From left: Greenbelt advisory commission members Tom Bloomer and Mike Garfield. (Photos by the writer.)

The properties include 32 acres in Northfield Township along US-23, 30 acres in Scio Township near Wagner and Scio Church roads, and 111 acres in Lodi Township along Pleasant Lake Road. By year’s end, the new additions brought the total of property protected by the city’s greenbelt program to 3,430 acres since its inception in 2007.

Most of Wednesday’s meeting was spent in closed session to discuss possible future land acquisitions, but the main action item involved land that’s not part of the city’s greenbelt program. Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution urging Webster Township to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements – the resolution will be forwarded to township officials as they weigh a request from the Dexter Area Historical Society to amend an easement that would loosen restrictions on parking.

The society wants permission to allow spectator parking for Civil War re-enactments on a site where the historic Gordon Hall is located. Land preservation activists are concerned that parking would damage the land, and that amending the easement would set a bad precedent, calling into question the trustworthiness of regional land preservation efforts. The resolution was brought forward by Tom Bloomer, a GAC member who also serves on Webster Township’s land preservation board.

Staff Update: December Closings

During Wednesday’s meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who serves as support staff for the greenbelt program – reported on three closings for land preservation deals in the greenbelt that occurred in December.

The city provided due diligence and stewardship costs for a conservation easement now held by the Legacy Land Conservancy, for a 32-acre property in Northfield Township. The landowner, Charles Botero, had donated the easement, she said. At its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had approved funding for up to $15,000 on the project. The land is located along the east side of US-23, north of East Northfield Church Road.

The city had also closed on a purchase of development rights (PDR) for 30 acres owned by Duane Thomas and his wife Judith Lobato in Scio Township. The city paid $140,367 for the deal, which city council approved at their Oct. 17, 2011 meeting. The owner contributed 50% of the cost for the PDR, Trocchio reported. The property is located near the northwest corner Scio Church and Wagner roads.

The final closing was for the purchase of development rights on 111 acres in Lodi Township, owned by Bill Lindemann and his sister Karen Weidmayer. The property is located along Pleasant Lake Road, about a half-mile from the former Girbach farm, which is also protected through the greenbelt program. At its July 18, 2011 meeting, the city council had authorized $699,992 for the deal, with $1,000 contributed by Lodi Township and 49% of the cost reimbursed by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP.

Trocchio also reported that just before the holidays, she’d received word that the deadline for applying to the next cycle of FRPP grants is on March 9. She’s been working with landowners who might be interested in applying.

Webster Township Land Preservation

On the agenda was a resolution brought forward by GAC member Tom Bloomer regarding conservation easements in Webster Township. He had initially raised the issue at GAC’s December 2011 meeting, when he reported on a situation involving the Dexter Area Historical Society.

About 10 years ago, the society had purchased land from the University of Michigan that included the historic Gordon Hall. The society later sold the development rights to Scio and Webster townships, through conservation easements to those townships. A conservation easement restricts certain types of activity from taking place on the land, and is often used to protect land from development.

Last summer, the society asked Webster Township officials for permission to hold a Civil War re-enactment on the site. The event didn’t conflict with terms of the conservation easement, but the society also wanted permission for spectator parking – and that did conflict with the easement. The township eventually agreed to a one-year exception to allow parking for several hundred vehicles, with the understanding that an exception wouldn’t be granted again.

Now, the historic society wants to amend the conservation easement so that parking for this kind of event would be allowed. The township’s farmland and open space preservation board has recommended denying that request, but the decision will ultimately be made by the Webster Township board of trustees. The preservation board has asked for support from other land preservation entities (like Ann Arbor’s GAC) before the township trustees vote.

Catherine Riseng, vice chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, chaired the Jan. 5, 2012 meeting. GAC chair Dan Ezekiel was absent.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Bloomer told other commissioners that based on their discussion at the December meeting, he had crafted a resolution that he hoped expressed GAC’s concerns without encroaching on the township’s decision-making. He had aimed to make township officials aware of where the greenbelt commission stood regarding easements in general. [.pdf of resolution]

The resolution notes that Ann Arbor has contributed over $4.7 million in partnership with Webster Township to preserve over 810 acres of farmland and open space in the township. The city, through its greenbelt program, has also spent more than $4.5 million for additional land preservation in Webster Township on its own.

The resolution also referenced the national Land Trust Alliance, noting that the alliance has established generally accepted practices and rules of conduct for land preservation, and that it discourages amendments to conservation easements that compromise the agreed-upon conservation values. The resolution does not specifically reference the situation regarding the historical society’s easement.

The resolution’s only resolved clause states:

Now, Therefore Be It resolved that the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission urges the Township of Webster to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements, and all of the conservation values protected therein.

There was only brief discussion about the resolution. Shannon Brines said it seemed to be a reasonable statement, in that it supported Land Trust Alliance practices and discouraged amendments to conservation easements.

Bloomer noted that it would be good to let all townships within the greenbelt boundaries know about the stance expressed in this resolution. It was directed at Webster Township because there’s a controversy there, he said, but he had tried to make it generic so that it could apply to other areas as well.

Catherine Riseng responded to Bloomer by saying she thought the resolution served that purpose well, and could be adopted to other situations.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution regarding Webster Township’s land preservation program.

Closed Session

Commissioners spent almost an hour of their meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. When they emerged from closed session, they voted unanimously to recommend that the city council apply for grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) for four properties located in the greenbelt’s boundaries.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number. The parcels recommended for FRPP grants are 2005-01, 2011-12, 2011-13 and 2012-01.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved a recommendation to apply for FRPP grants for four parcels in the greenbelt.

Present: Tom Bloomer, Mike Garfield, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Feb. 2 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Marsha Chamberlin and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) before the start of the Ann Arbor city council's Dec. 5 meeting. Chamberlin is chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. (Photos by the writer.)

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to ordinance revisions that included temporarily reducing the required 1% allocation to public art from all city capital improvement projects, dropping the amount to 0.5% for the period from 2012 to 2015. Neither that provision, nor one that would have required allocated funds to be spent on public art within a specific period of time, survived a final vote. What did survive was a prohibition against using general fund dollars for public art projects, as well as an exclusion of sidewalk repair from the definition of projects triggering the public art requirement.

Councilmembers who had previously argued for the temporary reduction, but changed their positions after intense lobbying by the arts community – both privately and at the lengthy public hearing – included Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. All face possible re-election campaigns in 2012. Questions about the legal foundation of Ann Arbor’s public art program, which taps utility fees and dedicated millage funds to pay for public art, were raised again at the meeting by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In other significant business, the council gave final approval to an expansion of the area around Ann Arbor that is eligible for protection using funds from the voter-approved greenbelt millage.

The council also approved its side of a deal to contract out Ann Arbor police dispatching services to the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – at an annual cost of $759,089. The city expects eventually to save $500,000 a year with the move, which will entail laying off all of the city’s current dispatchers, not all of whom would be able to obtain employment within the expanded sheriff’s office dispatch operation.

The council also formally tabled a proposed ordinance that would have provided residents with the ability to forbid the delivery of newspapers to their property – by posting a notice on their front doors. The city’s code already prohibits depositing newspapers onto sidewalks.

A sidewalk along Dexter Avenue, east of Maple Road, was the subject of a special tax authorized by the council to be applied to property owners there. The city will use the funds to construct a continuous sidewalk along that stretch, and make curb and gutter improvements.

The council took care of several housekeeping issues, including approving its set of rules for the coming year and making its committee appointments. Those included the appointment of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) as the council representative to the board of the local development finance authority – replacing Stephen Rapundalo, who was defeated by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) in the Nov. 8 election. But Rapundalo was appointed as a citizen representative to the board and will thus continue to serve on that body. Council committee appointments were only slightly shuffled, because Lumm was assigned to a number of spots Rapundalo had previously filled.

At the end of the meeting, Hieftje announced a nomination to replace Sue McCormick on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – Eli Cooper. Cooper has previously served on the AATA board and is the city’s transportation program manager.

Highlights during public commentary included advocacy for a 24/7 warming shelter to be staffed by volunteers from the community, and support for 14-year Ann Arbor resident Lourdes Salazar Bautista, who faces deportation later this month.

Public Art Program

The council considered final approval of a revision to its public art ordinance that would temporarily reduce the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. The city has a law – enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project. At its Nov. 21 meeting, the council had given initial approval to the reduction, as well as other ordinance amendments.

The initially approved reduction applied for just the next three years, from fiscal year 2012 to 2015. That three-year timeframe was also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to the public art ordinance. The sunsetting amendment would have required that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance be encumbered within three years. Money that was unspent or unencumbered after three years would have been required to return to its fund of origin. The language of the amendment would have made it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The sunsetting clause had been proposed in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

Two other amendments – that did receive final approval by the council on Monday – included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments before the council for final consideration also excluded the public art ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are rare. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Public Art Program: Public Hearing

As with all changes to city ordinances, a public hearing was held before the council took its second vote on the public art ordinance amendments. Most but not all spoke against the idea of reducing the 1% funding. The public hearing included many of the same personalities who have previously addressed the council on the topic. Here are some highlights.

Thomas Partridge, noted that his deceased mother was an artist, so it was only reluctantly that he was asking that the ordinance be amended to cut funding. The program had been so fully funded that it had enticed the mayor and council to a lapse in judgement that had led them to purchase a $750,000 object [the Dreiseitl fountain] that looks like it came out of a junkyard, he said.

Brenda Oelbaum told the council that her mother is on life support in Toronto and she’d traveled back to Ann Arbor because she felt that public art is on life support. She contended that the talk of Ann Arbor in a financial crisis is exaggerated, citing as evidence the fact that she’d gone to dinner on Thursday and waited for an hour in a place that wasn’t cheap. Where’s the recession? she asked. Ypsilanti and Detroit are suffering, but Ann Arbor, she claimed, is not suffering.

Cheryl Elliot, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, spoke in support of the public art program, calling art the “gift that keeps on giving.”

Alan Haber encouraged the council to maintain the full amount of funding. He suggested bringing art from Ann Arbor’s sister cities around the world and displaying it in an art exchange.

Paul Hickman introduced himself as the owner of the home furnishing company Urban Ashes. He told the council he felt that something was being critically missed in the conversation. He asked how many people in the room had had a mentor – several people raised their hands. He said that his bridge from school to work was working with a professor doing public art in 1999-2000, which was funded through Arizona’s Percent for Art program. That bridge connected him to the trades and techniques of public art and took him into a career, he said. It’s allowed him to be able to do what he really loves to do, he said.

If councilmembers had not heard of Urban Ashes, Hickman told them, they would eventually hear about it. Six years ago he and his 5-year-old son had started working with disadvantaged kids in Brighton. The benefit of public art goes beyond the visual impact on the community, he said. Art is a profession, and it’s taught him an incredible way to give back to the community.

Shoshana Hurand, one of the organizers of FestiFools, expressed her support for the public art program, saying it makes economic sense.

Margaret Parker and Marsha Chamberlin, who both serve on the public art commission, spoke in support of maintaining the funding the same way it had been previously mandated. Parker said that cutting the percentage from 1% to 0.5% brings no new revenue to the city. She insisted that the amounts the council was discussing were “pennies.” Parker said the reason that so little art had been created up to now was that not enough money had been allocated for administering the program.

Chamberlin told the council that Ann Arbor is not a sleepy college town. She acknowledged that public art is well funded, judging by the amount that had been generated to date. The volunteer commission had started the ball rolling, she said. It sets a bad example to reduce the funding, she said. Having a three-year deadline for encumbering funds with the council extension is understandable, she said, but not a reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Odile Hugenot Haber lamented the fact that funding for art is now pitted against social services.

Alexandra Hoffman introduced herself as a University of Michigan PhD student. She’s working with the group trying to establish a warming center. She told the council her group is not against public art folks, but invited the council to come help at the warming center.

Nancy Kaplan told the council she appreciated the effort they’d made to amend the ordinance. She said she also appreciated the hard work of the public art commission. She allowed that everyone appreciates public art, but said that the debate is not about art itself, but rather the method of funding. She called for a fresh start, with a public vote on public art. She told the council they should put a vote for art on the November 2012 ballot. That would provide a clarity for the funding source, she said, clarity on the amount so that it could be counted on, clarity on the duration of the program and clarity on the design – the design of a piece of art could be untied from the purpose of a particular funding source.

Kaplan said that currently the art fund is flush, and the temporary funding reduction would give the commission a chance to “catch up.” Kaplan told the council that it’s the funding mechanism that is tying the community in knots.

Public Art Program: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying that after the council’s last meeting, she had a chance to look at the amendments to which the council had given their initial approval and to think over the implications of the changes for funding and policy. She said she was terrifically impressed with the passion expressed by the public in support of art. For her part, she said what they’re really talking about is the funding mechanism – not particular activities like FestiFools or the art fairs. The council is talking about funding mechanisms and priorities, she said. When the council established the ordinance, it had not clarified what it meant by “capital improvement” and didn’t look 3-4 years into the future to see what kind of funds would accumulate.

If the revision passed, it would allow the public art commission to take a breather and look at how it’s going to implement policies it has established – without amassing as much funding as the program has in the past three years. As proposed, the funding would automatically revert from 0.5% back to 1%, she said. The ordinance also doesn’t affect the fund balance that’s already there – it addresses only funding alloted for public art after July 1, 2012. She characterized it as a very narrow ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reflected on the lively discussion at the previous council meeting, saying that it had added to the discourse on the issue. She agreed with Briere’s emphasis on the funding source. In response to those who questioned where funding for new projects could come from if the funding were reduced, Lumm suggested partnerships with the private sector.

Councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the start of the Dec. 5 meeting.

Lumm said she’d support the temporary reduction to 0.5%. Lumm responded to the rhetorical tactic from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) at the last council meeting, when they’d said you can’t claim to support public art at the same time you reduce funding. She agreed with the remarks of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) from the previous meeting, who’d noted that the council had also said it supported public safety at the same time the council reduced funding for it. Lumm said that’s a black-and-white view of things that is not appropriate. Taxpayers expect adjustments, she said. It comes down to tradeoffs and difficult choices, and she called on the council to get away from emotional demagoguery. A vote to temporarily reduce funding of public art doesn’t mean someone is anti-public art, she said. Lumm said she’d see things differently if the earmark for public art were based on a vote of residents.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important to provide an amount that’s sufficient for the program  to be successful.

Objecting to Lumm’s allusion to public safety, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) felt that conversations about public safety don’t have a place in this context. Bringing up public safety clouds the issue and misleads listeners, he contended. It’s capital money that is set aside – it can’t be used for public safety operations. He said he strived to find with this, as with other issues, some measure of balance. When the council had first considered the issue, he said, he was conflicted about reducing the funding temporarily to 0.5%.

The metaphor Taylor had introduced at the last meeting was one of pruning a plant. Taylor said it’s a useful metaphor, but he’d begun to doubt it’s applicability. What benefit would accrue to the program? he asked. He had yet to hear of a capital project that couldn’t be put forward, due to the public art program. He felt the program would benefit from an increased focus on staffing and administration, but had come to doubt that the temporary reduction would be useful.

Because Taylor did not feel the reduction would be useful, he said he would be proposing two amendments – to eliminate the temporary reduction in funding, and to eliminate the requirement that the money either be encumbered within three years, or else returned to its fund of origin.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Taylor and said that Taylor’s remarks had encapsulated a lot of his own thinking. It would be a step backward, said Derezinski, who also serves on the public art commission. What kind of signal would it send? He said he was in favor of keeping the funding level at 1%. He suggested that an administrative solution needed to be found.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d twice supported the reduction of funding for the public art program. [At the council's Dec. 21, 2009 meeting and at the council's May 31, 2011 session, she'd voted for a reduction in funding.] Smith said she felt she’d been pretty consistent with the way she carries votes forward. The more she reflected on why she felt the way she did about the art program, the more she thought it might be because of a lack of more obvious progress.

The more Smith read about how to turn a place around and the reasons why people are drawn to a place, the more she wondered if reducing the funding was the right move. An epiphany came to her, she said, when crunching through the numbers and seeing the funding levels for the next three years for 1%, 0.5% and 0.25%. The difference between them, she said, is about “a buck and a quarter” per resident.

In talking about proposing an amendment, Smith said, Taylor had beaten her to the punch.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he supported the amendment, because maintaining funding at 1% is the right thing to do. He weighed in against executing a strategy to do everything at absolute minimum cost. He noted that Lumm had pointed out that having a conversation about the amount of funding shouldn’t be taken as support for art or not – up to a point. He said if someone were to suggest supporting 1/1000th of a percent, then that would not count as support for the art. Hohnke said he wanted Ann Arbor to be among the cohort of communities that leads.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated what had been said. As far as freeing up funds by reducing the percentage, she said, she didn’t know what the funds would be freed up for. It isn’t about art appreciation, she said. Ann Arbor has wonderful art fairs and people claim Ann Arbor is an artistic Mecca, but the city doesn’t really support art at all, she claimed. The Percent for Art ordinance is the mechanism to support public art, she said.

Councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

People had described some great ideas about what the city could do with the arts funding, Teall said, but the city wouldn’t achieve any of the great ideas if the funding were cut.

With Smith and Taylor dropping their support, Briere appeared to understand that she’d likely lose the vote. She noted that her colleagues would remember that she didn’t propose the temporary drop in funding to 0.5%, but that she’d brought forward the resolution at the request of other councilmembers. [Her original proposal had been to leave the funding level at 1% but to exclude projects funded with the street repair millage.]

Briere indicated she appreciated the desire to return to 1%. The reason she could not support it, she said, is because the council had been engaged in “this dance” for three years. The council talked about it, but then backed away.

There’s absolutely no denying that art is important, Briere said. She reflected on the fact that it’s possible for the council to have a three-hour discussion that has little impact on individual budgets. Briere alluded to the council’s 45-minute debate in May 2009 on a $7,000 item for Project Grow funding. Using Smith’s analogy, that’s 6 cents per resident, she said. The council had recently approved a $25,000 appropriation for the Delonis Center warming center – that’s 22 cents a person, she said.

Over the next three years, the reduction from 1% to 0.5% takes funding from around $900,000 per year to almost $450,000, Briere said. She said she was hard-pressed to believe it would cripple a program that currently has around $1.5 million to spend. And if it were to cripple that program, we’d know it, she said, because the council would hear about it. She stressed that it’s a temporary three-year cutback. She did not think the temporary reduction would prevent someone from settling in Ann Arbor or expanding their business here. People come to places where there are jobs and housing, with well-maintained streets, she said – to places that take pride not just in art, but also in infrastructure.

This is the third time the issue has come back to the council, Briere said, and she felt that fact represents a real dissatisfaction with something about the program. She again stressed that she’d brought it forward at the request of other members on the council. If the council does not act, she said, councilmembers would face the same situation again in a year.

Lumm noted that the difference between the roughly $900,000 that 1% would generate and the $450,000 that 0.5% would generate was significant. The issue has to do with funding priorities, she said.

Taylor had voted for the reduction from 1% to 0.5% at the council’s first reading, in the same way he’d voted for the reduction at the first reading in 2009. He allowed that Briere raised a good point about the persistence of the council’s conversation. It’s one about which he was torn. The past two weeks had been illuminating for clarifying his thoughts.

Teall noted that permanent public art is costly, if it’s constructed as a life-long legacy to stand the test of time. The program doesn’t have an administrator, she said, and it’s a young program. [The city's current public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, started the job in May. It's a part-time position.] To “cut it off at its knees” is a mistake, Teall said. Reducing it would be a rollback at a time when the city is trying to institute things that don’t come to fruition in a short time.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed some frustration, saying that as she listened to the debate, people always want to tie it to being for or against public art. The discussion is really about how to fund it. Higgins said that Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the public art commission, brought up a great point during public commentary when she’d said that the program has a lot of money right now, but nothing guarantees it in future years. If we want this place to be a Mecca for art, Higgins said, then let’s figure out how to fund it. The council was dancing around the question.

Higgins talked about the need for the art commission to know how much money it would have and for how long. She wondered if $400,000 for the next 30 years, funded by a millage, would be one way to go. She noted that people say they don’t want general fund dollars to go towards public art, but she wondered how administrative support is paid for.

Higgins said she’d like to see the resolution tabled for four to five months so that the council could have a serious conversation about it. On the issue of the general fund, she wondered if some money for art shouldn’t come from the general fund. If it’s a priority for the community, she asked, why not?

Hohnke allowed that the dollar amount generated is significant over the next three years, whether the percentage is 1% or 0.5%. The elegance of the program, based on a percentage, is that it’s a reflection of the investments made in the built environment. The program provides resources relative to the investment in the built environment, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said people had made many good points. One of the points is that there are strings attached to the way public art money is spent, and he supported loosening the strings to the extent it’s legally possible. If there is any general fund money in the public art fund, he said, it’s not enough to make it an issue of public safety. The question is whether to fund art.

Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor’s water and sewer rates are some of the lowest in the state. He assured people that they’d see some aggressive spending of street millage funds next year – the city had been holding them back as a contingency to help pay for the Stadium bridges replacement project. Hieftje revealed that he was a sponsor of the resolution to reduce the funding from 1% to 0.5% at one point. But in looking at public art as economic development and reflecting on that, he found that 1%, up to the $250,000 limit per project, is okay. He found himself in favor of the amendment to keep funding at 1%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that the legality of the transfer from the street fund to art had never been explained in a written opinion from the city attorney. Alluding to Hieftje’s mention of “strings,” he said if the council is going to talk about strings, the strings should be written down.

Describing a millage pitched by Tuscola County to its voters, Kunselman said Tuscola County assured voters that there could be no transfer of special millage funds to another account. That’s what Tuscola County says, so what do we say, Kunselman wondered. He suggested the new city administrator ask for a written opinion from the city attorney. Then there could be certainty, he said.

Kunselman liked the idea of an art millage. Not acting meant punting it down the road to a future council in a way that could end up in a lawsuit, he said. Ann Arbor is the only city in Michigan that has a Percent for Art ordinance, Kunselman said, and the city doesn’t even have it written down why it’s legal.

Outcome on amendment restoring the 1% level of funding: The council voted to eliminate the original amendment, thus restoring the funding level to 1%. Dissenting were Lumm, Kunselman and Briere.

Taylor then went on to propose eliminating another amendment, already given initial approval, that money be returned to its fund of origin if not encumbered within three years. He said he’d initially thought it was a reasonable way to incentivize spending money with deliberate haste. He felt there were complications with the provision, despite the fail-safe that allowed the city council to extend the three-year deadline for funds in six-month increments.

Teall thanked Taylor for bringing forward the amendment. She feared the original proposal would have the effect of rushing the public art commission into spending money.

Briere noted that any time you talk about deadlines, there’s a valid concern it would result in hasty, ill-considered decisions. Responding to the issue of money in some funds accruing slowly, she noted that money is pooled and could be put together with other funds. Briere noted that the idea of placing a temporal deadline had come from public services area administrator Sue McCormick, who oversees the public art program. Briere said that placing a finite deadline on the accrual of funds would help focus attention. The idea is not to rush to judgment, she said. It’s to focus attention. It allows the city to keep better track of things.

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margaret Parker, a member of the public art commission.

Higgins said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment, pointing out that she’d heard Marsha Chamberlin say at the podium that the three-year period is reasonable. Higgins also noted that it’s not just one six-month period of extension – it’s an indefinite number of six-month extensions that are available. It’s an easy check and balance.

Smith noted that one of the things that affects her thinking about the public art ordinance is that there’s at this point very little public art to see. The original change that the council approved may help push projects along, so she was not in favor of reversing it. It’s important to have some sense of urgency, she said.

Derezinski said he’d proposed and voted for the amendment that allowed the council to grant an extension because it made the overall proposition less bad. He said it related to the issue of process and how the public art commission operates. If the commission had the right staff, he felt, it would be possible to address the issue through the procedures of the commission. Writing a requirement into the ordinance is using “too large a club,” he said.

Lumm said that the three-year provision did not amount to a hardship. She called it simply a very good discipline and said she wouldn’t support Taylor’s amendment.

Outcome on amendment removing requirement that funds be encumbered within three years: The amendment passed on a 6-5 vote, with approval from Derezinski, Taylor, Teall, Hohnke, Anglin and Hieftje.

Public services area administrator Sue McCormick was asked how the administration for public art would be charged. She described it as analogous to the way that engineering projects are charged to the project management group at the city.

