It appears plans to reconstruct and expand downtown Oxford’s southeast parking quadrant will not include a special assessment on property and business owners.
The Oxford Community Development Authority voted unanimously Jan. 18 ‘to revisit the design and the cost of the southeast parking lot project with the intent of bringing the project down to a cost of $750,000 and in so doing, eliminating the need for the special assessment.?
The board’s decision was the direct result of a public hearing held the night before during which a packed room of downtown property and business owners voiced opposition to the proposed parking plan’s current form and special assessments needed to help finance it.
The total project cost was estimated to be $1.56 million. The original plan called for the southeast quadrant property owners to be assessed a total of $708,006 over a 15-year bond (plus an estimated 4.284 percent in interest, bringing the total up to an estimated $950,653) while the OCDA would pay the remaining $852,000.
Of the estimated $1.56 million project cost, the actual construction cost is $1,305,307, which includes $1,116,011 for the parking lot work and $139,296 for moving Mill St. (south of E. Burdick) to the east. Southeast property owners would not be assessed for moving the street.
The project includes expanding the number of lot spaces from 128 to 158 (the total is 175 when the 17 on-street spaces are added), laying a new asphalt surface, improving drainage and adding new, increased lighting and landscaping.
OCDA Executive Director Michelle Bishop said the board is attempting to scale back the project to the point where it can be financed out of the OCDA budget without special assessments. The $750,000 project cost is not an exact number, it’s what the board is ‘aiming for,? she said.
Bishop said members of the OCDA Design Committee plan to meet with southeast quadrant property and business owners on an individual basis to garner more input before the plan is redesigned.
Local developer Chuck Schneider led the opposition to the proposed plan and special assessments even though none of his 14 Oxford properties are located in the southeast quadrant.
Schneider told officials he owns properties in Rochester, Lake Orion, the Township and Village of Dryden, Almont Township and Port Huron, and ‘in the 25 years I’ve been involved with all these communities, I have never had a parking assessment except for the northeast quadrant of this community.?
‘As a business man, I’m a little amazed. As a property owner, I’m disappointed,? he said. ‘I’m amazed because what we’re talking about is incurring a significant amount of debt with no offset in revenue. In business terms, this would be known as a negative cash flow. This is how people go broke.?
‘I’m disappointed in the proposal as a property owner because there seems to be a lack of clear understanding of the needs of the community in order to grow and prosper,? Schneider said. ‘I think the record speaks for itself ? we have not kept pace with other communities and in fact, our last parking project was in 1995.?
Schneider chastised officials for wanting to spend $1.305 million and only gaining 30 additional parking spaces. He called it ‘business suicide.?
‘If we were all on The Apprentice program with Donald Trump, you would get the summary, ‘You’re fired,?? he said.
Schneider suggested cutting back on things like $138,775 for 41 new light poles and the ‘couple hundred thousand (dollars)? for landscaping.
The developer objected to the number of new lights proposed. ‘Are these people walking around in the dark there now or what?? said Schneider, noting that when the northeast quadrant project was done only $10,000 was spent on lighting.
As for the landscaping, he said, ‘We’re interested in a parking lot, not a park.? Again, he noted that in the northeast quadrant project, zero dollars were spent on landscaping.
OCDA member Sue McGinnis defended the landscaping and greenery as an effort to ‘improve the business climate in downtown.?
By improving the streetscape behind the buildings, McGinnis said it was hoped more places could offer outside seating where people could have dinner or a drink on a summer evening. She said currently Red Knapp’s American Grill is the only place that offers such seating.
McGinnis acknowledged that M-24 is a deterrent to foot-traffic downtown along Washington St., so it was hoped that by making the rears of the buildings more attractive, foot-traffic could be increased behind them.
If you take the OCDA’s costs and cut out the ‘puffery? such as landscaping, Schneider told officials the project could be done for about $800,000, which includes paving and leveling it, installing new curb and gutters, sewer and water main work and even some lighting.
But ‘the pathetic thing is you’re going to spend 800 grand and you’re still only going to get 30 more parking spaces,? he said.
Schneider said the project should be cut back to a ‘reasonable size? that allows for a ‘nicer, cleaner lot? which doesn’t flood, and the OCDA should pay the ‘whole tab.?
OCDA Director Bishop was asked by Schneider why southeast property owners should have to pay an assessment for this project?
‘We can’t afford to pay for all the parking (projects) by ourselves with our DDA budget,? Bishop said, adding it was the OCDA’s ‘best attempt? to start getting the parking lot projects done and trying to make the financing of them ‘fair.? She noted the southeast quadrant isn’t the only problem.
‘The northwest quadrant is a problem. The southwest quadrant is a problem,? Bishop said. ‘These all need to be done sooner than the next 10, 20 years. They’re all urgent.?
Sharon Caulfield, owner of Oxford Barber Shop, told officials she didn’t need or want to be assessed for the project. ‘I don’t need the parking lot . . .I need no more than three parking spaces at any given time.? She said the on-street spaces on E. Burdick St. serve her needs just fine.
‘I shouldn’t have to be involved with redoing the lot,? Caulfield added.
However, with regard to the southeast lot, Caulfield said, ‘We need a sewer and we need new pavement ? that’s it. We don’t need anything more than that.?
Caulfield said it ‘sounds like? to her ‘you (the OCDA) want a better parking lot than what you can afford, so we have to pay.?
Howard Sprengel, who owns the Covered Wagon Saddlery and the Masonic Temple, said the saddlery averages 25 people per day and they each stay for approximately 30 minutes. ‘I need seven spaces and that’s all I need,? he said. ‘As far as I’m concerned, I’m satisfied with that I have.?
