Susan Pollay, left, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, with councilmembers Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4, sitting) before the start of the March 21 council meeting. Pollay was distributing copies of the downtown street outreach task force report. (Photos by the writer.)

The council has now been formally considering the new licensing ordinance for three months. The ordinance will next come before the council at its Tuesday, April 19 meeting for final approval. Also on April 19, the council will take a final vote on a zoning ordinance that would apply to medical marijuana businesses. The moratorium on use of property in the city for medical marijuana businesses – originally enacted on Aug. 5, 2010 to last for 120 days, but subsequently extended – was extended again at Monday’s meeting through June 30, 2011. [.pdf of medical marijuana licensing ordinance as amended on March 21, 2011]

In a lower-profile but logistically significant move, the council voted to move its second meeting of April from Monday to Tuesday, April 19, because sundown on that Monday marks the start of the week-long Passover celebration in the Jewish tradition.

Other business conducted by the council included: (1) approving a recommendation for non-renewal of a liquor license for the Fifth Quarter; (2) authorizing transfer of $90,000 to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to improve a public plaza near the Forest Street parking structure; (3) setting a public hearing to establish an industrial development district that could lead to tax abatements for the firm Sakti3; (4) authorizing a letter of support for a Washtenaw County grant application to the state for acquisition of a natural area; and (5) authorizing the city’s own application to the state for grants to support park improvement projects and a new skatepark.

Council deliberations on the park improvement grant applications resulted in the prioritization of a grant to support construction of the skatepark over one to support improvements to the Gallup park canoe livery. The city hopes both grants will be approved by the state.

The council also heard a presentation on a plan for the Millers Creek area, and later in its meeting adopted the plan. It could eventually lead to establishing the creekshed formally as a “drain,” in the sense that the county water resources commissioner (formerly the drain commissioner) uses the term. That designation will increase the area’s eligibility for various funding mechanisms to pay for projects there.

The council heard a presentation from its street outreach task force, summarizing its work over the last six months. That work includes a proposed revision to the city’s panhandling ordinance, which the council will begin considering at its April 4 meeting.

The council also passed a resolution establishing a search committee for a new city administrator. The committee will bring a recommendation to the council at its April 19 meeting on an interim administrator, who will assume responsibilities when current city administrator Roger Fraser departs at the end of April.

The city’s IT director, Dan Rainey, was on hand to receive a Digital Cities award recognizing the city’s efforts to improve services through digital technology. Fraser mentioned during his communications time that the council’s meetings are now being streamed live over the Internet: CTN Channel 16 Live.

Medical Marijuana Licensing

At its March 21 meeting, the council considered a set of licensing requirements for medical marijuana businesses. All new ordinances require an initial approval, plus a final vote by the city council after a formal public hearing. The council had first considered the licensing scheme at its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting. Councilmembers undertook several amendments to the licensing proposal at three of its meetings over the last three months: on Jan. 3, Feb. 7 and March 7.

Dennis Hayes, who has addressed nearly every meeting of the city council when it has discussed medical marijuana, and councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

At its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting, the council gave initial approval to a set of zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses, but it has not yet given its final approval to those regulations. The council’s strategy is to bring licensing and zoning forward at the same time for a final vote. The context for development of zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities, and directed its planning commission to develop zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses. Subsequently, the city attorney’s office also began working on a licensing system.

The moratorium on using additional facilities in the city as medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities – first enacted on Aug. 5, 2010 and subsequently extended – was extended a second time by the council at its Jan. 18 meeting to go through March 31, 2011.

During the course of Monday’s deliberations, mayor John Hieftje elicited from the city attorney’s office an estimate that there are 15 marijuana dispensaries currently operating in the city, plus three dispensaries that are operating in areas that would be prohibited, if the city’s zoning ordinance is given final approval.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Public Commentary

Gersh Avery reported to the council that a lot of people come to him asking for help – cancer patients who are in stage four, typically. They ask him to make an extract of cannabis that can be used as chemotherapy. In Michigan, there have been 15-20 skin cancer cases cured, he said. He stressed that this is not palliative care, but curative. This kind of cancer research is taking place in other states and other countries, so he wanted to know why it was not taking place in Ann Arbor. A research laboratory to test these materials, he said, needs to be protected, not persecuted. Ann Arbor should be made a center of medical advancement, he said.