In her concluding remarks, Briere noted that other communities with Percent for Art programs restrict the money in some way. When the Ann Arbor city council had originally passed its ordinance, it had not restricted the money. That made it problematic to manage. She hoped her colleagues would allow some restrictions going forward by passing the resolution as amended. [The surviving changes included the prohibition on using money from the general fund and the definition of capital improvement projects to exclude sidewalk repair.]

Lumm expressed frustration, commenting: “This thing is really watered down!” [Briere subsequently told The Chronicle that she'd gotten out of it what she'd wanted – an agreement to restrict the funds in some way.] Lumm said she’d started paying attention to it when Higgins had proposed a budget amendment in May of that year. Now, Lumm said, she wasn’t sure what to do.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the two changes to the public art ordinance.

City-County Consolidated Dispatch

On the agenda was a resolution for a $759,089 annual contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to handle police dispatch operations for the city of Ann Arbor. The five-year agreement is anticipated to start in March of 2012.

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the city of Ann Arbor expects to realize at least $500,000 in savings annually compared to continuing to employ its own dispatchers. The cost savings arise from the fact that not all of the city’s current dispatchers would be hired on by the sheriff’s office – the total number of dispatchers in the consolidated operation would be reduced by six FTEs, compared to the two separate operations.

In the separate but co-located dispatch operation currently in place, at any given time, one Law Enforcement Information Network support officer is used for each operation – one for the Ann Arbor police department and one for the Washtenaw County sheriff's office.

In more detail, the city’s dispatch operation is currently authorized for 19 dispatching positions, and the county has 17 positions. The combined operation is proposed to employ 30 full-time dispatchers. It also calls for 10 part-time dispatchers.

A significant reduction in the FTE number (5.25 positions) is achieved in the consolidated operation by using just one LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network) officer, instead of using one LEIN officer for each dispatch operation (for a total of two) at any given time.

The way these efficiencies were gained was laid out at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting, as they had been at a work session in September, by Kerry Laycock, a management consultant hired to help with the consolidation. [Laycock has been tapped for assistance on many of the city's reorganizational moves over the last several years, including most recently the Ann Arbor housing commission.]

Of the 19 budgeted city positions, one dispatcher retired this fall, leaving current staffing at 18. Two dispatchers are currently on approved leave. As a result of the consolidation, 4-5 Ann Arbor dispatchers who currently have full-time positions would not have a full-time job under the consolidated operation.

In addition to the cost savings that accrue from employing fewer people overall, it emerged during council deliberations that the difference in compensation between city and county dispatchers averages around $9,000 per year – Ann Arbor city dispatchers earn more. That can translate into around a 20% pay cut for Ann Arbor city dispatchers, who earned $44,000-$56,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.

The contract with the county for dispatch services is offset by a $12,520 facility use fee paid by the county to the city. The Washtenaw County sheriff’s office is already co-located with Ann Arbor police dispatch, in a facility above the city’s Fire Station #1 on South Fifth Avenue just across the street from the municipal center. The sheriff’s office also currently handles dispatching services for Northfield Township, Michigan State Police, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the city of Ypsilanti. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax. The distribution of a portion of the state sales tax to local units is based on the fact that in Michigan, local units have limited ability to generate revenue through taxes.

Consolidated Dispatch: Public Commentary

Anne Daws-Lazar told the council she was a life-long Ann Arbor resident and that she’d worked 24 years as a dispatcher and would be retiring in February 2012. She characterized the proposed move not as a merger but as a “takeover.” She questioned the ability to take more calls with fewer people. She noted that currently the two operations are co-located. Before co-location, she said, Ann Arbor dispatchers answered more than 48,000 911 calls. After co-location, she said (adding the county sheriff’s operation) Ann Arbor dispatchers answered 85,000 calls. That’s because Ann Arbor dispatchers are answering Washtenaw County calls. [In the dispatching operation, there are two distinct functions performed by separate people – a call-taking function and a dispatching function.] So the Ann Arbor dispatching staff is already assisting with the Washtenaw County workload, Daws-Lazar concluded.

Ann Arbor dispatchers have more experience than county dispatchers, she said. Of the current 16 Ann Arbor dispatchers, nine have over 10 years of experience, and nobody has less than six years of experience. On the county side, she said, six out of 14 have less than four years experience. She accounted for the reduced experience on the county’s side by pointing to the conditions they work under and their treatment by their administration. She said she felt that very few people will be transitioned – Ann Arbor dispatchers will have to apply for a job. She felt very few Ann Arbor dispatchers will actually do that, because they’ve seen firsthand the conditions that the county dispatchers work under, which in turn will lead to a less-experienced dispatching staff.

Among the conditions the county dispatchers work under, Daws-Lazar pointed to a difference in their contracts – Ann Arbor dispatchers aren’t allowed to work 16 hours, unless it’s an extreme emergency. But county dispatchers work 16-hour days regularly, she contended. And they do that often two to three days in a row. That comes at a price, she said, including officer safety.

Danyelle Tucker introduced herself as a current employee at the dispatch center. In June of this year, she contended, all 18 dispatchers had been sent letters saying they would be laid off due to a lack of funding. She alluded to an alternative proposal, that would create revenue for the city instead of costing the city $759,000 per year, including the loss of PSAP (public safety answering point) funds totaling over $600,000 per year.

She contended that during a May 11, 2011 meeting of a the county-city collaboration task force, attended by assistant city attorney Nancy Niemela, city of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford, and deputy police chief Greg Bazick, they discussed the best avenue for getting around a full city council vote. As members of the city council, she said, they should question why secrecy would be needed, if it were the best plan for the city. Why would Bazick raise the possibility of the consolidation process to be stopped by an injunction? she asked. She said there was a reason why the police department administration did not want the council to see the alternative proposal.

Tucker also expressed concern for citizens of Ann Arbor who are accustomed to a certain level of service from a dispatch center. Under the proposal, she said, citizens would be relying on Washtenaw County to maintain a full-staffed dispatch center. According to meeting notes obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, full staffing would require 33 full-time employees, Tucker said. Currently the Washtenaw County dispatch operation has 14. To date, through 2011, the current level of staffing by the county has led to 5,000 hours of overtime, forcing current staff to work double shifts multiple days of the week, she said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Management Review

Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones was invited to the podium by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) to give an overview.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and chief of police Barnett Jones.

Jones reviewed his time as chief in Ann Arbor, which began six years ago. After four months on the job, he said, he’d been told he’d need to reduce staff. Since then, it’s been six years of reducing staff. In the course of those reductions, he said, he didn’t touch dispatch. It’s one of the core areas – patrol, investigation and dispatch. He reminded the council that he had presented the buyout option to the council to induce early retirements in 2009, which they’d approved. That had resulted in 26 people taking early retirement, two of whom were dispatchers. Those positions were then replaced, he said.

For this round of reductions, he said, he’d tried to come up with a way to keep his people employed. He first called the sheriff to explore the possibility that Ann Arbor could take over the sheriff’s dispatch, to perhaps generate revenue through the dispatch operation. Jones alluded to statutory mandates that prevent the sheriff from doing that. So they had looked at it the other way – with the sheriff taking over Ann Arbor’s dispatching operation. Later during council deliberations, sheriff Jerry Clayton said the proposal was cost-neutral from the county’s perspective.

Jones told councilmembers they’d seen some of the notes – alluding to the information that had been described during public commentary. When you brainstorm, he said, you throw every idea you can think of on the wall. The point is to try to save jobs, he said. Of the current Ann Arbor dispatchers, 13 or 14 of them would be employed under the consolidation, he said. His reality is that he faces a $1.2 million deficit. To meet that target without consolidation, he’d need to eliminate some dispatchers and officers, he said.

[Later during deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) invited a dispatcher to comment from the podium, who noted that on either scenario, with or without consolidation, she'll be losing her job.]

Jones presented the consolidation as good public policy because it helps keep patrol officers on the street.

Clayton also contended that the dispatch consolidation is good public policy. His office was there to assist the city, he said. He compared Ann Arbor’s situation with that faced by Ypsilanti previously. Ypsilanti was faced with the choice of laying off a police officer or firefighter. In that instance, Ypsilanti dispatchers applied for jobs to the county and they were brought in to the county dispatching organization, Clayton said. The approach in Ann Arbor would be similar, he said. He confirmed that if a decision is made to consolidate, those who are laid off from Ann Arbor dispatch would not be guaranteed a job.

He described how there would be a transition period of around six months while separate dispatching would continue as the dispatchers are cross-trained – county dispatchers for the city of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor dispatchers for Washtenaw County.

Responding to comments made during public commentary about the quality of service, Clayton allowed that right now the sheriff’s office doesn’t have enough staff. Even under those conditions, he said, county dispatchers deliver excellent service.

Consolidated Dispatch: Budget Context

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted the $1.2 million projected shortfall for the police department for the FY 2013 budget year, and compared that to the projected $500,000 annual savings from the consolidated dispatch operation. That still leaves $600,000-$700,000 to make up. She wanted to know how Jones proposed to cover the remaining shortfall. Chief of police Barnett Jones indicated that he did not have a proposal, except to hope the council found another way.

The context of the budget to which Jones alluded during his remarks has changed as the result of a new contract signed by the police officers union (AAPOA) in September of this year. The city’s position is that the layoff of four officers would not have been necessary, if the police union had made concessions on their contributions to health and pensions benefits before June 30.

During deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the $1.2 million projected shortfall in the public safety services area had been based on the analysis of a previous city administrator [Roger Fraser]. Kunselman said he was interested in getting a budget analysis from Steve Powers, the new city administrator.

Another change in the context for the $1.2 million projected shortfall is on the revenue side. From the city’s CFO Tom Crawford, Kunselman elicited Crawford’s expectation that property tax revenues next year could show an increase compared with this year.

At multiple points during the evening, including deliberations on the consolidated dispatch, mayor John Hieftje talked about a plan to preserve police officer staffing levels – it currently appears that nine officers will retire around the beginning of the year. The city is looking to rehire the officers just recently laid off. For the remaining five positions, there are around 400 applications for those jobs. The savings from the new AAPOA contract and the anticipated savings from the consolidated dispatch, Hieftje said, get the city where it needs to be to preserve current staffing levels.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) drew out the fact that there would be transitional costs associated with the consolidation of somewhere between $300,000-$500,000 in the first year.

Consolidated Dispatch: Adequacy of Service

At one point, Hieftje asked Jones to confirm that dispatching services would be adequate under the consolidation. Jones provided that confirmation. He said he’d gotten a lot of grey hair over this decision. Part of his comfort, he said, was based on the continuing liaison that would exist between the police department and the consolidated dispatch.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for a review of some of the metrics that would be used to determine if performance was being maintained. Jones gave the basic industry standard that 90% of calls should be answered in less than 10 seconds. The consultant Kerry Laycock also indicated that one component of performance can be monitored by calling back citizens who make calls to 911 to get a measure of their satisfaction. A final component is to get feedback from officers who are dispatched. That part is still under development.

Smith wanted to know what happens if the metrics show the consolidation is failing. Jones indicated that the whole process of gradual consolidation would need to be undone in reverse. That’s why this has to work going forward, he said.

Higgins confirmed with sheriff Clayton that the city could get performance metrics as often as it liked – the city is the customer, Clayton said.

Consolidated Dispatch: Human Resources

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) got clarification that 13-14 Ann Arbor dispatchers would be able to apply for jobs under the consolidated dispatch operation. He got confirmation that their pay would be less than they currently make. From the audience someone called out the question: “How much less?” Although Hieftje admonished attendees not to interrupt the meeting that way, the figure was tracked down in response to the question: On average, county dispatchers make $9,000 less than city of Ann Arbor dispatchers.

Hieftje allowed that it’s not a slight but rather a significant difference. Higgins noted that dispatchers are not the city’s highest paid employees. [Dispatchers earned $44,000-$56,000 for FY 2010].

Higgins also wanted to know what the difference in benefits is between the county and the city. Laycock said that human resources staff had described them as comparable. Sheriff Clayton said that among county workers, the dispatchers had very good benefits. Higgins was assured she’d be provided with a benefits comparison.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Bid to Postpone

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) made a bid to postpone the vote, based on uncertainties associated with the changing budget picture. Asked by Kunselman, city administrator Steve Powers said that with respect to timing, the contract did not need to be approved that night.

Kunselman invited one of the dispatchers in the audience to comment from the rank-and-file staff perspective, given that the council had just heard at length from the management side. [It's not common that the council invites an audience member to address the body outside of time set aside for public commentary, but the council's rules explicitly provide for that possibility.]

Mayor John Hieftje’s response to Kunselman’s gambit was first to note that the council had already heard from dispatchers during public commentary, but he quickly adopted the position that he had no objection to hearing more.

The dispatcher who approached the podium reviewed how the current operation is already co-located and that the call-taking function [which is a different task from dispatching] is already merged. She suggested that the two operations should truly be merged instead of the sheriff’s department taking over the Ann Arbor dispatching. The dispatchers themselves, she said, were out of the loop. She said they’d been told they’d all be laid off – that had shaken up people’s lives.

She told the council that dispatchers are extremely frustrated. Although there are dispatchers who have worked over 20 years, she hadn’t worked that long, so she noted that she’d lose her job regardless of the consolidation. She invited councilmembers to take the time to see the dispatch center. She told them they couldn’t make an educated vote without seeing it for themselves.

Kunselman’s motion to postpone nearly died for lack of a seconding motion, but that eventually came from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city administrator Steve Powers if during a delay on the vote, Powers could think of a reason that would change his mind. Powers said he doesn’t approve an agenda item for the council’s consideration unless he supports it. He said it’s unfortunate that there’s disruption for dispatchers and a difference in compensation. For reasons that had already been enumerated, Powers said he supported the consolidation. Responding to the invitation the council had heard to visit the city’s dispatch center, he encouraged them to visit other dispatch centers where consolidated dispatch was already being done – fire, police, and EMS. Consolidated dispatching is being done all over, and it makes sense for the city at this time, he concluded.

Hieftje, noting the length of time that the proposal had been in the works, said he wouldn’t support postponement.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was confident that Powers and Jones will ensure that response times are maintained. She pointed out that the sheriff’s office has experience doing shared dispatch. She also pointed to the fact that the consolidation of dispatch operations would help qualify the city for the state of Michigan’s Economic Vitality Incentive Plan. The MEVIP has replaced statutory state-shared revenue as the means that the state legislature uses to distribute to local governmental units their portion of the state’s sales tax.

Lumm and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if postponing the vote would affect the city’s opportunity to qualify for the MEVIP. City CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city’s application needed to include items that the city had already accomplished and things that are planned. It would be described to the state as “planned” in any case, he said, even if the vote were taken that night.

Crawford also indicated it’s not clear what the state will do next year. He said it’s become clear that there was an impression that communities are not doing much in the way collaboration. Crawford said the state is learning that Ann Arbor as well as many other communities have a long history of collaborations. Crawford gave towing as another possible example of collaboration with the county.

Outcome on postponement: Only Kunselman voted for postponement, and the motion failed.

Consolidated Dispatch: Council Deliberations – Finale

There were no substantive deliberations after the vote on postponement.

Outcome: Kunselman joined his colleagues in the unanimous vote for dispatch consolidation. The consolidation will also require approval by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries

Before the council for its consideration was final approval to a change in the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

The council approved the addition of the southwest and northeast corners to the greenbelt-eligible area. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The area in and around Ann Arbor eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the proposed expansion]

Another amendment to Chapter 42 was also considered by the council. It would allow a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting. The council gave the changes initial approval at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Thomas Partridge spoke during the public hearing on these changes, calling for priority to be given to affordable housing.

Greenbelt Expanded Boundaries: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, led off discussion with the introduction to some essentially administrative amendments to the wording. He stressed that the boundary change alters the total area of the greenbelt-eligible properties by 6%. He characterized the change as “normalizing” the boundary changes that were already approved in 2007. At that time, the area now to be included was not added, because of the limited willingness of townships in those areas to participate in the greenbelt program – Salem and Lodi townships. However, those townships are now interested in participating.

A breakdown of percentage contribution of different entities to the 26 greenbelt land transactions that have been completed to date. Of the 26, 12 did not include any township contributions. Two of the 12 transactions did not have any other governmental source, but had landowner donations. (Image links to higher resolution file. Chart by The Chronicle)

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) drew out the fact that there are two components to the amendment of the boundaries. Only one of them makes sense, she said – the one regarding properties that are adjacent to the boundary.

Lumm said she did not support the other component, which is the expansion of the area. She said that conceptually the arguments were similar to those the council had discussed during the debate about public art. It’s not about all or nothing, she said – it’s about making adjustments. She stressed the difference between the voter-approved millage and the Percent for Art program.

She asked: Is there any point at which the council believes the boundary goes too far? At what point, she asked, would asking voters about repurposing the millage revenues be considered? Annual revenues from the millage proceeds exceed by $1 million the bond payments. [The strategy was to take out a bond using future millage proceeds to pay for it, so that there would quickly be cash on hand to take advantage of land deals as the opportunities arose, instead of waiting to accumulate the cash through the millage.]

Lumm noted that this is the second proposed expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area. The original compact with voters, Lumm said, was to spend 1/3 of the millage proceeds inside the city and 2/3 outside. The goal had also been to achieve matching contributions for acquisitions that would make the city’s contribution 1/3 of the cost. But to date, she said, 27% of the investment has been on parkland inside Ann Arbor, and on average Ann Arbor has contributed 49% of the cost – higher than the 1/3 target.

In the meantime, Lumm said, Ann Arbor’s own city parks are starved for funds. She thanked Hohnke for bringing forward a smaller proposed expansion than what some people might have wanted. She said the council owes it to taxpayers to monitor the spending. At what point, she asked, are we spending money because it’s there? Until there’s clarity about that, she said, she wouldn’t support the boundary expansion.

From left: Dan Ezekiel, chair of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Hohnke said that Lumm raised some good points. He said he appreciated her desire to maximize fiscal resources. He contended that the “slight” boundary expansion does that, by providing for additional opportunities that would serve the original purpose of the millage. It would also give the city the opportunity to leverage additional funds, to invest in open space of high quality, and it’s a way to help tax dollars go further.

Mayor John Hieftje also said good points had been raised. He suggested that this would be the final and last expansion of the boundaries. The corners of the area represent unique opportunities and a chance to find new partners. Hieftje cited the language on one of the main pieces of literature from 2003 millage campaign, which had referred to “other sources” of funding. That was one of the things that has changed, he said – the state of Michigan previously had a program and that’s the difference in the city’s ability to achieve the 1/3 goal.

Hieftje noted that the amount of funding from outside sources is actually more than equal to the city’s contribution. Hieftje stated that Ann Arbor had been very fortunate in that 90% of federal farmland protection money that’s awarded throughout the state of Michigan comes to the Ann Arbor area.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed that the proposed changes are minor, but looking at the map, the boundaries completely avoid Ypsilanti Township. She wondered if there could ever come a time when people look at that irregular boundary and consider expanding.

Hohnke indicated that he did not think there was really high quality land there that would be worth considering and that’s not likely to change, he ventured, because it’s an already-built environment. From the audience, greenbelt advisory commission chair Dan Ezekiel and Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staff member who helps administer the program, nodded their agreement with Hohnke’s assessment of the missing southeast corner of the greenbelt-eligible area.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the expansion of the greenbelt-eligible area, as well as the adjacent property provision, over dissent from Lumm.

“No Newspaper” Law

On the agenda was a resolution revising the city’s littering and handbill ordinance that is meant to give residents the ability to regulate the kinds of newspapers that are deposited onto their property. The ordinance was aimed in part at publications that are delivered free in the community. The ordinance would make it a misdemeanor to deposit a newspaper on someone’s property, if a notice forbidding delivery of that specific newspaper is posted on the front door. The misdemeanor is punishable by a combination of a fine up to $500 and 90 days in jail. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

The ordinance would also create liability not just for the person who might deposit commercial handbills or newspapers onto someone’s property, but also for the corporate entities who “cause” that activity to take place.

First Amendment issues raised by the city’s attempt to restrict unwanted delivery include the possibility that the proposed ordinance has created a content-based distinction between newspapers and commercial handbills. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a right of residents to regulate the degree to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their property. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)] And in a more recent New York Supreme Court case, the court ruled that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

The initial consideration of the ordinance had been postponed already at the council’s previous meeting, and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the measure, indicated that another delay would be requested. His remarks suggested that some publishers had responded in such a way as to alleviate some of the concern that had prompted the perception that an ordinance was required.

Some back and forth ensued about tabling compared to postponing to a specific date. The council settled on tabling. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) cautioned that according to the council’s rules, if a resolution is not taken back up off the table for consideration in six months, the measure is considered demised.

Responding to Briere’s concern, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance, indicated that the ordinance was expected to be taken up again sometime in January 2012.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the revision to the ordinance on handbills and littering.

New Investment Policy

Before the council for its consideration was the authorization of a new investment policy. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its Nov. 21 meeting, but was postponed at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted to have the council’s budget committee review the policy first.

Highlights of the policy changes include the extension on maturity timelines for several different instruments: U.S. Treasury Obligations (from seven to 15 years); Federal Agency Securities (from seven to 10 years); Federal Instrumentality Securities (from seven to 10 years), Certificates of Deposit (from three to five years), and Obligations of the State of Michigan (three to 10 years).

Balanced against those extensions were some changes to portfolio restrictions that prevent the city from having too many longer-term maturity instruments: no more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities greater than seven years, and no more than 12.5% of the portfolio may be invested in securities with maturities more than 11 years.

During the scant deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for providing answers to her questions about the policy changes. She supported the policy changes because they would allow the city to be less reactive.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the investment policy.

Dexter Avenue Sidewalk Special Assessment

The council was asked to consider a special assessment on property owners along Dexter Avenue east of Maple Road for a total of $11,651, to pay for sidewalks. The one-time payments by the individual property owners are due June 1, 2012. Required payments range from $30.57 to more than $3,000. The project has a total cost of $92,955 – $74,364 of that amount will be paid with federal money. For the north side of Dexter Avenue, the project includes construction of a new sidewalk for a portion of the stretch, as well as a new curb and gutter for the street across from Veteran’s Memorial Park. For the south side of the street, the project includes a new curb along Veteran’s Memorial Park.

The council started the multi-step process for levying the special assessment at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

Because of the special assessments, the Dexter Avenue sidewalk improvements do not require a portion of the project budget to be allocated for public art. From the city’s public art ordinance: “A capital improvement project funded by special assessments or improvement charges is not subject to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.”

During the required public hearing, Thomas Partridge asked that the resolution be postponed so that it could be re-examined.

During the brief council deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that when special assessments are imposed, those whose property is subject to the assessment are typically resistant. [For example, for the special assessment that funded part of the non-motorized pathway along Washtenaw Avenue, which was held in September 2010, several property owners spoke at the public hearing, expressing their opposition.] He allowed that the relatively small amounts involved may have affected the lack of resistance. [Many property owners were assessed as little as $30.57.]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the special assessment.

Council Housekeeping

The council handled several housekeeping items, as it does every year shortly after the new edition of the city council is elected. That includes appointment of council subcommittee membership as well as council representatives to other organizations. It also includes the adoption of council rules.

Council Housekeeping: Committees

Some assignments are for subcommittees of the council, while others are for city council appointments to other public bodies.

Compared to last year, the most significant change to the council’s committee structure was the separation of the joint administration & labor committee into a council administration committee and a council labor committee. On the labor side, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was slotted in for Stephen Rapundalo, whom she defeated in the Nov. 8 election. Shuffling among other councilmembers, who all returned to this edition of the council, included the replacement of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) on the labor committee by Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

The council administration committee retains the same membership as the former administration and labor committee, except for Rapundalo, who was replaced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor also took over Rapundalo’s council appointment to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. [Google spreadsheet contrasting 2011 with 2012 city council appointments]

Changes to committee assignments were on the whole relatively minimal. That was due in part to the fact that Lumm was given four of Rapundalo’s previous committee appointments, including labor budget, liquor control, and the housing & human services advisory board. Lumm was also assigned to represent the city council on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) partnerships committee, relieving Margie Teall (Ward 4) of that duty.

