that they weren’t yet ready for an interview. There’s a lot of emotion, he said, and gratitude to customers – but it’s a hard time for them.

Instead, Leidy emailed a written statement. Here’s their message:

It has been a truly wonderful and fulfilling fifty eight years. The shop, customers, and employees have been a gift to our family.

We understand that many people will wonder “why?” Some factors that led to this difficult decision are changes in how people shop, requirements by suppliers, competition from suppliers that sell directly to the public, and increased freight costs.

We are sad to be closing, and we are grateful for the friendship of our loyal customers and the Ann Arbor community.

The Leidy Family

John Leidy opened the business in November of 1951. The shop’s current stock reflects the merchandise he first carried: fine china and crystal, silver, dishware – with brand names like Royal Doulton, Wedgwood and Baccarat. These are the kinds of items you’d list on a wedding registry, which hundreds of Ann Arbor couples did there over the decades.

In addition to its wedding registry-type inventory, the store today carries a wide range of other merchandise, including jewelry, candles and figurines. At this time of year, it’s also packed with holiday ornaments and Christmas-themed items – many of them now deeply discounted.

In the 1960s, Leidy opened a second store on the opposite side of the theater. The family consolidated the two stores into one location in 2006. That same year, the store was featured in an Ann Arbor Area Business Monthly article, marking the 55th anniversary of the business. The article quoted Liz Arsenault, who described how the store kept very close to the traditions established by her father, who died in 1993. “We wouldn’t have a computer if UPS didn’t require us to use it for shipments,” she told the magazine.

The John Leidy shop is the latest in a series of business closings over the past year. Some of them, like John Leidy, have been fixtures of the downtown area for decades – most notably Shaman Drum Bookshop on South State Street, which closed on June 30 after nearly 30 years in business.

Store hours at the John Leidy are Mon.-Sat. 9:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. and Sun., noon-5 p.m.

Map of proposed BIZ area: Main Street from William Street in the south to Huron Street in the north. (Image links to complete .pdf file of the Main Street BIZ plan.)

On Wednesday, a cold and rainy evening, a group of downtown Ann Arbor property owners gathered in the city council chambers for a public meeting gaveled to order by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

They were there not to discuss rain, but rather snow. At least in part.

On their agenda was consideration of a plan for a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street – bounded by William Street to the south and Huron Street to the north – which would assess an extra tax on owners of property in the zone.

That plan for the BIZ includes snow removal as one of three main categories of services to be paid for through the BIZ. The other two categories of service in the plan are sidewalk cleaning and landscape plantings.

The plan was approved on a roll call vote of the property owners in attendance on Wednesday night, but not without some dissent. And the approval of the plan on Wednesday is not the final step before the BIZ can be implemented. Still ahead lies a formal public hearing by the city council, a vote by the city council, followed by another vote by property owners – this one by mail.

Background on the Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ

Almost exactly a year ago, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s partnerships committee reported out to the full board at its Dec. 3, 2008 meeting that Ed Shaffran and Ellie Serras had expressed an interest in creating a self-assessment zone centered on Main Street. They’d inquired about start-up funding, which would entail mostly a consultant and some legal work. Shaffran is a local developer and former chair of the DDA board. Serras is former executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Ann Arbor city clerk Jackie Beaudry chaired the public meeting for property owners to vote on the business improvement zone proposed for Main Street between William and Huron. (Photo by the writer.)

And four months later, at its April 1, 2009 meeting, the DDA board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount included roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency. A series of public meetings were held to pitch the idea to downtown property owners, including one at Conor O’Neill’s in June. [Chronicle coverage: "In the Business Improvement Zone"]

The series of public meetings resulted in submittal of a petition to the city clerk supporting the creation of the BIZ, signed by at least 30% of property owners in the district, where each signature is weighted based on the value of the property owned.

