John U. Bacon

Whether your candidates won or lost this week, we can all rejoice that it’s finally over. Or, we think it is. We can’t be sure anymore, can we?

Watching the political contests and the sporting contests this week, I got to thinking: Which is sillier: playing politics, or playing sports?

As silly as sports are – and I seem to devote half my commentaries to that very subject – after watching the 2012 campaigns, I can tell you, it’s not even close: Playing politics is sillier, in a landslide.

In the sporting world, you’re not supposed to badmouth your opponent, or even talk about them very much. Coaches always say, “I’m just focusing on my team.” And then – amazingly – that’s what they actually do.

In politics, badmouthing the other guy is just about all they do. And if there is any expectation of clean play anymore, I must’ve missed it – along with just about every single candidate.

In sports, you cannot blame the weather. The coaches’ cliché here goes like this: “Both teams played on the same field, didn’t they?” In politics, they start blaming the weather before they’ve even lost.

In sports, when a coach changes his strategy repeatedly, they don’t call him a flip-flopper. They call him a former coach. If only that were true in politics.

In sports, if you whine about the referees – no matter how bad they might be – they call you, well, a whiner. Which kind of makes sense. In politics, when they’re not badmouthing each other, they’re crying about Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on one side, and Ed Schultz and MSNBC on the other. But forget the refs. In politics, they can’t even agree on the score – or even when the game is over.

Football, hockey and even baseball have recently added instant replay to ensure they make the right call. Yes, the delays are annoying – but not as annoying as watching a candidate deliver whopper after whopper, only to hear the political pundits tell us they’re curious to see what the fact checkers will make of all that – in a few days. By then, of course, the lies have already circled the globe a few times.

Fact checkers? I’m old enough to remember what we used to call them: “Journalists.” If it’s not the pundit’s job to know what the facts are, what is his job? Is he just a game show host, who passes every tricky question to the “judges”? Wink Martindale can do that.

But the craziest difference between sports and politics is how they treat their audience. In sports, they want you to come see their team, and they make it easy. But in politics, after they bombard you with billions of dollars of ads to get you interested, they make you wait five hours to play. You know it’s bad when we look forward to ads about elections being replaced for ads about erections. (Remember, if your election lasts more than four years, consult your poll worker.)

When it comes to voting, forget comparing our election system to those of third world banana republics. Even the almost-defunct National Hockey League – currently on the verge of canceling another season – makes it easier to vote for the All-Star team than our government makes it to pick the leader of the free world.

Let that sink in.

We like to say sports teach us lessons we can use later in life – but that’s not true if you become a politician. Then, you take everything that sports taught you – and do the exact opposite: focus on your opponent, not your own game; deny reality, including the score; and after you lose, blame everyone – even the refs and the weather – before you blame yourself.

I dream of a day when we take politics as seriously as we take sports.

About the author: John U. Bacon is the author of the New York Times bestseller “Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football.” He also co-authored “A Legacy of Champions,” and provided commentary for “Black and Blue: The Story of Gerald Ford, Willis Ward, and the 1934 Michigan-Georgia Tech Football Game.”

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our publication of columnists like John U. Bacon. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Over the last half decade, Ann Arbor’s annual spring budget conversation has evolved to include a discussion of public parking system revenues.

In discussions about parking revenue, it’s been suggested that what the city of Ann Arbor is proposing is the equivalent of a tax on downtown parkers. (Photo illustration by The Chronicle. This is not what Ann Arbor parking meters actually look like. Yet.)

This year is no exception. The city council’s public hearing on the budget takes place at its May 2 meeting, with a vote on the 2012 fiscal year’s budget scheduled for May 16. At that May 2 meeting you’ll also hear the city council discuss revenues from the public parking system. The board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which manages the city’s public parking system – will meet at noon the same day to ratify its side of a contract renewal.

As likely as any other scenario is an offer from the DDA for the city to receive 17% of gross revenues from the public parking system for each year of an 11-year term. But that offer stands a decent chance of getting rejected by the city council. The city’s last bargaining position was 18% for a 10-year term and multiple three-year renewals.

Public parking revenues were already part of council deliberations at a city council budget work session on April 11, when city administrator Roger Fraser had given a dress rehearsal of his budget proposal. At the work session, councilmembers and Fraser played out a scene, in which councilmembers offered up questions to Fraser to elicit this conclusion: If the city does not extract enough revenue from the city’s public parking system, the city will need to lay off additional police or firefighters – four this year and two the following year.

The scene was reprised on April 19, when the city’s budget was formally premiered. The budget did not appear to depart in significant ways from the department-by-department budget impacts that city managers have presented to the council at a series of work sessions since the beginning of the year.

On April 19, it was the city’s CFO Tom Crawford (later in the meeting to be appointed interim city administrator) who played the role of the “numbers guy.” So it was Crawford who gave the recommendation in response to councilmember prompts: Without sufficient revenue from the public parking system, he would recommend laying off an additional four public safety officers. That’s in addition to the five police officers, three other non-officer positions in the police department, and five firefighters who are already slated for layoff.

Councilmembers Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke, Marcia Higgins, Stephen Kunselman and mayor John Hieftje played starring roles in their portrayal of elected officials that evening. But more to the point of this column, I wonder who the city council’s imagined audience is for this sort of theater? Presumably it’s for an audience that pays the price of admission. But in Ann Arbor, it’s an audience that typically doesn’t pay much attention: the city’s shareholders.

Yes, that’s exactly the word I want. Shareholders.

I want that word in order to give myself some room to think about calling the voting public “shareholders” instead of “voters” or “residents” or “citizens.” It’s not because Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder campaigned on a slogan saying he’d run government like a business, and has continued that kind of talk since taking office.

It’s because I think a different word, “stakeholder” – as it’s used in Ann Arbor’s public discourse – has lost its original contrastive meaning. It was coined originally not as just a shorter way of saying “people who have a stake in this thing.” It was coined almost a half-century ago specifically to contrast with the term “shareholder.” And I think it’s worth reminding ourselves of that contrast.

Shareholders, Stakeholders

Back in 1963, the term “stakeholder” was coined in an internal memo at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International). Stakeholders included “shareowners, employees, customers, suppliers, lenders, and society.” At the time, elevating those groups in importance was a fairly radical challenge to the prevailing view in business circles that shareholders are the only stakeholders that truly matter when company mangers make choices.

Writing in his 2003 book “Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets of Lasting Value” William George, a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School, describes the stakeholder model of a business and how he learned about it:

… the criterion for measuring the success of our leaders should be how well they serve everyone that has a vested interest in the success of the enterprise. This is known as the stakeholder model. I was first introduced to it by Henry Schacht, the CEO of Cummins Engine, at a 1970s conference on corporate responsibility. Schacht outlined the stakeholder concept of serving all those who had a stake in the enterprise:

• Customers
• Employees
• Shareholders
• Suppliers
• Communities

… Serving all your stakeholders is the best way to produce long-term results and create a growing, prosperous company.

Schacht’s predecessor and mentor, J. Irwin Miller, one of the authentic leaders of this era, initiated the stakeholder model. Miller had a keen appreciation of the importance of building a motivated employee based and a thriving community in the company’s small hometown of Columbus, Indiana, in order to serve its customers, its suppliers and its shareholders. Although Miller was not widely known outside business circles, his picture once appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine during the Watergate era with the caption, “This man should be President,” noting that the values and character Miller represented were precisely what America needed in its leaders.

Many of my elementary school classmates in early 1970s Columbus, Ind. had parents who worked for Cummins – so they were Cummins stakeholders. In 1957 the Cummins Foundation had paid for architect Harry Weese to design the Lillian C. Schmitt elementary school, where I attended kindergarten through sixth grade. So even though my own family did not have a direct connection to Cummins, we lived there – so we were stakeholders, too, and we derived a specific return from our stake in Cummins.

I think it’s easy for progressive Democrats to look at the example of Cummins Engine and conclude that yes, that’s what corporate responsibility should be – decisions should be made by considering not just shareholders, but also stakeholders.

What happens, though, if we try to apply the idea of a stakeholder model of business to our local government? Who are the shareholders? Who are the other stakeholders besides the shareholders in a local government? It makes some kind of sense to think that among the shareholders are property tax payers – but not all of them get to vote. So perhaps it is simply voters who are the best pure analog to shareholders.

If we believe in a stakeholder model of business, and think it’s appropriate to apply a business model to local government, that leads to a somewhat startling conclusion: We should expect city management decisions to be based not just on the short-term interest of voters.

One way to reject that conclusion is to reject the premise that government should be run anything like a business. But here in Ann Arbor, we do appear to believe in government as a business – inasmuch as the term “stakeholder” is sprinkled easily through the talk of residents, as well as our appointed and elected officials.

From the recent resolution adopted by the city council, which tasked the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with leading a process to explore alternate uses of a limited set of city-owned downtown surface parking lots [emphasis added]:

• Hold meetings with business and community stakeholders to determine professional assessment of the Parcel-by-Parcel Plan

For some folks, that language was not inclusive enough of “the public” and two additional clauses were strengthened with the word “robust” – which provoked some debate among councilmembers. From the resolution that was eventually passed:

• Solicit robust public input and conduct public meetings to determine residents’ Parcel-level downtown vision
  …
• Solicit robust public input and confirm the extent of community consensus for the Parcel-by-Parcel Plan through public meetings and surveys

A different way of including “the public” or “the people” would be to prefix “shareholders and” anytime the word “stakeholder” is invoked. And once we’re speaking the language of “shareholders and stakeholders,” then we have a way of talking about different points of view that’s closer to neutral than “the people” and “special interest groups.”

So that’s what I’d like to do in considering the question of how revenues from the public parking system should be spent.

Parking System Revenues: Background

The conversation about revenues from the public parking system is one that the city of Ann Arbor has successfully framed as a question of control: Should it be the city council or the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority that decides how to spend the revenues from the public parking system?

The Ann Arbor DDA is a tax-increment finance district, formed under the state’s Downtown Development Authority Act 197 of 1975. The DDA does not levy property taxes directly, but rather “captures” them from other taxing authorities. The DDA does not capture the entire tax on a property – it captures just the tax on the difference (the “increment”) in the baseline value and the value of improvements to the property. The DDA does not capture taxes on the appreciated value of the property.

While a downtown development authority formed under Michigan’s state statute is a “public body corporate” that can sue and be sued, a DDA is not empowered by state statute to run a public parking system.

But since 1992 it has been the DDA that has managed the city’s parking system by contractual agreement with the city. The shift of responsibility from the city to the DDA was motivated by the fact that some of the city’s parking structures had fallen into such a state of disrepair that they needed to be demolished or dramatically renovated. Two examples are: (1) the deck at Fourth & Washington  – demolished and now rebuilt; and (2) the deck at First & Washington – demolished, with the parcel waiting for developer Village Green to finalize its $3 million purchase agreement, for a construction start this summer on Ann Arbor City Apartments, a nine-story residential project that includes a parking deck on the first two floors.

Skipping ahead to 2005, in that year the city and the DDA revised a parking contract that they’d signed in 2002, so that in addition to a payment to the city’s street repair fund, the city would receive $1 million per year from parking revenues in “meter rent.” As part of that 2005 agreement, the city had the option of requesting an accelerated payment of $2 million per year – as long as the total amount paid to the city did not exceed $10 million.