Teall will also no longer represent the council on the Washtenaw Metro Alliance – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will pick up that responsibility. Of the veteran councilmembers, Teall’s committee assignments reduced the most, as she’ll also no longer serve on the city environmental commission – a spot also picked up by Briere. At the meeting, Teall indicated that she’d taken herself off the environmental commission, saying she would miss it, but would keep in touch. She said she was delighted that Briere would fill that spot. Teall expressed appreciation for everything that environmental coordinator Matt Naud and commissioners have done through the years. She said she felt that her departure would also open up the communication so more people know what’s going on.

Teall – along with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – will also no longer need to serve on the committee established by the council to negotiate a new contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. At the Dec. 5 meeting, the council formally dissolved the committee, the parking contract having been signed in May.

Council Housekeeping: Rules

Also before the council was the adoption of its rules, which included essentially one change. Included in council minutes currently are all emails received by councilmembers on their government accounts. The revision to the rules stipulates that only those emails related to the subject matter of the meeting will be included in the meeting minutes.

Council Housekeeping: LDFA

The council was asked to consider three appointments to the board of the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti SmartZone local development finance authority (LDFA): former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, current councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Eric Jacobson.

Of the positions on the 9-member LDFA board, the city of Ann Arbor appoints six and the city of Ypsilanti appoints three. One of the six Ann Arbor spots is for a member of the Ann Arbor city council, which had been held by Rapundalo, until he was defeated in the Nov. 8 general election by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Taylor is thus replacing Rapundalo as the city council representative. Rapundalo’s appointment is to fill an existing additional vacancy on the board.

Jacobson was also appointed to the LDFA to fill a vacancy on the board.

The local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism for the same geographic district as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti downtown development authorities. The LDFA currently receives no revenue from the Ypsilanti portion of its district. The taxes on which the increment is captured are local school taxes. The impact of the LDFA tax capture is spread across school districts statewide, due to the way that local school taxes are pooled by the state of Michigan and redistributed to local districts.

Based on data available through A2OpenBook, in fiscal year 2011, the LDFA generated $1.475 million in tax capture. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to operate a business accelerator.

Council Housekeeping: AATA Board

Also at the Dec. 5 meeting, the council handled an appointment unrelated in its timing to the new edition of the council. Mayor John Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. On confirmation by the city council, Cooper would fill the vacancy on the AATA board left by Sue McCormick.

McCormick is leaving her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job is Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

There is not a spot reserved for a city of Ann Arbor employee on the AATA board. When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, along with McCormick, their service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Outcome on all city council housekeeping items, including appointments: The council voted unanimously to approve its rules, calendar, and all committee appointments, many of which were made with separate resolutions.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Several people signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, to address the council on the topic of establishing a 24/7 warming center. People who sign up in advance for one of the reserved spots are given priority if they’re addressing an agenda item. Those who signed up to speak about the warming center cited the minutes of the Oct. 19 Ann Arbor housing commission meeting (attached to the agenda as a communication item from the city clerk) as the agenda item they wanted to speak about. The main business of that meeting was the hiring of the new executive director, but speakers did not address the subject matter of the housing commission meeting in any obvious way.

The tactic could be explained in part by the experience of University of Michigan student Orian Zakai at the previous council meeting, who had been unable to claim one of the 10 reserved public commentary slots, partly because several people who wanted to advocate for public art funding, which was an agenda item, had signed up for a reserved spot and had priority over her. Zakai had stayed until the end of that meeting, when unlimited unreserved public commentary is allowed, in order to deliver her remarks.

Again at the Dec. 5 meeting, Zakai addressed the council on the topic of establishing a warming center that would operate 24 hours a day. She ticked through the proposed policies of such a center and asked the council for assistance in finding a space to locate it.

Arthur Endsley introduced himself as a research scientist living and working in Ann Arbor. He told the council he’d toured the Delonis Center, as well as a homeless encampment, Camp Take Notice, and the breakfasts sponsored by St. Andrews.

It should be obvious, he said, that winter is upon us. He thanked the council for the $25,000 they’d appropriated to keep the warming center at the Delonis Center open this year. He wondered what will happen next year. He described those who needed a warming center here in Ann Arbor as global economic refugees living in our own community. He contended that the Delonis Center had a 80% recidivism rate. [According to Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which operates the Delonis Center, the 80% figure refers to the percentage of people who move from the Delonis Center to sustainable housing and who are still housed after one year.] Permanent solutions are needed, Endsley said. Responding to proposed cuts of the public art program, he said, some had contended that if we cut art, we are cutting down our own image. Endsley wondered what it says about our image if some of our residents are freezing to death in the streets.

Lily Au asked the council to support the effort to establish a warming center.

Alan Haber addressed the council in support of the warming center, in the guise of addressing the revision to the handbill and litter ordinance that was on the agenda. He had a leaflet, that supported establishing a warming center, among other things. He read it and asked the council if the leaflet was legal under the handbill ordinance. A leaflet like that, he said, should be able to go anywhere.

Three people also stayed until the end of the meeting, well past midnight, in order to address the council.

Judy Bonnell-Wenzel spoke in favor of support for a warming center.

David Coleman told the council he’d been living in the city about five months as a musician and artist. He told them he spoke from the standpoint of someone who is homeless, who has nowhere to go. The homeless are not all addicts or alcoholics, he said. He read aloud a hand-written statement.

From David Coleman's statement he read aloud to the council towards the conclusion of the Dec. 5 meeting. The warming center is intended to be "a place to go that's inviting, safe and warm, a place that rescues, rehabilitates, enlightens, edifies and empowers ..."

University of Michigan student Alexandra Hoffman addressed the perception that perhaps a 24/7 warming center did not need to be opened or that it was too large a project to accomplish. She encouraged the council to think positively. The group had thus far been frustrated with real estate issues – they haven’t found a location for the center. But as for staffing, volunteers are ready. She suggested the vacant Georgetown Mall and former Borders store on East Liberty as possible locations. She told the council she’s from Toronto, and their youth shelter is right on the main street of town – it’s something to be proud of, not something to be swept under the rug, she said.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took up the suggestion of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, noting that it’s a publicly owned facility. He ventured that perhaps the council needed to direct the creative use of the property.

During her communications, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the city spends significantly more than 1% of its money on housing and human services. She also noted the emergency allocation the council had made to the Delonis Center to keep its warming center open. She rejected the idea that there’s a choice to be made between funding art and funding human services.

Responding to Kunselman’s call for the exploration of 415 W. Washington as a possible location for a warming center, mayor John Hieftje made clear he didn’t think that was a realistic possibility. He reported that he, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had been working with the Arts Alliance and the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy to turn 415 W. Washington into a community art center and greenway park. The real problem they can’t get around is the condition of the building, he said. It’s filled with asbestos and jagged pieces of metal. It would take more than $1 million to make the building usable, he said. The Arts Alliance would likely withdraw from the project.

Comm/Comm: Deportation

Lourdes Salazar Bautista appeared before the council to appeal for their support in her fight to stay in the U.S. She faces deportation on Dec. 27. Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) also spoke in support of Bautista. Sanders noted that Bautista had been in the U.S. for 14 years, she works and pays taxes and has never committed a crime. Sanders attributed Bautista’s imminent deportation on Dec. 27 to Ann Arbor’s proximity to Canada, and the need for federal immigration official to meet deportation quotas. In the next few weeks, she said, the council would be asked to sign a letter of support.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary during his communications by saying that it’s not possible to do very much with local legislation. But he noted that the council could give its input. He said that by executive order, Bautista could avoid deportation.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s local policy on federal immigration policy is expressed in a 2003 city council resolution, which among other things calls on the AAPD to “limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the Chief of Police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern.”

Comm/Comm: Budget Retreat

City administrator Steve Powers suggested that the council hold its budget retreat for 2014-15 in June 2012. Mayor John Hieftje said he did not think it’s necessary to have a retreat in December.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalks

Kathy Griswold told the council she had a masters degree in public policy and an MBA from the University of Michigan and had served 15 years on the transportation safety committee. Still, she said, she’s not qualified to make traffic laws – she’s not a professional engineer. She criticized the council’s revision to the crosswalk ordinance in 2010, which the council is now revising further, as giving pedestrians a false sense of security.

Griswold told the council that transportation engineering is not always intuitive. She described a pamphlet available in the city hall lobby as a creative marketing tool, but contended that in fact, “pedestrians don’t rule.” She’d spoken to a driver education instructor, who had told her the ordinance is a major problem. She pointed councilmembers to a 30-minute program she’d recorded for CTN as well as to the website she’d created: seekids.org.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called for expanded access to affordable housing, transportation and education and made complaints about illegal discrimination.

Comm/Comm: Sewage

Kermit Schlansker called for the use of sewage in the creation of energy.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!

Before the Nov. 21 meeting, former councilmember Leslie Morris (left) might be reminding Jane Lumm (Ward 2) which ward Lumm represents on the Ann Arbor city council. (Photos by the writer.)

In the end, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance amendment that would temporarily reduce the required allocation to public art from city capital improvement projects – from 1% to 0.5% for a period of three years. After three years, the percentage would automatically revert to 1%. Of the various amendments to the ordinance, the percentage of the required allocation was the focus of the most controversy during council deliberations. A bid by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to lower the percentage further to 0.25% gained little support.

Other art ordinance amendments given the council’s initial approval include a requirement that public art money be returned to its fund of origin after three years, if not encumbered by a specific art project. The amendment also included a definitional change that effectively excludes sidewalk repair from the public art ordinance. The amendments also addressed the general fund, making explicit the exclusion of general fund projects from the public art ordinance.

During deliberations, city staff confirmed that at least a portion of the public art allocation required from the new municipal building (aka the police/courts building) could be associated with the general fund – about $50,000 out of the $250,000. [This is for art in the interior of the building, and is separate from the outdoor fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl.]

As part of her Ward 2 election campaign, Jane Lumm had argued that general fund dollars were connected to supporting public art at the new municipal building – an idea that had been, until Monday’s meeting, poo-pooed by some councilmembers, including mayor John Hieftje, who had said no general fund money had been used for the public art program.

Lumm was active in her first council meeting since serving in the 1990s. During deliberations on a revision to the ordinance on the city’s greenbelt boundaries, she prompted extended discussion on the part of the revision dealing with the boundary expansion. A less controversial part of the proposed revision involved allowing parcels adjacent to the boundary to be eligible for protection. In the end, the council gave initial approval to both parts of the greenbelt boundary change.

Also related to land use were two site plans on the agenda. The council gave initial approval to altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion. And the council signed off on the site plan, as well as the brownfield plan, for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

Because the content of a proposed revision to the city’s littering and handbill law was not available to the public until late in the day Monday, just before the council met, the council postponed its consideration of that item. The ordinance amendment would allow residents to prevent delivery of unwanted newspapers to their homes by posting a notice on their front doors.

In other business, the council expressed its opposition to a bill pending in the Michigan legislature that would nullify an Ann Arbor ordinance on non-discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status. At the meeting, the council also authorized acceptance of several grants for the 15th District Court for programs on domestic violence and substance abuse.

In routine business for the first council meeting after newly elected councilmembers take office, the council elected Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as mayor pro tem. Committee appointments and rule changes were postponed until Dec. 5.

Public Art Ordinance Amendment

The council was asked to give initial approval to a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that temporarily reduces the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. Currently, the city has a law –enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project.

The reduction in the allocation would apply for the next three years, from 2012-2015. The three-year timeframe is also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to funds accumulated under the proposed public art ordinance, which was also given initial approval on Monday night. That amendment requires that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance must be allocated within three years. Money that is unspent or unallocated after three years must be returned to its fund of origin. However, an amendment offered from the floor and approved at Monday’s meeting makes it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

The sunsetting clause comes in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years, just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

In addition to the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5% and the sunsetting clause, the set of amendments before the council included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments also excluded the ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are in any case rare.

As with all changes to city ordinances, the amendments to the public art ordinance will need a second approval from the council, following a public hearing. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Art: Public Commentary

Brenda Oelbaum introduced herself as vice president of the Midwest Region of the Women’s Caucus for Art. She lives in Ward 2. Since moving to Ann Arbor 16 years ago, she contended that she’s seen a drop in support for the arts – except for 2007, when the percent for art ordinance was passed. She contended that the Ann Arbor Art Center has shrunk and that the annual art fairs are turning into dusty wastelands. Fairy doors, pig skins, and bike racks are not really public art, she said, while she’s heard that FestiFools is not going to be funded by the University of Michigan in the future. She stated that the city’s public art ordinance is the only way we can incorporate art into our lives.

Oelbaum told councilmembers they are being shortsighted by reducing the funding and requiring that the money be spent within a certain period of time. Art takes time, money and consideration. She described the Women’s Caucus for Art as a 40-year-old organization with 1,700 members. A group from that organization had recently taken a day-long tour of art in Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis. On the trip, she said, some of the women were lying on the ground taking rubbings of manhole covers. Art does a lot for the city’s standing in the state and the United States, she said. All you have to do is look at the Grand Rapids ArtPrize competition, she said.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, and a Democratic candidate for the state senate in 2010. He spoke to his usual themes of ending illegal forms of discrimination and providing affordable housing, transportation and education. He called on the council to stop funding unnecessary projects and called the Dreiseitl sculpture, funded with public art money, a “junkyard object.”

During the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge criticized the council for taking so much time to discuss public art, instead of giving priority to issues affecting seniors and disabled people.

Margaret Erickson introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. She told the council she partakes in a variety of cultural events. One reason she chose to live in Ann Arbor 20 years ago was Ann Arbor’s accessible, rich cultural life. Works of public art provide a vital social fabric, she said, which allows us to see ourselves as a diverse culture. She told the council it’s easy to eliminate things that seem trivial, but Ann Arbor’s public art is a way of making the town beautiful. It also reinforces Ann Arbor’s connected community.

Margaret Parker said she’d served on Ann Arbor’s public art commission since 2004. [Although the public art ordinance was enacted in 2007, the city had a Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) before that time. The advisory group is now called the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC).]

Parker thanked the council for its support in the past. She recounted how $80,000 in private donations had been raised for public art for the parking structure at Washington & Fourth. The money had been raised by one volunteer. For the painted water tower on Plymouth Road, she said, $30,000 in private donations had been raised – by her. She had made the rounds to the same people who had donated to the parking structure and she’d heard the question: Why didn’t the city water fund pay for the water tower art?

Potential donors saw a disconnect between private funding and public benefit, she said. The city of Ann Arbor doesn’t have a revolving door of fresh donors like the University of Michigan does for the kind of art it has installed on its north campus. Funding for public art doesn’t raise the cost of any project, she contended. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has adopted the percent for art program, as has the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, she stated. She contended that the program is accepted as legal and has been used across the United States. She pointed to the one completed major project [the Dreiseitl water sculpture] and a smaller one in West Park. Six  more projects are in the works, she said. The commission also has plans to improve its procedures.

Wiltrud Simbuerger told the council that since she became a member of AAPAC this year, the feedback from the community has been positive. The desire and support for public art is there, she said. Criticism is based on the unspent money and speed at which art is created. She told the council that she is now responsible for the mural program. [Jeff Meyers, who had initiated the project, resigned from AAPAC in part due to frustration about the obstacles he encountered internal to the city in getting the project implemented.] She described the timeframe for creating a mural, which includes selecting possible sites and meeting with constituents in the neighborhood, she said. A letter of invitation has been sent out to mural artists and AAPAC will now select from a pool of artists.

Simbuerger allowed that the process could be improved structurally and there might be a point for some of the ordinance revisions the council was considering. But she encouraged the council to balance those changes with the needs of the program. She asked the council to increase city staff support for AAPAC and to empower the staff. It needs to be a staff-driven process, she said. Public art requires long-term commitment and persistence, so the focus should not just be on cutting the budget, but on making structural improvements to the process.

Connie Brown introduced herself as a long-time resident, business owner and AAPAC commissioner. She said she’s seen the positive role that public art can play in the community. She highlighted some of the things that AAPAC is doing. Currently, the commission is working on an interior piece for the lobby of the new municipal building. Proposals will be reviewed in December, she said. A statement of qualifications (SOQ) is ready for the Fuller Road Station project, but is not yet issued. When the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor are ready to move ahead with that project, it will be sent out. Several projects are in the phase of task force work, she said – notably, public art for the bypass around Argo Dam and the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project.

Jan Barney Newman told the council she’d spoken to them once before when they were considering the ordinance. She’d addressed the council after she had been to Toledo to see an outdoor art exhibit – many people drove down from Ann Arbor just to see it. She noted that for the municipal center plaza, the city didn’t purchase “off the shelf” by buying an existing sculpture, but commissioned a thematically appropriate work. She drew a laugh from the audience as she struggled with the pronunciation of Dreiseitl, the name of the German artist who designed the fountain, rendering it as something that sounded frozen: drei-cicle.

Mark Tucker was dressed in a colorful outfit and said he was there to represent “art itself.” [Later in the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by saying that the issue was not art itself, but rather the funding mechanism for public art.]

Margaret Parker and Mark Tucker before the Nov. 21 city council meeting started.

Tucker quoted the founder of the Heidelberg Project, Tyree Guyton, who responded when asked why he painted large polka dots on houses, “Why do you paint your house beige?” The conversation about public art always goes in the direction of cut, cut, cut, he said. Tucker does not think 1% for art is enough, and suggested the council think about 2%. He indicated that a “Miss 2%” would be appearing to show them what 2% for art looked like and asked that someone open the side door to the council chambers. When no one appeared, he said that he, for one, had wanted to see what 2% for art looked like.

Saying he was willing to demonstrate what 0.5% would look like, Tucker untied his necktie, indicating the demonstration would entail partially disrobing. He said it would be embarrassing for him and not pleasant for councilmembers. He asked councilmembers to consider what 0.25% or 0.125% would look like – saying that they all knew what zero percent looks like. He concluded that 1% percent is not too much to ask, to keep ourselves from being beige.

Elaine Sims, another AAPAC member, told the council she was glad didn’t have to follow anything that may have happened with Tucker’s demonstration. She said that in her day job, she also worked with art, as director of the University of Michigan Health System’s Gifts of Art program. She characterized the University of Michigan as a “small town” itself. She said she continuously gets calls from health care organizations across the country about the UM program.

Sims assured the council that the program did not happen overnight – it’s 25 years old. But it began as 3-year pilot program, she said. She gave the council some perspective on how long it takes to complete a commissioned piece of art, noting that she is a full-time staff member and that she has staff who report to her. Even with that level of staff support, she said, it takes a minimum of two years, more often than not three years from start to finish. She said that commissioners on AAPAC serve a staff function and that only recently has Aaron Seagraves been brought on board as public art administrator.

[At the city council's Nov. 14 working session, councilmembers heard a recommendation from public services area administrator Sue McCormick that would increase the value of the contract for the city’s public art administrator – by $35,000. The position is not held by a city employee. Currently that contract is with Aaron Seagraves, who took the job in May 2011. Previously, the part-time position had been vacant for almost a year, after Katherine Talcott, who was hired in early 2009, took the job of art project manager for the city. Seagraves currently has a one-year contract for 20 hours per week. At the Nov. 14 work session, McCormick characterized the proposed $35,000 increase to the contract as bringing it to essentially a full-time position.]

Art: Council Deliberations – Introduction

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by noting that the council would see a different proposal from what they considered in September, but then postponed at the Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. Briere summarized the key features of the Nov. 21 proposal:

1. Routine repair of sidewalks would not be considered capital improvements, thus not trigger the requirement that 1% of those project budgets be set aside for public art.
2. The percentage required to be allocated to public art would be dropped from 1% to 0.5% for the next three years; after that time it would automatically revert to 1%.
3. After July 1, 2012, general fund money would no longer be eligible for inclusion in public art.
4. Funds that are pooled for public art would have three years to be allocated (not necessarily spent), otherwise that money would revert to the fund of origin.

By way of background, the key difference between the Nov. 21 proposal as compared to the Sept. 19 proposal was a political horse trade: a prohibition against using the street millage fund for public art was removed, in exchange for a reduction in the percentage from 1% to 0.5%.

Briere then implicitly refuted remarks made by Mark Tucker during public commentary, during which he stated that he was there to represent art itself. Briere said she wanted to make certain the council’s discussion separated out the funding issue from the love of art or public art. The discussion is about an effort to fund art, not public art itself, she said. She went on to say that public art is something many people embrace and endorse, but believe there are different ways to fund it. The city’s percent for art ordinance is a specific mechanism, she said.

Over the last four years, Briere said, enthusiasm for the program has lessened. A large number of capital improvement projects have been undertaken, she said, and people are a little surprised at the amount of dollars that has accumulated. Working with such large amounts is amazingly difficult for people to contemplate. AAPAC has had a difficult time getting organized, and has a lot on its plate, Briere said, and it took a long time for bylaws and policies and procedures to get developed.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s 0.25%

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated Briere’s point that the issue is not about public art. She took a different view of the trajectory of support for art in the community [from one of the public speakers]. She said she’d spent 10 years on the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair board and a number of years hanging out at the Ann Arbor Art Center. If it were not for community support, it would struggle. Alluding to Mark Tucker’s remarks during public commentary, Lumm said that an Ann Arbor art fair had actually brought some works from the Heidelberg Project works to Ann Arbor.

Lumm said it’s about the funding of art – private or public. She allowed that 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, but so far, over $2 million has been set aside for public art. Reducing the percentage from 1% to 0.25% would reduce the dollar amount per year set aside for art from around $450,000 to around $100,000. She said she still did not not agree with the idea of earmarking capital dollars for public art, but that $100,000 would be acceptable.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to Lumm by saying: “You can’t have it both ways.” People say they want to have something but then don’t want to fund it, he said. He drew an analogy to the U.S. wars in Iraq or Vietnam. Derezinski noted that it’s the third time the council has wrestled with the issue. The community has been through some tough times, but “We’ve hung in there with 1%,” he said. He characterized the views that the council had heard as an “outpouring” of support for the public art program from the community. He said he could not go along with the idea of people saying they are for something but against funding it. Tough times, he said, bring out what the community is about. Ann Arbor is known for public art, he contended, so he was not in favor of decreasing the amount to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s remarks, saying that it’s disingenuous to say you support something, but then not pay for it. If the council tempered its support, Teall said, it would send a message to private funders. She said she would not support a reduction to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took on the rhetorical gambit of Derezinski and Teall criticizing those who say they support something but won’t pay for it, by asking: “How often have my colleagues said, ‘We support public safety!’ but yet we’ve cut it?” The remark elicited a few cheers from the audience. Kunselman pointed to the $2.2 million that’s been transfered to public art and noted that much of it is still sitting there. He noted the council has made changes in other programs and services.

Kunselman pointed out that even though there was support from the public commentary podium for the public art ordinance, four of those who spoke are AAPAC commissioners. So, taking Teall’s label of “disingenuous,” Kunselman said it’s disingenuous to call that an outpouring of community support, as Derezinski had. Kunselman said during tough economic times, there’s too much money spent on art. He also questioned the legality of taking millage money that hasn’t been sanctioned at the state level or by the courts. He noted the absence of a written opinion from the city attorney’s office on the legal basis of the city’s ordinance. So he said he’d support the amendment.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d heard the concerns about the amount of money the ordinance was generating. He agreed with Kunselman’s position that the council needed a written legal opinion from the city attorney. He said he was eager for a written opinion and said that the council should take a vote on that very soon. [Kunselman has taken the position that it should be up to the supporters of the public art ordinance to bring forward a resolution to direct the city attorney to produce an opinion.]

Anglin spoke about the role of art in defining what Ann Arbor is, saying that Ann Arbor is a unique little town. He noted that the discussion had centered on the visual arts, not the performing arts. He ventured that public art funding could eventually be expanded to include performing arts. He said he wanted to keep the 1%. People had been “shaken” by the process for creating the Dreiseitl sculpture, Anglin said. He found the whole procedure “jarring” – apparently because of the selection of a German artist for the commission. He seemed to indicate that the selection of Michigan workers for fabrication who could do good “metal work” was not entirely satisfactory.

In her next speaking turn, Teall picked up on Anglin’s reference to metal work, in order to clarify that the Dreiseitl piece is not simply a metal sculpture, saying that Herbert Dreiseitl is a “water and sculpture engineer.” She described the fountain as part of the stormwater system of the building, and said that it was fabricated using Michigan workers. It was not totally farmed out, she said.

In support of his position, Derezinski followed up with a description of an editorial that had been published in the Detroit Free Press [The column mentioned by Derezinski was by Ron Dzwonkowski: "Forget Taxes and Regulations, Michigan Must Build It so They'll Come"] Derezinski noted that Dzwonkowski’s column highlighted a book, “The Economics of Place,” which was published by the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League. From the column:

The book lays out eight assets that are critical to quality of place today, some reflecting a generational shift away from suburban living – suburbs are today the fastest-aging segment of the American demographic – and others reflect the relentless advance of technology.

