|
| Excellent meeting. A meeting that had to be held. A multi-dimensional meeting where two-and-a-quarter hours of amicable contentiousness facilitated a meaningful exchange of information and opinion which cleared the air. There remain some unanswered questions, but two useful conclusions were reached: First, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is in no immediate danger of being dissolved. Second, there are several ways that the DDA, the City Commission (CITCOM), and the Private Sector (read: Chamber of Commerce) can improve their communication and cooperation. The following report attempts to summarize the stream-of-consciousness dialogue of the study session by arranging the separate but interwoven conversations into topical clusters:
|
|
The meeting as a whole My overall impression of the meeting is made clear in the opening paragraph of this report. Attending were the mayor and all the commissioners except Miller, City Manager Tom Hoover, Planning Director Tim Thwing, Finance Director Don Johnson, City Assessor Jim Geiermann, and City Attorney Dave Gillam. Participating as appropriate were a couple of DDA directors and two representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. A dozen residents or interested parties were there, as was the press. City Manager Hoover arranged for the press to receive copies of the handouts prepared by Thwing, and VersagiVoice readers are encouraged to see the Daily Tribune, the Mirror, and the Royal Oak Review for more objective reports than this impressionistic one. Mayor Ellison spoke little but guided the dialogue as it moved forward, backed up, repeated itself until Commissioner Ginotti recognized the conversation was circling and nudged the group toward adjournment. The DDA will not be dissolved Commissioner Andrzejak opened the dialogue by maintaining that the purpose of the meeting was not to consider dissolving the DDA but to look for improvements in its operation and in its relationship with CITCOM. Commissioner Drinkwine, who has long demanded something like this meeting, agreed that performance, not dissolution, was to be the focus. When someone asked the question, "Are we being told that it will never be possible to terminate the DDA? despite such 'woeful' performance as the mishandling of the 696 property?" two answers came forth from Staff:
Someone mentioned that there have been reports of other cities having second thoughts about their DDA. City Attorney Gillam cited a city which made a questionable allocation of some of its funds to their city's general fund. That led to a suit by the county because other entities complained about not being included in the allocation. In corridor conversation after the meeting, Gillam and I recalled hearing of a city here and there which discontinued its DDA after the authority had accomplished its mission. but Royal Oak is not likely soon to run out of things for a DDA to do. Conceding that it might not be economically feasible to dissolve the DDA, a couple of the commissioners stressed the need for the DDA to "run lean," just as the city is being forced to do. Disconnecting from the Oakland County Main Street Program was suggested as a step toward running lean. By way of background -- not all of which was touched on in this meeting -- the Main Street Program quickly became a sore spot in Royal Oak, especially among retailers. For one thing, the Downtown Manager who had been successfully attracting new businesses to town was diverted to becoming the DDA's liaison to the required four Main Street committees. Street talk had it that he had become the secretary for those committees. Further, both retailers and some DDA directors came to question the wisdom of having inexperienced, if dedicated, volunteers making decisions for the authority and for downtown businesses. Finally, resentment grew as it became clear that the Oakland County Main Street people expected the DDA to operate "under" the Main Street Committees. DDA is apparently working to modify its overall relationship with Main Street, to determine whether a mutually beneficial partnership can be shaped. "It can work if we come to a meeting of the minds." -- Hoover. The most controversial charge of non-performance leveled at Main Street was the ineffectiveness of its Promotion Committee. Retailers recoiled at some of the committee's thinking. Raising that issue generated two different responses: First, why did the DROA (the then active retailers association) stop doing promotion and marketing? (For more about that see "Role of the private sector" elsewhere in this report.) The second response was an expressed preference that the DDA concentrate on "bricks & mortar" instead of on marketing. "I'm a bricks & mortar kind of guy," Hoover noted. [More re Bricks & Mortar] But, the conversation went on, if marketing is important, who will pick it up? No one seems ready to take it on. About the DDA's "woeful" performance dealing with the 696 property, the discussion went philosophic: Is land-banking a good idea? Should that be solely a DDA function? Planning Director Thwing attempted to put a happy face on the 696 deal by pointing out that since the 1990 acquisition the city has recovered slightly more than the $17 million it cost. Chuckling, the commissioners pointed out that breaking even on a 16-year investment is hardly something about which to boast. "The annual interest alone on $17 million . . . " A plan, a plan, my kingdom for a plan Tom King, Royal Oak's previous and first DDA Chairman, was in attendance, and he briefly reviewed how the new DDA commissioned, adopted, "and implemented" a 15-year plan. As King remembers it, a second multi-year plan was commissioned in 1994 but "Mayor Cowan buried it somewhere, and I haven't seen any plan out of the current DDA." . . .Commissioner Andrzejak surprised everyone by holding up a copy of the 1994 plan. . . . Then Thwing countered King's contention by saying that some of the suggestions in that 1994 plan have been implemented, citing the hiring of a Downtown Manager as an example. . . . Commissioner Ginotti said that CITCOM should be actively involved in creating any DDA Master Plan. . . . City Manager Hoover summarized the discussion by suggesting that, as a first step, CITCOM and the Administration should jointly review the 1994 plan. DDA's geographical boundaries Discussion about possible downsizing usually revolves around the notion of reducing the DDA's geographical territory by revising some of the boundaries which previously were changed to enlarge that territory. Especially controversial are the expansion north of Eleven Mile and the extension down Lincoln to include the 696 land. The result is the "barbell" configuration which is the subject of much discussion. For barbell background, see: the report on the 09 October 2006 city commission meeting and the coffee conversation with Gayle Chinn and the 2006 DDA discussion. During the study session, questions were asked about why some buildings on the DDA map were excluded (they are dwelling units). Much of the inconclusive discussion was about the financial result -- to the city's advantage or disadvantage -- of removing this or that piece of the DDA's territory, and the fuzziness was increased by uncertainly over the completion of projects already under way and about whether some proposed projects will actually happen. One left the study session with the impression that some commissioners want to learn more about pluses and minuses to the city of downsizing the DDA. |