Rory Gould told councilmembers he had moved to Ann Arbor from New York 10 years ago, because he wanted to raise his children in a place where they would not be on top of each other, where people are nice to one another, where they’d be exposed to cultural diversity, and have access to high quality education. He thanked the council for their hard work on the ordinance – it’s an example of the spirit of tolerance Ann Arbor is famous for, he said.

Still, he cautioned that there are some remaining concerns. Requiring permanent record-keeping of growers might put good people in danger, he said, and could put a damper on supply. He also expressed concern about the number of dispensary licenses. Most of the existing dispensaries are very well run, he said, but a license might fall into the wrong hands. He said there are some places that are not well run that have no handicapped access and don’t supply locally-grown cannabis. He suggested that licenses also be made transferable on approval of the city council.

Dennis Hayes observed that it’s a now familiar cast of characters who have been speaking and he thanked the council for the work they’ve done. He noted that there are some councilmembers who are spending an extraordinary amount of time to get it right. The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act is helping people get access to high quality medicine, he said. There are still some restrictions, however, that he feels are not helpful to patients. One of those restrictions is that the applications require disclosure of a substantial amount of information about the ownership of the entity – which could be burdensome for dispensaries organized as collectives.

Chuck Ream thanked the council for the opportunity to address them. He said he’d met with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and the mayor the previous Friday about the issue of documenting the source of the product. He agreed with the intent of the ordinance – we should know where the product comes from in the event of a health emergency. He suggested language that would allow relevant local, county, or state health officials to take action. He suggested that records be kept for 30 days – there’s no reason to keep them for longer than that. He called the need for a cultivation license “pernicious,” because it attempts to restrict the right of people to grow marijuana. About the ordinance requirement that cultivation facilities need a license, he called on the council to “get it out of there,” or everyone who’s currently growing in Ann Arbor will file suit.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Council Deliberations

The council undertook a series of additional amendments to the ordinance.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Code Section

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) began with an amendment to move the proposed licensing code out of Title VI of the city code, which is designated “Food and Health,” and to move it to Title VII, “Businesses and Trades.” The move entailed a new chapter number – it was proposed that it be changed from Chapter 71 to Chapter 95. The amendment also changed the name of the chapter by striking the word “business.”

At council’s March 7 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had complained to city attorney Stephen Postema that the new chapter was not included in an existing chapter on business licenses – which is also in Title VII. The proposed amendment could be seen as a partial accommodation to Higgins’ concern. The introduction as amended reads:

That a new Chapter 95 be added to Title VII of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor to read as follows:

CHAPTER 95. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSES FOR CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND DISPENSARIES

Postema indicated that he had no problem with the change.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the amendment changing the code section and title.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on License Eligibility

An amendment was proposed to make the ordinance consistent with a different amendment made at the council’s previous meeting – it disqualified people based on a felony conviction only if the felony was for a controlled substance offense. Previously, section 6:415 (2) had disqualified a person based on any felony conviction. As amended, it reads:

6:415. License Required, Number of Licenses Available, Eligibility. …
(2) A cultivation facility or dispensary shall not be eligible for a license if any person required under this chapter to be named on the application has ever been convicted of a felony involving controlled substances as defined under the Michigan public health code, MCL 333.1101, et seq, the federal law, or the law of any other state.