Ron Rolando, owner of Great Lakes Mercantile, and fellow property owner Howard Atesian said the cost of the parking lot improvements should be shared by the entire community, not just the property and business owners.
‘It’s a large debt to offset and be able to run a business,? Rolando said of the proposed project and special assessment.
Atesian noted a ‘strong downtown adds value to everybody’s property whether it’s residential or commercial.?
Schneider echoed and expanded on Atesian’s sentiments. ‘If this downtown is successful, the residential property owners will share in that success by the appreciation in their home,? he said. ‘The success of the Village of Oxford downtown benefits residential property owners in the form of obscene profits for their home.?
Schneider cited Royal Oak and Birmingham as examples.
Jay Smith, owner of the Acheson Building (28 S. Washington St.), expressed his support for scaling the project back and redesigning it in order to ‘come up with more bang for the buck.?
Property owner Les Thomas agreed with that sentiment. ‘It certainly seems logical to me that we should find a way to pare the project back,? said Thomas, who owns the properties for the Best of Both Worlds, Oxford Wine & Beverage Co. and Dew Drop Inn.
Thomas said it’s ‘very difficult? for landlords to get their tenants to pay for cost increases involving parking, taxes and utilities.
That’s why a special assessment would be a ‘burden? and ‘certainly could be a devastating blow? to his ‘business plan? as a local landlord, he said.
‘It’s a beautiful (parking) plan, I just don’t know that it’s necessary at this time,? Thomas said.

these communities, I have never had a parking assessment except for the northeast quadrant of this community.?
‘As a business man, I’m a little amazed. As a property owner, I’m disappointed,? he said. ‘I’m amazed because what we’re talking about is incurring a significant amount of debt with no offset in revenue. In business terms, this would be known as a negative cash flow. This is how people go broke.?
‘I’m disappointed in the proposal as a property owner because there seems to be a lack of clear understanding of the needs of the community in order to grow and prosper,? Schneider said. ‘I think the record speaks for itself ? we have not kept pace with other communities and in fact, our last parking project was in 1995.?
Schneider chastised officials for wanting to spend $1.305 million and only gaining 30 additional parking spaces. He called it ‘business suicide.?
‘If we were all on The Apprentice program with Donald Trump, you would get the summary, ‘You’re fired,?? he said.
Schneider suggested cutting back on things like $138,775 for 41 new light poles and the $???,??? for landscaping. ‘We’re interested in a parking lot, not a park,? he said.
If you take the OCDA’s costs and cut out the ‘puffery,? Schneider told officials the project could be done for $800,000, which includes paving and leveling it, installing new curb and gutters, sewer and water main work and even some lighting.
But ‘the pathetic thing is your going to spend 800 grand and your still only going to get 30 more parking spaces,? he said.
Schneider said the project should be cut back to a ‘reasonable size? that allows for a ‘nicer, cleaner lot? which doesn’t flood, and the OCDA should pay the ‘whole tab.?
OCDA Director Bishop was asked by Schneider why southeast property owners should have to pay an assessment for this project?
‘We can’t afford to pay for all the parking (projects) by ourselves with our DDA budget,? Bishop said, adding it was the OCDA’s ‘best attempt? to start getting the parking lot projects done and trying to make the financing of them ‘fair.? She noted the southeast quadrant isn’t the only problem.
‘The northwest quadrant is a problem. The southwest quadrant is a problem,? Bishop said. ‘These all need to be done sooner than the next 10, 20 years. They’re all urgent.?
Karen (NAME), owner of Oxford Barber Shop, told officials she didn’t need or want to be assessed for the project.
‘I don’t need the parking lot . . .I need no more than three parking spaces at any given time.? She said the on-street spaces on E. Burdick St. serve her needs just fine.
‘I shouldn’t have to be involved with redoing the lot,? (NAME) added.
However, with regard to the southeast lot, (NAME) said, ‘We need a sewer and we need new pavement ? that’s it. We don’t need anything more than that.?
(BARBER NAME) said it ‘sounds like? to her ‘you (the OCDA) want a better parking lot than what you can afford, so we have to pay.?
Howard ‘Sprangle?, who owns the Covered Wagon Saddlery and the Masonic Temple, said the saddlery averages 25 people per day and they each stay for approximately 30 minutes.
‘I need seven spaces and that’s all I need,? he said. ‘As far as I’m concerned, I’m satisfied with that I have.?
Ron Rolando, owner of Great Lakes Mercantile, and Howard ‘Artesian?, owner of ?, said the cost of the parking lot improvements should be shared by the entire community, not just the property and business owners.
‘It’s a large debt to offset and be able to run a business,? Rolando said of the proposed special assessment.
‘Artesian noted a ‘strong downtown adds value to everybody’s property whether its residential or commercial.?
Schneider echoed Artesian’s sentiment.
‘If this downtown is successful, the residential property owners will share in that success by the appreciation in their home,? he said. ‘The success of the Village of Oxford downtown benefits residential property owners in the form of obscene profits for their home.?
Schneider cited Royal Oak and Birmingham as examples.
Jay Smith, owner of ?, expressed his support for scaling the project back and redesigning it in order to ‘come up with more bang for the buck.?
Property owner Les Thomas agreed with that sentiment.
‘It certainly seems logical to me that we should find a way to pare the project back,? he said.
Thomas said it’s ‘very difficult? for landlords to get their tenants to pay for cost increases involving parking, taxes and utilities. That’s why a special assessment would be a ‘burden? and ‘certainly could be a devastating blow? to his ‘business plan? as a landlord, he said.
‘It’s a beautiful (parking) plan, I just don’t know that it’s necessary at this time,? Thomas said.