Somewhat predictably, the city requested the maximum per-year payment of $2 million in each of the first five years, and then asked to renegotiate the contract. At public meetings over the last year, DDA board member Sandi Smith (who’s now also a city councilmember) has stated that there was no doubt in her mind in 2005 that the city would max out its allowable payment, then ask to renegotiate.

Even without negotiating the contract, the Ann Arbor DDA elected last year, in 2010, to transfer $2 million to the city that was not required under the terms of its contract with the city. The city administrator’s proposed budget last year had not factored in the $2 million, and had proposed police and firefighter layoffs. In that drama, the city council portrayed itself as hard-working heroes who used the additional “unexpected” revenue to avert layoffs in the police and fire departments.

That allowed the mayor last year to campaign for re-election on a perfect record of never having laid off a police officer in the course of a decade in office. Up to this year, the reduction in Ann Arbor’s police force has been achieved through attrition and early-retirement buyouts. In the last decade, the city council has never allowed layoffs to be a consequence of collective bargaining that did not achieve desired savings.

Parking System Revenues: Control, Money

The recent negotiations over the use of public parking revenues have been handled by committees from the city council and the DDA board. In concept, those committees originated in January 2009. But discussions between them did not become public until the summer of 2010.

The discussion about the contract revision can be divided into broad categories: (1) control; and (2) money.

For the first category, the two committees have settled on contractual language that includes the following key points, which are not included in the current contract:

1. Rate Setting: DDA would have the authority to set parking rates, with certain requirements on public input before rate changes would be changed. Currently the city council can veto rate changes – that veto would not be a part of the new contract.
2. Geographic Area: The geographic area where the DDA will have authority to manage the parking system would be precisely defined. The motivation behind this language is to prevent situations like one in 2009, when the city enacted a plan to install meters in additional locations where the DDA felt meters were inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
3. Communication: A standing committee with representatives from the DDA and the city would be formed to coordinate parking enforcement activity with rate policies. Regular reporting by the city to the DDA on enforcement and street repair activities would also be required.

For the financial part of the contract, the committees have moved away from a collection of separate payments to a percentage-of-gross arrangement. The separate payments that are currently reflected in historical practice, if not under the terms of the contract are: (1) meter rent – $2 million per year; (2) street fund – currently $840,000 per year with a formula-based increase; and (3) revenue from 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William surface parking lots – $170,000 per year.

The two negotiating committees have tried to arrive at a percentage-of-gross number that would roughly approximate (over the life of the contract) the city’s withdrawals from the public parking system in recent years.

Earlier this month, the positions of the two bodies on the percentage of gross public parking revenues that the city should withdraw had reached an impasse of sorts. The city council’s position, as reflected by its committee, was 16% in the first two years of a 10-year contract and 17.5% in remaining years – the 16-16-17.5 scenario. The DDA’s committee, after going back to the full DDA board on two occasions, had raised its offer to 16% in all years of a 10-year contract – a flat-16 scenario.

By way of orientation to the scale of the parking revenue fund, its projected revenues for FY 2012 are around $16 million. Fixed costs for the DDA’s subcontractor, Republic Parking, come in at around $7.4 million. The DDA typically allocates a little over $2 million per year to its maintenance program for the parking decks. Debt service paid out of the parking fund and a transfer to the DDA’s bond fund totals around $4 million. An annual grant to fund the go!pass program for getDowntown takes another $0.5 million.

The DDA’s position is based on the financial stress the parking fund and the entire organization would be under, if the DDA were to agree to the higher percentage-of-gross figures. To relieve pressure on the parking fund, the DDA has already deferred its maintenance schedule for the decks and has decided to allocate a portion of the bond payments for the Fifth Avenue parking deck from its TIF fund. On a flat 17% scenario, the parking fund would show a balance of -$157,000 in FY12 and -$327,000 in FY13.

At the April 19 city council meeting, councilmembers instructed their committee to go back to the DDA, not with support for the committee’s prior negotiating position, but rather with an escalated request: 18% of gross revenues every year.

This kind of “negotiating” strategy leaves room to wonder if the city’s collective bargaining conversations with its unions are equally bizarre – where the city seeks to increase the gap between established positions, instead of closing it.

But leaving aside for a moment the city’s schizophrenic negotiating strategy, it’s worth thinking about the basic concept behind a percentage-of-gross arrangement as opposed to some kind of flat payment.

The idea is that the interests of the DDA and the city are aligned under such a scheme – because revenues to both organizations increase or decrease in parallel. And there’s no built-in check on rate increases – on a percentage-of-gross arrangement, both the DDA and the city have an interest in seeing parking rates be set as high as possible without causing demand to decrease.

Otherwise put, with respect to public parking system revenues, the percentage-of-gross arrangement gives the city and the DDA a parallel stake in the system.

Parking System Revenues: Shareholders, Stakeholders

The city and the DDA have historically conceived the issue of public parking revenue as one about organizational stakeholders – the city of Ann Arbor versus the DDA.

Portraying the question as the competing interests of organizational stakeholders works to the city’s advantage for at least two reasons.

First, many Ann Arbor residents have a built-in skepticism of the DDA. Why? Because its board members are appointed, not elected. Of course, it is elected officials who appoint DDA board members – nominations by the mayor and confirmation by city councilmembers. But that additional layer of accountability makes some Ann Arborites uneasy. It’s that audience to which councilmember Stephen Kunselman was playing when he said at the council’s April 19 meeting that he didn’t think there was a single Ann Arbor resident who was interested in giving the DDA more control over the city’s public parking system.

Second, if the conversation is defined as being fundamentally about the competing interests of two stakeholder organizations, then it’s fair to ask: Which organization’s financial health should be given priority – the DDA’s or the city’s? It’s on that basis that much of the conversation unfolded at the city council’s April 19 meeting. City councilmembers were keen to portray the city’s undesignated fund reserve as taking priority over the DDA’s fund balances.

But what if we took very seriously the idea that this is not a question just about two organizational stakeholders, but rather one about a whole range of stakeholders – as well as shareholders?

I’ve made this point before, in a column written last year:

The question of how excess parking revenues should be spent is a pure public policy question, that is not necessarily contingent on who gets to make the public policy choice. But the negotiation between the city and the DDA has focused the public’s attention on the “who” of the policy choice, instead of the choice itself. The “who” making the choice is in some sense a surrogate for how we feel about the choice itself.

With respect to decisions about how public parking revenues are spent, the shareholders include at least the voting public in Ann Arbor. And if the decision is made based purely on the short-term interest of the shareholders, then excess parking revenue would likely be invested in the city’s general fund to pay for expenses like administration, the city attorney’s office, parks, police and firefighters. Certainly, I think it’s fair to say that most councilmembers perceive that this is the majority view of the shareholders.

But if we adopt a stakeholder model of governance, then it’s not just the short-term voting public’s interests – i.e., the interest of shareholders – that elected representatives should consider. On the stakeholder model, they should consider the long-term interests of the shareholders as well as the interests of the stakeholders.

So who else, besides the voting public, count as stakeholders in the public parking system? It’s not hard to come up with examples: businesses located downtown whose employees want to drive to work; the employees of those businesses; retail businesses whose customers want to drive and park downtown; downtown property owners who want to be able to lease their buildings to tenants who desire parking availability; downtown residents who want to own a car and store it close by for occasional use.

The point here is not to try to make an exhaustive list. It’s simply to point out that the decision about how public parking system revenues are spent should include at least all these stakeholders. And if we really believe in a stakeholder model of governance, then we can’t simply say: Well, yes, all those groups are also stakeholders with legitimate interests, but ultimately, the short-term interest of shareholders trumps that of mere stakeholders.

At a March 28 meeting of the council and DDA committees, Roger Hewitt, a DDA board member, identified downtown parkers as a group of stakeholders for which the DDA has historically been an advocate. Over the last several months of committee meetings, Hewitt has displayed increasing frustration with the fact that the DDA’s position as a lobbyist for downtown parkers puts it in a situation where it cannot succeed – because the city’s eye is only on the short-term revenue from the system.

Hewitt himself is a downtown business owner – of Red Hawk Bar & Grill, Revive and Replenish. On March 28, he pointed to a contrast between his employees, who must pay for parking, and the beneficiaries of the parking revenue when it’s withdrawn from the public parking system by the city. The beneficiaries, Hewitt said, are city workers who enjoy salary and benefits far exceeding what his own employees could hope to achieve. Hewitt echoed the same sentiment on April 27, at a DDA operations committee meeting [officially known as the "bricks and money" committee].

Translating Hewitt’s point to the language of shareholders and stakeholders: While city employees are certainly stakeholders in the public parking system, so too are downtown employees who pay to park. So part of the conversation about the use of public parking revenue should be about how to balance appropriately the interests of those two stakeholder groups.

As part of that same conversation on March 28, Hewitt’s frustration was evident when he floated a proposal to eliminate the need for an annual battle about the amount to be transferred from the public parking system revenues to the city:

Hewitt’s “Take As Much as You Need” Proposal: Each year the city informs the DDA what dollar amount of public parking revenue it needs for the upcoming year. The DDA sets rates as high as necessary to generate that amount of revenue.

In connection with that proposal, Hewitt also raised the specter of signage in parking structures and on parking meters with a pie chart indicating something like “N% of your parking dollar goes to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund.”

It’s fair to say that the councilmembers at the table – Carsten Hohnke, Christopher Taylor and Margie Teall – were flummoxed when Hewitt floated that proposal. In scrambling to reject the idea politely, they essentially argued that in spirit that’s what the contract with a percentage-of-gross arrangement was attempting to formalize – the only difference was the need for the city to articulate each year what amount of parking revenue it needed.

The explicit take-as-much-as-you-need idea also received little traction from the DDA board when Hewitt floated it at a March 30 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee. Part of the reason I think it foundered was this: It would have made completely transparent the relationship between parking revenues and the city’s general fund. That’s a political cost the city council is unwilling to accept, because it would highlight the fact that it is a body that lacks discipline.

Discipline

Part of the fundamental concept of a TIF authority like the DDA is that certain tax revenues are not put through the regular budget process of the taxing authorities whose taxes are “captured” by the TIF. This very fact is objectionable to some of Ann Arbor’s shareholders. In his last two city council campaigns – for the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Carsten Hohnke – John Floyd has raised exactly this issue.

The way Floyd sees it, investments in the downtown should be able to compete with investments elsewhere in the city as part of the regular budgeting process for the city and for the other taxing authorities whose taxes are captured. On Floyd’s view, if the city council (or the Ann Arbor District Library board, or the Washtenaw Community College board, or the AATA board, or the Washtenaw County board of commissioners) sees fit to make investments in Ann Arbor’s downtown as part of their regular budgeting process, then it will do that fair and square.

Historically, the city has elected to contract with the DDA to operate its public parking system – in a way that puts at least some of those public parking system revenues in the same category as TIF capture. That is, public parking revenues are, by contract with the DDA, not all subjected to the regular budgeting process of the city. Instead, decisions about the spending of parking revenues are made outside of the city’s regular budgeting process.

One way of thinking about both TIF capture and contractually-obligated public parking system revenues is that they’re both a way for the city to self-impose a certain discipline on itself. That discipline is essentially to make a long-term commitment to investments in the downtown and in the public parking/transportation system – investments that prioritize long-term value for all stakeholders over short-term value for shareholders. For example, the disciplined approach is one that leads the DDA to invest parking revenue to subsidize bus passes for downtown employees through the go!pass program, which is administered by the getDowntown program.