Outcome: The council approved the amendment restricting disqualification just to controlled substance felony convictions, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Board Activity

An additional amendment to 6:415 added the phrase “taking into consideration recommendations from staff” to the way the licensing board would make its recommendations:

6:415. License Required, Number of Licenses Available, Eligibility.
…
(7) … The Board will annually review and recommend the licensing criteria, the number of licenses authorized, the license fee structure taking into consideration recommendations from staff, …

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the amendment without comment.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Home Occupations

At the request of Sandi Smith (Ward 1), the following amendment was added to allow for the possibility of voluntary registration with the city by home occupation businesses – which the ordinance does not require to be licensed:

6:415. License Required, Number of Licenses Available, Eligibility.
…
(9) Medical marijuana home occupations do not require licenses but may register with the City by providing the address of the home occupation and the registry number on the caregiver registry identification card or that the MDCH issued to the caregiver who is delivering the marijuana, or some other form of identification.

Smith indicated that the idea is to allow the opportunity to have clarity, in the event that someone gave a tip to the police about suspected illegal activity at a location and that there could be a police raid. She wasn’t sure if anyone would take advantage of that opportunity to voluntarily register with the city to avoid the police storming in. She said she didn’t see any harm.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) suggested that “registry identification card” be supplemented with “some other form of identification.” [The Chronicle understood this to have been accepted as a friendly amendment, but the city clerk's records do not include it as part of the amendment.]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wondered if this kind of thing was something usually found in an ordinance or rather was simply a service the city is providing. Postema said it wasn’t usual but said it was also appropriate. The police could have their own program based on a council resolution, he said.

Outcome: The council approved the amendment on a roll call vote, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Titling

The next amendment simply made the subsections of 6:417 parallel by giving them each a title:

6:417. Application Requirements for New Annual License or Renewal of Existing License; License Requirements for New License and for Renewed License
(1) Application Acceptance. …
(2) Application Requirements. …
(3) License Requirements. …

Outcome: The council approved the titling of the subsections.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Signage

Originally proposed at the previous council meeting, but inadvertently amended out of the proposed amendment, was language specifying the size of letters on the required signage:

(3) License Requirements. A new license shall not be issued to a dispensary or cultivation facility until the applicant for the license complies with all of the following requirements:
…
(d) The applicant has installed a sign in a location visible to all persons who enter the premises, which contains the following statement in letters that shall be no less than one inch high: …

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to strike the hyphen included in the phrase “one-inch” that appeared in the amendment as offered. Postema indicated that it was not a legal issue, and the hypen was dropped.

Outcome: The council approved the requirement on lettering size for the signs.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Labeling, Record Keeping

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had developed an alternative to the package labeling requirements that was meant to address concerns about record-keeping and the need of a patient to contact someone about the product they were provided. Record-keeping requirements in subsections 6:419 (5) and 6:419 (10) were also eventually added to the discussion and moved as part of the same amendment, with revisions made along the way. As amended and approved by the council, the material read:

6:419. Conduct of Business at Cultivation Facility or Dispensary.
…
(4) All marijuana delivered to a patient shall be packaged and labeled as provided in this chapter. The label shall include:
(a) a unique alphanumeric identifier for the person to whom it is being delivered;
(b) a unique alphanumeric identifier for the cultivation source of the marijuana;
(c) that the package contains marijuana;
(d) the date of delivery, weight, type of marijuana and dollar amount or other consideration being exchanged in the transaction; and,
(e) a certification that all marijuana in any form contained in the package was cultivated, manufactured, and packaged in the state of Michigan.
(f) the warning that:
THIS PRODUCT IS MANUFACTURED WITHOUT ANY REGULATORY OVERSIGHT FOR HEALTH, SAFETY OR EFFICACY. THERE MAY BE HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OR USE OF THIS PRODUCT. USING THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS. DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT. KEEP THIS PRODUCT OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. THIS PRODUCT MAY NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT OR BY ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT POSSESS A VALID MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT REGISTRATION CARD.
(g) The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of an authorized representative of the dispensary whom a patient can contact with any questions regarding the product.
(h) The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of at least one governmental or non-profit organization that may be contacted by a patient who has concerns about substance abuse of drugs, including marijuana.
(5) All of the required labeling information, including coded patient and caregiver information shall be maintained and available for inspection at a cultivation facility or dispensary for no less than 180 days one year after dispensing.
…
(10) A cultivation facility or dispensary shall keep records of the caregivers from whom they receive marijuana in any form, and shall make the records available to the City in a health emergency upon request to promote health, safety and welfare, or to otherwise verify compliance with this chapter.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) wanted to know what the rationale was for the alphanumeric coding. Smith explained that it would be a way for dispensaries to create a code to allow tracing of product origin without using the codes provided by the state. If it turned out to be necessary to find someone who grew or delivered some particular product, you’d be able to find them.