They are walkability, green initiatives, a healthy arts/culture scene, a climate for entrepreneurs, multiculturalism, constant connectivity, effective public transit and educational institutions that serve as community anchors.

So is it any wonder that Ann Arbor weathered the Great Recession better than the rest of Michigan? Doesn’t it make sense that Grand Rapids has embraced the annual ArtPrize competition? Isn’t there a lot of promise in Detroit’s burgeoning Midtown?

[In contrast to Ann Arbor's public art program, Grand Rapids' ArtPrize competition is funded through private support. It's now a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. See Chronicle coverage of the first year of ArtPrize: "In Search of Ann Arbor Artists: A Sojourn"]

Briere sought to steer the conversation back to Lumm’s proposed amendment from 0.5% down to 0.25%. Briere said it’s hard to say how much is enough support for art. She noted that she didn’t vote for the original ordinance, because she wasn’t on the city council at the time. She would have voted for it, she said. She had voted to reduce the percentage when the council considered its budget this year. She’d also supported the reduction when Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had brought forward a proposal in 2009 to reduce the percentage. There’s clearly an interest among some councilmembers to reduce the percentage, Briere said.

Briere said when she looked at other communities to learn more about how public art was funded, she learned that other communities restrict how you spend it, and where it comes from. Aside from the percentage, Ann Arbor’s ordinance doesn’t provide guidance that is helpful, she said. She’d asked to receive AAPAC’s guidelines and bylaws, but still hasn’t seen them. It would be helpful to see that information before the second vote on the ordinance, she said.

Alluding to Lumm’s estimate of how much the 0.25% would generate a year, Briere said she didn’t think that $100,000 a year is enough to buy art. She didn’t think you can acquire qualified, healthy, significant art for that much, so she wouldn’t support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) found themselves voting together as a two-person block on more than one occasion at the Nov. 21 meeting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by noting sarcastically that he’d spent a lot of time reviewing all the 0.25% for art programs in the country – it didn’t take a lot of time because there weren’t that many. He said there’s a strong consensus for support for public art and some funding at some amount. In thinking about the appropriate amount that should be set aside for art, he cited a 1927 Department of the Post Office building in Washington D.C. for which 2% was set aside for art, and a National Archives building with a construction budget that allocated 4% for art. He continued by citing a federal general services administration policy in the 1950s of setting aside 1.5% for art, followed by city ordinances enacted in Philadelphia, then by the states of Hawaii and Washington in the early 1970s.

The 1% number offers a simple way to understand it, he said, that is sufficient to drive a large enough scale. He invited people to engage in a thought experiment. If your house burned down and the budget for rebuilding it is $100,000, the corresponding art budget of $250 (corresponding to Lumm’s 0.25%) doesn’t seem like a lot. Hohnke said that to him, 1% feels closer to the right amount, so he would not support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she had twice before supported a reduction in funding. She said she thought it would be prudent to do that now – when things are financially tight. Using Hohnke’s analogy of a house, she said when she needed a new roof, she’s not looking to put a new carpet down too. She said that deciding the amount is a little premature, before deciding whether the program even continues. She said she would not support the reduction from 1% to 0.5%, because it’s muddying the waters.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The council rejected the amendment to drop funding to 0.25%, on the proposal cutting public art funding from 1% to 0.5% – only Lumm and Kunselman supported the amendment.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s Conscious Restoration

A second amendment to the proposal the council was considering also came from Jane Lumm (Ward 2). As proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the ordinance revision would automatically revert the percentage to 1% after three years. Lumm wanted to tweak that so that a conscious action of the council would be required in order to bring the percentage back up to 1%.

Mayor John Hieftje said he had been reassured by the provision of an automatic return to 1%. He was willing to advance the proposal to a second reading if the 1% were restored after three years. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the automatic restoration of the 1% level a useful tool for legislation like this.

Briere said that in her mind, the restoration of the funding level to 1% after three years went hand-in-hand with the other provision that would revert money to its fund of origin if it was not spent after three years. It’s easy to forget that something is going to happen. If in three years, funds have to be reverted to their funds of origin, she said, the council would hear from AAPAC about it. “That’s our trigger,” she said. Restoring the funding automatically after three years, Briere said, made sense to her.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) expressed agreement with Briere, adding that one reason it’s hard to keep track of things regarding the public art program is that there is not a full-time city staff member to keep track of it.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was looking forward to the discussion about what level of funding is appropriate. He said he would feel more comfortable with the reduction to 0.5% if there were the “backstop” of automatic restoration – although he was clear that he felt 1% is the right amount of funding for public art.

Outcome on Lumm’s proposed elimination of automatic restoration after three years: The council rejected the amendment on the proposal that made any restoration of funding from 0.5% back to 1% contingent on city council action. Only Lumm and Kunselman supported it.

Art: Council Deliberations – General Fund

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) contrasted the fact of the deep importance of art to the community and the fact that money is tight. AAPAC has done yeoman’s work with insufficient resources, he said. But he pointed to the art fund as “flush” – there’s more money in it than AAPAC can process, given their resources, he said.

Taylor felt the situation calls for a practical, not a pure solution. There’s more money than we know what to do with – so the practical solution is to be in favor of the reduction to 0.5%, he said. This would reduce the pipeline, but also increase the outflow, and he anticipated the time at which the “pig in the python” comes through. Taylor allowed that he was borrowing a metaphor from another debate. [The allusion was to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority's expected bond payments on the underground parking garage.] Taylor said he would support the proposed temporary reduction on its first reading, stressing it’s particularly important that the council address the issue in measured fashion.

In his remarks, Taylor alluded to the position that some councilmembers have taken on the possible connection between public art and public safety, which essentially is this: The absence of the general fund in any of the city’s accounting for public art translates to a factual matter that the city’s public safety services, paid for from the general fund, are not impacted by the public art ordinance.

Mayor John Hieftje picked up on Taylor’s remarks about the general fund, saying that none of the data presented to the council had ever shown general fund money spent on public art.

Later during deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked public services area administrator Sue McCormick to approach the podium to lay out in more detail what the connection of the general fund money is, as well as other funds, to public art. Teall was prompted to ask McCormick to the podium, when Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated the piece of her successful election campaign that asserted a specific connection between the general fund and the funding of a particular art project – the interior pieces that are being commissioned for the new municipal center.

Lumm said noted that there’s a $250,000 contribution from the municipal building fund, which itself was created out of general fund dollars. Based on that, she said, “I see general fund dollars in this.”

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying that he’d asked CFO Tom Crawford to look at the situation.

It was at that point that Teall asked McCormick to give some clarity to the general fund issue, and also asked her to explain why spending public art money is tied to its fund of origin. McCormick took the second part of Teall’s question first. She explained that it’s because there’s a restriction on uses of those funds – they have to be used for the benefit of the fund’s purpose, or serve the purpose of the fund. Included in the qualifying uses, said McCormick, are those that serve the educational purpose of the fund. It has to be a capital project, she said, with an expected lifetime of at least a year, and must cost at least $5,000.

As for the general fund, said McCormick, on its face, no general fund dollars are used for public art. But she said Crawford had been asked how the municipal building fund was set up. Before continuing, she clarified that once the money goes into a fund like that, there’s not continued monitoring of the relationship between the dollars as they’re spent and where they came from. The municipal building fund had hit the $250,000 public art ordinance cap, so in order to connect that $250,000 to some fund of origin, it would need to be apportioned out – which is not an analysis the city would ordinarily do, she said.

But McCormick concluded by saying that $50,000 out of the $250,000 could be associated with the general fund. She concluded that it was possible to construe that relationship to the general fund. Currently, she said, $40,000 out of the $250,000 has been spent, and the project for the lobby is expected to cost $160,000, for a total of $200,000.

Hieftje called McCormick’s description “reasonable.”

Art: Council Deliberations – Teall’s Shortened Time Period

Margie Teall (Ward 4) offered an amendment to the proposal before the council. Teall’s amendment would shorten the period of the temporary reduction (from 1% to 0.5%) to just two years. After two years, it could be reviewed to see where the need is, she said. She rejected the phrasing of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) earlier in the deliberations to the effect that AAPAC has more money than it knows what to do with – she said she thinks the public art commission knows what to do with it. Commissioners’ challenge is to go through all the steps without administrative support. A reduction of two years is “fairer,” she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described Teall’s amendment as making something that is bad less bad. This kind of reduction sends a signal about the stability of the funding. He agreed with returning the funding amount in a quicker time.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reiterated the same objection she’d made to an earlier amendment, saying that to her, the amendment muddies the waters. She said that before the second reading of the ordinance, she wanted to see the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for two years and three years, and at different percentages. Then it would be possible to know what real dollars they’re talking about, she said. Right now, Smith added, “We’re shooting in the dark.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s suggestion to get additional information, but noted that currently the ordinance is yielding $450,000 a year, and to date only around $860,000 has been spent. There’s quite a bit of capital sitting there, she said. A reduction for three years is not unreasonable, she said.

Outcome on Teall’s amendment shortening the period of reduced funding: The council rejected the amendment, which would have shortened the period of reduced funding from three years to two years. Voting for it were Derezinski, Teall and Hohnke.

Art: Council Deliberations – Council Extension of Deadline

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that dealt with the proposal to require that unallocated money set aside for public art be returned to its fund of origin, if not assigned to some specific art project after three years. Derezinski wanted to allow for the city council to extend past the three-year deadline for up to two years on a case-by-case basis.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not in favor of Derezinski’s proposed amendment. Some back-and-forth unfolded between Higgins and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) about the status of funds that have already accumulated in the public art fund. Briere said that her proposal had been “clumsily drafted,” and was intended to be forward-looking not backward. That is to say, the three-year sunset would not apply to existing funds that had already accumulated.

After a recess of the council meeting, Briere came back with revised language to make the timing clear, as well as the status of the funds – they didn’t need to be spent, just “encumbered.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned the intent of the language. Briere told her the idea was to look forward, not back.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) questioned the need for language giving the council the authority to extend the timeframe by two years. Can’t the council simply grant the extension, if that’s its desire? Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias clarified that the council can’t change an ordinance by resolution. So the ordinance language itself provides the option for the council to extend the deadline by passing a resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated a preference for a series of 6-12 month extensions instead of two years. Councilmembers seemed concerned about dealing with a situation where a project was in the works, but delayed, so that the public art money would not be spent within three years, as required under the proposal. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would support Derezinski’s amendment if it were restricted to up to two years. Derezinski indicated this was, in fact, his intent. Hieftje chimed in that his own method wouldn’t have put a maximum timeframe.

Higgins drew an analogy to the purchase option agreement made with Village Green for the First and Washington parcel – the purchase option was extended by the council several times. She said she was in favor of allowing up to two years, then at the two-year mark, an extension should be considered in six-month increments.

Briere declared that she was confused: If a public art project were proposed and in the works, that would encumber the money. And the sunset clause makes explicit reference to that. If a project is ongoing but delayed, it doesn’t need to come back to the council, because the project is ongoing and has encumbered the funds, she said.

Higgins wanted to know what would happen if funds were encumbered for three years, but then the project fell through. Elias characterized it more as a finance issue. She ventured that she could take a look at the accounting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted some clarity on how funds might come to be encumbered – is that a legal or a financial question? He suggested that the encumbrance comes close to the end when contractors come into the picture and exact costs are calculated.

After some back and forth, councilmembers then settled on a series of six-month extensions that the council would be able to grant. In relevant part, the revised ordinance as eventually given initial approval by the council read:

(4) Funds for public art that are placed in a pooled public art fund after July 1, 2012 that have not been disbursed or encumbered for an art project for three (3) full fiscal years shall be returned to the fund of origination, provided that Council may extend the foregoing period by resolution for successive periods, each not to exceed six (6) months.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment to allow city council extension of the time period by which funds must be encumbered: The council approved the amendment, with dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

Art: Council Deliberations – Eliminate Reduction

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) allowed that many of the changes in the proposal to amend the percent for art ordinance were helpful. He wanted, however, to have a discussion on the percent. He proposed an amendment to the proposal that would eliminate the reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the Nov. 21 council meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support that. He acknowledged that there was some desire to support art, but noted that it’s not the “one percent for art fund,” but rather it’s the “percent for art fund.”

Spending the funds will be hard, Kunselman said, because there’s no guidance. You have to go back to the city attorney’s office to find out if a specific project can be funded – he noted he’d brought this issue up many times. The city can’t have a program run on verbal assertions, he said. He wondered what the public art fund could be used for: Performance art? Pavement decorations? Manhole covers? He’d like to see decorative art light fixtures installed up in the Oxford neighborhood, where students have expressed concerns about safety.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stated that he assumed Ann Arbor wants to be an art center for the state of Michigan. So it’s important to keep the public art program healthy. There’s a lot of subjectivity in art, but AAPAC has some very devoted people. He said he’d attended three meetings since being appointed to the commission. The commission has come up with good recommendations for improving their own procedures, he said. The program is just about to flower, he added, so the council shouldn’t nip it in the bud.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she agreed with Hohnke and Derezinski. She described the percent for art program as just getting off the ground, and to reduce its funding would mean cutting it off at its knees. Responding to Kunselman’s call for decorative street lights, she said nothing prevents the city from using public art funds in that way. What’s holding the commission back is a lack of administrative staff support. She noted that the commission is a volunteer organization. The way to make public art happen is to support it with one percent, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he believes that AAPAC was given an unfair and unachievable task – commissioners have done important and valuable work. In the future, that work should be given more staff support. But the fund is currently flush, he noted, and they’ll be able to use the already aggregated money and use the additional 0.5% allocation. He said you prune a lilac bush to prevent it from getting too leggy. The temporary reduction would allow the public art program to be a fuller, more efficient program.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she liked Taylor’s metaphor, adding her own version: You prune a bush to make it bloom better.

Mayor John Hieftje said a lot of people talk about the tradition of art, and contended that when you read about the history of public art, it’s about economic development. Ann Arbor lives on the fact that it has a high quality of life, he said. He talked about the speech he gave at the dedication ceremony of the Dreiseitl sculpture, in which he’d quoted from an article in Forbes magazine that called public art economically viable.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for bringing the proposal forward. She said she would support the 0.5%, not Hohnke’s attempt to eliminate the temporary reduction. On the whole question of earmarking capital dollars for art, she said she would feel differently if it had been put to a vote of the residents.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) observed that the existence of the program enjoyed overwhelming support at the podium and in emails she received. And she noted that the proposed revision would preserve the program.

Hohnke concluded that the council’s discussion had been really useful. He said the proposal included a lot of improvements, excepting the reduction from 1% to 0.5%. He saw a lot of signposts that point towards 1% as the right amount.

Outcome on the elimination of the reduction to 0.5%: The amendment that would have eliminated the reduction from 1% to 0.5% failed, with support only from Derezinski, Teall, Hohnke and Anglin.

Art: Council Deliberations – Finale

Mayor John Hieftje said he would support the measure for its initial vote and looked forward to its second reading before the council.

By way of background, councilmembers are not required to vote the same way on issues at their first and second readings. During deliberations on Nov. 21, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) voted for the ordinance revision on first reading, even though he argued against its main feature and attempted to amend it out – the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5%. In the past, Hohnke, as well as other councilmembers, have made it clear that their votes for a measure on first reading are in the spirit of moving the proposal along to a second reading, when a public hearing is also held.

At the council’s Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, enough councilmembers flipped their votes between the first and second reading that a proposed reduction to the percentage public art allocation ultimately failed, after having won initial approval.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the temporary reduction (for three years) of the percentage specified in the public art ordinance – from 1% to 0.5%, with an automatic reversion to the 1% level after three years, as well as other changes to the ordinance. The changes would not take effect until after a public hearing and a successful second vote by the council. Dissenting were Derezinski, Teall and Anglin.

Greenbelt Boundary Expansion

On the agenda for consideration was a resolution to change the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

Greenbelt Boundary: Background

During a presentation to the city council at the start of the meeting, Dan Ezekiel, chair of the greenbelt advisory council, gave the council an overview of the program and the proposal they would be considering later in their meeting.

The area in and around Ann Arbor that’s eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the currently proposed expansion]

The brightest green region of the map is the original 2003 boundary area for properties eligible for protection using greenbelt millage funds. Next brightest is the area added in 2007. The dimmest green (in the southwest and northeast part of the map) is the area now proposed to be added. (Image links to higher resolution .jpg)

Also before the council as part of the amendment to Chapter 42, the council was asked to give initial approval to a change that allows a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Also before the council for its approval at the Nov. 21 meeting was the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission. The current commission had recommended his appointment at its Oct. 12, 2011 meeting.

Greenbelt Boundary: Public Comment

Keri Hardy introduced herself as the manager of Cherry Republic’s Ann Arbor store on Main Street, and said she was there on behalf of the owner. Cherry Republic exclusively sells cherries and has chosen to have a store in Ann Arbor, because Ann Arbor matches Cherry Republic’s commitment to supporting Michigan and Michigan farming, she said. She presented a $2,500 donation from Cherry Republic to the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.

Greenbelt Boundary: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council appointee on the greenbelt advisory commission, put forward the boundary expansion resolution. He described the proposed changes as smoothing out the boundaries that had been enacted as part of the 2007 change. The boundary changes are proposed to take advantage of opportunities for land protection in the expanded area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off debate by making a motion to divide the question, noting that there were two items incorporated in the proposal before the council – one was an expansion of the boundaries, and the other involved allowing properties adjacent to the boundary to be eligible under certain conditions. She said she supported the adjacency condition, but did not support expanding the boundary.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that “dividing the question” was a procedure with which he was not familiar.

By way of background, dividing the question is a standard parliamentary procedure that allows for separate votes to be taken on parts of a proposal. In response to a motion like Lumm’s to divide the question, the presiding officer at the meeting is supposed to ask for a seconding motion, and if there is one, to call for a vote, without debate on dividing the question. Once approved by a majority vote, the question is treated part-by-part as two separate questions before the council.

That’s not what happened in response to Lumm’s motion. Besides Taylor’s interjection about his lack of familiarity with dividing the question, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) complained that the text of the original ordinance was not included in the council’s meeting information packet, and that led to additional uncertainty.

Higgins wondered if a postponement might be in order.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed concern about the possible continued expansion of the greenbelt boundaries. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) is seated to her left.

Ginny Trocchio – a staff member of the Conservation Fund, which is the consultant the city uses to help manage the millage proceeds – was called to the podium to comment on any negative impact that might arise from a postponement.

Trocchio and Dan Ezekiel indicated to the council that with the uncertainty in the federal budget, the next round of funding – in February 2012 – might be the last one for the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. For properties that would be eligible for FRPP grants only as a result of the ordinance change, it would leave a short timeline to apply.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some apparent confusion, wondering what Lumm wanted to amend. She explained that she just meant to be dividing the question. Hieftje indicated he wanted Lumm to take the approach of offering an amendment instead, saying that it was “neater” to do it that way. Lumm complied by amending the proposal to strike the boundary expansion.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was initially opposed to expanding the boundaries, but after talking to Ezekiel, he felt it boiled down to the intent of the voters, which he felt was generally to create a greenbelt around the city.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) got clarification that Ann Arbor might get greater cooperation from Salem and Lodi townships as a result of the boundary change. Hohnke described how the boundary change in 2007 did not include Salem and Lodi townships because up to that point there had been little collaboration offered by those townships – but that has changed, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the greenbelt a successful program and said the proposed expansion is a mark of that. Adding 10 square miles is an open door to more opportunities. Hohnke noted that the expanded area would make up about 6% of the total greenbelt area. Since 2003, he said, the cost per acre of protecting land has come down by half.

Higgins said she struggled with the expansion. One of the things presented to voters in 2003 was a map, she said. When voters saw that, they didn’t necessarily think the area would continue to expand. Back in 2003, she said, Ann Arbor was ahead of the curve. But now other organizations have come forward, and Ann Arbor is not the only player in the game. So she said she had some issues expanding again.

Higgins noted that Lodi Township was very excited about the prospect of the boundary expansion – but she attributed that excitement to the fact that Lodi makes only a token contribution. Ann Arbor will be the bigger contributor, she said.

Lumm said that at the time of the millage vote, a robust discussion had established the boundaries, and the community had talked about how the millage proceeds would be spent. She noted that the proposal now is the second expansion – she realized it was not a huge expansion, and thanked Hohnke for coming forward with a smaller expansion than others might have wanted. She questioned, though, whether the city is being driven by the desire to spend all the money in the program or to spend it wisely.

She characterized the money spent to date as having been spent wisely. But she noted the current fund balance is around $10 million – it’s hard not to say it’s flush with cash. It made her wonder if the city is spending it because it’s there. She stated she would not support the expansion at the first reading.

Higgins asked Ezekiel to the podium again and asked if it was possible to “lock in” the boundaries so that they would remain in place for some number of years. Ezekiel told her that the city council can choose to lock in whatever they choose – GAC is an advisory commission. He clarified for Higgins – who had complained that perhaps townships had not contributed much to some of the deals – that it has never been the case that the city is the only contributor. It’s required, he said, to have at least 20% from other sources. Higgins countered that the 20% isn’t necessarily from other local entities, which Ezekiel confirmed. He confirmed for Higgins that the city has done deals where the city of Ann Arbor has been the only local participant. Overall, however, Ezekiel said the city does better than a dollar-for-dollar match.

Higgins concluded by saying that if it were possible to say that the city would stick to these boundaries (as expanded), that would make her more comfortable in supporting the expansion.

Taylor mentioned that while the city has challenges in its parks system, the greenbelt millage can’t be used for maintenance of city facilities. Greenbelt millage money is just for land and the purchase of development rights. He said he would support the expansion of the boundaries.

Hieftje said he didn’t think there was ever a strict boundary presented to voters – it was always to be decided by the city council through an ordinance.

Outcome on the elimination of the boundary expansion from the proposal: The council rejected Lumm’s amendment. It had support only from Lumm and Higgins.

Higgins indicated she would like to think about stipulating a 5-year time period during which the boundaries could not expand again. Taylor made a side comment that the current council can’t tell future councils what they can do. Briere observed that since passage of the millage in 2003, it’s turned out to be 4-year increments for review. Hohnke characterized the 2007 change as an expansion with a couple of corners left out – it’s one expansion over the course of eight years, he said.

Outcome: Over a lone dissent from Lumm, the council gave initial approval to the boundary expansion and the provision for including certain properties adjacent to the boundary as eligible. Later in the meeting, the council also gave final approval to the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Hoover Mansion (University Bank) Rezoning

The council was asked to consider initial approval for altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, checks his tablet during the city council's Nov. 21 meeting. Seated in a row behind Ranzini is Stuart Berry, who this year was an unsuccessful candidate for city council, running as a Republican in Ward 5.

The bank asked to revise the existing planned unit development (PUD) for the site (originally approved in 1978), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted on the parcel. The site serves as the bank’s headquarters.

The proposal includes a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been initially submitted to the city about a year earlier.

Because the proposal is a change to the city’s zoning, it’s a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that requires a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

Outcome: After brief comment from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, the council voted unanimously to give the PUD revision initial approval.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan, Brownfield

On the agenda was a resolution for approval of the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces.

Also before the council was the brownfield plan for the project, which includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will still need to sign off on the brownfield plan. County commissioners scheduled a public hearing on the brownfield plan to be held at their meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

The city’s planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 18, 2011 meeting. Action had been postponed at the commission’s June 7, 2011 meeting so that the developer – Campus Realty – could address some outstanding issues with the plan.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the brownfield committee had met and agreed the plan is appropriate. It was thoroughly vetted, she said, and would next be reviewed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, said the proposal had been reviewed by the planning commission in some detail. The developer and the attorney for the project were present at the meeting in case there are any questions, he said. The plan takes a piece of land across from Whole Foods and makes it attractive for the area, he said. It comports with the themes of the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue initiative. He noted that the developer had to locate the bus stop on the other side of the street so that patrons of the county recreation facility could take advantage of it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed his enthusiasm for the project, saying that the area had long been underutilized. It would be a great benefit for the neighborhood and he looked forward to its arrival, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that he’d attended the citizens participation meeting on the project and described it as very welcoming, appropriate and useful. He noted that the site had a previous plan that didn’t go anywhere – he hoped this one receives ample financing.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan and brownfield plan.