Imagine a regular budgeting process that asks shareholders to choose between (1) reduced park maintenance and fewer assistant city attorneys; and (2) eliminating free bus rides for employees of downtown businesses. I think that an accurate representation of short-term shareholder interests would favor park maintenance and city attorneys every single time. That would be all the more true if you set it up as a choice between police officers and free bus rides.

And that’s exactly why I think the choice to self-impose this kind of discipline is a good one. The fact is that we as a community have made a choice for this kind of discipline – by establishing a DDA. And the city council in 2005 made an apparent choice for discipline by limiting its use of parking revenue to $1 million a year. One could imagine self-imposing a different kind of discipline – one that would require that we hew to the short-term interests of shareholders. However, we haven’t done that in any explicit way.

The Ann Arbor city council is not, as a group, very disciplined. Instead of living with its choice to limit itself to $1 million a year in parking meter rent, it built into the contract with the DDA the option to withdraw $2 million per year, until it reached its limit. And now the council has decided to take the approach of simply withdrawing as much parking revenue as it can.

A disciplined city council might have opted back in 2005 to say: “Okay, we need to align our labor and budget strategy; if we can’t get the kind of collective bargaining concessions we need from unions for their health care and pension costs, then we’ll reduce staff proportionately based on the cost of those benefits.” It’s only this year that we’ve heard the city administrator take that fairly obvious step.

Instead of exercising discipline, the city council has chosen over the last half decade to avoid layoffs of public safety workers – either by paying for early retirements or by using public parking system revenues to maintain staff levels.

It’s not surprising that they’ve chosen an undisciplined path as a body – some of them are undisciplined individually. To illustrate, last year at the council’s Jan. 19, 2010 meeting, mayor John Hieftje – by the description of two of the mayor’s strongest supporters on the council, Carsten Hohnke and Christopher Taylor – showed “leadership” by choosing to declare publicly that he would be offering a voluntary give-back of 3% of the salary he receives for the job.

That night, Hohnke and Taylor clearly stated their willingness to participate in the 3% giveback, as did some other councilmembers. Except for Sabra Briere, Stephen Kunselman and Mike Anglin, all councilmembers eventually (either that same evening or else at subsequent meetings) seemed to give a public indication that they’d also be participating in the 3% giveback. It turns out that even Briere also wrote a check, but not for 3% – it was for $100, or a bit over a half percent.

On Feb. 22, 2011 – more than a year after the public promises were made – The Chronicle inquired with the city’s financial office about the status of those payments. Not all had paid. But by March 7, 2011, all those who said they’d participate had finally made good on their commitment – it took The Chronicle’s inquiry to get them to follow through. According to city staff, it had been the expectation of some councilmembers that they would be invoiced with an incremental payment plan. And apparently when they didn’t receive an invoice from the city, they didn’t have the discipline to make the payments on their own.

So far this year, the mayor has not chosen to announce a 3% give-back. So it’s somewhat ironic that the chair of the council’s labor committee, Stephen Rapundalo, has stressed publicly that the city’s firefighter’s concessions made last year were only for the six months remaining on their contract. Under collective bargaining laws, of course, the firefighters continue to work under the contract concessions they agreed to. Councilmembers so far have not expressed any eagerness to continue their voluntary 3% give-back through this year.

Political Reality

The stark reality of the politics concerning public parking revenues is that the decision will be made as a negotiation between the city council and the DDA – which will likely not involve any deep discussion of stakeholders, shareholders or discipline.

At the Monday, April 25 meeting of the two committees from the DDA board and the city council, those around the table reflected on the city council’s performance a week before, on April 19.

That was a meeting where the council had voted to direct its own negotiating committee to escalate the city’s expectation of percentage-of-gross parking revenue payments – upward from the city committee’s previous position to a flat 18% in all years of a 10-year contract. That direction came after the council entertained an even higher percentage-of-gross public parking revenues for use in the city’s general fund – 19%.

On Monday morning, DDA board member Roger Hewitt thanked Christopher Taylor – because Taylor had been the only member of the city’s committee who had displayed the discipline to vote the committee’s position against the rest of the council. Hewitt pointed out to Carsten Hohnke that Hohnke himself had abandoned the city committee’s position and voted for the amendment of the resolution to 18%, as well as for the resolution itself. Margie Teall had voted against the amendment, but ultimately for the resolution.

Hohnke’s explanation to Hewitt was that he’d argued for the committee’s position – but when it became apparent that the consensus of the council was not aligned that way, he felt compelled to stand with his fellow councilmembers. He characterized his decision as the same one that Teall had made one step later and that Taylor had made two steps later – that very morning, in choosing to accept the council’s direction to continue negotiations based on the 18% figure.

Hewitt expressed concern that it was not just the financial part of the contract that was in doubt. Based on sentiments expressed at the council’s April 19 meeting, he wondered if there was adequate support on the council to ratify the non-financial aspects of the contract – those that involved giving the DDA more control over the parking system it is supposed to manage. Taylor tried to downplay the sentiments that had been expressed by some councilmembers (like Stephen Kunselman) as those of “outliers.”

Taylor suggested to Hewitt that for the non-financial parts of the contract, he could count four votes for sure: the three committee members (Taylor, Hohnke, Teall) plus Sandi Smith, who serves on both the DDA and the city council. Taylor ventured that without wild speculation, one could come up with two more votes, for the six (out of 11 councilmembers) they’d need to ratify the contract.

However, at the DDA’s operations committee meeting two days later, on April 27, Sandi Smith indicated that she felt like nobody really cared about the conversation the DDA was having over the percentage-of-gross figure, because it was going to be “shut down” on May 2 by the council. She doesn’t think there’s sufficient support for the non-financial aspects of the contract for the council to ratify it.

The operations committee also entertained some discussion of the “nuclear option” of dissolving the DDA, to which Carsten Hohnke had vaguely alluded at the April 25 meeting. That allusion came in the context of comments made by DDA board member Russ Collins. Collins noted that if “bombs are thrown over the transom” in order to create political movement, that thinking in cartoon terms, sometimes it’s best to catch them and throw them back. Hohnke told Collins that what Collins might be detecting among councilmembers is this: One could come to the “not irrational conclusion” that there’s an alternative available to provide a better net return.

At the April 27 DDA committee meeting, Leah Gunn observed that if the city wanted to dissolve the DDA it could do that – but Smith labeled that as a false argument. It was not financially realistic, she said. However, back in December 2009, the city’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford told the city council at a budget retreat that dissolving the DDA would result in a net positive to the city’s general fund of $700,000 per year. It’s not more partly because the DDA has committed $0.5 million per year in TIF revenue to help make bond payments on the city’s new municipal center.

In any event, the DDA’s operations committee decided that it would put a resolution before the full board for the noontime meeting on Monday, May 2 to ratify a new parking contract. That contract will include a percentage-of-gross figure of 17% in every year of an 11-year contract, and one 11-year renewal option. The somewhat odd 11-year number corresponds to the currently scheduled lifetime of the DDA, which goes through 2033. Based on the conversation at the operations committee meeting, it appears there could be attempts to amend that proposal at Monday’s board meeting. Hewitt indicated that he’d been led to believe there was enough support on the council to approve the 17% figure.

The DDA’s operations committee stressed that the board’s ratification of the contract on May 2 would be contingent on the city council’s ratification of the entire contract – which it will consider later the same day, at its evening meeting. The newest member of the DDA board, Bob Guenzel, noted that if the city council chose to alter the non-financial language or the financial figure, that would amount to a counteroffer, and would not bind the DDA based on whatever the board had ratified.

In any case, there appears to be growing sentiment on the DDA board that if the city council does not ratify the parking contract in unamended form, it might be best to just let the existing contract run its course. It currently runs through 2015, with a three-year renewal option.

For example, at the April 25 meeting, Collins indicated that he believed running the parking system was actually a distraction to the DDA. He said his understanding was that one of the DDA’s “most politically progressive board members” was content to leave things the way they are. And at the April 27 meeting, DDA board member John Mouat wondered if they’d reached a point where the DDA should just let the city take back the parking system.

On the scenario where the current contract runs its course, the city’s revenue from the public parking system would be $2 million less per year than what it’s received in the last few years – though the city would still receive roughly $1 million per year (the payment to the street repair fund, plus payments from 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William surface parking lots).

But if the council does not ratify the same contract as the DDA on May 2, some councilmembers reportedly feel they have another option that stops short of dissolving the DDA. That option would be to simply transfer the funds from the DDA to the city as part of the budget resolution that council will approve on May 16.

In 2007, the city council amended the DDA’s budget using a simple resolution – but on that occasion, the change did not result in a transfer of funds. If the council did undertake a fund transfer, it would sure be interesting to see what happened next. On that kind of scenario the financial transaction would still need to be effected by the DDA. The DDA maintains its own funds in its own bank accounts.

The DDA’s board chair would need to sign the check. And it’s a check that would need to be endorsed, ultimately, by a majority of the city’s shareholders.

Washington & Fifth Avenue, looking northwest. The concrete mixer is parked directly in front of the DDA offices. The entry for the board's Sept. 1 meeting was through the alley and the garage, which makes up part of the ground floor of the Fifth Avenue Building. (Photos by the writer.)

The first issue, handled with relatively little comment, was the report out from the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, given by Roger Hewitt. The committee has been meeting over the course of the summer with a corresponding committee from the Ann Arbor city council to renegotiate the parking agreement under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system.

While board members Newcombe Clark and Russ Collins commented in a general way on the status of the conversations, it did not lead to any specific directive to the DDA’s committee for its next meeting, which will take place on Sept. 13 at 8:30 a.m.

However, at the suggestion of DDA executive director Susan Pollay, the board will schedule a retreat between now and its monthly board meeting in October – but likely after Sept. 13 – to focus on the “mutually beneficial” issue. In the meantime, the DDA’s committee will request of its city council counterparts that they provide their own assessment of the status of the negotiations. The Sept. 13 meeting of the two committees will also be the occasion when Pollay provides a detailed version of the outline, which she’d provided at the last committee meeting on Aug. 23, for a possible role for the DDA in the development of city-owned surface lots.

The second issue dispatched by the board with little overt controversy was a resolution that Newcombe Clark had brought through the operations committee last Wednesday to allocate $50,000 for support of skatepark facilities. Clark himself suggested that the resolution be tabled, alluding to the “prism through which everything is looked at this time of year.” DDA board members went along with that suggestion.

The prism to which Clark alluded is a political one. Clark is running an independent campaign for the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke. Hohnke has positioned himself as a champion of the skating community’s efforts to construct a skateboarding facility at Veterans Memorial Park, which is in Ward 5.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the newest member of the board, former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel, and the member he replaced, Jennifer S. Hall, were acknowledged by chair Joan Lowenstein – but neither was present. The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Hall’s service, and Lowenstein welcomed Guenzel “in absentia.”

Other business at Wednesday’s meeting included the usual updates from the board’s committees. Notable from the transportation committee was an effort to collaborate with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to enhance bus service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. And from the partnerships committee came a summary of a presentation they’d received from the chief of police – there’s a difference between being statistically safe and the perception of safety.