Briere indicated that they’d learned that the state would not release any information to the city based on Michigan Dept. of Community Health codes unless it’s related to a criminal investigation, so the previous version of the ordinance would not help in the event of a health emergency.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know about the requirement that a “certification” be required that the product originated in Michigan. Briere answered by saying that would have to be figured out – it might wind up just being an assertion.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) expressed some irritation at the timing of some of the information, saying it had come at the “eleventh hour.” He wanted to hear comments from the city attorney on possible effects on the ability of the police to enforce the law. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that it’s not new that the state won’t give out information related to registry numbers. The issue, he said, is what kind of record-keeping the council wants dispensaries to have. He didn’t have a problem with the changes. But Postema said that it’s more than just a health issue – the state’s statute intends that there be a close relationship between the patient and the product, he said. He then advocated for enabling the licensing board to look at dispensary records in order to ascertain that the product is grown in Michigan.

Briere noted that even if the city had registry card numbers, the state would not confirm that a number is an authentic registry card number.

Derezinski said he was interested not just in the health issue but also the origin of the product. He wanted to make sure the numbering system would allow for the board to verify that the product was being grown in Michigan. He wanted to know if the board would be able to do spot checks or if the process would be driven by complaints. Postema again advocated for the council to require that records be turned over not just in the event of an emergency, but also to verify that the product originated in Michigan.

Smith suggested adding 6:419 (5) to the amendment on the floor at the time.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) wanted to know what the rationale was for maintaining the records only 180 days. Smith indicated that just a few hours earlier, there was a draft that indicated 30 days, but she’d be willing to think about an even longer period.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) worried about having just a single unique identifier – perhaps there should be some way of cross checking. Smith indicated that patients would know what their own unique identifier is – they could give it to someone else if they wanted that person to pick up their medication for them.

As he scanned down the other sections, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered about the idea of site visits – would the licensing board be visiting dispensaries? He said he was leery of having inspections conducted, because it would put city staff in positions they might not want to be in or qualified to handle. He wanted to know what other communities are doing in this regard. Postema indicated that few other communities were trying to enact any ordinances and were instead continuing to “punt,” in some cases by extending moratoria for another two years. Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township had developed some legislation, Postema said.

Postema continued by picking up on Smith’s comment about someone picking up another person’s medication for them. There needs to be some additional thought about ensuring that the product goes to a qualified patient, Postema said.

Derezinski indicated he was troubled by questions about when the information on the coding would have to be made available. Briere noted that this was dealt with in subsection (10), and that the council was then discussing just (4) and (5) – would he like (10) to be added to the discussion? Derezinski agreed he wanted it to be added.

At that point, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested including (10) to the same amendment – which deals explicitly with conditions on which the coded information would need to be made available. Taylor made the suggestion that instead of a medical emergency, more general conditions could result in a request to produce records: “… upon request to promote health, safety and welfare, or to otherwise verify compliance with this chapter.”

Rapundalo indicated his support for the additional language. He asked if the 180 days could be extended to a full year – that was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wondered how the record-keeping for labeling information – for example, “that the package contains marijuana” – would be handled. Briere explained the logic was that you would just run off two labels, and put one on the package and stick one in a book.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the labeling and record-keeping amendments as revised during deliberations.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on License Renewal

The last amendment introduced was one that dealt with how licenses get renewed.