That weighting applies to all votes of property owners on matters related to the BIZ. The Ann Arbor city council also heard a presentation at an October work session on the proposed Main Street BIZ. [Chronicle Coverage: "Work Session: Trains, Trash, and Taxes."]

With the 30% petition submitted and a work session under its belt to get familiar with the notion of a BIZ, the city council then voted at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting to move the BIZ along to the next step of its creation: the city clerk provided written notice to property owners of a public meeting to vote on the plan –  which includes the budget and the formula for assessing property owners.

It was this vote that took place on Wednesday evening. It required a majority of property owners in attendance to pass – weighted based on the value of property they own. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961].

Services Planned Through the Main Street BIZ

The services to be paid for through the Main Street BIZ are divided into two categories – those that are analyzed as providing a “direct benefit” to a property owner and those providing a “common benefit” to all property owners. The distinction between direct and common benefit services is important for the calculation of the tax owed by each property owner.

But first, what are the services?

The direct benefit services are sidewalk snow removal (budgeted at $60,000 per year) and sidewalk cleaning (budgeted at $10,000.) The common benefit services are landscape improvements and maintenance (budgeted at $12,000 a year).

Stephen Kelly questioned whether the cost of the snow removal was reasonable. (Photo by the writer.)

In response to a question from property owner Stephen Kelly and other property owners about what they perceived to be the excessively high cost allocated for snow removal, Ellie Serras explained that in getting estimates from potential snow removal contractors – names they had solicited from property owners in the proposed zone – they had specified: “We want Main Street to be like a hospital zone.”

More specifically, the snow removal service is triggered by accumulations of 1 inch or more, with provisions for the  major accumulations of snow to be physically removed from the downtown area, not just shoveled into the street. The budgeted $60,000 covers up to 40 snowfalls per season.

The warm-weather equivalent of snow removal to be provided by the BIZ is sidewalk cleaning – weekly vacuuming of the sidewalks and semi-annual power washing. In addition, handbills will be removed weekly from public surfaces, and graffiti will be removed on demand. [For Chronicle coverage of Ann Arbor's relatively new graffiti ordinance: "Council OKs Graffiti Law, Questions AATA"]

The landscaping services – categorized as a common benefit – consist of contributing funds (budgeted at $12,000 per year) toward the maintenance of the 44 planter boxes within the district.

Calculating the Tax Owed: Direct versus Common Benefit

In addition to the common benefit service of landscaping, in the BIZ plan budget there are organizational expenses also categorized as common benefits to property owners of the district. Those organizational expenses are budgeted at $36,848 per year.

Broken down in terms of common benefit and direct benefit costs, then, the BIZ plan budget looks like this:

Direct Benefit
Snow removal          $60,000
Sidewalk Cleaning     $10,000
Total Direct Benefit:           $ 70,000

Common Benefit
Landscaping           $12,000
Organizational        $36,848
Total Common Benefit            $ 48,848

Total BIZ Budget                $118,848

-

The assessment formula is designed to generate the $118,848 for the BIZ budget by considering the direct benefit costs and the common benefit costs separately.

Despite appearances, this is not a "lineal foot." Its owner did, however, attend the BIZ public meeting and voted yes on the BIZ plan. (Photo by the writer).

Direct benefit costs, so goes the reasoning, is a function of the amount of frontage along the area where the service is performed, measured in lineal feet. So the cost per lineal foot is calculated by taking the $70,000 in direct benefit costs and dividing by the 3,349 lineal feet of frontage in the zone to get an assessment rate of $20.90 per lineal foot.

The organizers of the BIZ reason that the common benefit costs are a function of the square footage of a property. So the cost per square foot is calculated by taking the $48,848 in common benefit costs and dividing by the 575,998 commercial square feet in the zone to get an assessment rate of $0.0848 per square foot.

So to calculate the tax owed by a property owner in the zone, the formula is:

Tax Owed = [Lineal Feet]*$20.90 +[Commercial Square Feet]*$0.0848

The average BIZ assessment of property owners in the zone, said Ed Shaffran, would be around $2,200.