Downtown Development of City-Owned Property

Roger Hewitt gave the update from the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, which is renegotiating the agreement under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. He noted that the committee had been meeting every other week – that’s more frequently than the originally planned once-a-month schedule. He said they’d come up with a matrix of parking issues and had identified various complications that would be involved in the DDA’s possible participation in the enforcement of parking regulations. One of those issues is getting access to records of prior infractions, Hewitt said. Hewitt was complimentary of the efforts of DDA executive director Susan Pollay.

Hewitt also noted that Pollay had created an outline for the DDA’s possible involvement in the development process for city-owned surface lots, which was circulated at the previous week’s committee meeting and was included in the board’s meeting packet for that day. The role of the DDA in downtown development is a key element of the term sheet guiding the committee discussions.

The issue had been discussed by the board’s executive committee, Hewitt said. By way of background, the executive committee of the DDA board is defined in the body’s bylaws as follows:

Article V – Executive Committee: The officers of the Board, including Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer and Recording Secretary shall constitute the executive committee. The last former Chair shall be a non-voting member and the Executive Director shall be a non-voting ex officio member of this committee.

Based on the results of the July annual meeting elections, the current executive committee consists of chair Joan Lowenstein, vice chair Gary Boren, treasurer Roger Hewitt, secretary Russ Collins and former chair John Splitt, along with non-voting member Susan Pollay.

Hewitt reported a desire to have a board retreat to guide how the “mutually beneficial” committee should proceed. Lowenstein called the idea of a retreat a good one, because there might be some ideas that have shifted since those discussions started.

Newcombe Clark asked if it might be reasonable to have the members of the city council’s “mutually beneficial” committee give a status report on the discussions from their point of view. Clark noted that if the reporting on the meetings has been accurate, then there has not been a lot of feedback from councilmembers.

Russ Collins, who serves on the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee, said that asking for that kind of feedback was reasonable. He noted that the committee had learned a lot about the bureaucratic and legal issues involved that would make the DDA’s enforcement of parking regulations difficult.

Responding to Clark, Collins allowed that yes, the DDA did need to focus on what the DDA wanted, but that if it’s impossible to get it, then that needed to be recognized. Collins emphasized that the committee had learned a great deal, characterizing the discussions as “productive, but frustrating.”

Clark expressed some frustration by saying, “What we want is irrelevant, because they have what they want.” He was alluding to the fact that the DDA in May had already agreed to pay the city an extra $2 million in FY 2010-11, which was not required by the original parking agreement.

Hewitt indicated that the next meeting of the city and DDA committees would take place on Sept. 13 at 8:30 a.m. – he would not be able to attend. Other members of the DDA’s committee are Gary Boren, Russ Collins and Sandi Smith.

Expected at that meeting is the more fully articulated, detailed plan for the DDA’s role in the development of downtown city lots.

Library Lot RFP Review Committee

If the DDA takes on a more active role in the development of city-owned land downtown, and if a suggestion from Ward 5 councilmember Carsten Hohnke is acted on, the Library Lot could be a parcel on which the DDA eventually leads the development process. Hohnke’s suggestion, made at a Democratic primary election forum, was that consideration of the Library Lot be restarted as a blank slate, with no preconceptions. An underground parking garage is currently under construction on the parcel, and a city-led committee is handling the review of proposals that were submitted for the lot last year. [Chronicle coverage: "Hotel/Conference Center Proposals Go Forward"]

At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, John Splitt reported out from the committee that’s reviewing proposals for development of the parcel above the underground parking garage – he represents the DDA on the committee, which includes city staff as well as councilmembers Margie Teall and Stephen Rapundalo. Rapundalo chairs that committee.

Splitt gave essentially the same kind of update on the committee that Rapundalo has given his city council colleagues at recent meetings. The committee has not met in about four months, Splitt said. A consultant [Roxbury Group] has been hired and is doing due diligence on the two proposals that are still under consideration. The consultant’s meetings with the proposers should be concluded in time for the committee to meet sometime towards the end of September, Splitt said.

Skatepark Support

As chair of the operations committee, Roger Hewitt described to the board a resolution that Newcombe Clark had brought to that committee the previous week that allocated $50,000 of funds “to be used as matching funds for new public or private dollars raised in support of skate facilities and resources to be located and invested in the DDA District or within radial proximity of the DDA District.”

Skatepark: Tabling the Resolution

Hewitt said he didn’t feel the operations committee was the proper committee to review the proposal and said there were a number of problems with it. He thus stated that he did not want to move the resolution, but invited Clark to do so if he wanted to do so.

The proposed skatepark location in Veterans Memorial Park (yellow push pin) is 1.3 miles from the DDA boundary (shown in red.) (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Clark moved the resolution, but in the same breath indicated he was open to the idea of tabling it – Gary Boren and others clarified that the first step was to actually move the resolution. After establishing that the resolution had actually been moved and seconded, Clark described how he was approached by the skatepark supporters – as other DDA board members had been – about possible support from the DDA for their efforts.

Those efforts include a location at Veterans Memorial Park, Clark said, and so he and others were “stretching” to find a way to directly support  their efforts. [The "stretching" to which Clark alluded is a function of the city park's location, which is at the corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads, across from the new Aldi's. That's roughly 1.3 miles away from the DDA tax district boundary.]

Clark noted that the skatepark had gained support from Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor, all the merchant associations, the Neutral Zone teen center – “all of our regularly supported friends and neighbors here,” said Clark. They all recognized how giving skaters a proper facility would help make the downtown safe take some of the burden off of downtown infrastructure. So he said he’d come up with the resolution as a way to support the effort with a relatively small amount of money.

But Clark noted that subsequently, he’d understood that there is “a prism that everything is looked through this time of the year,” and that he understood reservations that people might have.

Outcome: The board voted to table the resolution – with two audible votes against tabling from Sandi Smith and John Splitt – and the suggestion to the partnerships committee to take up the issue.

Skatepark: Political Prism

The political prism to which Clark alluded includes the fact that Clark is running an independent campaign for the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke. Hohnke has positioned himself as a champion of the Ann Arbor Skatepark’s efforts to construct a skateboarding facility at Veterans Memorial Park, partly through his drafting of a letter from city councilmembers encouraging the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission to support the skatepark with a $400,000 matching grant. And Hohnke is endorsed by Trevor Staples, who is chair of the board of directors of Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. The race for the Ward 5 seat is a three-way contest between Hohnke, Clark and John Floyd, who is the Republican nominee.

In a post on the Friends of the Skatepark website, Staples wrote about Clark’s resolution:

I feel that it’s important we point out that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark was approached by Newcombe Clark with the resolution for DDA funding that he wanted to bring for a vote before the DDA. The Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark declined to support the resolution because we could not figure out how the dollars could be used for the skatepark, unless the skatepark was moved. This is not an option.

Skatepark: Location, Location, Location

The location issue cited by Staples in his post involves where the DDA can make its investments. When the Ann Arbor DDA was renewed in 2003, the plan included explicit provision for expenditure of funds outside the DDA tax district [emphasis added].

[page 9] In an effort to accomplish its mission, it is understood that the DDA may elect to participate in important projects outside the DDA District.

[page 24] The funds allocated by the DDA are intended to strengthen the downtown area and attract new private investments. This Plan recognizes that solutions to downtown problems (for example, traffic, access, and parking problems) may best be developed by spending funds outside the DDA district. Similarly, this Plan recognizes that a key to the future vitality of the downtown is stable and successful near downtown neighborhoods.

However, the Veterans Memorial Park location is 1.3 miles away from the DDA boundary. While the DDA board has no general policy on the distances beyond the DDA boundary, it does have a specific distance policy related to affordable housing. The DDA’s affordable housing policy is to support housing projects up to 1/4 mile away from the DDA boundary. This policy was affirmed at the board’s March 4, 2009 meeting. Those deliberations will likely be remembered as much for the 1/4 mile distance as for board members’ “channeling” former board member Dave DeVarti, who consistently championed the cause of affordable housing.

While the source of the skatepark support was proposed to be taken from a grant previously allocated to the Washtenaw-Livingston Rail (WALLY) project, those WALLY funds ultimately came from the DDA’s parking revenues. Those dollars enjoy somewhat more geographic flexibility, because they are not collected under the tax increment financing of the DDA district, but rather from parking fees. Although there’s somewhat more geographic flexibility, the DDA’s policy on investing parking revenues has been to look at the parking system as part of a “transportation system” and to fund transportation-related projects. For example, the DDA uses parking revenues to fund go!pass bus passes for downtown workers.

While skateboards do have wheels, it’s not straightforward to analyze a skatepark facility at Veterans Memorial Park as a transportation project.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ray Fullerton expressed some puzzlement at the skatepark resolution, asking for some clarification as to whether the support would be for the proposed Veterans Memorial Park facility or for some additional second location. Board members don’t typically engage in interactions with the public during their speaking turns, but Clark told Fullerton that “as written” the money could not be spent on the proposed Veterans Memorial Park facility.

After the meeting, Clark told The Chronicle it’s possible that the DDA’s partnerships committee might amend the resolution’s wording – which currently reads “skate facilities and resources” – so that it’s simply skate resources that are located in the district. In that case a resource like, for example, signage pointing people down Dexter-Ann Arbor Road to the skatepark could conceivably be located in the district, but still support the Veterans Memorial Park location.

Policing the Downtown

How the downtown gets policed was a topic that received discussion at a couple of different points during the meeting.

Policing: Funding Source

The source of the funds identified for Clark’s resolution in support of the skatepark is an as-yet unspent grant for the Washtenaw Livingston Rail (WALLY) project, which has an uncertain future. [At a recent Ann Arbor Transportation Authority retreat, the AATA board identified WALLY as a project they'd like to see start hitting some milestones for achievement.]

Clark has previously identified the unspent WALLY allocation as a funding source for a different initiative – restoration of downtown police patrols. At the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, the board remanded a resolution to its partnerships committee on the subject. From previous Chronicle reporting:

At the May 5 DDA board meeting, the board remanded a resolution to the partnerships committee on reserving of funds for a possible contract with the city to provide downtown beat cops. The resolution had been brought to the board by Newcombe Clark via its operations committee.

At the May 12 partnerships committee meeting, Clark said he was content not to press the resolution forward unless there was an attempt to grab the funds for some other purpose. The funds in Clark’s resolution on beat cops would be reallocated in monthly $60,000 increments from the WALLY north-south commuter train project, between Washtenaw and Livingston counties. There is a total of $335,000 reserved in the DDA budget for WALLY.

Policing: Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council Report

Ray Detter, who chairs the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, reported on that body’s regular meeting, which takes place on the Tuesday evening before the DDA’s first-Wednesday monthly board meeting. The existence of the CAC as a body is stipulated in the state enabling legislation for downtown development authorities.

Detter reported that the previous night’s meeting had included chief of police Barnett Jones, deputy chief John Seto and Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere. He said they’d spent two hours discussing crime, panhandling and the challenges of police in the downtown area, as well as throughout the rest of the city. The discussion had been prompted, Detter said, by the expressed concern of downtown residents about petty street crime and aggressive panhandling being on the rise. Some people are attributing this increase, he said, to the reduction in sidewalk police presence.

One of the CAC members is president of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association, Detter said, and he’d reported five separate security issues in a one-month period – twice a homeless person had stolen items out of the lobby, a smash-and-grab break-in, as well as homeless people sleeping behind the building.