6:417. Application Requirements for New Annual License or Renewal of Existing License; License Requirements for New License and for Renewed License
…
(8) A license issued under this chapter shall expire one year after the date of issuance. To renew an existing license, the licensee shall submit an application in the same manner as is required to apply for a new license no sooner than ninety (90) days before the expiration date and no later than sixty (60) before the expiration date.

Briere explained that the language had been developed in response to concerns expressed in the community that with an annual license renewal, a dispensary might have to compete with everyone else who wanted a license. She had not been able to come up with language that made clear that existing license holders would not compete for renewal of their license with others who wished to obtain a license for the first time.

Postema said it would not be his expectation that a dispensary with a license would have to compete in that way. Rapundalo noted that it was an important issue, because the city had seen what could happen when an extra liquor license became available a few years ago – it was confusing to determine who might have had a grandfathered-in request. Mayor John Hieftje stressed that the renewal of a license for a dispensary would not be automatic.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) felt that appropriate language to afford first-in-line status could be drafted by the time of the second reading of the ordinance.

Final outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the marijuana licenses. The second and final votes on its medical marijuana business licensing proposal and its medical marijuana zoning ordinance are scheduled for council’s April 19, 2011 meeting. The moratorium on the use of property in the city as a medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana cultivation facility was extended from March 31, 2011 to June 30, 2011.

[.pdf of medical marijuana licensing ordinance as amended on March 21, 2011]

Medical Marijuana Non-Disclosure Policy

Before the council for consideration was a policy on non-disclosure of certain information, like names and birth dates for patients and caregivers, that might be collected in the course of the zoning and licensing process for medical marijuana businesses. The non-disclosure policy had been discussed, but postponed, at the council’s March 7, 2011 meeting.

The resolution had originally been introduced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) in the context of the council’s current work on zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana businesses – legislation that has not yet been given final approval by the council. [.pdf of original draft resolution]

Because the medical marijuana licensing ordinance that received initial approval that same evening ultimately did not include the collection of any personal information, Briere – who’d sponsored the resolution – indicated she wished to withdraw it.

Outcome: No council action was taken, as the resolution was withdrawn.

Non-Renewal and Renewal of Liquor Licenses

The council considered two resolutions regarding liquor licenses – one for renewal and one for non-renewal. At its previous meeting, the council had authorized the appointment of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a hearing officer to entertain appeals – a move that was made over the objection of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The appointment of Derezinski as a single hearing officer had come as an amendment to the original council resolution that night, which had called for the council’s liquor license review committee to serve as a hearing board.

Since appointment as hearing officer, Derezinski has handled two non-renewal recommendations. The city’s intent to pursue non-renewal of a liquor license for Studio Four – located at 314 S. Fourth Ave. – had been based on non-payment of taxes, but they’d since been paid, Derezinski reported at Monday’s meeting. So that license was now being recommended for renewal.

Derezinski’s finding of facts concerning The Fifth Quarter, however, included more than 89 calls for police service at the establishment between Jan. 1, 2010 and Oct. 25, 2010, and reports of fights among patrons, and between Fifth Quarter staff and their patrons. [The club is located at 210 S. Fifth Ave.] The report included one occasion on which 25 officers from Ann Arbor police department, University of Michigan department of public safety, and the Washtenaw sheriff’s office had monitored crowds exiting the establishment and had needed to arrest several people for disorderly conduct.

Outcome: In separate votes, the council voted unanimously to recommend renewal of Studio Four’s liquor license, over dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and unanimously to recommend non-renewal of The Fifth Quarter’s license.

Applications to MDNRE

Before the council were two items concerning applications to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) – the city’s own applications, and an application that Washtenaw County is making.