Concerns Expressed by Property Owners

Besides the high costs associated with the snow removal, a concern was raised about the fairness of the distinction between direct costs and common costs. One point of confusion was whether the tax imposed by the BIZ would change based on changes in property value through time – the BIZ is specified to have a term of seven years. The BIZ tax uses the commercial square footage in its calculation, but not the assessed values of that commercial square footage. The role played by the commercial square footage owned by a property owner merely establishes the percentage of the total BIZ burden shouldered by that property owner.

Beyond the actual mechanics of how the BIZ would be administered, the main worry expressed by a few property owners was that the extra tax burden would be passed along to tenants – retailers on Main Street. The retail environment was repeatedly described as “fragile” and the fear was expressed that even a little extra burden could make the difference between surviving and failing.

One Tenant’s View

It was a tenant who actually argued most energetically for the BIZ – Chris DeRuyver of Affinity Wealth Solutions, a commercial tenant at 122 S. Main. DeRuyver would serve on the board of directors of the BIZ.

Chris DeRuyver describes how clients cancel appointments on snowy days. (Photo by the writer.)

He described how snowy days inevitably led to cancellation of appointments – his clients would call to cancel, saying they didn’t want to trudge through the snow.

“Downtown is like a ghost town on snowy days,” DeRuyver said. He compared his previous experience working out of the 777 Building on Eisenhower, saying he never had cancellations due to snow, because the snow was always removed from the parking lot all the way to the door.

So DeRuyver said the BIZ would address a specific obstacle to the economic success of the Main Street area.

As for the concerns that some property owners had expressed about the additional expense of the tax threatening fragile businesses, he offered this advice: “In a down economy, you can’t be expense-driven; you have to be revenue-driven.”

The Vote

The Chronicle scored the roll call vote read out by city clerk Jackie Beaudry as 26 votes for the BIZ plan, with 2 votes against. Given that the votes had to be weighted by the value of property owned, the city assessor, David Petrak, was on hand to verify that the weighted majority had been achieved.

The next step is for the city council to hold a public hearing and a vote again on the BIZ – likely to happen in January 2010. Assuming approval by the city council, a final vote among property owners conducted by mail would then likely happen in February 2010. The first BIZ assessment would then be made in June 2010 and appear with the July tax bill. BIZ operations would commence in July 2010.

Best Buy on Lohr Road at 4:08 a.m. on Nov. 27, 2009. Doors opened at 5 a.m. (Photo not by the writer – she's not required to cover Black Friday morning stories at The Chronicle.)

They knew that as the newest hire, I’d be the one assigned to the morning-after-Thanksgiving Black Friday shopping story. Later that dark, frigid morning, I watched as a stream of cars disgorged expectant, even festive shoppers to stand in line waiting for the doors at Walmart to open.

My initial reaction: These people are slightly nuts.

Then: Downtown retailers would kill for this kind of crowd.

The dichotomy of large and small businesses is perhaps most visible on days like Black Friday, when more customers on a single morning might flow through Walmart than would shop at a Main Street merchant all year. But the tension between large and small is also reflected in our local public policy priorities for economic development.

Currently, those priorities are weighted in favor of a strategy to develop high-tech companies with the potential to grow to employ several hundred, if not thousands, of people.

There’s nothing wrong with heaving the ball down the field and hoping for a quick touchdown. But sometimes all you need is two yards for a first down – a simple running play that will never wind up on the highlight reel for Sports Center.

Economic Development: Big E and Small E

Last year I attended two events on two consecutive evenings – both focused intently on local economic development. I figured there’d be a lot of overlap, with respect to attendees and to themes. It turned out that wasn’t the case – not by a long shot.