Detter indicated chief Jones had observed that some of the homeless population are homeless “because they choose to be.” There’s an increase in people sleeping on the street, in parks, under bridges, Detter continued, and Liberty Plaza – an urban park at the corner of Liberty and Division – has become a problem once again.

Detter said that the CAC admired the ability of the police department to cope with the problems of crime in the city. He noted that while crime statistics are going down, arrests are going up. The police force has been reduced from 216 down to 124, he said, and they need help to solve this city-wide problem.

Detter said that Briere had indicated she’d be bringing a resolution to the city council at its Sept. 20 meeting to re-establish a panhandling task force. Detter alluded to the work done from 2001-03 by a previous task force, which had prompted a revision to the city’s panhandling ordinance. The ordinance revision had been due in part to the efforts of Joan Lowenstein, Detter said, who was then a member of the city council.

Detter stated that now we need action again.

The city’s “panhandling ordinance” is not known by that label in the city code. It’s a part of Chapter 108 on disorderly conduct and is covered in the section on solicitation:

9:70. Solicitation.
Except as otherwise provided in Chapters 79 and 81 of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit the immediate payment of money or goods from another person, whether or not in exchange for goods, services, or other consideration, under any of the following circumstances:
1. On private property, except as otherwise permitted by Chapters 79 and 81, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
2. In any public transportation vehicle or public transportation facility;
3. In any public parking structure and within 12 feet of any entrance or exit to any public parking structure;
4. From a person who is in any vehicle on the street;
5. By obstructing the free passage of pedestrian or vehicle traffic;
6. Within 12 feet of a bank or automated teller machine;
7. By moving to within 2 feet of the person solicited, unless that person has indicated that he/she wishes to be solicited;
8. By following and continuing to solicit a person who walks away from the solicitor;
9. By knowingly making a false or misleading representation in the course of a solicitation;
10. In a manner that appears likely to cause a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities to feel intimidated, threatened or harassed;
11. Within 12 feet of the entrance to or exit from the Nickels Arcade, located between State Street and Maynard Street; the Galleria, located between S. University and the Forest Street parking structure; and the Pratt Building, located between Main Street and the Ashley parking lot; or
12. From a person who is a patron at any outdoor cafe or restaurant.

Policing the Downtown: Partnerships Committee Report

Russ Collins reported that the partnerships committee had invited chief of police Barnett Jones and deputy chief John Seto to make a presentation to the committee on the status of policing in the city. Collins noted that there’s a difference between the perception and the statistics of safety. With respect to statistics, Collins said, Ann Arbor is very safe. And from the point of view of perception, he continued, Ann Arbor is also perceived as essentially safe. But he allowed that “young people can act enthusiastically.”

He also said that there was a lot of support for the idea of having downtown police patrols, because the perception of safety can be even more important than the statistics of safety. Collins said that the relative leniency of the panhandling laws in the absence of policing meant that people’s perceptions didn’t necessarily match the statistical reality of safety.

Newcombe Clark noted that when the crime statistics are low, it might take only one or two “bad apples” to skew the numbers higher. At that, Collins quipped, “You’re not talking about Ray [Detter] specifically, though, right?” After the laughter quieted down, Clark continued by saying that a large number of incidents could be the work of one or two individuals.

The other point that Clark highlighted from the police department’s visit to the partnership’s committee CAC was that the police force is good statistically at catching all the perpetrators of major crimes quickly and efficiently – but they feel the pressure to be proactive. Summarizing what the two officers had presented at the meeting, Clark said that an armed robbery might or might not happen, depending on whether they knew there’d be police officers nearby.

The “slippage” at Liberty Plaza, Clark said, could be attributed to the fact that the people who are new to town don’t know the panhandling rule, and those who know it, know that there aren’t beat cops walking around regularly enforcing it. He said it did not undercut the argument for downtown patrols to observe that statistically the Ann Arbor police do a really good job, especially considering that they have 100 fewer officers than they had a few years ago. Clark concluded by saying he didn’t want to let the issue go, simply by saying “the stats are good.”

Collins agreed with Clark’s basic sentiment – we’d all like bicycle patrols and beat cops restored because that provides a very effective message to the citizens and to the “nefarious people.” Safety is not only a statistic, he said, but also a feeling.

Some Chronicle readers may have noticed bicycle-mounted Ann Arbor police officers along Fourth or Fifth Avenue near the Blake Transit Center. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority contracts for security at the bus station. It’s not part of a general downtown beat patrol.

DDA Finances: Bond Payments, Timelines, Parking Revenue

As part of the operations committee report, Roger Hewitt presented the final unaudited summaries and fund balance sheets for FY 2010, which ended June 30. A point raised by Newcombe Clark was an asterisk next to a line in the TIF Fund Income Statement for the line item indicating “bond payments” for $1,569,605. The footnote reads: “Includes $508,000 for the Police/Court Facility Grant.”

Clark asked that in the future, that amount be reflected instead in the line item for “Grants & Transfers.” The arrangement is that the DDA has committed to grant the city of Ann Arbor the funds to make part of the city’s bond payments for the new police/court facility [aka municipal center]. At the meeting, deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse indicated the duration of the grant to be 25 years.

Also as part of the operations committee report, Hewitt noted that the board packet included a detailed set of milestones, which Village Green – developer of the City Apartments project at First and Washington – needs to hit as part of the purchase option agreement. That agreement was extended by the city council at its Aug. 5 meeting. Clark picked up on the fact that the turnaround time for DDA activities and involvement were all relatively short – in many cases a day. He suggested that the DDA “politely ask” that it be kept in the loop on those matters.

The parking revenue report that is always a part of the operations committee report showed some decreases in monthly numbers, compared year over year. For example, the Maynard structure showed $10,361 less revenue in June 2010 compared to June 2009, with 4,398 fewer hourly patrons using the structure.

             JUNE 2010          JUNE 2009         2010 VS. 2009
          Hourly             Hourly               Hourly
        Revenues  Patrons  Revenues  Patrons    Revenues  Patrons
Maynard $151,538  43,826   $161,900  48,224    ($10,361)  (4,398)

-

A breakdown of art fair parking showed $218,230 in revenues compared to $244,180 for 2009 for a decrease of $25,950 – the weather had been terrible this year, with downpours and tornadoes in the area. Hewitt said that most of the monthly difference for July 2010 – which was $$33,975 or 2.55% less that July a year ago – could be accounted for by the decreased revenues during art fair. Hewitt suggested that the quarterly and annual reports gave a better feel for how things are going than the month-to-month reports.

Changing of the Guard

At the start of the meeting, the board’s new chair, Joan Lowenstein, who was elected at the annual meeting held just after the regular board meeting in July, welcomed the board’s newest member, Bob Guenzel. Guenzel retired as Washtenaw County administrator earlier this year. Lowenstein indicated that Guenzel’s absence was due to a previously planned vacation, but she still welcomed him “in absentia,” quipping, “He doesn’t know about the whole hazing thing, yet.”

Guenzel is replacing Jennifer S. Hall. The board unanimously passed a resolution acknowledging her service, which is the usual pattern and practice of the board. Hall’s period of service included a turn as board chair from 2008-09. The resolution highlighted her commitment to open government:

Whereas, Jennifer Hall encouraged important changes to the DDA’s processes, meetings, and website to foster a strong sense of public openness, accountability and transparency;

That commitment emerged perhaps most publicly when it became clear this past spring that members of the DDA board and the city council had done significant work on re-negotiating the city-DDA parking agreement – work that took place out of public view and outside of the committee structure that both bodies had established to undertake that work.

At the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, when the DDA board voted to grant $2 million to the city as a unilateral amendment to the parking agreement, Hall gave a blistering critique of the way the discussions had been conducted out of public view, against the DDA’s commitment to openness and against the specific mandate she’d given – as chair at the time the DDA’s mutually beneficial committee was formed – that the discussions be open and transparent. [For Chronicle coverage of that meeting, see "DDA OKs $2 Million Over Strong Dissent."]

The resolution thanking Hall also highlighted some of the specific projects she’d worked on during her period of service:

Whereas, Jennifer Hall also encouraged a number of signature DDA projects and programs, including approval of the Fifth & Division pedestrian and bicycle improvements project, installation of in-street seasonal bicycle racks and expansion of DDA funding for the getDowntown program and go!passes;

After Lowenstein read the resolution aloud, the board approved it without comment.

Public Comment: Electric Cable

Paul Ganz – DTE Energy regional manager for the counties of Ingham, Jackson, Livingston and most of Washtenaw – told the board he was appearing before the board on a bit of a “whimsy.” In connection with the underground parking garage project along Fifth Avenue, he said, DTE had been working with Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, and Adrian Iraola of Park Avenue Consulting, who works with the DDA to help manage projects. [Various utilities have required relocation in connection with the project.]

Paul Ganz of DTE Energy presented board members with their own slice of history – a piece of an underground high-voltage cable that had been replaced as part of the construction of the underground parking garage the DDA is currently building on Fifth Avenue. DDA board member Leah Gunn is in the background.

To provide the board with a historical perspective, he distributed roughly hockey-puck-sized cross-sections of electrical cable, which he said was typical underground high-voltage electric cable – it had been installed 34 years ago, in May 1976.

Ganz noted that the copper wires are wrapped in lead to help protect them. Ordinarily, the cable is recycled, because the metal is valuable, he said. But he felt like it was worth sacrificing a foot or two of the cable, sliced up into pieces, so that board members could keep a piece of it on their desks as a memento. He concluded by thanking the DDA for their cooperation.

Board member John Mouat commented that he liked the “peace sign” that was formed by the insulation around the three separate clusters of copper wire that make up the cable.

Leah Gunn thanked Ganz, saying she’d add the cable slice to her concrete chunks from Fourth & Washington, and pieces of re-bar from First & Washington – a kind of “parking structure memorial.” Russ Collins also thanked DTE for the work involved in relocating the utilities, which had to be coordinated and timed in a crucial way.

Cross section of high-voltage undeground cable presented by Paul Ganz of DTE to DDA board members.

Present: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark, Roger Hewitt, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: John Hieftje, Bob Guenzel.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2010, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Pamphlets for gubernatorial candidates Alma Wheeler Smith and Rick Snyder, on the table at Wednesday's Morning Edition breakfast hosted by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. Smith, a Democrat, and Snyder, a Republican, were both speakers at the event.

Running was a common theme for speakers at Wednesday’s Morning Edition, a breakfast meeting hosted by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce at Weber’s Inn.

Alma Wheeler Smith and Rick Snyder are both running for governor, in the Democratic and Republican primaries, respectively. Michael Ford, the new CEO for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, keeps the buses running, while Keith Hafner runs a local karate business. And Kevin Borseth, the University of Michigan women’s basketball coach who makes his team run drills, almost ran for cover when Russ Collins, the event’s MC, brought up an infamous YouTube video that Borseth might well want to forget.

Collins, who’s also executive director of the Michigan Theater, kept the speakers running on schedule – after the jump, we’ll give a summary of their remarks, presented in the order in which they spoke.