Communication, or
the lack thereof In the early years, there was friendly cooperation between the DDA and CITCOM, according to DDA Director Bill Harrison. Now, anyone who pays attention recognizes that DDA/CITCOM relations are sour. Observers disagree about how much of that sourness is personality driven and how much is a result of operational dysfunction. Everyone agrees, though, that recent communication between the two governmental bodies has been churlish. When communication is churlish, confusion and misunderstanding result. This 2007 study of the DDA by CITCOM couldn't have come at a better time -- especially after the protracted mutual irritation about a Parking Study. Some points of confusion were clarified, some issues of contention were addressed or at least specified, one at a time. I found myself remembering the many times that I have interviewed or advised a group of executives from the same company and have heard: "I never knew that." or "I haven't heard that before." or "When did we change that policy? Who changed it?" By the time the this DDA study session ended, several approaches to improving communication were suggested -- with the restraining condition that land acquisition details must be kept confidential:
It is easy to be cynical about these suggestions, some of which are admittedly simplistic, and it is valid to be concerned that too much communication will lead to micromanaging-style long and circling discussions by the commission. The benefit of the study dialogue is that it is impossible not to recognize how fuzzy are the communication links between and among CITCOM, the DDA, and the Administration. The role of the private sector Some context: Somewhere in there, the DDA hired a marketing manager (as a contractor, not on the city's payroll), whose very success at getting widespread television and radio coverage has helped generate the argument about whether the DDA shouldn't focus less on marketing and more on bricks & mortar. At any rate, the Chamber official who spoke at the end of CITCOM's DDA study session welcomes the opportunity to present a monthly oral report at a commission meeting. At the same time, traditional retailers make occasional attempts to work with and separately from the DDA to conduct some events. There was even an abortive attempt to establish an equivalent of the DROA. For more history see Retailers express their concerns. The financial considerations
CITCOM's reactions to Thwing's presentation ranged, paraphrasing, from "Wow, I thought the City would lose two dollars for every dollar we gained, but it's closer to three dollars." to "This is scare tactics." It seems that the commission reluctantly accepts that there would be a negative financial impact on the city from dissolving or reducing the DDA, but there remains confusion over the collection and distribution of two income streams: the levy self-imposed on the downtown business community and the Tax Increment Financing funds. The former provides a few tens of thousands of dollars for DDA operations; the latter is from where the millions come which the DDA uses to buy land and to finance projects and occasionally to bail out the city's General Fund. There is uncertainty about what "recaptured" funds means and if and how that applies to other taxing agencies. That confusion adds to distrust and leads to talk about scare tactics and to the suggestion, "Why don't they order [Finance Director] Don Johnson to prepare the DDA financial review for CITCOM?" That suggestion follows from Johnson's reputation for having made previously incomprehensible city-wide financial reports understandable to other than financial executives. Links to Related Pages City Manager letter to CITCOM re DDA Retailers express their concerns The Bricks & Mortar argument
|
Epilogue
It would be expecting too much to hope that one study session would resolve all
the contentious issues between DDA and CITCOM, but it was a productive start.
Nor should anyone be surprised that the Administration can't conceive of a world
without the DDA and will resist attempts to downsize the agency. But, thanks to Commissioner Drinkwine's bulldog persistence, what I term
"constructive confrontation" has begun.
Actually, the recent very public fight about the Parking Study was an excellent example of constructive confrontation, even though it occasionally became overheated. Out in the open, issues were raised, joint subcommittees were formed then dissolved, the city manager was ordered to come up with specific recommendations and given a tough deadline. Let to itself, I'm afraid, the DDA would still be noodling the Study.
The danger to guard against is that there might be too much communication, leading to wasteful long, rambling discussions about trivia. It would be enough for any monthly DDA report to tick off the agenda and offer substantial comment about only substantial matters. CITCOM's time shouldn't be wasted listening to details of a debate over the colors of newspaper racks or the design of a promotional logo. I remain a critic of DDA's glacial pace of decision-making. Some tell me that is a result of the outgoing chairwoman's' management style and compulsion to control. Whether true or not, I'm not sure there's a way for CITCOM properly to control how DDA meetings are conducted, how its committees are structured, how its decisions are made.
Insisting that DDA minutes be published no later than 10 calendar days after each meeting would make unnecessary any additional monthly reports, oral or written. (Minutes, in these days of staff shortages, are no longer verbatim but are synopses of motions made and actions taken; I have worked with entities whose synopsis minutes are published within three days of a meeting.) And certainly, Planning Director Thwing and City Manager Hoover, both of whom sit on the DDA Board, will alert the mayor and the commissioners of any issue which requires their immediate attention. With the DDA agenda and minutes in hand, CITCOM can comfortably choose which, few, issues, it needs to become involved with.
Repeating:
The 06 January 2007 DDA study session was an excellent meeting, a meeting which
had to be held. -- FJV