The first event I attended was the annual meeting for Think Local First, a network of local independent businesses. Most businesses in this group, but not all, are fairly small. Many are retailers. All are passionate about their desire to build a community where their businesses thrive, but also where they live, play, and learn. They are typically businesses very much grounded in a sense of place – that is, they are unlikely to pick up and leave.

The second event was a working session for Washtenaw County commissioners. They received three main briefings, all related to economic development: Wayne County administrator Bob Ficano talked about the Detroit Region Aerotropolis project; Tony VanDerworp gave an update on a Community Success initiative; and Rick Snyder, Rich Sheridan and Mike Finney briefed the board on the status of Ann Arbor SPARK, this region’s main economic development agency.

The presentations to the commissioners were couched in the language of “Big E” economic development. There’s a certain level of abstraction in that kind of “Big E” talk. People tend to describe programs and marketing brochures and strategic plans, case studies and committees and reports. The data presented typically includes metrics like “number of jobs created” – figures that are, at best, somewhat speculative. You’re likely to hear phrases like “building the tax base” and “knowledge workers.” You probably won’t hear them say, “How the hell are we going to make payroll this week?”

In Ann Arbor, much of this abstraction is focused on the tech sector, defined broadly to include life sciences, software, auto research, defense-related projects – the kinds of enterprises that tend to emerge from University of Michigan research labs.

This kind of discussion often gives at least a nod to other parts of the business community, mainly in references to the great quality of life here and the need for more “third places” (i.e. bars and restaurants and clubs where young professionals can hang out). But those aspects of the economy are generally acknowledged in the context of their value in “attracting and retaining talent.”

And on this view of economic development, it’s C-Level talent that’s crucial to attract and retain – “C” not in terms of the grades these people might have earned in school, but rather in the first letter of six-figure titles they’re accustomed holding – CEO, COO, CFO, and the like. On this model, talent is as important as intellectual capital to fuel these tech businesses, which in turn attracts venture capitalists and others who are interested in creating companies and scaling them up, to get a maximum return on their investments. On this view of economic development, a key question about any interesting idea is this: Can it scale?

Acquisition by some even larger company is seen as a success on this model. But that larger company might not be tied geographically to the Ann Arbor area. And it might be more efficient from that larger company’s point of view to move operations out of the state.

Thinking Small

Let’s go back to the November night a year ago and the Think Local First gathering. Judy Wicks was the featured speaker – she’d been flown in from Philadelphia, where she runs White Dog Café. She’s a leader in what’s called the local living economy, a movement aimed at redefining how communities sustain themselves. They don’t do it by luring large corporations to town with the promise of tax breaks. Nor is it by growing a business until it’s attractive enough to be acquired by a larger company with headquarters in, say, New Jersey. They don’t ask whether it can scale.

They do it by building relationships – with the customers who walk through their doors, with their fellow business owners down the block, with their local bankers and landlords and others in the community. They see every day how their decisions affect the people around them. They donate money and time and products to local nonprofits. And they don’t count on the city or county government or economic development agencies to help. They just hope those institutions don’t make their tasks more difficult – by, for example, giving away coveted parking spots to attract a high-profile tech company downtown.

More concretely, what are these smaller, non-tech businesses doing? Everyday Wines is an interesting example. Owner Mary Campbell has made space in her Kerrytown shop for other businesses – including Pot & Box, A Knife’s Work and Alfajor Maitelates – to sell their flowers, take-out food and homemade cookies, respectively. It’s an informal business incubator of sorts, formed from relationships of mutual benefit. The smaller ventures get a storefront with low overhead costs, and Campbell gets a more diverse offering for her customers.

A higher-profile example is Zingerman’s, which might be a poster child for the local living economy. They’ve built a marquee brand that’s internationally known. They’ve had the opportunity to franchise – a model of scalability that would make even veteran investors drool. But they chose not to, in part because they felt the franchise approach would dilute the quality of their offerings.