Alma Wheeler Smith, candidate in the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial primary

Smith currently serves as state representative for the 54th District, which includes the city of Ypsilanti, and Augusta, Salem, Superior and Ypsilanti townships. After serving three, two-year terms, she’s ineligible to run again because of term limits – she also previously served as a state senator from 1994-2002. This is Smith’s second run for governor: she campaigned in the 2001 primary, and the following year became the running mate of David Bonior, losing in the primary to Jennifer Granholm.

Alma Wheeler Smith, a current state representative and candidate for governor in the Democratic primary. (Photo by the writer.)

Smith said that one of her strengths is a bipartisan approach and willingness to work both sides of the aisle. She cited jobs as a priority, and emphasized the importance of small businesses.

Key initiatives would include restructuring government by looking at ways to consolidate or, if consolidation has occurred that isn’t effective, to reverse it. When a bureaucracy becomes too large, she said, it’s inefficient and ineffective. She plans to push for universal preschool and strengthen the K-12 system, citing the need for consolidation – in the area where she serves as state representative, there are at least two school districts that should consolidate, she said, without naming them.

Education needs to be considered from preschool through college, she said. The Kalamazoo Promise is a good model, Smith added – that privately funded initiative pays for college tuition to graduates of the Kalamazoo public schools. In general, tuition is out of control, she said, and all children need the opportunity that a quality education offers.

Smith also said she’s especially interested in initiatives that will support the state’s small businesses, which she noted have led the country out of every previous recession.

“Without small business being able to work and thrive,” Smith said, “we fail.”

Kevin Borseth, coach of the University of Michigan women's basketball team. (Photo by the writer.)

Kevin Borseth, head coach of UM’s women’s basketball

Now in his third season coaching women’s basketball at Michigan, Borseth told the audience that he’d always dreamed of being head coach there. “Not many people get to live their dream,” he said. “I also learned be careful what you wish for.”

He said the team recently started practice for the season, which begins Nov. 13. Both the men’s and women’s teams kicked off the year on Friday, Oct. 16 with a Midnight Madness event for fans at Crisler Arena – Borseth said the staff made a YouTube video of the coaches dancing during the event. That reference caused Collins to quip that not everyone knew about Borseth’s YouTube fame, alluding to a clip of an explosive post-game press conference Borseth gave last year, which was followed by “Rate the Rant” commentary by ESPN2 sportscasters. Borseth acknowledged that he’d been pretty upset at the time. “I’m kind of a fiery coach,” he said.

Women’s basketball is a purer form of the game, with better shooting and crisper passing than on men’s teams, Borseth said. He urged everyone to come to the games, adding that he was embarrassed to say season tickets cost only $20.

Rick Snyder, an Ann Arbor businessman and a gubernatorial candidate in the Republican primary. (Photo by the writer.)

Rick Snyder, candidate in the GOP gubernatorial primary

Snyder, an Ann Arbor venture capitalist, began by saying that the most frequent question he’s asked is “Why on earth do you want to be governor?” There are three reasons, he said: 1) Michigan is an economic disaster, 2) if Lansing lawmakers were a business, “we’d have fired them,” and 3) career politicians aren’t the answer.

But Snyder said he wants people to vote for him for positive reasons – a long-term vision that transitions the state to an era of innovation with a diverse economy, restores Michigan’s major cities, protects the environment and gives young people a reason to stay here after graduation.

Snyder also outlined his 10-point plan, noting that No. 1 on the list is creating more and better jobs. Government’s role is to create an environment in which business can thrive, but Michigan doesn’t have that, he said, calling the Michigan Business Tax “the dumbest tax in the United States.” The state also has a regulatory environment that assumes people are bad. Government is a bureaucracy, but should be a customer service organization, he said, with citizens as the customers.

“This is the time for the solve-it attitude,” he said.

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater and emcee of Wednesday's Morning Edition. (Photo by the writer.)

Michael Ford, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO

Hired as AATA’s new CEO this summer, Ford responded to a question from Russ Collins by saying that although he grew up in Seattle and was a Huskies fan, he’d been impressed by Michigan’s defeat of Notre Dame and was now a Wolverine.

There are many opportunities in the Ann Arbor region for improving its transportation, Ford said. Among them are the WALLY proposal connecting Washtenaw and Livingston counties by rail, and the Fuller Road transit station, a joint city/UM effort, and the Ann Arbor to Detroit rail project.

Doing nothing, Ford said, is not an option – all great cities have great transportation infrastructure. He asked for feedback from the audience on how they used AATA, saying that “transportation doesn’t do any good if it’s not meeting your needs.”

[The AATA is holding a special meeting of its board, also at Weber's Inn, on Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:00 p.m. in the Varsity Room.  The topic of the meeting will be the possibility of reorganizing as a regional authority under Act 196. ]

Keith Hafner, owner of the eponymous karate school in downtown Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

Keith Hafner, owner of Keith Hafner’s Karate

Russ Collins introduced Hafner and asked a series of questions, adding, “I ask you most sincerely not to kick my ass if you don’t like the questions.”

Hafner has owned Keith Hafner’s Karate for 30 years, and earlier this month became a grand master – a title conferred on him in a ceremony led by Ed Sell, Hafner’s former karate teacher and the previous owner of the local school.

Hafner noted that his business is one of the oldest on Main Street. In addition to karate classes for kids and adults, Hafner is a consultant and author of the book “How to Build Rock Solid Kids.”

There’s a crisis among kids today, he said, adding that they lack self-confidence and a positive attitude. Learning karate is a great way to build both of those characteristics, he said.

Candidates for Michigan’s House of Representatives still have eight months to file for the 2010 election. But with money to raise and campaigns to organize, most potential candidates for the state’s 54th District say they expect to make decisions about entering the race by the end of this year.

At least four Democrats from the eastern Washtenaw County district are considering running for the seat now held by state Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, who’s ineligible to run after being elected to three terms. (Smith is campaigning to be the Democratic candidate for governor.) Allen Francois, Mike Martin, David Rutledge and Lonnie Scott are all potential candidates in the overwhelmingly Democratic district, which includes the city of Ypsilanti, and Augusta, Salem, Superior and Ypsilanti townships. [Link to 54th District map.]

The field in the nearby 55th House District so far appears to be smaller. Republican Joe Zurawski of Washtenaw County is a candidate for the seat held by three-term state Rep. Kathy Angerer, a Democrat who is ineligible to run again. On the Democratic side, Monroe County resident Michael J. Smith says it’s very likely he will run.

The 55th District includes Pittsfield, Saline and York townships in Washtenaw County, along with communities in Monroe County. [Link to 55th District map.] Angerer and her predecessor Matt Milosch have come from Monroe County. Milosch, a Republican, lost to Angerer after serving a single term.

54th District: Eastern Washtenaw

Since term limits began in the early 1990s, eastern Washtenaw County residents have seen Democratic primary elections in years when incumbent House members have been unable to run again – and the successful primary candidates have gone on to serve the maximum three, two-year terms.

Although that pattern needn’t hold, it does heighten the import of an August primary. And prospective candidates certainly know that.

David Rutledge has twice been a candidate in those open-seat primaries. Allen Francois served as a staffer for Wheeler Smith after she was first elected to the seat in 2004, and Lonnie Scott serves on her staff now.

Term limits do shape the path for would-be state elected officials, acknowledges Francois: “They create an opportunity, though I’m just 33 so it won’t be my last.”

Potential Democratic candidates

Allen Francois: An Ypsilanti native, Francois has spent several years working for a company that offers “disaster management” services – primarily to the federal government. He’s currently working in Mississippi on continued efforts to house people displaced by hurricanes Rita and Katrina in 2005.

He previously served as a field representative in U.S. Rep. John Dingell’s district office in Ypsilanti.

Francois continues to maintain a home in Ypsilanti and says he and his wife hope to return to the community full time this winter. He expects to decide whether or not to enter the race in November.

Mike Martin: An Ypsilanti Township trustee, Martin was elected to that board just last year. Employed in labor relations, he has been a township resident since 1989.

He says he expects to make a decision about the House race near the end of the year.

David Rutledge: A Superior Township resident, Rutledge has served as an elected trustee on the board of Washtenaw Community College since 1996. He also serves on the board of the Washtenaw County Road Commission, one of three appointed members.

A candidate for the House seat in 1998 and 2004, Rutledge says he understands what it takes to win in a Democratic primary and is assessing his chances now.

Previously a township supervisor and deputy director of the House legislative research staff, Rutledge is president of Alpha Environmental Services Inc., based in Detroit.

Lonnie Scott: A legislative aide to Wheeler Smith since last year, Scott is – at this point – perhaps the most committed to becoming a candidate. While he would have to leave his post to become a formal candidate, the 2005 Central Michigan grad expects to set up an exploratory committee as early as next month.

Scott grew up in the Lincoln Consolidated School District and worked in student affairs at universities in New York and Kentucky before returning to the area last year.

Among others Democrats who have discussed running are Ypsilanti school board member David Bates. Bates tells The Chronicle he has decided not to enter the race. Long-time Willow Run school board member Clifford Smith, who ran fourth in a six-candidate primary for the 54th House seat in 2004, also says he will not run.

Potential Republican candidates

Assuming there is an August Democratic primary, the winner would likely face a Republican candidate in November.

Ypsilanti Township resident Tom Banks has five times appeared on the ballot as his party’s representative. And, this election cycle, Salem Township Clerk David Trent says he’s considering a campaign that would reprise his 2002 run against then-incumbent Democratic state Rep. Ruth Ann Jamnick, who retained the seat.

Elected to the township post in 2004 and again last year, Trent says he is also exploring a run for the 18th District state Senate seat, which must be vacated by the term-limited state Sen. Liz Brater of Ann Arbor.

Trent is also considering the seat on the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, held by Democrat Ken Schwartz. The commission member representing the county’s 2nd District, which covers the northwestern part of the county, Schwartz is considering a run for the state House’s 52nd District. (See previous Chronicle coverage.)

Brater’s seat, the 18th Senate District, covers most of Washtenaw County and has been held by Democrats for at least a dozen years. Members of the state Senate are limited to two, four-year terms.

Of course, Trent says, he could ultimately decide to stand pat in his position as clerk.

55th District: Southern Washtenaw, Monroe County

With Angerer term-limited, Monroe County Democrats have turned to Michael J. Smith, a Temperance resident and member of the Bedford board of education. If no other Democrat emerges, he will likely face York Township Supervisor Joe Zurawski – a Republican who is campaigning for the seat.

Supervisor for five years and a township trustee for eight, Zurawski sees the district as traditionally – and today marginally – Republican. While redistricting has changed its boundaries over the years, it was held by numerous Republicans before Angerer won it in 2004.

For his part, Zurawski will highlight his ability to work across party lines. “I’ve worked with Democrats at the township level. I consider Ruth Ann Jamnick a good friend, and (Ann Arbor Township Supervisor) Mike Moran and (Superior Township Supervisor) Bill McFarlane. We all work together.”

A fiscal hawk, he’ll also try to make the case that his York Township experience will translate to statewide government.

A Washtenaw County resident for 22 years, he’s a retired auto industry engineer.

Angerer is a leader among state Democrats – she’s currently majority floor leader – and will undoubtedly do her best to help the party hold the seat. A meeting between Smith and Angerer will be scheduled soon, says Diane Brookes, chairwoman of the Monroe County Democratic party.

With his official entry into the race pending, Smith continues to work as the Monroe County United Way’s AFL-CIO community services liaison. A Monroe County native, he’s a 1992 graduate of Bedford High School and has an associate degree from Monroe Community College.