Handbills, Newspapers

The council was asked to consider a revision to its ordinance on the distribution of handbills and newspapers that, among other things, would give residents the ability to prevent delivery of any undesired newspaper onto their porches by posting a notice expressly forbidding the delivery of a specific paper.

The ordinance revision reads, in part:

No corporation, limited liability company, or partnership and no corporate officer or director, managing member, partner, or other person shall cause to be placed any newspaper upon private property where there is a notice posted on the front door of the structure on the property that the occupant forbids the delivery of that specific newspaper. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

Handbills, Newspapers: Council Postponement

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the proposed ordinance, saying that its quality of life is one of Ann Arbor’s charms. Currently, he said, it’s not permitted for a person to deposit handbills in various public places. The ordinance revision clearly extends the prohibition to the advertisers who cause the handbills to be created. Taylor went on to say that there are a good number of newspapers and newspaper-like publications that show up sometimes in people’s driveways. The ordinance revision, he said, gives residents tools to deal with that.

Noting that the text of the ordinance revision had not been available to the public in a timely way before the council’s meeting, Taylor asked his colleagues to postpone the vote.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone its initial vote on the littering and handbill ordinance revision.

Handbills, Newspapers: First Amendment Issues

Though not discussed by the council, the attempt to curb delivery of unwanted newspapers poses some interesting First Amendment issues. From the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

According to David Hudson, adjunct faculty with Vanderbilt Law School and a scholar at the First Amendment Center, it’s conceivable to craft an ordinance preventing delivery of unwanted newspapers that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Reached by phone, Hudson told The Chronicle that the lower courts have not necessarily been uniform in their rulings and many of the cases on such ordinances have been settled not based on the larger First Amendment issues. Hudson didn’t comment on Ann Arbor’s proposed ordinance, not having seen it.

One of the pitfalls of any such ordinance, Hudson cautioned, is the creation of content-based exclusions. Hudson explained that in First Amendment law, content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of judicial review. And Hudson said he teaches his students the concept in part with a quote from Justice David Souter: “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.”

One example of a case in which a court found a law similar (but not identical) to Ann Arbor’s to be content-based, and therefore unconstitutional, came before a California court of appeals. From the opinion, which includes a description of the ordinances:

In this appeal we are asked to decide whether the City of Fresno’s municipal ordinance which restricts the door-to-door distribution of certain categories of written materials is constitutional. We are concerned with two parts of the ordinance. First, the ordinance prohibits-door-to-door distribution of advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when the owner or occupant of a residence or business has posted a sign prohibiting such distribution. Second, the ordinance prohibits door-to-door distribution of campaign materials, advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when it is reasonably apparent the previous day’s distribution has not been removed or the property is vacant. We hold both [31 Cal.App.4th 37] parts of the ordinance restrict the distribution of certain categories of protected speech and the press to the exclusion of other categories, and the City of Fresno failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a content-neutral justification for the disparate treatment. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)]

However, Hudson told The Chronicle that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the basic notion that residents have the right to control, at least to some degree, the extent to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their homes. In a 1970 case, the court ruled that citizens have the right to stop delivery via the U.S. Postal Service of material from specific senders:

But the right of every person ‘to be let alone’ must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate. In today’s complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail.
…
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ into which ‘not even the king may enter’ has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)]

And in a New York State Supreme Court decision, the court held that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

House Bill on Discrimination

On the agenda was a resolution expressing the council’s opposition to a proposed Michigan state house bill from Tom McMillin, a Republican representing District 45, which includes Rochester. McMillin’s bill would amend Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act by declaring null and void legislation enacted by local units that expands the set of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act. [.pdf of Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act] [.pdf of McMillin's proposed bill (HB 5039)]

The protected classes enumerated in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act include categories based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. The city of Ann Arbor’s non-discrimination ordinance adds sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status as classes of people against whom discrimination is prohibited. [.pdf of Ann Arbor's Chapter 112 non-discrimination ordinance]

So McMillin’s bill, if eventually signed into law, would nullify Ann Arbor’s Chapter 112 of the city code. The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution cites Michigan’s Constitution, which provides that ”Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law.” [.pdf of Section 22 of Michigan Constitution]

The bill has been referred to the state House judiciary committee. The 17-member judiciary committee for the state House includes 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, one of whom is Jeff Irwin (D-53), who represents a district that includes most of Ann Arbor.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, saying that she generally liked to present items that are positive. But sadly, she said, the resolution she was bringing was necessary to give a message to Lansing. She said that some in the state legislature treated the Michigan State Constitution as if it’s something they can bend at their will. Specifically, she said, the McMillin bill challenged the right of a city to establish laws of its own. It would roll back protections to groups prescribed in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She added a clause at the council table that sent a copy of the resolution to Gov. Rick Snyder.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated her understanding that the issue dealt with who could receive financial benefits. Smith clarified that this resolution was different from the resolution the council had approved on Sept. 19, 2011 expressing its opposition to House Bill 4770, which would limit benefits to same-sex partners. With that clarification, Briere said the resolution had her complete support.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that in fact there is a financial aspect to McMillin’s proposed legislation – it would take further steps to drive certain people away from the state, he said, who could otherwise contribute to Michigan’s economic recovery. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked for Smith and Briere for bringing the resolution forward.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution opposing House Bill 5039.

Organization of New Council

According to the city charter, the city council must elect from its members a mayor pro tem “at its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election …” That meeting was Nov. 21, which was the first meeting after Nov. 14, when councilmembers who won their elections on Nov. 8 took office.

Councilmembers were given a ceremonial swearing-in at the start of the Nov. 21 meeting by city clerk Jackie Beaudry (back to camera). From left to right: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

So at the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) were given a ceremonial swearing-in by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) moved the resolution nominating Higgins as mayor pro tem, along with the order of succession to the mayor.

Chris Easthope finished his service on the Ann Arbor city council as mayor pro tem. After Easthope left the council in 2008, going on to serve as judge on the 15th District Court, Higgins has been elected mayor pro tem each year.

The mayor pro tem acts as mayor when the elected mayor is unable to do so. When acting as the mayor, the mayor pro tem enjoys all duties and responsibilities of mayor, except that of the power of veto. With respect to other duties and responsibilities of the mayor as compared with other councilmembers, they consist largely of serving as emergency manager, making nominations to boards and commissions, presiding over meetings, and fulfilling a ceremonial function.

The mayor pro tem’s annual salary is the same as other councilmembers: $15,913. [The mayor earns more: $42,436.] Although the local officers compensation commission recommended in 2007 that the mayor pro tem be given additional compensation, the city council that year rejected that part of the commission’s recommendation.

Other than Taylor’s remark that the order of succession was seniority-based, but within that sorting “regrettably alphabetical,” the council did not engage in deliberations on the vote. Taylor’s comment likely related to the fact that he is alphabetically last among the four councilmembers who were elected for the first time in 2008 – Derezinski, Hohnke, Smith and Taylor.

The complete order of succession after Higgins is: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution electing Marcia Higgins as mayor pro tem and approving the order of succession to the mayor.

Also on the agenda were council committee appointments for the coming year and ratification of the council rules. The committee appointments were not prepared in time for the meeting and an amendment to the rules discussed by the council rules committee just before the council meeting was not added to the agenda until just before the council meeting.

That amendment relates to the rule requiring that emails received by councilmembers on government email accounts during council meetings be produced by the city, subject to redaction under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, and attached to the meeting minutes.

The proposed amended version of the rule would read:

Electronic communication sent and received by a member during a Council meeting shall be included in the minutes of such meeting, provided that the minutes shall not include electronic communication received by a member that clearly does not relate to the subject matter of the meeting.

During the rules committee meeting that preceded the council’s Nov. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) told other committee members that he was proposing the rule because the existing rule had resulted in the inclusion in the meeting minutes of one neighbor’s nasty comments about another neighbor, which did not serve the purpose of the rule.

That purpose, said Taylor, was to provide a complete record of the kind of input the council was receiving during its council meetings. [The rule was enacted in September 2009, after requests made under the Freedom of Information Act showed that councilmembers were using their email accounts to communicate with each other – on topics that ranged from juvenile horseplay to the subject matter of the meeting, to their political campaigns. For more background, see The Chronicle column: "When's an Open Meeting Open?"]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, reported at the committee’s meeting that she’d received a suggestion from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the rule on agenda setting:

Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to the Friday before the next Council meeting.

Higgins indicated that for this iteration of rule changes, she was not inclined to consider Lumm’s suggestion, which involved a requirement of a 3/4 majority vote in order to make late additions to the agenda. Higgins indicated the possibility of giving Lumm’s suggestion further review by the rules committee. She allowed that there were some agenda-setting issues that need to be addressed. She mentioned the fact that the second reading of the pedestrian ordinance was not supposed to be placed on the agenda for that night, yet had been put on the agenda, which had required its subsequent deletion.

Also during the rules committee meeting, Higgins indicated that the slate of committee appointments, which she is preparing, was not ready for perusal, because not everyone had submitted their preferences.

Council appointments will need to fill the slots that Stephen Rapundalo previously held, having lost the Nov. 8 Ward 2 election to Jane Lumm. Those include the following council committees: audit committee, budget committee, administration and labor committee, and liquor control committee. Rapundalo also served as the city council representative to the housing and human services board (HHSB) and the local development finance authority (LDFA) board.

At the Nov. 21 council meeting, Higgins announced her intent at the council’s next meeting to nominate Rapundalo to fill a different (non-council) slot on the LDFA board, which is an existing vacancy.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone ratification of council rules and committee appointments until Dec. 5.

Chilled Water

On the agenda was an item that provided permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. The long-term mechanism used to grant the permission is an “occupancy agreement.” The university and the city disagree on the question of whether the agreement grants the university an “interest in land.”

As a result, a memo from the city attorney’s office – which accompanied the resolution that the city council was asked to approve – states:

The University has insisted that the occupancy agreement be processed as a document that grants it an interest in land, even if it doesn’t. The City does not believe that the occupancy agreement grants to the University any interest in land. As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants the University, by its terms, an interest in land. Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but with agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document is being submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned what this actually meant. Briefly put, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the city council was being asked to give the agreement its approval as if it were granting an interest in land to the university, even though the city did not believe it was doing that. [The Nov. 21 agenda indicated the eight-vote majority city charter requirement, which is triggered by transactions involving an interest in land.]

Part of the context for the discussion with UM on the issue, explained Elias, was other similar arrangements, including some related to the East Stadium bridges reconstruction project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to grant permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. 

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Signed up as an alternate for one of the 10 reserved spots for public commentary at the start of the meeting was Orian Zakai. Priority is given to those who wish to address the council on an agenda topic, and eight people had signed up to speak about the public art ordinance, which was an agenda item, as well as two others who addressed agenda items.

Zakai and another student stayed until the end of the meeting towards midnight, when there’s another opportunity for the public to address the council. Zakai introduced herself as a PhD student at the University of Michigan, speaking on behalf of students who want to establish a 24-hour warming center. The Delonis Center, she said, has diminished capacity. [At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the council allocated $25,000 of the city's general fund reserve to keep the shelter's warming center open. It's open only during evening and nighttime hours.]

Zakai described how the goal of the group is to establish a 24-hour center, so that also during the day people have a place to go to stay warm.

She said that her group already has 25 volunteers and a petition signed by 516 community members. There will be an organizational meeting on Nov. 28, she said. [The meeting starts at 8 p.m. at Cafe Ambrosia, 326 Maynard.] Her group is trying to locate a site for the warming center by December, she said, and they are looking at a property at the corner of East Huron and Division. She asked the council to support the effort.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Community

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reported that Washtenaw County had received $3 million for a Sustainable Communities project. He said the grant resulted in large part from the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue corridor study that involved collaboration with four different communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Pittsfield Township. The key for winning the grant was the collaboration and the consideration of this area as a “region,” Derezinski said.

Comm/Comm: Stadium Bridges

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was pleased to be at the site of the groundbreaking for the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project, along with others. Details on detours can be found at annarborbridges.org, she said. She noted that Congressman John Dingell was there, as well as some federal luminaries.

Mayor John Hieftje said it was sobering to hear at that ceremony that there are bridges in worse condition than the Stadium Boulevard bridge – 14,000 in the U.S. are as bad or worse, he noted. He said that the infrastructure of the nation is in peril.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called everyone’s attention to a second public participation meeting at 618 S. Main, the site of the old Fox Tent and Awning facility and encouraged people to attend. [It took place on Nov. 22. For Chronicle coverage of the first meeting, on Nov. 11, see "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Proposal"]

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported she’d attended a presentation on Michigan’s medical marijuana law, given by Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette. [Briere is a member of the city's medical marijuana licensing board.]

Comm/Comm: Jane Lumm

Jane Lumm – who won the Nov. 8 election in Ward 2, displacing Stephen Rapundalo on the council – said she just wanted to say thanks for the nice welcome people had given her. Everyone has made her feel welcome, she said.

Comm/Comm: Sue McCormick

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, on her selection as the head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. He selection, he said, speaks to McCormick’s talents and abilities. Her last day, he said, would be on Dec. 16. An interim public services area administrator will be in place for Dec. 17, he said, and he would keep the council apprised of the process for a permanent replacement.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 5, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!

The city of Ann Arbor is partnering with Ann Arbor Township and Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation by contributing $49,500 towards the $99,000 cost of a conservation easement on a 23-acre property owned by Joe Bloch in Ann Arbor Township. Part of the land is currently used for farming.

For a second parcel, the council authorized $15,000 to partner with the Legacy Land Conservancy to preserve a 30-acre property owned by Charles Botero in Northfield Township. Botero is donating the conservation easement to the Legacy Land Conservancy – the $15,000 will cover the closing, due diligence, and stewardship costs for the property.

The greenbelt advisory commission recommended both fund expenditures at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Pittsfield Township planner Paul Montagno helps Anissa Bowden of the Ann Arbor city clerk's staff set up his presentation for the greenbelt advisory commission at its Aug. 10, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Township planner Paul Montagno briefed commissioners on Pittsfield Township’s updated master plan, which the township board approved late last month. Specifically, he focused on the section concerning open space, natural features and agricultural land use. He described efforts to balance denser development along corridors like State Road and Michigan Avenue while protecting more rural land, especially in the central and southern parts of the township.

Pittsfield Township has partnered with Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program on just one property – the Hilton farm, near the township’s large Pittsfield Preserve nature area. However, Montagno indicated that township officials are open to future land preservation deals with the greenbelt.

Also during the Aug. 10 meeting, Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which manages Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, reported that the previous day, the Salem Township board had approved an ordinance that created a purchase of development rights (PDR) program, and allocated $200,000 annually for land preservation. GAC is considering possible expansion of the greenbelt boundaries, including an expansion in Salem Township. The boundary proposal was discussed at the commission’s July meeting, and will be on the agenda again in September.

The commission took one formal vote on Wednesday, after emerging from a closed session to discuss land acquisition. Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution recommending that city council move forward with application 2010-09 if at least 50% matching funds are secured. Properties are identified only by application number at this stage, and the resolution did not indicate what type of land acquisition this would entail. Typically, greenbelt monies are spent on the purchase of development rights (PDR).

There is currently one vacancy on GAC. Shannon Brines, owner of Brines Farm and a member of the city’s public market advisory commission, attended Wednesday’s meeting and expressed interest in applying for the seat. Nominations to GAC are made and approved by the city council.

Pittsfield Township Land Preservation

Paul Montagno, a planner for Pittsfield Township, gave a brief presentation about land preservation efforts in the township, primarily as reflected in its recently updated 2010 master plan. Township supervisor Mandy Grewal had been scheduled to attend, but could not because of an unexpected conflict, he said.

The township’s final plan was adopted by the township board at its July 27, 2011 meeting. Among several components is a category for open space, natural features and agriculture. [.pdf of master plan section on open space, natural features and agriculture]

The township has its feet in many worlds, Montagno said. It’s near urban areas like Ann Arbor to the north, Saline to the southwest, and Ypsilanti to the east. But in many areas, Pittsfield Township is a rural community, and shares borders with other rural townships. There are a variety of land uses in the township – areas of density along corridors like State Road, Carpenter Road and Michigan Avenue, as well as rural areas that should be preserved. “Ultimately, what we’re looking at is a balance,” he said.

A "heat map" of development in Pittsfield Township – red and orange areas indicate denser commercial and residential development. Areas in the center and southern parts of the township include more open space, natural features and agricultural land. (Links to larger image)

The goal is to alleviate pressure on rural areas by focusing development along existing commercial and residential corridors – areas that already have water/sewer access and transportation, or that would be logical extensions of those existing corridors. The inverse of that is to look at agricultural and natural areas – primarily in the center and southern parts of the township – and find ways to preserve that land.

For each of the master plan’s key concepts, the plan identifies specific goals and then more detailed objectives to achieve those goals, Montagna said. Now that the plan has been officially adopted, he added, “the real work begins.”

Montagna reviewed the goals for the key concept of open space, natural features and agriculture:

• Encourage the protection of agricultural lands that are most productive and suited to agricultural operations, and implement policies that provide additional protection.
• Create connections between natural areas and protect significant viewsheds.
• Promote natural resources protection on a local and regional level in a planned and strategic manner.
• Ensure that development decisions support, protect and enhance the natural environments and ecosystems in the township.

As part of the plan’s implementation, updating the township’s zoning ordinances is a major project. The township will be looking for ways to support and promote agriculture, Montagno said. That might include things like allowing for a greater number of farm stands or activities like corn mazes. While not directly agricultural land use, he said, these uses would help make farming more economically viable.

Montagno concluded his presentation by noting that the final version of the master plan would be posted on the township’s website later in the week.

Pittsfield Township: Commissioner Discussion

Peter Allen asked if the Ann Arbor greenbelt program had partnered with Pittsfield on any land preservation efforts. Just one, Montagno said – the Hilton farm, about 90 acres at the corner of Morgan and Platt roads, near the township’s large Pittsfield Preserve. Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which manages the greenbelt program, confirmed that there are no other potential deals in the pipeline.

Mike Garfield asked whether the township envisioned having funds for a purchase of development rights (PDR) program in the future. Montagno said the township would look at possible tools, like the PDR, to pursue land preservation. They had no specific plans now, he said, but those are among the implementation goals of the township’s master plan.

Garfield followed up by asking whether the township would consider making a financial contribution to a deal, if a project were presented. Montagno indicated that budgets are tight, but said he didn’t want to say no. As a policy, the township would work with programs like the greenbelt or Legacy Land Conservancy on land preservation projects, he said.

Saying he’d heard rumors that some people in the township want to see currently protected property open for development, Garfield also wanted to know if there was any truth to that. Montagno said he wasn’t aware of that, although during the process of updating the master plan, he said township officials felt pressure to change some areas that were zoned for lower density uses – some people wanted areas rezoned for more commercial uses.

Garfield praised the township for its land preservation work over the last 10-20 years, especially in the center of the township. The township has created a remarkable buffer between the rural areas and the cities of Ann Arbor, Saline and Ypsilanti, he said. The greenbelt commissioners had been happy to partner on the Hilton property, Garfield said, and if there are other opportunities, GAC would like to participate.

Montagno responded by saying that a major part of the master plan had been an emphasis on connectivity. While Garfield had characterized it as a buffer, the township doesn’t want to create barriers, Montagno said. So township officials are also looking for ways to connect residents to the preserved land – things like low-intensity roads through some of the preserves and gravel parking lots with bioswales for stormwater management. Providing a certain amount of access will enhance the popularity of land preservation, he said.

Tom Bloomer, a GAC member and Webster Township farmer, noted that one of the objectives listed under the goal of protecting agricultural lands is to balance the rights of farmers and adjacent residential property owners. What did that mean? Bloomer asked.

Montagno said the township wants to make sure that property uses next to agricultural lands are appropriate. There can be tensions between residential developments and farms, he said. A farm’s dust, odors and hours of operation might conflict with residents of a housing development, for example, and whenever possible there should be a natural buffer between the two types of land uses.

With no further questions from commissioners, Montagno wrapped up by saying the township definitely wanted to partner with Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program in the future.

Misc. Communications

Ginny Trocchio told commissioners that Shannon Brines, an Ann Arbor resident and owner of Brines Farm in Dexter, had come to the meeting after expressing interest in a vacancy that’s available on the commission.

Shannon Brines, owner of Brines Farm, is interested in the vacancy on the greenbelt advisory commission, and attended its Aug. 10 meeting.

Brines came to the podium and spoke briefly, telling commissioners that he kept up with their work by reading minutes as well as Ann Arbor Chronicle meeting reports. The commission’s work is important, he said: “You have followers.”

Brines said he started working at the University of Michigan in 1998 – he is manager of the environmental spatial analysis (ESA) lab at the School of Natural Resources and Environment. He does a lot of work with GIS mapping, helping researchers and students on land use and other issues. Brines also is a lecturer at UM, and said there might be some occasions when his courses conflicted with GAC meetings.

Brines started his farm in 2004. It’s located outside the greenbelt boundary, he noted, and also would fall outside of the proposed expansion of its boundaries. Though he sells produce year-round at the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, Brines said he’s best known for his hoop house produce, selling greens from November through May.

This was not mentioned at the meeting, but since 2007 Brines also has served on the city’s public market advisory commission, which handles issues related to the farmers market. His current term on that commission ends in 2014.

Peter Allen encouraged Brines to apply for a position on GAC, saying his point of view and background would be a valuable addition.

Two vacancies opened on GAC earlier this year. Liz Rother was appointed by the city council in June to replace term-limited Jennifer Santi Hall. The remaining vacancy is an at-large slot, held by former GAC member Gil Omenn. For most city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council.

Misc. Communications: Salem Township

Trocchio reported that on Tuesday, the Salem Township board had approved an ordinance that created a purchase of development rights (PDR) program, and allocated $200,000 annually for land preservation. She said she looked forward to partnering with the township in the future.

GAC is considering possible expansion of the greenbelt boundaries, including an expansion in Salem Township. The proposal was discussed at the commission’s July meeting, and will be on the agenda again in September. Any changes recommended by GAC would need approval by the Ann Arbor city council before taking effect. Since the Open Space and Parkland Preservation millage was approved by voters in 2003, the council has expanded the boundaries once, in August 2007, by bumping out the boundary by a mile.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

Commissioners voted to enter into closed session to discuss land acquisitions, and emerged after about 40 minutes. Land acquisition is one of the few exceptions under the Open Meetings Act that allow for discussion out of public view. Commissioners then voted on a resolution to recommend that the city council move forward with application 2010-09 if at least 50% matching funds are secured. The resolution did not indicate what type of land acquisition this would entail. Typically, greenbelt monies are spent on the purchase of development rights (PDR).

Properties are identified only by application number at this stage. The location of the properties and their owners aren’t revealed until the resolutions are voted on by the city council.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the land acquisition recommendation.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Mike Garfield, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 14 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Liz Rother attended her first meeting as an Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioner on July 13. Her appointment was approved by the city council in June – she replaced Jennifer S. Hall, whose term had expired and who was term limited.

A subcommittee of GAC has been evaluating a potential greenbelt boundary change since November 2010. Options included expanding in Salem Township and Lodi Township to “square” off the boundaries, and allowing properties adjacent to the greenbelt to be eligible for the program. Another option would be to create a one-mile “buffer” around the existing boundaries, and include properties within that buffer if they met stricter criteria. Whatever recommendation GAC eventually makes would require Ann Arbor city council approval.

Also at July’s meeting, commissioners got an update on Scio Township’s land preservation efforts from Barry Lonik (a consultant who works with the township) and Bruce Manny (a member of the township’s land preservation commission). Lonik noted that the township’s 10-year, half-mill land preservation millage expires in 2014. The land preservation commission would like to get a renewal on the November 2012 ballot, to coincide with higher voter turnout for the presidential election.

It was the first meeting for GAC’s newest commissioner, Liz Rother, who was appointed by the city council in June to replace term-limited Jennifer Santi Hall. Another position, held by former GAC member Gil Omenn, remains vacant. Dan Ezekiel – who was elected GAC’s chair at the meeting – urged anyone who’s interested in serving on the commission to contact their city councilmember.