Instead, over the years they’ve built a “community of businesses,” all with the Zingerman’s name, all in the Ann Arbor region, all somehow related to their food service focus. There’s the original deli, a bakehouse, creamery, restaurant, coffee supplier, mail order business, publishing unit and training/consulting service. These businesses are operated by managing partners, who in some cases are new entrepreneurs being given the support they need via the Zingerman’s network. Zingerman’s co-founders Paul Saginaw and Ari Weinzweig also started and support the nonprofit Food Gatherers, which has become a national model for food rescue.

I should add that the idea isn’t to build a high fence around this region and not spend money anywhere else, ever. In fact, Zingerman’s mail order business is a good example. The premise behind Zingerman’s mail order is that people in other parts of the country put a high enough value on Zingerman’s products that they’re willing to pay to ship it from Ann Arbor, instead of buying whatever alternative might be available to them locally. Yet these mail order customers are still supporting a locally owned business – even if it isn’t in their community.

Beyond the Tech Sector

Of course, plenty of technology companies fall into the small, locally owned category as well. And when economic development officials talk about branding and marketing the Ann Arbor area, they usually mean establishing the Ann Arbor region on the national map as a tech hub.

Yet what “brands” come to mind when Ann Arbor’s business community is measured in terms of locally based companies that are already known beyond the confines of this area? Zingerman’s. Borders. Domino’s Pizza.

Each of these businesses employ several hundred people locally. And each started small: A couple of guys and a deli, a couple of brothers and a bookstore, a couple of brothers and a pizza shop. None of them would have caught the attention of an economic development agency. None would have been eligible for tax breaks.

It’s interesting that two of those businesses are in the food industry. In fact, there’s a vibrant food economy in Washtenaw County – it was on display in September at the second annual Homegrown Festival, or every week at local farmers markets.

And there are signs that policymakers are starting to recognize that sector as a way to strengthen the local economy. They needed a push, but they’re getting there.

Here’s one example. When the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners first began considering an economic development tax, the original proposal was to raise $250,000 to fund SPARK and its Ypsilanti business incubator, SPARK East. During the public comment portion of the board’s August meeting, Jennifer Fike, executive director of the Food System Economic Partnership, made a case for allotting a portion of proceeds from the tax to support farmers and other local agricultural businesses.

Ultimately, commissioners did vote to use the tax to raise funds for agricultural-related groups – not by reducing the amount given to Ann Arbor SPARK and SPARK East, but by raising the millage rate from the originally proposed 0.017 mills to 0.04 mills. The tax will now raise $603,000. Of that, $116,000 is earmarked for agricultural programs, including the Food System Economic Partnership and programs run by the local Michigan State University Extension.

Separately, the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission has recognized the role of small farms in the local economy – the newest version of its strategic plan puts emphasis on land that produces food sold locally. From the plan:

This year, the Greenbelt Advisory Commission has identified locally produced foods, agritourism, and other agricultural specialty products sold directly to local markets as an emerging issue. Our local markets, restaurants, non-profits, and most recently, the Homegrown Festival have all focused on the environmental, health, economic and community benefits of buying and selling local foods and other agricultural specialty products. In addition, we feel that a visible connection to our Greenbelt through the foods and other products that we buy and eat provides a tangible reminder of our preservation efforts. Local foods and other crops can find their way in to our Ann Arbor economy in a number of diverse ways: the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, local food stores, direct restaurant purchases from farms, U-pick farms, and even at larger chain groceries through regional food distributors.

Recognizing that the Greenbelt’s mission and direction is solely the protection of land, the Greenbelt program will make a priority to protect those farms that are producing foods for local markets. Even without this priority in our previous strategic plans, the Greenbelt program has actually preserved several farms that provide local food or other crops to the Ann Arbor area.

Greenbelt purchases are funded by a 30-year millage of 0.5 mills annually that Ann Arbor voters approved in 2003. Since then, the city has spent just over $10 million on 1,321 acres in Washtenaw County, both farmland and open space. Several other deals are in the works. As of June 30, 2009, the program had a fund balance of $11.847 million.