Smith says his school board service gives him some experience with a tight budget.

Other State Races: An Update

52nd House District

In previous coverage of the 52nd House District, The Chronicle identified three potential Democrat candidates to succeed the term-limited state Rep. Pam Byrnes: county commissioner Ken Schwartz, Saline mayor Gretchen Driskell, and Dr. Philip Zazove, a family practitioner and former Byrnes primary opponent.

There’s another candidate: Scio Township trustee Christine Green says she’s running for the seat that includes northeast Ann Arbor, the cities of Chelsea and Saline, and the townships of Ann Arbor, Bridgewater, Dexter, Freedom, Lima, Lodi, Lyndon, Manchester, Northfield, Pittsfield, Scio, Sharon, Sylvan and Webster. [Link to 52nd District map.]

A lawyer, Green was elected to the township board last year after serving on the Scio Planning Commission.

She says she’ll formally launch her campaign in November and stress her experience as a member of the Michigan Environmental Council’s board and a past chairwoman of Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan’s board, along with a law practice that emphasizes civil rights and employment law.

“I’ve done a lot of work with nonprofits and it’s made me realize that the opportunity to affect real change is through government,” Green says. “We’re lucky to have wonderful nonprofits, but you need the power of the legislature.”

53rd House District

As expected, Ann Arbor resident Ned Staebler will run for the seat that state Rep. Rebekah Warren now holds, representing Ann Arbor. Staebler, a vice president of program administration at the Michigan Economic Development Corp., will launch his campaign on Oct. 4.

18th Senate District

In earlier coverage of the senate district now represented by veteran Ann Arbor lawmaker Liz Brater, The Chronicle reported that Ypsilanti Township Democrat Ruth Ann Jamnick could be a candidate. Jamnick has now confirmed that she is, indeed, considering a run for the seat.

A former Ypsilanti Township treasurer and supervisor, Jamnick served as state rep in the 54th District for the maximum allowable three terms. “I enjoyed it and think I represented the area well,” says Jamnick. “I’m definitely thinking about the senate and will decide by the first of the year.”

State Rep. Rebekah Warren, an Ann Arbor Democrat from the 53rd District, launched her campaign for the state senate seat on Sept. 19. State Rep. Pam Byrnes, a Lyndon Township Democrat representing District 52, is also a potential candidate in the senate race. Term limited, Byrnes has said she’ll announce her plans by year’s end.

About the writer: Judy McGovern lives in Ann Arbor. She has worked as a journalist here, and in Ohio, New York and several other states.

Rebekah Warren, current state representative from Ann Arbor, plans to officially announce her candidacy for Liz Brater's state senate seat on Sept. 19.

The year was 1992. Hecklers in Hamtramck threw broccoli at George H.W. Bush. Ross Perot got almost 19% of the presidential vote. And Michigan voters enacted term limits.

Fast forward to the present: Perot and Bush 41’s broccoli problem are largely forgotten, but term limits now shape elections for state office. Except in districts evenly enough divided between Democrats or Republicans that they might swing either way, it’s rare for an incumbent to face a serious challenge. Instead, political hopefuls wait for term limits to open the right slot.

That’s happening this election cycle with districts representing the Ann Arbor area. And jockeying is under way.

Next weekend, state Rep. Rebekah Warren (D-53rd District) will launch a campaign to succeed fellow Ann Arbor Democrat Liz Brater (D-18th District) in the Michigan Senate. A former state rep and former Ann Arbor mayor, Brater is term-limited and ineligible to run again for that seat.

Warren’s move will, in turn, trigger announcements from the Democrats who’ve politely waited for the two-term lawmaker to make her plans public before lining up to try and take her spot in the state House of Representatives.

Jeff Irwin and Ned Staebler are expected to enter the race for the 53rd District, which covers most of Ann Arbor and parts of Scio and Pittsfield townships. Irwin is a Washtenaw County commissioner representing a portion of Ann Arbor. Staebler is vice president of program administration at the Michigan Economic Development Corp. and an Ann Arbor resident.

In the heavily Democratic district representing the city of Ann Arbor, the candidate who wins in a primary can expect to sail through the general election in November.

State Rep. Pam Byrnes, who represents part of Ann Arbor and a large section of western Washtenaw County, is also considering a run for the 18th District state Senate seat.

State Senate Race

Still eligible to run for another term as state rep, Warren’s bid for the Senate sets up a potential Democratic primary in the 18th District, which represents Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and the townships of Ann Arbor, Augusta, Dexter, Freedom, Lima, Lyndon, Northfield, Salem, Scio, Sharon, Superior, Sylvan, Webster and Ypsilanti.

Warren’s Washtenaw County colleague in the House – state Rep. Pam Byrnes of Lyndon Township – is serving her third and, under term limits, final term representing the 52nd District.

After rising to a leadership position as Speaker Pro Tempore, Byrnes says she’s seriously considering a run for the same 18th District Senate seat, but has yet to make a decision.

“Who knows what other opportunities might come up,” says Byrnes, who unexpectedly finds herself chairing a committee on a controversial plan for overhauling the health care system for public employees. “I’ll make a decision by the end of the year.”

Candidates have until May 2010 to file petitions to run for office.

For her part, Warren says the decision to seek the Senate seat stems from frustration over legislation that’s died in that chamber.

“I’ve had success getting legislation through the House and Senate and on to the governor’s desk,” says Warren, citing bills on Great Lakes water withdrawals and electronics-waste recycling. “But there’s been other legislation passed in the House that’s important to me – and to the county – that never even got a hearing in the Senate. We need different leadership there.

“I love what I do and think I’ve proven I can do a decent job for four or eight more years.”

Term limits enacted in 1992 set a cap of three two-year terms for state representatives and two four-year terms for the senate. Also limited to two four-year terms are the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general.

Previous term-limited local lawmakers have been temporarily sidelined when the end of their terms did not mesh neatly with the terms of other offices.

Brater, who Warren hopes to succeed, was out of government for several years after leaving the House in 2000. She returned as a senator in 2002 when former state Sen. Alma Wheeler Smith was term-limited after two four-year terms.

Smith, Warren’s mother-in-law, sat out two years until term limits opened the seat in the 54th House district, which covers the eastern part of Washtenaw County. Smith won that seat but is term limited again – she is now a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Ruth Ann Jamnick, a former state rep from the 54th District and former Ypsilanti Township supervisor, has been mentioned as another possible candidate for the Senate seat. She could not be reached for comment.

53rd House District

Warren’s decision not to seek a third term in the House leaves an open field for that seat, which represents most of the city of Ann Arbor.

Ned Staebler, a Harvard grad with a master’s from the London School of Economics and Political Science, has deep political roots. His great grandfather was mayor of Ann Arbor from 1927-31, and his grandfather was a congressman from Michigan, a candidate for governor and an active Democrat. His father is married to former University of Michigan Regent Rebecca McGowan, a Democrat.

Staebler joined the state economic development agency in 2004, after previously working in finance – including a stint as an associate director with Bear Stearns International Ltd. in London, England. He declined to discuss the race, pending Warren’s official announcement, but has created a campaign committee to raise money.

Jeff Irwin, a Democrat elected to the county board in 1999 when he was still a University of Michigan student, likewise comes from a political family.

His father served as a state senator from the Upper Peninsula in the ’80s and later in the Granholm administration. And Irwin remembers as a child seeing lawmakers debate. “I watched (former Democratic state Sen.) Lana Pollack go toe-to-toe with (former Republican governor) John Engler and I knew who I wanted for my role model.”

Irwin worked on statewide and Great Lakes issues for the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund for six years and later on state environmental policy with the Michigan League of Conservation Voters for two years. He’s served as chairman of the Board of Commissioners and devotes his attention to county government full time.

He says he’s likely to enter the race and will make a decision by the end of the month.

52nd House District

When Pam Byrnes first won election in 2004, she took the 52th District Democratic, and voters in outlying Washtenaw County have increasingly been ready to back Democrats. Still, Republicans like county commissioner Mark Ouimet think they have a reasonable chance of winning back the House seat.

While he’s not ready to say he’s in the race, Ouimet acknowledges that he’s considering a run and notes that in 2008 he polled about as well as President Obama in his county commission district.

Ouimet says he’s put the decision aside until after a county budget is in place, probably in November and no later than December. Other potential Republican candidates appear to be deferring to Ouimet.

However, he’s not the only county commissioner eyeing the House seat.

Democrat Ken Schwartz says he has “one foot in the water” and is meeting with voters across the district to try and gauge support. “It’s been pretty positive, but I won’t make a final decision for a couple months.”

Schwartz was elected to the county board in 2007 and represents the 2nd District, which covers the northeastern part of the county. Ouimet was first elected in 2004 and represents the 1st District, which covers northwest Washtenaw County.

If Schwartz decides to run, he’ll likely find himself in a Democratic primary. Saline Mayor Gretchen Driskell’s name regularly comes up in discussion about the seat. “I know it does and I have been thinking about it,” says Driskell. Former Byrnes primary opponent Dr. Philip Zazove, a family practitioner, is among other potential candidates.

What about Hieftje?

Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje says he’s been asked whether he was interested in either the Senate race or the chance to run for the House seat being vacated by Warren.

His answer: He’ll decide next month.

Although he said in 2008 that the mayoral race could be his last, Hieftje seems less ready to leave the job today. “Things are very difficult for local government in Michigan and I feel a responsibility,” he says.

Pursuing the Senate seat would presumably present a challenge for the five-term mayor, who would run up against out-county voters and their views of Ann Arbor liberalism.

In the city limits, it would mean facing Warren, who dispatched Hieftje ally and city councilmember Leigh Greden in the 2004 2006 primary for the 53rd District.

A three-way race for that House seat might favor the highest profile candidate, but Hieftje has had sufficient time in office to disappoint some city voters, and both Staebler and Irwin could be expected to run hard.

In any of the potential Democratic primaries for state office, candidates will need to differentiate themselves.

“Anyone who represents Ann Arbor is going to vote the same way,” says Irwin, “pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-human services. The question is what else do you bring to the table.”

Primaries will be held in August 2010.

Other Races

State House campaigns by Irwin, Ouimet or Schwartz would create open seats on the county board, where commissioners will be elected to each of the 11 seats for two-year terms in 2010. Any move by Hieftje or Driskell would similarly open the respective mayor’s races next year. Warren’s husband – county commissioner Conan Smith, who is also chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party – is among several Democrats who have previously expressed interest in running for mayor of Ann Arbor, should Hieftje decide not to run.

The House seats in the 54th and 55th districts, which take in portions of Washtenaw County, are held by term-limited Democrats as well – Rep. Alma Wheeler-Smith and Rep. Kathy Angerer. Stay tuned for a Chronicle report on those races in the near future.

Rick Snyder (File photo courtesy of Snyder for Governor)

In the week of July 20, Snyder’s camp says, expect an announcement on how that business-friendly theme might be used in a gubernatorial campaign for the Republican.

And by business, he means the “C-Level” manager, the entrepreneur, the startup team. Make them happy by creating an atmosphere in Michigan that allows them to be successful. That means stop taxing them so much, stop regulating them so much, train them in how to be successful entrepreneurs – then the rest of the state’s economic puzzle will fall into place.