MDNRE City Applications – Skatepark, Canoes, Boats

For two of the MDNRE grants – for improvements to the Gallup livery and park, and for the proposed skatepark at Veteran’s Memorial Park – the city is applying to MDNRE’s Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. For the third grant, the city is applying to MDNRE’s Waterway Grant-in-Aid program to upgrade the boat launches at Gallup and Argo parks.

The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of the applications at its most recent meeting. ["PAC Supports Grants for Skatepark, Gallup"]

MDRNR City Apps – Skatepark, Canoes, Boats: Council Deliberations

An amendment offered by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) prioritized the skatepark project over the Gallup renovations – based on the opportunity to leverage $400,000 of matching funds from the county, which will expire unless the skatepark’s construction is under contract by Jan. 1, 2012.

The amendment came after clarification with Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, that just two of the applications are ranked by the city in the application process – those for the skatepark and the Gallup canoe livery. Both are for $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The other grant, to improve boat launches, is from a different source – the Waterway Grant-in-Aid fund.

In the course of deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know if it were possible to apply to the waterway fund for the canoe liveries – which would eliminate the need to rank the skatepark against any other project. Bahl said it was not possible.

Hohnke’s reasoning was that the skatepark grant could ultimately mean the transfer of a $1 million asset from the Friends of the Skatepark to the city. But if it doesn’t happen this year, the matching grant funding – from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission – won’t be available. An application for improvements to the Gallup canoe livery, on the other hand could be applied for next year, reasoned Hohnke.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know what it would mean to “prioritize” the applications. It’s simply a matter of designating one as the preferred application, explained Bahl. Bahl pointed out that there’s precedent for communities with two applications to have both of them approved.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as one of two ex officio city council representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) – noted PAC was very interested at its last meeting in seeing the Gallup canoe livery project go forward. They were anticipating those improvements being useful in the context of the increased canoe traffic that may result from construction of the Argo Dam bypass, which is due to start construction this season. He later stressed that PAC had itself not expressed a priority ranking of Gallup canoe liveries versus skatepark.

Taylor wanted to know if prioritization of the skatepark would significantly reduce the chances of receiving the grant to improve canoe liveries – and if so, what the negative impact would be. Bahl responded by saying that it’s not just a matter of increased boat traffic, but also the safety for pedestrians and the boats. The turnaround for taking canoes from Gallup back up to Argo is logistically challenging. There are also accessibility improvements planned as part of the project.

Taylor drew out the fact that the Gallup canoe livery project is a $750,000 project – the city’s share would be $450,000. Taylor summed up his thinking by saying that a $300,000 grant for the livery would give the city roughly half a project, whereas the $300,000 for the skatepark would mean that they are pretty much “all the way home.” Based on that, he was willing to support prioritization of the skatepark.

Mayor John Hieftje said there’d been an unexpected “bonus” of sales of gas and oil leases into the state trust fund, so it had more money in it now than anyone could remember. He said if the council didn’t accept Hohnke’s amendment, it would essentially leave the prioritization to the state.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to know if the canoe livery improvements would be revenue positive – she noted that as far as she understood, the skatepark would not generate revenues. Bahl confirmed that the improvements at the canoe liveries would generate additional revenue – through more boats and more programming.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d be supporting the prioritization, pointing to the chance to leverage funds from the county. He said his understanding was that grant applications that had matching support were generally stronger than other applications. Kunselman noted that a lot of money had already been invested in canoeing recently, whereas there’d been no corresponding support for skateboarders – it was their turn.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that he’d support the amendment, but said it would be a hard choice if it came down to it. He said he didn’t want to dismiss the idea that there’s a need for the canoe livery improvements. For him, the county’s match was the crucial point, and he would be willing to cross his fingers that both projects would receive funding.

Outcome on priority amendment: The council voted to approve the prioritization, over dissent from Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Outcome on approval of applications: The council voted unanimously to approve the three grant applications.

MDNRE: County Application – Land Acquisition

The city council had received a recommendation from Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) to send a letter of support for an application from Washtenaw County to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. Through its natural areas preservation program, the county hopes to secure funds from the state to help purchase a parcel in Ann Arbor Township now owned by a subsidiary of Domino’s Farms.