Looking Ahead: A Balanced Economic Offense

On Monday, I attended this year’s annual meeting of Think Local First. It was heartening to see about double the crowd as last year, and inspiring to hear the presentation by Paul Saginaw of Zingerman’s. Paul spoke eloquently about the powerful potential of small local businesses, and how important these locally-owned firms are to building a sustainable economy.

Listening to him, I wondered how his message would resonate with those who like to send their wide receivers deep, hoping for a completed touchdown pass – like the recent acquisition of HandyLab, an Ann Arbor tech firm bought by a North Carolina company, or last year’s purchase of Ann Arbor-based HealthMedia by the conglomerate Johnson & Johnson.

These deals are lauded as success stories, and by some standards they certainly are – money is made by investors, jobs are (in some cases) preserved or created, the reputation of Ann Arbor as a tech hub is enhanced.

But if the departure of Pfizer and the folding of The Ann Arbor News taught us anything, it’s that considerations well outside our community are at play when corporate owners move the pieces on their chessboard. From a vantage point hundreds of miles away, they have no particular reason to consider the parochial concerns of residents here. Large corporations can market their community ties as much as they like, but they’re only of, by and for the community until … they aren’t.

I’m not suggesting that we abandon or even significantly diminish support of the tech sector. I realize that the companies being cultivated by groups like Ann Arbor SPARK will employ people who can become customers for the smaller local retailers, restaurants and other non-tech businesses.

I also understand the importance of the local tech industry – I covered those businesses for several years as a business reporter, and respect the world-class work that many of them are doing. While I wonder whether this would happen anyway – even without the various programs that SPARK orchestrates – let’s assume that the net result is a stronger economy because of SPARK’s efforts.

Still, at the very least, we need to recognize that letting fly with a deep pass on every play has to be complemented by a good short ground game. There are multiple kinds of efforts needed to strengthen the local economy, and we need to be mindful we’re allocating our public dollars in ways that reflect the multiplicity of those efforts.

As a community, we also need to see a stronger connection and coordination of all economic development initiatives, and to develop strong voices to represent these different sectors. The tech sector has its voice in SPARK, which has been successful in securing significant public funding from UM, the state and local governments. But beyond that, other groups don’t yet have clear advocates – and certainly not any with the kind of funding that SPARK garners.

There are some likely candidates: Think Local First might eventually play a stronger role for local independent businesses, and Slow Food Huron Valley – a nonprofit that supports the local food movement – has already shown leadership for that sector. Merchant groups like the Main Street Area Association are also playing an advocacy role – but again, they need to be at the table with everyone else. Ditto the arts community, via the Arts Alliance., which has made a case for the role that the arts play in economic development.

I’d also like to see a heightened awareness by local governments – both elected officials and employees at all levels – about how their actions directly affect the health of the small businesses here. Two of the businesses I mentioned earlier – Everyday Wines and Zingerman’s – provide examples of that.

Everyday Wines owner Mary Campbell fought for a liquor license for her other business, a restaurant called Everyday Cook – a license that city council ultimately awarded to the city-owned Leslie Park Golf Course. Everyday Cook was later awarded a more limited liquor license, but Campbell ended up closing the restaurant last year. (Her wine business remains open.)

As for Zingerman’s, the city’s Historic District Commission rejected the company’s request to tear down a burned-out house next to its popular Detroit Street deli, a roadblock for plans to expand at that location.

In the time since the The Chronicle was launched over a year ago, I’ve become acutely aware of how ephemeral a business can be, and of how much effort it takes to keep it going. If we’re serious as a community about strengthening the local economy, then we need more than individual actions – more than the exhortation to “buy local” during the holiday season – to really make a difference.

We need to think about how we’re allocating our economic development resources, and whether – in an effort to make the big play – we’re undervaluing the impact of the very small.