It’s what Snyder calls “helping the demand side” of Michigan’s unemployment problem. Help businesses find executives from Michigan’s rich talent supply, help create a business climate that favors them, then watch them succeed and dip into Michigan’s waves of unemployed.

“I would argue you’re helping the demand side even more by placing someone in a successful startup team, and letting them have an opportunity to be successful,” Snyder said in a recent interview with The Ann Arbor Chronicle. “Those are the people that are going to go hire the five and 10 other people.”

This is the formula that has worked so far for Snyder the businessman, so why not for Snyder the politician?

The Small Business Tune: Who’s Your Customer?

To understand how Snyder came to those conclusions, first look at both the early and the latter part of his career – when the music he played was “small business.”

Snyder was born in Battle Creek, but it was at the University of Michigan where he shined as a wunderkind in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He earned his bachelor’s, his MBA and his law degree all before he turned 23. From there, he used his newly-minted credentials for business at the Detroit office of the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand (now PricewaterhouseCoopers), where he rose quickly and was eventually put in charge of mergers and acquisitions in the firm’s Chicago office.

It was there, handling M&As for “30 to 50 different companies from various backgrounds every year,” Snyder said, that he began to form his lifelong opinions on how to make businesses more competitive. He saw them from “what the customer side looks like.”

Now, when Snyder thinks of “customers” in a political context, he is talking about the people trying to do business in Michigan. Government needs to treat Michigan businesspeople as customers.

“Michigan needs to change our attitude more, to be treating our citizens and businesses like customers and take a customer-centric approach to things, to say our goal is to create a more competitive playing field for our companies to thrive in and to do well,” Snyder said.

And that means, in general, the “customers” are always right. Or, if not, at least assume they are honest.

“Our tax system, our regulatory system should assume that most people are good and honest people, then deal with the exceptions,” Snyder said.

A story Snyder likes to tell is about a canoe rental company in Michigan that needs five separate licenses to do business.

The solution, however, is not to make special exceptions for some companies, he says.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, he said, is too focused on coming up with specialized incentives for companies to do business in Michigan – the governor’s lithium-ion battery initiative, for example, which offers tax abatements – but not addressing what he called “the fundamental issue, which is making us more competitive by fixing our overall business tax environment and our regulatory environment.”

So, if governor, Snyder would be a friend to startups. But what about the “other” kind of music – big business?

Bridging to Big Business

Well, he did help run a Fortune 500 company from 1991 to 1997. During his tenure at Gateway, the PC firm grew from a private $600 million business to $6 billion-plus publicly traded company.

But when it comes to his vision for running the big business of Michigan government, the solution can be found on the smaller, local level. The economic climate in Michigan is improving, Snyder said, no thanks to government, but rather due to local groups doing economic development work – groups like Ann Arbor SPARK, Southwest Michigan First, Techtown and Automation Alley. They’re working, he said, because they’re connecting C-Level talent with companies.

SPARK does receive local government support in the form of tax-increment financing through the Local Development Finance Authority – nearly $1 million in the next year. And last month Ann Arbor’s city council authorized supporting SPARK with $75,000 from its general fund after writing a check for $50,000 the previous year. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners is also considering a tax that would raise $250,000 annually for SPARK and SPARK East, its Ypsilanti satellite office.

For some of its programs, though, SPARK is paid for its services directly by the people who use them – as in a program Snyder helped institute at SPARK called  Shifting Gears. It’s a training program geared to help unemployed and underemployed middle-level managerial technical people, mainly from the auto industry. They have good resumes, but they need to learn how to switch from a large company to a small company – how to become involved in a startup. Snyder was a mentor to one of the Shifting Gears clients.

“The last time I met with him, just last week, he was leaning forward, bouncing, smiling, talking about how he was excited to get out there and try to find a job even though his underlying company had gone bankrupt and his situation was worse financially,” Snyder said.

These are the kinds of programs, Snyder says, that should be implemented statewide.

The Business of Governing

OK, but what has Snyder done for Michigan? Well, in 1997, Snyder decided to return to the Great Lakes State. He had a specific mission in mind – to use his expertise to launch startups – first with Avalon Investments Inc. and then with Ardesta LLC. Avalon invested in traditional tech companies, while Ardesta invests in, and helps launch, nanotechnology and microsystems companies.

Between the two, Snyder says, he has created 420 jobs in Michigan and 1,253 nationwide. The figures are based on the number of jobs at companies in which Avalon and Ardesta have made investments.

Still, Snyder’s potential candidacy suffers from lack of name recognition outside the business community. Snyder said, however, he’s not worried.

“I’m excited. I think we’re well-positioned,” he insisted. “We’re starting with strong fundamentals.

“All there is is fear and frustration that everyone has today. I don’t know of anyone happy about how Michigan is, so the starting point is that you’ve got to have a vision that will get people excited about the future.”

About the author: 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 as the media arm of Ardesta. 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 and the U.S. criminal justice system.

Earlier this month, the politicos did a groundbreaking for the $44 million I-94/Westnedge Avenue road widening project. Vice President Joe Biden espoused the view that “we are quite literally paving the road to recovery right here in Kalamazoo.” From one lifelong Democrat to another: Say it ain’t so, Joe! $44 million won’t do it, and this project – while offering temporary construction jobs – is just another “plug the dike” tactic as Michigan searches for political leadership that will offer a sound long-term strategy for economic growth in Michigan.

Widening a freeway interchange isn’t the answer when the public indicates that it is getting a little fed up with huge malls and big box stores (think Circuit City or Linens ‘n Things, both among a growing number of retail bankruptcies). New highway expansion is not an indicator of economic growth. As the population grows, the Westnedge Mall will eventually go dark as upscale retailers leapfrog to the newest and wealthiest neighborhood further out from the city. We need livable communities where people prefer one car rather than a three-car garage, maybe even a community where people don’t have to get in a car every day. Why not invest the $44 million for the Westnedge interchange into light rail, buses or even bike paths?

Here’s another example of a misguided approach. The many “think tanks” in Michigan point to a pot of gold – the yellow brick road of biotechnology. Biotech companies have turned a profit in only one year out of 40. Since most of us don’t understand this complex science, it makes for good political spin – and, unfortunately, false hopes for the future. Ann Arbor will likely have its share of these “clean jobs,” thanks to the importance of the University of Michigan and the emphasis it is putting on biotechnology. Unfortunately, these local jobs will not make a significant difference to Michigan’s economic future. Michigan cannot effectively compete for the biotech dollars with wealthier states that are already years ahead politically and technologically in this field. Get over it. It makes good politics, but it ain’t going to happen.

The Republicans, led by Ann Arbor resident Ron Weiser (who’s chairman of the state’s Republican Party and one of about five Ann Arbor Republicans), will likely decide who the next governor is. Look for Weiser and his team to provide the much-needed long-term strategy to generate permanent job growth in Michigan. That strategy will likely take advantage of what Michigan does best. For example, Michigan is second only to California in agricultural diversity. So why aren’t we second in food processing jobs? Let’s turn rust bucket empty manufacturing facilities into farms.

What about putting more money into tourism? There is a body of water, lake, river or stream within 6 miles of any spot in Michigan. As most of you know, our state has the largest body of fresh water in the world – so why do exiting college graduates look upon Michigan as a smokestack and not as a lighthouse, as they start their new careers in states with a much more positive image?

We have more skilled transportation engineers in southeast Michigan than any other state. If we can’t produce cars cost effectively, at least we should be able to design and engineer transportation systems as well as anybody else. We need a strategy that will create more permanent employment in Michigan. It doesn’t have to be centered on clean, well-paid professional jobs. What’s wrong with tractors, a little dirt, beach sand, and Michigan designed transportation systems? Why not offload deep water cargo at Monroe and use rail transportation, thereby saving three days or more of ship traffic offloading at expensive land sites in Chicago? Land is relatively cheap in Monroe for an inventory distribution hub between Europe and the Midwest. (Savannah, with cheap land, is the third largest seaport in the U.S., as Caterpillar and John Deere warehouses, among many others, serve as a distribution center for the South to Europe and South America.)

We need an overall long-term strategy that uses Michigan’s natural competitive advantages to build new permanent jobs for our children and their children. Such a strategy is not built on ground-breakings, ribbon-cuttings, unfocused short-term tactics (patches), media headlines and sound bites. We need a person with a vision and a strategy that is willing to get his or her hands dirty and lead this state out of a hole. It will likely require a person willing to serve only one term. Turning this ship around has a maximum political shelf life of about 4 years, but comes with our lifelong thanks for the sacrifice.

About the writer: Del Dunbar, a CPA and partner with Dunbar & Martel, has lived in Ann Arbor since the 1960s.

I only talked with him a few times before he got sick. He seemed far too quiet and too young to have had so many successes. Plus, he was always skinny despite devouring at each Michigan Historical Society meeting what seemed to me to be an inordinate number of raisin oatmeal cookies.     

“The world is run by those who show up” was the motto he adopted in dedicating his life to improving health care for the people of Michigan. He worked tirelessly to ban smoking in the workplace, increasing childhood immunization rates, advocating for AIDS education and better end-of-life care. Although a Michigan State graduate, his adage seems particularly applicable to Ann Arbor.

Kevin was a public advocate who extended his motto to “Show up, be hard on the issues, soft on people.” President Obama may have unknowingly adopted Kevin’s motto with his grassroots campaign that produced a record number of voters who, despite long lines, showed up last November 4th. This renewed interest in showing up was beamed around the world later that evening from Grant’s Park, and again at his inauguration in January.

Kevin’s public policy attitude is also alive and well in Washtenaw County. A while ago, an older gentleman (my age) at Knight’s restaurant complained to me about our liberal city council persons. I asked him if he voted in the last local election and he said he doesn’t bother anymore and hasn’t in some time. So who is to blame? Actually, it takes relatively few votes to elect a person to council in several of the city wards. The activists rally their troops and show up.

Over the past two or three years I have found myself doing a slow burn at several city council meetings as one activist presenter continually misrepresented the facts in pressing her  anti-growth agenda. To me it seemed to be more of a personal attack on anything and everything that was fair and reasonable. After the meeting she came over and said to me, “I wish you were speaking for our side, this is going to be a close call.” Upon further reflection later in the week I realized that there was nothing personal in her diatribe at all. It was just local politics and she was going hard on the issues. I didn’t particularly like her then because I didn’t understand her. Kevin would never have made that mistake.

When I look at the composition of our city and county government, I believe we have pretty good people working for us and have had for some time. At a Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners meeting last year I showed up for the first time ever to speak on behalf of a developer. Before the meeting, one commissioner said he supported the project but couldn’t vote for it for political reasons. He asserted, “Don’t worry – you’ve got the votes and the board is going to do what’s right. If it was even close, I would cross over.” This commissioner will likely be re-elected as long as he runs because he is and always will be, despite political necessities, soft on people, particularly when it means jobs.

I have been in Ann Arbor since 1960. To my knowledge during that entire time Washtenaw County has been free of the political corruption and malfeasance that has plagued Detroit and a few other communities in Michigan. Maybe that’s because many of its residents and most if not all of its elected  officials are as concerned as Kevin was – and they show up.

(Kevin A. Kelly, age 52, died on Dec. 15, 2008. He was the former Michigan State Medical Society Executive Director. His efforts and contributions on behalf of charitable organizations outside of MSMS are far too numerous to mention within this column.)