During his communications to fellow commissioners, Ezekiel noted the recent death of “Grandpa” Don Botsford, calling him a real pioneer and champion of land preservation in this area. Botsford was man who lived in poverty rather than sell his land to developers, Ezekiel said. He eventually sold part of his property’s development rights to Scio Township, in partnership with Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program – it’s now known as the Botsford Recreational Preserve, near M-14 and Miller Road. Botsford introduced thousands of people to the natural environment, Ezekiel said, so it was fitting to note his contribution and his passing.

Scio Township Land Preservation

Barry Lonik and Bruce Manny of the Scio Township land preservation commission had been invited to give GAC members an update on land preservation efforts in the township. They were asked specifically to update GAC about how Scio Township is prioritizing its acquisitions to preserve land. Lonik – of Treemore Ecology and Land Services – is a consultant for Scio Township, working on land preservation issues.

The prioritizing process took about a year and was just recently completed, Lonik said. The commission had reviewed applications they’d previously received but hadn’t acted on. Since Scio Township voters had approved a land preservation millage in 2004, the township had completed nine projects, he said, but there are about two dozen others that the commission hasn’t acted on. These applications hadn’t received high scores on the scoring system that the township uses to rate potential acquisitions. For some of them, Scio Township had approached potential funding partners, he said, but no one had been interested, and the applications languished.

In taking a closer look, Lonik said he realized that the applications weren’t the greatest properties. It seemed the land preservation program wasn’t attracting higher priority properties in the township. So at that point, the commission started a process of prioritizing. Lonik referenced a May 2010 memo he’d written to the township land preservation commission, recommending critical factors to consider in the three land categories allowed by the land preservation ordinance: farmland, open space, and potential park properties. From the memo:

Farmland critical factors

• proximity to protected land: properties in the vicinity of protected agricultural properties, including areas in adjacent townships.
• viable agricultural operation: properties where a functional agricultural business is located or is integral to a business.
• blocks of farmland: located along the northern, southern and western boundaries, including areas in adjacent townships.
• scenic: visible from publicly accessible areas (roads primarily).
• soils: highest quality soils for agricultural production.
• size: properties large enough to utilize modern farm equipment.

Open space critical factors

• Huron River Watershed Council bioreserve area: high or medium priority.
• water quality protection: containing a seasonal or perennial stream, or wetlands that provide stream buffers and/or serve as headwater areas.
• corridors and blocks: properties that could add to existing blocks or provide links for wildlife and/or people.
• public access: properties that could be purchased and made available to the public.
• scenic: visible from publicly accessible areas (roads primarily).
• parcel size: properties of a sufficient size that important features could be protected.
• development potential: properties on which structures could be built, which would diminish open space values.

Park critical factors

• size: a regional park large enough to accommodate developed recreational activities.
• location: a more central location to provide easy access to the greatest number of residents.
• visibility: to provide a feeling of safety and for easy way-finding.
• topographic features: a sizable number of acres must be fairly flat to develop sports fields.
• surrounding land use: proximity to higher density residential was a positive, while either entirely rural surroundings or scattered large lot residential was not.
• features diversity: having features such as forest fragments, streams and ponds as well as large open space for active recreation.
• access: properties along major corridors were given a higher rating than property along gravel raods and along minor, less traveled roadways.

Lonik said he’s tromped around Scio Township for about 15 years, and has a good sense for where higher priority properties are located. He developed the list of critical factors – outlined in the May 2010 memo – by using his own knowledge of the area, the ordinance requirements, and the scoring system that’s been used by the township land preservation commission.

Barry Lonik, a consultant for Scio Township, talks about land preservation priorities for the township.

He said he then listed each property that had any natural resource value in the township, and assigned each property a high, medium or low priority in each category of land (open space, farmland or parkland). Lonik said he didn’t want to publicize the list of landlowners at this point, even though the township isn’t actively trying to acquire these properties.

The township also hired Carlisle/Wortman Associates, an Ann Arbor-based planning firm, to develop a series of maps, which show where the priority properties are located in relation to: (1) bioreserve areas in the township; and (2) the township’s master plan designations. Another map shows the high priority properties in relation to areas that are already protected – either by the township’s programs or others. One map shows only the high priority properties in each category, and another map indicates the location of all priority properties – high, medium and low.

Some applications are already in hand for properties that have been identified as high priority, Lonik said. In addition, the township has sent letters and applications to landowners of all high, medium and low priority properties, asking them to apply to the land preservation program. Finally, Lonik said he’ll be personally contacting the owners of all land designated as high priority, to encourage them to apply. Often, people are reluctant to apply to a program blindly, without first establishing a relationship and getting more information, Lonik said.

He thanked GAC members for the partnerships the greenbelt program has already done with Scio Township, and said he looked forward to many more. Lonik noted that the township’s 10-year, half-mill land preservation millage expires in 2014. The land preservation commission would like to get a renewal on the November 2012 ballot, to coincide with higher voter turnout for the presidential election. It’s likely a renewal will pass, Lonik said, given the history of support for land preservation by township residents. The original millage passed with 76% of the vote, and the more recent countywide millage for the Washtenaw County natural areas preservation program was supported by 63% of voters in Scio Township.

Scio Township Land Preservation: Commissioner Discussion

In response to a question from Catherine Riseng, Lonik said that of all the high priority properties, only four are for possible parks – most are open space parcels. The township doesn’t own any park properties, Lonik noted, but that’s of interest in the future, assuming that township officials can find land with the right qualities – located with easy access to the township’s population centers, with a mix of open land for fields as well as natural areas. Not many properties meet those criteria, Lonik noted. Of the roughly 100 priority properties he’s identified through this process, about two-thirds of them are open space, as opposed to farmland or potential parkland.

In response to a query from Dan Ezekiel, Lonik told commissioners that about 8,400 acres of farmland have been preserved countywide in the past 15 years or so. That amount includes land protected by a variety of programs, including township preservation millages, Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, the county’s natural areas preservation program, state easements and land conservancies. By next year, that number will likely push past 10,000 acres, Lonik said. It’s really extraordinary, he said, considering that the first deal occurred just recently, in 1997, when the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy protected property at the corner of Prospect and Geddes roads. He noted that Manny’s farm on Parker Road in Scio Township was among the first farms to be preserved.

Ezekiel observed that the greenbelt program had participated in protecting 3,200 acres. He then asked whether Lonik knew if Saginaw Forest – a property in Scio Township that’s owned by the University of Michigan – is protected through a conservation easement. It’s not, Lonik said, nor have township officials approached the university about that possibility. In Michigan, state law requires that public entities like UM dispose of their assets at market value, he said – UM couldn’t just donate the property. However, it’s possible that the township or city could buy a conservation easement, if they wanted to, he said.

Ezekiel thanked Lonik for coming, and said it would be great if other townships within the greenbelt did this kind of work. GAC was open to suggestions for partnering on properties in Scio Township, he said, adding that the city was very proud of the properties it had already partnered on with the township: the Fox Science Preserve, Scio Woods Preserve, and the Botsford Recreational Preserve.

Ezekiel also wished Lonik a happy 50th birthday.

Greenbelt Boundaries

At GAC’s November 2010 meeting, commissioners formed a subcommittee to explore possible changes to the existing boundary of the greenbelt district. The intent would be to give the program greater flexibility in protecting desirable properties that fall just outside the current boundaries. [.pdf map of existing greenbelt district] Any changes recommended by GAC would need approval by the Ann Arbor city council before taking effect. Since the Open Space and Parkland Preservation millage passed in 2003, the council has expanded the boundaries once, in August 2007, by bumping out the boundary by a mile.

In introducing the topic at GAC’s July 13 meeting, Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund – which has a contract with the city to manage the greenbelt program – explained the rationale for the subcommittee’s recommendations. She said the subcommittee looked at maps of larger properties inside and outside of the greenbelt, reviewing what’s already been protected and identifying other potential greenbelt property that’s in the Huron River watershed and that contains other natural features.

Trocchio reviewed the subcommittee’s two recommended options:

Option 1:

1. Expand the boundaries in Salem Township and Lodi Township to “square” off the boundaries. The Salem Township boundary would be extended 1 mile to the east so the eastern Greenbelt boundary would be consistent with Superior Township. The Lodi Township boundary would be extended 1 mile to the west and 1 mile to the south so the boundaries would be consistent with Scio Township and Pittsfield Township.

2) Additionally, to allow one of the following: a) Greenbelt’s participation on any property that is adjacent to the Greenbelt boundary, or b) Greenbelt’s participation on any property that is adjacent to the Greenbelt boundary, or extends a contiguous block of contiguous protected land, that is within the Greenbelt boundary.

Option 2:

1) Expand the boundaries in Lodi Township and Salem Township as described above.

2) Create a 1-mile buffer area surrounding the Greenbelt boundary to allow the Greenbelt’s participation, for exceptional properties or if stricter criteria are met. The specific criteria are still to be determined, but examples included: a) if there is a local partner willing to take the lead; b) if it extends a block of protected properties that originates in the Greenbelt boundary; c) significant for protection of Huron River Watershed; d) higher percentage of matching funds; e) or limiting the percentage of funds expended in “buffer” area.

Lodi Township has expressed more of a willingness to work with the greenbelt program in recent years, Trocchio said, even though that township doesn’t have a dedicated millage for land preservation. There are also some great, large farmland parcels in Lodi, she noted. Salem Township is also considering more financial contributions to land preservation, possibly by earmarking $200,000 annually from the township’s landfill revenue for that purpose, she said.

Greenbelt Expansion: Commissioner Discussion

Peter Allen began by saying he didn’t see any downside to Option 2 – were there any? Trocchio said the one possible objection would be that an expanded boundary would push protected land farther away from the city.

Map of Ann Arbor greenbelt with potential expanded boundaries. The solid green line indicates the current boundary. The dotted green lines in the lower left (Lodi Township) and upper right (Salem Township) indicate proposed "bump outs." The black line indicates a potential one-mile buffer zone. (Links to larger image.)

Dan Ezekiel, who chaired the boundary subcommittee, noted that distance from the city was a matter of degree. Everything within the expanded boundary would still be within an easy hour bike ride from downtown Ann Arbor – that’s his rule of thumb. He also noted the greenbelt program had vastly more partnership opportunities now than when the program started with the original boundaries. For example, Washtenaw County’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) was modified last year to allow the county to spend up to 25% of its millage on the purchase of development rights for farmland. [See Chronicle coverage of a presentation on the county's efforts at GAC's March 2011 meeting.]

Laura Rubin asked whether there’s been a decrease in applications to the program from landowners within the existing greenbelt boundaries. No, Trocchio said – the program completed an unprecedented number of deals last year.

In that case, Rubin said, one of the cons to expanding the boundaries might be that there are still opportunities for protecting land closer to the city, closer to Ann Arbor taxpayers who are paying for the program.

Mike Garfield said that one issue is interpreting the intent of Ann Arbor voters who approved the millage. The original boundaries were set more by art than science, he noted. Garfield said he didn’t have a strong opinion about it, but that it made sense to take advantage of opportunities – when valuable properties become available, it’s beneficial to be able to act, as long as the properties aren’t too far from the city. He pointed out that the last time GAC considered expansion, he resisted expanding the boundaries in Lodi Township, because township officials hadn’t been receptive to the program. That’s now changed, he said. It looks like there are a lot of properties worth protecting in the expanded areas. While the program needs boundaries, it hurts not to be able to protect land that’s close, but not within the borders.

Allen suggested supporting Option 2. Tom Bloomer then weighed in, saying he wasn’t necessarily opposed to the expansion, but he wanted more time to think about it. He was particularly interested in flexibility for properties adjacent to the greenbelt, owned by the same person. Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer, was less certain about a general geographic expansion of the boundaries – he said he didn’t want to just keep expanding, because it runs the risk of diluting the program’s efforts.

Ezekiel pointed to one example of a property owner holding land on both sides of a road – one parcel was within the greenbelt boundary, the other was not. The greenbelt program was able to secure matching federal funds for the portion within the greenbelt, but not for the adjacent land that fell outside the boundary.

Carsten Hohnke, a commissioner who also represents Ward 5 on Ann Arbor city council, supported Bloomer’s desire to postpone action. He cited concerns he’s heard expressed by people who feel there’s still land that can be preserved within the existing boundaries, closer to the city. Though it isn’t explicit in the ordinance, he said, there was a good community discussion before the 2003 vote about where the boundaries would be, and that needs to be taken into account. He thought the notion of loosening language to allow for protecting properties contiguous to the greenbelt made sense, in that it would eliminate the “across the street” issue.

Ezekiel clarified that whatever recommendation is made by GAC would be forwarded to the Ann Arbor city council for approval. He noted that when the original greenbelt boundaries were set, GAC almost immediately found the boundaries too constraining. He wished that Lodi and Salem townships had been included in the 2007 expansion, but the thinking at that time was to expand into areas where townships were willing to partner.

Allen asked Trocchio to estimate how much land within the existing greenbelt boundary has already been protected – 50%? 80%? Trocchio guessed it was probably closer to 20%. Garfield noted that the intent was never to get conservation easements on 100% of farmland and open space. The original idea was to stop sprawl, he said, to help farmers stay on their land and make their operations viable. If there are large blocks of protected farmland, he said, the thought was that it would have a ripple effect that would prevent development.

Bloomer observed that identifying a percentage is a moving target, because the program is voluntary. Land is only “available” for protection if the landowner is interested in being part of the greenbelt program. In the greenbelt’s early days, almost no land was available, he said, because people weren’t familiar with the program. It would be hard to measure a percentage, even now.

Trocchio offered to organize a field trip for commissioners, taking them out to see the proposed expansion and the land that might be available if the boundaries are changed. Ezekiel supported that idea, and said he sensed that commissioners were reluctant to proceed at this meeting. Hohnke then made a motion to postpone, which was seconded by Allen.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone a vote on the greenbelt boundary expansion until GAC’s next meeting. A meeting is scheduled for Aug. 10, but might be cancelled if a quorum can’t be achieved.

Election of Officers, Seeking Another Member

Dan Ezekiel, who has served as GAC’s vice chair for the past year, chaired the July meeting and was nominated as chair. Catherine Riseng was nominated vice chair, after Laura Rubin confirmed that Riseng was willing to do it. Riseng said that although she had concerns about the time commitment, she’d be willing to give it a try – unless any of the other commissioners were “gung-ho” to do it. (Apparently they were not.)

Outcome: Dan Ezekiel and Catherine Riseng were unanimously elected chair and vice chair, respectively.

Ezekiel welcomed Liz Rother to GAC, replacing Jennifer Santi Hall, whose term expired on June 30 and who was prevented by the ordinance that established the greenbelt program from seeking additional terms. Both she and Gil Omenn, who also stepped down from GAC as of June 30, had been term limited. Ezekiel noted that Rother was an accomplished gardener and beekeeper, and had been attending GAC meetings for several months before her appointment was approved by city council at their June 20 meeting.

Three seats on GAC are open to the general public, Ezekiel said – he and Rother now fill two of those seats. But a third general public seat – previously held by Omenn – remains open. The commission’s work is nowhere near completion, he said, and it’s important work. The term runs for three years, and members can serve two consecutive terms. Anyone who’s interested in volunteering can contact their Ann Arbor city councilmember. Unlike most other city commissions, in which members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by council, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council.

Communications: Remembering Don Botsford

During the July 13 meeting, Dan Ezekiel noted the recent death of “Grandpa” Don Botsford, calling him a real pioneer and champion of land preservation in this area.

By way of additional background, Botsford, 82, died on June 27. He was known for generations for the Ann Arbor Gymkana, which closed in 1986, and for his enthusiasm for spaceball – a game combining elements of basketball and volleyball, played on a trampoline. The Chronicle visited Botsford two years ago: “Back to the Future with Spaceball.” The article quotes Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, who played competitive spaceball under Botsford’s tutelage in the 1960s.

Botsford was man who lived in poverty rather than sell his land to developers, Ezekiel said. He eventually sold development rights to part of his property in Scio Township – it’s now known as the Botsford Recreational Preserve, near M-14 and Miller Road. Botsford introduced thousands of people to the natural environment, Ezekiel said, so it was fitting to note his contribution and his passing.

Communications: More Notes from the Chair

Ezekiel also noted that GAC’s June 16 open house at the Braun farm went well – certificates were presented to several landowners who had participated in the greenbelt program. The Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township is one of the greenbelt’s more recent protected properties.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which manages Ann Arbor's greenbelt program, talks with Dan Ezekiel, who was elected chair of the greenbelt advisory commission at the July 13 meeting.

Ezekiel commended the work of Lisa Gottlieb and Jeff McCabe, who recently completed their “20 hoops in 20 days” effort to build hoop houses at local farms – including some located within the greenbelt. Ezekiel reminded commissioners that the couple, who also run the Friday breakfast salon Selma Cafe, had made a presentation about the hoop house project at GAC’s November 2010 meeting. It was a tremendous achievement, Ezekiel said.

Later in the meeting, Ezekiel noted that Bob Sutherland, owner of Cherry Republic – which recently opened a downtown Ann Arbor story at the corner of Main and Liberty – wants to contribute $2,500 toward land preservation in the greenbelt. The city welcomes these kinds of contributions from private businesses, he said.

Communications: Staff Report

Ginny Trocchio reported that the greenbelt program had received $312,620 from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) to help pay for the purchase of development rights on the 110-acre Lindemann-Weidmayer farm in Lodi Township. That deal will be going to the city council soon, she said. [The council approved the deal at its July 18, 2011 meeting.]

Trocchio also told commissioners that Gov. Rick Snyder has signed the farmland preservation bill (Public Act 79). The law provides incentives to farmers to pay back defaulted Public Act 116 agreements. Farmers who enroll in Michigan’s Farmland and Open Space Protection Program (PA 116) get tax incentives. However, if they quit the program they must repay the state – if not, the state puts a lien against their property, Trocchio explained. Until now, there hasn’t been a way for the state to collect those funds. Payments would be added to the state’s Agriculture Preservation Fund, which is used to make grants to local communities for the purchase of farmland conservation easements.

Proposed Greenbelt Acquisitions

Near the end of the meeting, commissioners went into a closed session to discuss land acquisitions. They emerged after about 45 minutes and voted on two resolutions:

1. a resolution recommending that the city council approve spending up to $121,365 in partnership with Webster Township for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on a property that’s in close proximity to other greenbelt parcels.
2. a resolution recommending that the city council approve spending up to $49,500 in partnership with Ann Arbor Township for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on a property in that township.

The properties were identified only by application number – 2011-03 and 2011-02, respectively. The location of the properties and their owners aren’t revealed until the resolutions are voted on by the city council.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the two land acquisition recommendations.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Carsten Hohnke, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 10 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

On Feb. 7, 2011 the council had already approved a grant application to the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for the purchase of development rights on the property. And on June 6, 2011 the council approved the acceptance of $312,620 from the USDA for the purchase. The deal had been recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission, after discussion in a closed session at its Feb. 9, 2011 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

From left: Peter Allen, Julie Grand, Ella and Jennifer Santi Hall, Dan Ezekiel. Grand is chair of the park advisory commission. Allen, Hall and Ezekiel are greenbelt advisory commissioners. Jennifer Hall has served as GAC chair, but her term is ending on the commission – this was her last meeting. Ella Hall also had attended the first GAC meeting with her mother seven years ago – she was three weeks old at the time. (Photo by the writer.)

They covered many of the same topics that they’d discussed at their first joint meeting in April 2010 – funding issues, land preservation and acquisition strategies, as well as specific projects like the Allen Creek greenway and support for small farms.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which has a contract to manage the greenbelt and park land acquisition programs, gave commissioners an overview of finances, projects and goals. Both programs are funded by a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax for land acquisition, called the open space and parkland preservation millage, which Ann Arbor voters approved in 2003. Two-thirds of the millage proceeds are used for the greenbelt program, and one-third is allotted to park land acquisition. To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal 2006 that’s being paid back with revenue from the millage. Current combined fund balances for the two programs total nearly $9 million.

Trocchio also highlighted an upcoming event to celebrate the greenbelt program. On Thursday, June 16, an open house will be hosted at the Braun farm – one of the program’s protected properties in Ann Arbor Township. The event is free and open to the public, and starts at 5:30 p.m. – parking is available at 4175 Whitmore Lake Road.

At the end of the June 7 meeting, commissioners congratulated two GAC members for their service – it was the final meeting for Gil Omenn and Jennifer Santi Hall, who has served as chair. Their terms expire June 30, and it’s not clear when appointments to replace them will be made.

Greenbelt Program: Overview

Trocchio began with an update on the greenbelt program. To date, $17.86 million has been spent on the program – she noted that three greenbelt deals have closed in the last few weeks. [The deals are for the Lee and Lori Maulbetsch property in Northfield Township, and two properties – in Northfield Township and Salem Township – owned by Nancy and Rose Geiger.] Subtracting $769,580 that’s been earmarked for pending projects, that leaves an unallocated fund balance of $4,826,465.

Trocchio reviewed the greenbelt program’s strategic plan, which provides a framework for reviewing applications. [.pdf of strategic plan] Key elements include:

• Targeting properties that: (1) help form 1,000-acre blocks of protected land; (2) work with partners whenever possible; (3) protect land along the Huron River; and (4) support local foods.
• Leveraging the city’s greenbelt funds by partnering with other governments or land preservation groups. Trocchio noted that the city is part of Preserve Washtenaw, a consortium of land preservation groups that meets monthly.
• Focusing on the purchase of development rights (PDR). The millage funds can only be used for acquisition, not land management or development. By buying development rights, the city doesn’t own the land itself, but prevents it from being developed.
• Partnering with Washtenaw County. The city has done three deals with the county, via the Washtenaw County natural areas preservation program (NAPP): the Fox Science Preserve, Meyer Preserve and Scio Woods Preserve. It’s a good partnership, Trocchio said, because the county takes on the role of managing the land, and provides public access to the properties. The greenbelt program contributes funds for acquisition.

In outlining the program’s accomplishments, Trocchio said that they’ve achieved a 1,000-acre block of protected land in two locations: Webster and Ann Arbor townships. Each deal has included contributions from partners or grant funding – amounting to at least 20% of the PDR price. And while so far, none of the greenbelt properties are along the Huron River, land protected under the program does include tributaries of the river, she said.

Since the program started, 27 transactions have been completed and 3,200 acres have protected under the program, Trocchio reported.

Pointing to the fact that about 3,200 acres of land is now protected, Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s vice chair, put the size of these greenbelt properties into perspective, noting that not everyone has an intuitive feel for the amount of acreage being described. One square mile equals 640 acres, he said, so 3,200 acres would be five square miles. Burns Park and Veterans Memorial Park are each about 40 acres – the greenbelt has protected the equivalent of about 80 such places, he said.

The city has spent $17.86 million, but leveraged an additional $18.59 million, Trocchio reported – including $9.38 million in grant funding, $4.1 million in township funds, $2.76 million from Washtenaw County and $2.2 million in landowner contributions.

Now is a great time for farmland preservation, Trocchio said, because land values have dropped, allowing the city to stretch its greenbelt dollars. Because of the economic downturn, there’s also less competition from developers vying for the same properties, which contributes to lower land costs.

There are also increased partnership opportunities with Washtenaw County, Trocchio said. Last year, the county board of commissioners amended its NAPP ordinance to include a stronger emphasis on agricultural land – now, up to 25% of the NAPP millage can be spent on the purchase of development rights on agricultural properties. [For more background, see Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt, County Look to Partner on Farms"]

In addition, several townships also have land preservation millages, including Webster, Scio and Ann Arbor townships. While much of that funding is already used, it’s likely the township millages be on the ballot for renewal in 2012 or 2013, Trocchio said.

Greenbelt: Commissioner Discussion – Acquisitions

Referring to a map from Trocchio’s presentation, John Lawter of PAC wondered why the greenbelt hadn’t focused on acquisitions on the west side of the county. The map had highlighted areas that GAC views as priorities, and included Webster and northern Scio townships, Northfield and Ann Arbor townships, Salem and Superior townships, a portion of Pittsfield Township, and Lodi Township.

This map shows boundaries of the Ann Arbor greenbelt program, in green. The city of Ann Arbor boundaries are in yellow. Sections outlined in pink are viewed as priority locations for land preservation.

GAC chair Jennifer Santi Hall said that some of the townships that were highlighted as a focus were those that had passed land preservation millages – those funds helped leverage greenbelt money in buying development rights. The prioritized areas also reflected interest on the part of landowners, she said.

Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund noted another factor – the size of properties available for the greenbelt. The greenbelt program tries to tap federal funding when possible, and those funds have been limited to deals on property that was a minimum of 40 acres. The focus areas are also in portions of the county that are not densely developed, where it’s feasible to build 1,000-acre blocks.

Dan Ezekiel of GAC pointed out that the greenbelt program has contributed to deals in building a 1,000-acre block of protected land in Salem and Superior townships, in partnership with others. He also noted that Pittsfield Township has protected a significant block of land on its own – known as the Pittsfield Preserve.

Lawter wanted clarification that properties in the west could be considered for the greenbelt program – it’s just that the area isn’t a priority. GAC commissioners assured him that this was the case.

Greenbelt: Commissioner Discussion – Property Values

Sam Offen of PAC wondered what happens to township taxes when properties are added to the greenbelt – do the townships get less tax revenue? Kohring said that in most cases, conservation easements haven’t affected taxable value.

Kohring said the land’s market value does take a dip when a landowner sells the property’s development rights. With development rights, farmland or open space might be valued on the market at $8,000 per acre – that value might drop to $5,000 per acre after development rights are transferred.

Offen wondered if the taxable value increases when property changes hands, even if the development rights have been sold. Peter Allen, a local developer and member of GAC, said that depends on the underlying value of the land itself, which can’t be developed. In general, Allen observed that the value of developable farmland has dropped significantly in recent years, from around $16,000 per acre. He believes some land that was intended for subdivisions might actually revert to farmland, because of market forces. Tim Berla of PAC noted that the land might be more valuable if it’s located next to protected land.

Kohring observed that development values continue to fall: “We have not hit bottom yet.” Allen agreed, citing the oversupply of housing that was built in the boom years. In Superior Township, for example, there’s at least a 15-year supply of housing, he said. That’s coupled with a cultural shift away from home ownership, and excitement about living in an urban area. “I think the American Dream has fundamentally change,” Allen said.

Tim Doyle of PAC said some people might view this situation and say there’s no need for land preservation – it’s being taken care of by market forces. That’s a challenge of perception, he said. Ezekiel noted that the best time to do this kind of preservation work is when land values are low.

Offen asked if there was any financial value to the development rights that the city owns. No, Trocchio said – it’s considered a liability, in part because it requires a certain amount of enforcement by the city.

Greenbelt: Commissioner Discussion – Publicizing the Greenbelt

Doyle asked how property is identified for inclusion in the greenbelt – do property owners approach the city, or does the city staff solicit property owners? Both, Trocchio said. Doyle indicated that it might be time to revitalize public awareness about the greenbelt. Since the millage was passed, there’s been some population turnover, and others who were here at the time might have forgotten about the program, he said.

At the start of the greenbelt program, the farming community wasn’t aware of it, Trocchio said. Now, she’s seen an increase in applications from landowners.

Hall felt there’s a greater awareness of the greenbelt program outside of Ann Arbor, especially since some townships also have land preservation programs now. To raise awareness among Ann Arbor residents, the city held a bus tour of greenbelt properties last summer, and will hold an open house on June 16 at the Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township.

They’re also trying to make the connection between Ann Arbor taxpayers and their local food supply, Hall said. [See Chronicle coverage: "Leveling the Field for Small Farms"] Offen asked if farmers whose land is part of the greenbelt program sell food at the Ann Arbor farmers market. At this point, most of the farmers market vendors own farms outside of the greenbelt boundaries, Hall said. Trocchio added that land values closer to the city are higher, so it’s harder for small farms to make a financially viable business. Some farmers also prefer to sell wholesale to restaurants and groceries. And larger farms typically produce crops like grains and soybeans, which aren’t sold at farmers markets.

Ezekiel pointed to another issue with publicizing the program: Its name. People often confuse “greenbelt” and “greenway,” he said, or they think the “belt” implies a no-development zone encircling the city. He would have preferred the term “emerald necklace.”

There’s also an existential problem, Ezekiel noted. The greenbelt already exists – the program is simply trying to protect it. “When we do our work well, nothing changes, that anyone can see,” he said. “Our work by its nature is under the radar.”

Parkland Acquisition: Overview

In her update to commissioners on the parkland portion of the millage, Trocchio reported that $8,538,304 has been spent as of Dec. 31, 2010, leaving a $4,369,415 fund balance. Of that, $246,000 is set aside for pending projects.

Trocchio highlighted changes related to land acquisition in the city’s Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, which was updated earlier this year. Priorities include identifying underserved neighborhoods, where residents aren’t within a quarter-mile walk to a park. After using GIS data to find geographic locations that fit this description, PAC members went out and researched these areas to assess the need, Trocchio said. For example, although Dolph Park is located on the city’s far west side, it doesn’t include a playground area – that’s a need for residents in that part of town. “But for the most part,” Trocchio said, “the city is being very well-served.”

Conversations about parkland acquisition tend to revolve around enhancing what the city already owns, she said – enhancing access, linkages between parks, and greenways. One example is the recent acquisition of a lot on Chapin Street, adjacent to West Park. The house on that property was removed, and now there’s much more visibility of the park from that street.

Another goal is to protect the Huron River and other natural features, Trocchio said. Proposed acquisitions and improvements outlined in the PROS plan show plans for a Huron River greenway, for example.

The parks portion of the shared millage is focused on land within the city limits, Trocchio said. She also outlined several issues that factor into land acquisition decisions, including budget constraints for development and long-term maintenance of parkland, and concerns over taking city property off the tax rolls.

Parkland: Commissioner Discussion – Allen Creek Greenway

Peter Allen asked PAC members what it would take to make the Allen Creek greenway happen. Gwen Nystuen said that as a start, the city needs to designate three parcels that it owns – at 415 W. Washington, First & William, and 721 N. Main – to be part of the greenway. That hasn’t been authorized, she said.

Sam Offen observed that with those anchor properties established as part of a greenway, it would be easier to get momentum for other properties that would connect them. Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, said they’ve prioritized properties for a possible greenway, including some along the river. But until the city decides what to do with the properties it already owns, there’s no point in talking with landowners about a possible sale, she said.

Jennifer Hall asked what it would take procedurally to get things moving. When Nystuen said it would take the city designating its three properties for a greenway, Hall noted that the city council has already done that for the parcel at First and William. [In July 2009, council passed a resolution designating the city-owned parcel at the northeast corner of First and William as open space. And in February 2010, the council passed a resolution to explore a "greenway park and arts center" at 415 W. Washington. Council received an update on that effort at its April 4, 2011 meeting.]

Grand observed that the First and William parcel would require a lot of remediation. [It's now used as a surface parking lot. The 2009 resolution called for the city to seek additional funds for environmental remediation.]

John Lawter said that nothing has emerged as an opportunity for the greenway, but it’s still a priority.

Later in the meeting, Allen returned to the topic. He outlined how easements might be acquired from property owners between 415 W. Washington and the Huron River – he felt that the YMCA, located across the street from 415 W. Washington, would sell an easement to the city for land it owns next to the railroad. Another property owner, who Allen said owns unbuildable land along the railroad from Miller to Felch, might be convinced to sell an easement – just dangle a big check in front of the man, Allen advised.

Hall asked whether the city had ever done PDRs or conservation easements. That’s not an approach they use, Kohring said – landowners in the city don’t want the liability. For city parkland, the city purchases the property outright, she said.

Parkland: Commissioner Discussion – Border-to-Border Trail

The conversation segued into a discussion of the border-to-border trail, an effort to create a contiguous east/west path for bikes and pedestrians across the county. Nystuen said the path still needs work, especially along the Huron River section. Allen asked if anyone had spoken with MichCon about the riverfront property it owns near Argo, which is now vacant. There’s been no movement on that, Nystuen said, noting that it was the most polluted site in the county.

Hall asked whether there was any legal crossing of the railroad tracks in that area for parks users. This has been an ongoing concern, and is highlighted in the PROS plan:

Throughout the City, the railroad tracks cut off access to the river parks. At two locations, Gallup Park and Argo Pond, the City has procured easements from the railroad to construct non-motorized trails; however, access to these trails is limited as the railroad will not allow additional at-grade crossings. Challenges associated with accessing the river and parkland safely are ongoing as the desire to connect trails along greenways adjacent to the railroads and the popularity of these trails continues to increase. As discussion of a high speed rail gains momentum, safe railroad crossings will become more important for park access.

Later in the PROS plan, in the section outlining infrastructure needs, an item on trails and greenways cites a specific location as a priority:

At-grade crossings at railroads have been difficult to secure. A safe, legal, public crossing at Lakeshore Drive into Bandemer Park is a high priority. As discussions to turn the Norfolk Southern rail line into a high speed corridor continue, securing these public crossings is crucial and needs to be addressed in the short term.

At the June joint PAC/GAC meeting, Tim Berla said that various approaches had been explored, such as building a tunnel under the tracks. The pricetag for one crossing was $2 million, he recalled.

Hall expressed frustration that other communities are able to build overpasses or find other ways of traversing railroad tracks. Why does it seem impossible to do in Ann Arbor – is it just the money? That’s much of it, Berla replied. He felt it was possible that a crossing would be built within the next five years, but added that there’s a long list of other projects too, including a skatepark.

Offen noted that often, these kinds of projects get rolled into larger efforts, like road or bridge reconstruction. Tim Doyle observed that other communities might have been able to build their greenways with federal and state transportation funding. “That’s where the really big bucks are – moving cars.”

Allen speculated that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) might acquire the Ann Arbor Railroad, which owns the tracks running through the city. He indicated that an ownership change might facilitate future projects.

Parkland: Commissioner Discussion – Stormwater Management

Dan Ezekiel noted that the city recently had a “good rain event.” He recalled that he’d been around in the 1960s when heavy rains burst the Dixboro dam. The rain had also caused flooding in the city’s Old West Side, along the Allen Creek floodway. It seemed there was less flooding this time, he said.

The water features in the newly renovated West Park seem to be working, he said, and the Argo dam held up. The rain has put some of their stormwater management ideas to the test, he said, but things seem to be working.

Parkland: Commissioner Discussion – Future Plans

In looking ahead, Nystuen characterized PAC’s priorities as “more green, and more trees.” She also cited the need for another dog park, completion of trails along the Huron River, and work on a greenway.

Grand noted that while they can’t create a whole swath of land running through the downtown, they might be able to do things to increase access to existing parkland, like building more and better trails between parcels.

Nystuen suggested that the next joint meeting include representatives from the county’s natural areas preservation program, because the city will likely be partnering more with them in the future.

Tenure Ending for Hall, Omenn

This was the last meeting for two greenbelt advisory commissioners – Gil Omenn, and Jennifer Santi Hall, who has served as chair.

At the end of the meeting, GAC vice chair Dan Ezekiel praised Hall and Omenn for their service – they received a round of applause from the group. Ezekiel noted that the commission needs members to take their place, as well as someone to serve as an officer. [GAC members will vote on a new chair at their July 13 meeting, and it's expected that Ezekiel will be elected to that role. That would leave a vacancy for vice chair.]

Hall noted that both she and Omenn are at-large members. Unlike some of the other GAC slots, which are designated for certain professions like a real estate developer or farmer, the at-large members are open to anyone. The term runs for three years, and members can serve two consecutive terms. Hall urged anyone who’s interested in volunteering to contact their Ann Arbor city councilmember. Unlike most other city commissions, in which members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by council, greenbelt commissioners are nominated by city council. Hall said she hadn’t heard whether any nominations were in the works so far.

Hall’s daughter Ella attended the June 7 meeting as well, and earlier Hall noted that Ella had been in the same room seven years ago when GAC first convened. Ella had been three weeks old at the time, Hall said – she turned seven this month. “She was with me then,” Hall said, “and I’m glad she’s here with me today.”

Present – park advisory commission: Dave Barrett, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, Tim Doyle, Julie Grand, John Lawter, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen. Present – greenbelt advisory commission: Peter Allen, Dan Ezekiel, Jennifer Santi Hall, Gil Omenn, Catherine Riseng. Staff: Peg Kohring, Ginny Trocchio.

None of the city council representatives serving on these commissions – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) on GAC, and PAC ex-officio members Christopher Tayler (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – attended.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program and parks system. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Jennifer S. Hall, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, presided over her last regular meeting on May 11. Her term ends on June 30; GAC's June meeting will be a joint session with the city's park advisory commission.

Instead of holding their regular meetings in June, the greenbelt and park advisory commissions have scheduled a joint working session to discuss common goals and priorities – they last met jointly in April 2010.

Term limits were raised in another context during Wednesday’s meeting, when commissioners were asked to recommend that city council restate current GAC membership terms. Mary Fales of the city attorney’s office has been working on the revisions, after inconsistencies were discovered for current appointments. For example, a term for Ecology Center director Mike Garfield ended on June 30, 2009. Though he continued to serve, he was not officially reappointed to another three-year term until Sept. 21, 2010. Under the resolution recommended by GAC, all terms would end on June 30, over staggered years.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners got an update about Michigan budget-related legislation that would cut tax credits for farmers. They were also briefed by staff about changes to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program – the city has received millions of dollars worth of FRPP grants over the years to offset the cost of development rights purchased in the greenbelt.

Ginny Trocchio, support staff for the greenbelt program, told commissioners that June 16 is the date for a greenbelt celebration, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, which was added to the greenbelt in 2010. The event will be open to the public, and will include a presentation to highlight the program’s accomplishments.

Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s vice chair, reported that the subcommittee he’s leading to look at possible changes in the greenbelt boundary will be making a proposal at the commission’s July 13 meeting.

And in its final action of the meeting, commissioners emerged from a closed session and voted to recommend that Ann Arbor city council make a $127,200 offer for the purchase of development rights on a property within the greenbelt. Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number.

Farmland Tax Credits

At the commission’s March 9, 2011 meeting, Tom Bloomer – a greenbelt commissioner and farmer who owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township – gave an update on proposed state legislation that would impact farmers. GAC chair Jennifer S. Hall had asked him to provide more details at their next meeting. Because the April meeting was canceled, Bloomer’s first chance to brief the commission again came on Wednesday.

The state’s Farmland Preservation Program – under Public Act 116, the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act – provides tax credits to farmers. As part of his overhaul of the state’s tax structure, Gov. Rick Snyder has proposed eliminating or reducing most tax credits. The changes would not only affect high-profile tax credits for the film industry, but also would cut tax credits in several other sectors, including brownfield redevelopment, historic preservation, and farmland.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Bloomer distributed a list of talking points regarding the farmland tax credits, and urged people to contact their state legislators about the issue. His points included:

• Michigan farmland assessments are higher than any other Midwestern state.
• Most Midwestern states assess farmland based upon current land use. Michigan assesses upon potential market value.
• Without PA 116 tax refunds, participating Michigan farmers would not be competitive in many areas of the state. PA 116 levels the playing field while holding local units of government harmless.
• With approximately $1 billion in annual tax abatements for all industry in Michigan, $35.9 million was returned to Michigan landowners in 2009 under the PA 116 program.
• Under PA 116, agricultural landowners pay normal property taxes, and then are reimbursed by the state for any property tax liability over 3.5% of household income. Therefore PA 116 is a reasonable benefit for working farms while not rewarding speculative landholders who may have much larger personal incomes.
• Food production is Michigan’s second largest industry, with $81 billion generated from the farm supplier through the food retailer, employing approximately 1 million persons. Production agriculture, with land as the primary resource, is the linchpin of the state’s entire food economy.

Commissioner Mike Garfield asked about the status of the legislation that includes changes to PA 116. Bloomer didn’t know. [The state Senate passed a tax reform package the following day that included cuts to farmland tax credits. It will return to the House to be reconciled for a final vote there – the Republican-led House has already approved a version of the legislation – before going to Snyder for his signature. Clarification: The legislation repeals PA 116 credits only as part of a broader repeal of the Michigan Business Tax. For individual filers, PA 116 credits would remain unchanged. Also, taxpayers could choose to continue filing the MBT – in that case, they would also continue to receive the PA 1116 credits.]

Commissioner Gil Omenn said he knew people were getting primed to testify about the tax changes at upcoming legislative hearings, but he wasn’t sure if the agricultural industry was represented. “We should hurry if we’re trying to make an impact,” he said.

Since the changes wouldn’t take effect until next year, Bloomer suggested that one strategy could be for farmers to sign up this year for the credits – contracts are for a minimum of seven years, but it’s possible to get the credits for up to 99 years, he noted. He said those would remain in place even if the credits are eliminated in future years. Contracts for the tax credits stay with the property even if ownership changes hands, he said – the only thing that would void the credits is if the land is used for something other than farming.

Commissioner Peter Allen said that if farmers feel their taxes are too high, they can always appeal that assessment. Yes, Bloomer replied, but the reality is it’s rare to win an appeal.

Allen noted that many of the tax credits slated for elimination – including historic preservation and brownfield credits – would really hit the real estate industry hard. [Allen is a local developer.] Now, some legislators are trying to find ways to soften that impact, he said. But the idea is to get everyone back to the same base, he noted – and taking away subsidies is part of that agenda for Snyder.

Bloomer reiterated one of the points in his handout – that neighboring states assess farmland based upon current land use, not potential market value. That puts Michigan farmers at a disadvantage, he said, and that’s what PA 116 was designed to address. It penalizes people who hold land for speculative purposes, he said, making it expensive for them to stockpile land for development. Allen noted that the pendulum is swinging on that – given the economy, there’s much less interest from developers.

GAC Membership Term Limits

Mary Fales from the city attorney’s office was on hand to update the commission about member terms. She had drafted a resolution to restate GAC’s membership terms.

GAC chair Jennifer S. Hall introduced the issue by noting that at their Nov. 10, 2010 meeting, she had mentioned that her term and the term for Gil Omenn would be ending as of June 30, 2011 – she had encouraged anyone who was interested to contact their city council representative. [For most city boards and commissions, the mayor is responsible for nominating members, and those nominations are voted on by the city council. However, GAC and the environmental commission differ in this respect – for those bodies, nominations are made by city councilmembers.]

From left: Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioners Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, and Gil Omenn. Partially visible is Ginny Trocchio, greenbelt program manager, who appears to be describing how a bunny might hop through the forest. Ezekiel is portioning out candy he brought to share, purchased from the newly opened Cherry Republic store on Main Street.

At the time, in response to a query from The Chronicle, she had looked at information about terms on the commission and found some inconsistencies, and had asked the city attorney’s office to sort it out.

Fales said she conducted an historical audit, reviewing all GAC resolutions since its inception. She provided a handout that showed the history of GAC membership, beginning with inital appointments in 2004. [.pdf file of GAC membership]

There had been confusion because some commissioners had resigned in the middle of their terms. In other cases, there had been a delay between the time a term ended, and the point when city council reappointed that commissioner. The research Fales conducted also found that two council resolutions of appointment – in 2008 and 2009 – included incorrect term years.

The resolution that GAC was asked to consider on Wednesday restated the current terms, Fales said, aligning the start dates to all fall on July 1, over staggered years. The restated terms, all for three years, are as follows:

• Jennifer Santi Hall (public at large): July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2011
• Gil Omenn (public at large): July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2011
• Catherine Riseng (biologist): July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012
• Mike Garfield (environmental organization): July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012
• Peter Allen (real estate): July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012
• Tom Bloomer (agricultural landowner): July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2013
• Laura Rubin (environmental organization): July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2013
• Dan Ezekiel (public at large): July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2013

Fales noted that the most interesting gap was Garfield’s. He was appointed to a two-year term from 2004-2006, then a three-year term from 2006-2009. That term ended on June 30, 2009, but the city council didn’t reappoint him until Sept. 21, 2010. Catherine Riseng was reappointed on that same date – she was appointed to fill a partial term following the resignation of Sylvia Taylor.

The ordinance governing GAC appointments states that commissioners can serve for 60 days after their term expires. Garfield indicated that this meant his votes during the gap could be invalidated. Fales replied that the resolution restating GAC terms would fix that – it sets Garfield’s appointment as starting on July 1, 2009.

Fales said she expected Carsten Hohnke – the city councilmember who serves on GAC, but who was absent from Wednesday’s meeting – would sponsor the appointment resolution at council, but she hadn’t talked to him about it yet.

Omenn asked about the city council slot on GAC – it wasn’t included in the resolution. Fales reported that the council selects a councilmember to serve on GAC each year, and that’s handled separately.

Commissioners are allowed to serve two consecutive, three-year terms. If they are appointed mid-term to fill a vacancy after another commissioner resigns, they can still be appointed to two full terms after that, Fales said.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to recommend that city council adopt the restated GAC membership terms.

Update on Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to manage the greenbelt program, gave a presentation to commissioners on changes made in the 2008 farm bill to the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The primary changes relate to a new certification process, and to land eligibility and scoring criteria used for grant funding. The greenbelt program has received several million dollars worth of FRPP grants, and has additional applications pending.

Entities can now become certified by the state conservationist, who makes recommendations for certification to the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service chief for final approval. Becoming certified has no impact on an entity’s ability to get FRPP funding, Trocchio said, but it does streamline the review process and gives more responsibility to the certified entity for program management.

To become certified, an entity must hold at least 25 conservation easements, including five FRPP easements obtained over the past five years. Easements that are held by another partner – even if the greenbelt program has contributed funding – don’t count, she said. [In general, conservation easements are deed restrictions limiting the amount of development that can be done on the site, in exchange for certain tax benefits.]

The city holds 13 conservation easements now, she said, and another three deals are expected to close by year’s end. Ten of those have used FRPP funds.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, preparing to give a presentation to the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

Another criteria is closing efficiency – referring to the amount of time it takes to complete a transaction. Entities must have an average closing efficiency of 18 months or less for FRPP projects, over the past 5 years. The city has a 10-month average for closing, Trocchio said.

Ann Arbor is one of the entities in Michigan that’s closest to meeting certification requirements, she said, noting that it’s possible to ask for waivers for some of the requirements.

Commissioner Peter Allen asked for her opinion about whether the city should seek a waiver and apply for certification. Trocchio said she had some concerns. For one, no one has yet gone through the certification process, and details about how that might occur are still being worked out. She said she’d want to get more information before taking action. What’s more, these changes were in the 2008 farm bill, even though it’s just now being rolled out. Negotiations are about to begin for the 2012 farm bill, she noted, which could bring additional changes.

She said another possibility is to look at getting Land Trust Alliance accreditation for the greenbelt program.

Allen asked what would happen if federal tax subsidies are turned inside out, and the FRPP program is eliminated.

Peg Kohring, a manager with The Conservation Fund, said she’d recently talked with an aide for U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The aide had reported that since production is down worldwide, there will likely be fewer subsidies, and those that remain in place will focus on driving production. Farmland preservation would be well-positioned for that scenario, Kohring said.

Kohring also noted that if the city pursues Land Trust Alliance accreditation, there are a number of policies that they’d need to put in place, beyond the basic policies they’ve already adopted. GAC might think about directing Trocchio to look into what’s needed in order to get accreditation, she said.

Trocchio then discussed changes to the FRPP land eligibility and scoring criteria. Under the new criteria, up to 66% of land eligible for FRPP funds may be forest land, she said. Previously, at least 50% of land had to be in agriculture production. The scoring criteria still favors larger parcels, she noted – parcels under 30 acres receive no points in the scoring.

Additional criteria have been added for the ratio of the land being considered for an FRPP grant to the county’s average farm size. In Washtenaw County, the average farm size is 128 acres. If the ratio is less than one, zero points are awarded.

Ezekiel noted that many large farms outside of the greenbelt’s boundaries to the west cause the average farm size to be higher. Farms inside the greenbelt tend to be smaller, and that puts them at a disadvantage with this scoring criteria, he said. Kohring observed that they should consider this fact when looking at potentially changing the greenbelt boundaries. Unless some of those larger farms get included within the greenbelt boundaries, the program won’t be as competitive for FRPP grants, she said.

Staff, Committee Reports: Joint Meeting, Greenbelt Boundary

Ginny Trocchio reported that a joint working session of the greenbelt and park advisory commissions will be held on Tuesday, June 7. That means GAC will not hold its regular meeting on June 8, she said. [The two commissions last held a joint session in April 2010.]

Trocchio also reported that Thursday, June 16 is the date for a greenbelt celebration, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, which was added to the greenbelt program in 2010. It will be open to the public, she said, and will include a presentation to highlight the program’s accomplishments. Trocchio said she expects the program will close on several deals over the next few months that will push the amount of protected land over the 3,000-acre mark.

At GAC’s next regular meeting on July 13, Trocchio said the agenda will include a presentation on Scio Township’s land preservation efforts. The township recently went through some strategic planning, working with consultant Barry Lonik, and they’ll come to share their priorities with GAC, she said.

Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s vice chair, reported that the subcommittee he’s leading to look at possible changes in the greenbelt boundary will be making a proposal at the July meeting. Any changes to the boundaries would also require approval by the city council.

Several commissioners expressed their thanks to Jennifer S. Hall and Gil Omenn. Mike Garfield praised their remarkable service, noting that they’d both been involved in the original campaign to launch the greenbelt program. The program has been built up over the years, he said, “and you’ve both contributed enormously to this.”

Peter Allen suggested they throw a party in honor of Hall and Omenn – and jokingly asked if Omenn could host it at his house.

Hall said that leaving the commission will mark the end of her current span of service with the city – she no longer serves on any other city board or commission. She noted that her first appointment was to the planning commission in 2003, and that she was glad her final meeting was back at city hall. “It just feels right to end here.” [GAC and other city groups have been meeting for the past year or so at the county administration building, during renovations to city hall. The May meeting was the first time GAC had returned to city hall.]

Greenbelt Acquisition Recommended

The commission entered closed session to discuss land acquisitions. After emerging, they unanimously passed a resolution recommending that Ann Arbor city council make a $127,200 offer for the purchase of development rights for a property within the greenbelt boundaries.

Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number. In this case, the parcel number is 2011-05.

Dan Ezekiel was the only commissioner to comment on the offer, calling it a wonderful property. He said it’s an example of the synergies they’re starting to see when development rights acquired on one property can provide the proceeds to start the process for another one – in this case, expanding a block of excellent farmland, he said.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Jennifer S. Hall, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin, Gil Omenn

Absent: Carsten Hohnke

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 13 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. The commission will hold a joint working session with the park advisory commission on Tuesday, June 8. [confirm date]

Tom Freeman, deputy director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation, and Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund distribute handouts to the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at GAC's March 9, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Tom Freeman, deputy director for the county’s parks & recreation department, gave commissioners an update on this new aspect of NAPP, which is funded by a 10-year millage that voters renewed in November 2010. He discussed with commissioners areas of overlap between the two programs, and the potential for future partnerships as NAPP’s farmland protection efforts ramp up.

Prompted by a question from GAC chair Jennifer S. Hall, Freeman also updated commissioners about the county’s plans to apply for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund. The grant would help the county buy a parcel in Ann Arbor Township now owned by a subsidiary of Domino’s Farms. The land, which has water and sewer hookups that make it prime for development, is near three other parcels of already preserved property: the county’s Goodrich Preserve; the University of Michigan’s Horner-McLaughlin Woods; and the city-owned Marshall Nature Area. Freeman explained some complicating factors in the acquisition, including two widely divergent appraisals – for $1.9 million and $3.25 million – and the fact that the land is at the center of ongoing litigation between the township and the landowner.

When Hall floated the idea that the greenbelt commission could send a letter of support for the county’s application, Carsten Hohnke cautioned against it. Hohnke, who serves on both GAC and city council, said the city also plans to apply to the trust fund for two projects. [He didn't identify the projects during the meeting. In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Colin Smith, the city's parks & recreation manager, reported that the applications would be for a skatepark and upgrades to the Gallup canoe livery and park.]

Hohnke felt the county’s application could dilute the city’s chances for success, though it was pointed out to him that the county and city would be applying to two separate pools of funding – the county plans to ask for a grant available for land acquisitions, while the city’s projects are in the category of project development grants. Ultimately, commissioners voted to recommend that the city council consider sending a letter of support for the county’s application. Councilmembers would need to act at their next regular meeting on March 21 – the deadline to apply is April 1.

Also at GAC’s March 9 meeting, commissioner Tom Bloomer – who owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township – reported on a plan to eliminate state tax credits for farmers. It’s part of a broader budget proposal by Gov. Rick Snyder to cut many of the tax incentives currently offered by the state – the most high profile of which is for the film industry. Eliminating the credits for farming could make it unprofitable to farm in this area, Bloomer said.

Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation

Most of Wednesday’s meeting focused on a presentation by Tom Freeman, deputy director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation, about the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) – its history, as well as recent changes to the program that could foster more collaboration between the county and the city’s greenbelt program.

A 10-year countywide millage to fund the county’s NAPP was initially passed by voters in 2000. Just last fall, voters approved a renewal that extends funding another 10 years. [The 0.2409 mill tax is expected to raise roughly $3.5 million in annual revenues.]

Freeman noted that prior to the millage renewal, the county board of commissioners approved changes to Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which governs the program. [See Chronicle coverage: "Washtenaw Natural Areas Tweaked for Ballot"] The changes were made to reflect two broad strategic goals: (1) incorporating farmland into NAPP’s land preservation efforts; and (2) clarifying the county’s use of the purchase of development rights (PDR) to preserve land, in addition to outright acquisition.

In NAPP’s first nine years, the county acquired nearly 2,000 acres of land, Freeman said. Active farming was done on about 25% of that land. One of the first examples of that is the 226-acre Brauer Preserve, which was purchased in 2003. About 80 acres of the land was farmed at the time, he noted. They worked with the farmer to develop a conservation management plan – the farmer continues to work the land under contract with the county, using practices like crop rotation and a minimum of fertilizer and pesticides. The farmer also maintains one of the public trails on the property.

Freeman explained that the NAPP program has been overseen by the county’s natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), which reviews nominations for land acquisitions and makes recommendations to the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. It’s similar to the role of the greenbelt advisory commission, which makes recommendations to the Ann Arbor city council about possible additions to the greenbelt program.

Members of NATAC have expertise in natural areas, Freeman said, so when the county revised its ordinance to include a stronger emphasis on agricultural land, it also designated the agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC) to make recommendations regarding farm properties. Rather than outright acquisition, it’s more likely that farmland will be preserved through the purchase of development rights – which is the primary mechanism for protecting greenbelt properties as well.

Freeman said that when NATAC was formed 10 years ago, the group spent its first few months developing bylaws, a mission statement and working on other governance issues. ALPAC would need to do the same, he said – its first meeting is set for March 22. Members are Julie Frost, Charlie Koenn, Joseph Luellen Jr., county commissioner Yousef Rabhi, Sue Shink, Steve Solowczuk, and Dale Weidmayer.

One of the more significant changes to the NAPP ordinance relates to how revenues from the millage will be allocated, Freeman said. The relevent section [changes in italics]:

The revenues from the deposit and/or investment of the Acquisition Fund along with the revenues from the sale of any natural areas property purchased pursuant to this Ordinance shall be applied and used solely for the purchase of natural areas land (75%) and agricultural development rights (25%) under this Ordinance, provided, however, that no more than 7% of increased millage funds used to purchase land under this Ordinance may be used annually to administer a land preservation program or maintain lands purchased under this Ordinance.

The county hasn’t previously purchased development rights for farming property, Freeman said, so this is new territory. The ordinance gives guidance on the amount of emphasis the county should give to that aspect of the program.

Freeman concluded by saying that these changes to NAPP might provide additional opportunities to partner with the greenbelt program.

NAPP: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners had several comments and questions for Freeman. Laura Rubin, who’s also executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, noted that for the greenbelt program, the city sets aside funds to manage oversight of the properties in the greenbelt. How does the county handle that?

Freeman replied that the NAPP ordinance allows up to 7% of the millage proceeds to be set aside for stewardship. They’ve done that since the start of the program, he said, even though at the time there were no properties to manage. The idea was to build up a reserve so that if the millage hadn’t been renewed in 2010 – or if it’s not renewed the next time it’s on the ballot – they’ll have the funds to maintain the program. The goal is eventually to have an endowment, he said, with earnings from the endowment used for stewardship.

Mike Garfield, a greenbelt commissioner and director of The Ecology Center in Ann Arbor.

Mike Garfield, a greenbelt commissioner and director of The Ecology Center, praised the NAPP program, and thanked Freeman for helping build it. He asked what plans the county had for promoting this new farmland component.

Freeman said they were concerned about promoting it too soon – ALPAC is just starting to gear up, and they don’t want to get ahead of themselves by promoting something that’s not ready. They still need to develop an application form and process, for example.

Garfield noted that when the greenbelt program started, it was difficult to get the word out to the farming community, and to convey that the purchase of development rights was a viable transaction. He said that it might be challenging for NAPP to communicate to people, because that county program has been around for 10 years without the farmland component, and people might not know about the new focus on farmland. He encouraged Freeman to think about what kind of outreach would be effective.

Freeman acknowledged that it will be a challenge. People think about the program as buying undeveloped land, and purchasing it outright, he said. The purchase of development rights is a more complicated process.

Dan Ezekiel, GAC’s vice chair and a science teacher at Forsythe Middle School, said he considered Freeman to be his personal hero in the land preservation movement. He said he uses the county’s preserves quite frequently, and he wondered whether public access would be an element of the farmland preservation as well.

The county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, reviewed the ordinance changes, Freeman said, and determined that while public access doesn’t need to be provided at all times, there does need to be some provision for it. That might take the form of an annual open house, for example, or programs that would invite the public to see how a functioning farm works, and how it contributes to the local economy.

Freeman said he was glad that Ezekiel uses the county’s nature preserves, adding that the programs offered by the county’s naturalists are popular.

That comment prompted Gil Omenn to ask how many people attend such programs. It varies, Freeman said, but typically between 15 to a few dozen. You can also gauge usage by seeing cars in the parking lots – most of the preserves have a small gravel parking lot with about six spaces. That might not seem like a lot, Freeman said, but these natural areas aren’t designed like traditional parks. There aren’t restrooms, playgrounds or areas to picnic. The uses are more solitary, or for small groups to enjoy the natural land.

Omenn then asked about the two advisory groups, NATAC and ALPAC – was there overlapping membership? No, Freeman said. Each group has seven members, but there are none in common. Omenn then asked how communication would be coordinated. Freeman noted that this is still fairly new, but that county staff and the Legacy Land Conservancy will serve as a bridge between the groups. The Legacy Land Conservancy, based in Ann Arbor, is under contract with the county to provide support for ALPAC.

Ezekiel observed that the city’s greenbelt program and NAPP have had successful coordination over the years. In the past, Sylvia Taylor had served on both GAC and NATAC, he noted. [Taylor is a current member of NATAC, but no longer serves on GAC. Other NATAC members are Rane Curl, David Lutton, Tony Reznicek and John Russell.] Ezekiel said that a couple of positions on GAC will be opening soon as terms expire, and perhaps they could consider people who also serve on NATAC or ALPAC.

Freeman said they have two open positions now on NATAC – for a professional in land use planning, a slot formerly held by Peter Pollack, who died last year; and for an aquatic biologist, a category that Freeman said has been unfilled for quite a while.

Ezekiel noted that the greenbelt program has been a partner with the county in several properties, including the Fox Science Preserve, Meyer Preserve and Scio Woods Preserve. The partnership is a good fit, he said, because the city doesn’t want to hold title for property outside of Ann Arbor’s city limits. However, the greenbelt program can contribute funds, if another entity – like the county – takes ownership and management.

Ezekiel also praised the county’s decision to build an endowment for future stewardship needs, calling it critically important. All the literature on managing conservation easements indicates that the easement is just a piece of paper unless you have the funds to enforce it, he said. Ezekiel also said that greenbelt commissioners would be happy to attend a NATAC or ALPAC meeting to discuss their common issues and potential for collaboration.

Jennifer S. Hall, GAC’s chair, said the commission had several applications for the greenbelt program that might offer partnering opportunities with the county. She felt saw some urgency from the city’s perspective in talking with the county about these properties, before the county’s farmland program is publicized more broadly.

Freeman said his only concern is in communicating the program’s timeline to property owners – it was important to set realistic expectations about when the county would be soliciting applications. He recalled that when NAPP first started, landowners would call and expect to get an answer over the phone about whether the county would buy their property. It’s not that easy.

Carsten Hohnke, who also serves on Ann Arbor city council representing Ward 5, noted that there’s a lot of overlap between NAPP and the greenbelt program, including its mission and geography. Are there any administrative efficiencies that haven’t yet been explored between the two entities?

There might be some limiting factors to that, Freeman said. NAPP is a program authorized by the county board of commissioners, and from the board’s perspective, it’s useful to have county staff implementing their goals. Right now, their administrative costs are lean, he added. There might be opportunities for efficiencies in the review process, he suggested, as well as in long-term stewardship and management of the protected land. Freeman also said the Legacy Land Conservancy might have an expanded role with NAPP in the future.

Hohnke recommended having staff from the county and city explore those opportunities.

DNR Trust Fund Grants

Following Tom Freeman’s presentation and the discussion by commissioners, GAC chair Jennifer S. Hall asked him to talk about the county’s planned application for a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

Freeman reported that the grant would be for a 54-acre parcel now owned by DF Land Development, a unit of Domino’s Farms. The property, located in Ann Arbor Township, was nominated in 2009 as a potential addition to the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP). It’s attractive for several reasons, he said, including its proximity to three other areas of preserved land: the county’s Goodrich Preserve, a 36-acre parcel; the University of Michigan’s Horner-McLaughlin Woods, a 90-acre site that’s adjacent to Goodrich; and the 79-acre Marshall Nature Area at the northwest corner of Plymouth and Dixboro Roads, owned by the city of Ann Arbor. The property owned by DF Land Development is located immediately west of Marshall Nature Area, with frontage on Plymouth to the south and Ford Road to the north.

There are two types of trust fund grants available, Freeman explained – for development of specific projects, and for land acquisition. In this case, the county would be applying for land acquisition grants.

Freeman also noted that the parcel has been the subject of a certain amount of controversy between Domino’s and the township, including ongoing litigation. [At issue is a dispute over the township board's refusal to rezone the property for development.]

The property has water and sewer hook-ups, which makes it more expensive because it’s ready for development, though it’s currently zoned for agriculture. In 2009, the county hired Bosserd Appraisal Services to conduct an appraisal. Bosserd appraised the land at $1.9 million – or about $35,000 per acre – “which is a pretty stiff price,” Freeman said. [Minutes from the April 5, 2010 meeting of the county's natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC) indicate that the per-acre price would be the highest the county has ever paid, and would be well above the average price of land acquired through NAPP.]

Then in January 2011, the county parks & recreation commission authorized staff to take steps towards applying for a grant through the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund. The application process requires a second appraisal from a different firm. That second appraisal came back just last week, Freeman said, and assigned the land a value of $3.25 million. The higher appraisal is based in part on the township’s master plan, which identifies that land as having potential for development at three to six residential units per acre, Freeman said.

Tom Freeman, deputy director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

In addition, the township assessor recently determined that the property’s market value is $3.4 million – even higher than the second appraisal. The new appraisal and assessment were the subject of considerable debate at Tuesday night’s meeting of the county’s parks & recreation commission, he said.

Calling the valuation process very complicated, Freeman said he’s been involved in getting appraisals for previous trust fund applications, and has never encountered a greater disparity between two appraisals. It’s unclear what the state will do, he said.

At its Tuesday night meeting, the county parks & rec commission authorized the application for the trust fund grant. After it’s submitted, the state will review the application and provide preliminary feedback in June, with the opportunity for the applicant to revise and resubmit the application in August, Freeman said. Awards will be made at the end of the year.

Freeman noted that the county has received letters of support to include in the application from Bob Grese, director of UM’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum; Joan Martin of the Huron River Watershed Council; and Ann Arbor Township, which indicated a willingness to partner with some kind of financial contribution to the purchase. [Ann Arbor Township has a millage-funded land preservation program of its own.] Freeman said that during public commentary at Tuesday night’s meeting, Ann Arbor Township supervisor Mike Moran spoke to the parks & rec commission, and said the township doesn’t have any problem with taking the property off the tax rolls.

DNR Trust Fund Grants: Commissioner Discussion

Hall noted that GAC has previously considered this same parcel for inclusion in the greenbelt program, and commissioners have discussed how the city might be involved in preserving the land. They haven’t made any decisions, she said, but are waiting to see what opportunities there might be.

She then stated that she had a draft of a letter supporting the county’s application for a trust fund grant – she asked whether anyone would move to consider the letter, so that they could discuss it and take a vote.

Gil Omenn asked whether this would be more appropriate to discuss in a closed session. No, Hall replied, because they weren’t saying the city would provide a financial contribution or participate in the project. It was simply a letter supporting the application. She noted that they would need to act at that meeting, if they wanted to include the letter in the county’s application. The deadline to apply is April 1, and GAC’s next meeting is April 13.

Carsten Hohnke, a commissioner who also serves on city council, said that perhaps he missed the meeting when this letter had been drafted – when did that occur? Hall said that the letter had been drafted by staff earlier that day, in response to Tuesday night’s decision by the county parks & rec commission to apply.

So staff made the decision to draft the letter? Hohnke asked.

Freeman jumped in, saying that part of the application process includes soliciting letters of support. The county had contacted several people, including support staff for the city’s greenbelt program. The other letters they’ve received simply indicate that protecting the property is a good idea. The application process has been on a condensed timeline, he said, adding that he didn’t want to put city staff in a bad spot.

Hohnke then asked whether it was a request from the county that prompted staff to draft the letter. Yes, replied Ginny Trocchio, who provides support for the city’s greenbelt program under contract with The Conservation Fund, a nonprofit headquartered in the Washington D.C. area. Trocchio said she drafted the letter and sent it to Hall, as board chair.

Carsten Hohnke at the March 9, 2011 Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission meeting. Hohnke also serves on Ann Arbor city council.

Hohnke said it was important to get input on this from the city’s planning staff. The DNR trust fund has limited resources, he said, and his understanding is that the number of other grants given within a geographical area is a consideration when funding is awarded. The city plans to apply for trust fund grants on two projects, Hohnke said, and the county’s application will dilute the chance for other projects in this area to get grants. The greenbelt commission needs to ensure that what they do is consistent and aligned with the city’s overall objectives, he concluded.

[Hohnke didn't indicate which projects the city would seek funding for. In response to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Colin Smith – the city's parks & recreation manager – said they would seek grants for a skatepark and upgrades to the Gallup canoe livery and park.]

Hall noted that this isn’t the first time the commission has discussed this property. She said Hohnke made a good point, that the city should weigh this project against other city applications. But based on previous conversations, it seemed clear that this was a land preservation project they’d likely consider at some point.

It’s true that they’ve discussed this property, Hohnke said, but they hadn’t discussed a letter of support for the county’s grant application.

Dan Ezekiel clarified that the county needed all letters of support by March 31. He suggested that GAC make a recommendation to the city council to produce a letter of support at council’s next meeting, on March 21. Hall asked whether there’d be any problem getting that on the council’s agenda – Hohnke said if there were, he could bring it from the floor.

Ezekiel then moved a resolution recommending that the council produce a letter of support for the county’s grant application. Hohnke made a friendly amendment to change the word “produce” to “consider.” Hall noted that the letter would carry more weight coming from the council, and that this approach would address Hohnke’s concerns.

Omenn suggested asking the landowner for a contribution to the acquisition. Ezekiel wondered whether these grants had a requirement for local matching funds. They do, Freeman replied – a minimum requirement of 25%. That could come from the original landowner, individuals, or multiple partners, he said.

Ezekiel asked how the county intended to manage the property. He’d been out there, and had seen subtle differences in how the existing protected land – parcels owned by UM, the county, and the city – was maintained. In the city’s Marshall Nature Area, for example, there’s a path that’s unofficially used by mountain bikers. Freeman said they certainly wouldn’t support mountain biking on the property.

Catherine Riseng had concerns about the land’s cost and management. She noted that the property includes substantial areas filled with invasive species, which would require maintenance. Freeman replied that certain parts of the property would offer a greater return on their maintenance efforts. A top priority, for example, would be to maintain the areas that are pristine. Extending those optimal conditions to the rest of the property would take time and money, he acknowledged. The county has a burn crew, he said, and he noted that the city’s controlled burns in the Marshall Nature Area had been enormously successful.

Jennifer S. Hall, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

With her eye on the clock, Hall observed that they were simply recommending a letter of support for the grant application, and they could discuss the merits of the property and the greenbelt program’s possible participation at a later date.

Mike Garfield said he still had concerns about the price – he knew the city wasn’t offering financial support at this time, but the state grant funds were still public money. He wanted to hear the argument as to why protecting this property is in the best interest of this community and the county.

Hall agreed that the pricetag could be enormous, and she had reservations about paying that amount to these owners in particular. It doesn’t feel good to give that much money to an entity that’s had such problems with the township. However, the fact that it’s close to three existing parcels of protected land is a factor, she said. It’s also extremely close to the city boundary, and very visible. And the county has deemed it a high priority natural area.

What’s more, with its water and sewer hook-ups and its proximity to the city, the land is prime for development, Hall said. “It doesn’t seem that way now, but things could change very quickly” when the economy turns around, she said. If price weren’t a factor, they wouldn’t be arguing about it, she said. And having multiple partners involved would defray the cost.

Tom Bloomer asked if there were any requirement to pay the appraised value. Freeman explained that the state will pick an amount to award for the project, if it’s selected. At that point, the county will be in a position to negotiate with the landowner. NATAC identified this as a high-priority property, if partners could be found. Yes, the price will be high, Freeman said, but it will yield 275-300 acres connected across the four parcels, with trails through the entire area. “Trying to do that within an urban area is hard,” he said, noting that it took the county four separate purchases to create the 36-acre Goodrich Preserve.

Freeman also noted that Hohnke had raised the issue of the county competing with the city for grant funds, and he again clarified that there are two different pools: for the development of projects, and for land acquisition. The county is applying for land acquisition grant. The city’s two projects would apply for funds in the other category, he said.

Hohnke said that the question is how those two categories interact, when awards are being considered.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend that city council consider a letter of support for the county’s application for the DNR trust fund grant.

Tax Breaks for Farmers

Tom Bloomer, a greenbelt commissioner and farmer who owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, gave an update on proposed budget-related legislation that would affect local farmers.

The state’s Farmland Preservation Program – Public Act 116 – provides tax credits to farmers. Bloomer said that the state’s property taxes are “out of whack” and onerous for working farms, and the tax credits help ameliorate that burden.

Tom Bloomer, a greenbelt commissioner and owner of Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township. He's concerned about a proposal to eliminate tax credits for farms.

As part of his overhaul of the state’s business tax, Gov. Rick Snyder has proposed eliminating most tax credits. The change would not only affect the high profile tax credits for the film industry, but also tax credits for a range of other areas, including brownfield redevelopment, historic preservation, advanced battery production and farmland.

Bloomer said that while he understood the motivation behind the move, the unintended consequence would be that agriculture would be impractical in the urban fringe, because of high property values and high taxes. He said it might shock people to know that in Superior Township, for example, taxes are in excess of $200 per acre. “That makes it unprofitable to farm,” he said.

One of the goals of the Ann Arbor greenbelt is to promote local agriculture through farmland preservation, he noted. Eliminating the tax credits makes it just that much harder to do, he said. “It would set us way back as a state in terms of our promotion of agriculture as an industry.” Bloomer urged fellow commissioners and the public to contact their state legislators about the issue.

Jennifer S. Hall asked Bloomer to consider drafting a few bullet points about the tax credits for commissioners to discuss at their April meeting – they could possibly send a letter to legislators outlining their concerns.

Greenbelt Boundary Subcommittee

Dan Ezekiel gave an update from the subcommittee that’s looking at possible changes to the greenbelt boundaries. The subcommittee was formed at GAC’s November 2010 meeting. Chaired by Ezekiel, other members include commissioners Gil Omenn and Mike Garfield.

The subcommittee met in February, and looked at large maps prepared by Peg Kohring and Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to staff the greenbelt program. The maps showed the existing boundaries, and highlighted properties that were 40 acres or larger. The group had a wide-ranging, free-wheeling discussion about the location of boundaries in each township, Ezekiel reported, and talked about possible recommendations that might eventually be forwarded to GAC, then the city council.

He said they’d like to meet again and include Carsten Hohnke in the discussion – Hohnke is both a greenbelt commissioner and a city councilmember representing Ward 5. It would be good to get Hohnke’s input, Ezekiel said, since it would be pointless to propose something that the city council would be likely to just throw out.

Closed Session: Land Acquisition

The commission went into closed session to discuss land acquisition. After about 50 minutes in closed session, they returned to open session and immediately adjourned.

Present: Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Jennifer S. Hall, Carsten Hohnke, Gil Omenn, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin.

Absent: Peter Allen.

Next meeting: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners boardroom, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date]