At its most recent meeting, GAC had recommended that the city council consider a letter of support, after Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), the council’s representative to GAC, had cautioned against GAC’s sending such a letter before confirming that the county’s application would not dilute the city’s own chances to win grant funding. [Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt, County Look to Partner on Farms"]

During brief deliberations, Hohnke mentioned his earlier concern about the possibility that the county’s application could dilute the city’s own chances for its grants. But he had clarified with city staff that the source of the grant money comes from two separate state funds – one for parks improvements and one for land acquisition.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the letter of support for Washtenaw County’s grant application.

“Transformer Plaza”

Before the council for consideration was authorization of a transfer of $90,000 from its parks memorials and contributions fund to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

During a council break, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, shows Sabra Briere her book. (Photo links to close-up of book cover. Kudos to readers who can guess before clicking through what Pollay is reading these days.)

The money will be used by the DDA for the design and construction management of improvements to a plaza near the Forest Street parking structure. Because of the number of DTE Energy transformers that are situated near the plaza, it’s known in some circles as Transformer Plaza.

The $90,000 figure stems from the $50,000 and $40,000 contributions made to the parks fund by the 601 S. Forest and Zaragon I developments, respectively, which are located in the vicinity of the plaza. As part of any site plan review process in the city of Ann Arbor, developers are asked to make a donation of land so that new residents have access to adequate open space. But the city also accepts cash donations in lieu of land contributions.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the residents of the South University area would be pleased – it’d been discussed a lot. Mayor John Hieftje said the project had been in the pipeline a long time.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the transfer of funds.

Millers Creek

Scott Dierks gave a presentation to the council on the background for the Millers Creek improvement plan, which the council was asked to adopt by resolution later in the meeting. Dierks introduced himself as representing the Huron River Watershed Council, as a member and volunteer. He described Millers Creek as one of six creeksheds in the city, covering about 2.5 square miles in the vicinity of Plymouth and Huron Parkway. The creekshed drains to the Huron River.

He traced the origin of the improvement plan back to 1992 as a grassroots effort by Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM). ERIM had reached out to the HRWC and to the landscape design firm Peter Pollack & Associates. That eventually led to a Pfizer-funded effort in 2003-04, to develop an improvement plan, which made specific recommendations in light of current and future land use in the creekshed. The plan was approved by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Millers Creek watershed improvement plan is still used as an example of good watershed planning by the EPA, and is accessible through the EPA’s website, Dierks said.

He listed off some specific accomplishments that have grown out of the plan: 56 rain barrels installed; 6 rain gardens installed; 2 detention pond retrofits, including Thurston Pond, which help control stormwater runoff on around 36 acres; planting of oak savannah; and 500 feet of bank stabilization along Huron Parkway.

The resolution before the council, Dierks said, formalizes the work that has already been done and would serve three purposes: (1) acknowledge the plan, which will guide development in the Millers Creek watershed; (2) help designate the watershed as a county drain; and (3) continue to facilitate relationships between creek groups, the University of Michigan, the city, and the neighborhood.

During council deliberations, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – in whose ward the creekshed is located – complimented those who’d done the long and hard work on the plan. He noted that he’d served on the action team that had worked on the plan in the earlier part of the decade. The city’s planning commission had approved the plan back in 2006, he said. What had been missing was the formal adoption by the city council. He pointed to the designation of Millers Creek as a county drain as a priority when that opportunity presents itself – the designation as a drain would allow it to be eligible for grant funding, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously adopted the Millers Creek improvement plan.

Sakti3 Development District Hearing Set

The council was asked to vote to set a public hearing on establishing an industrial development district (IDD), which could lead to tax credits for Sakti3.

The company is a University of Michigan spin-off focused on advanced battery technology, headed by Ann Marie Sastry. The IDD would be established for just under an acre of land, located at 1490 Eisenhower Place. Sakti3 is reportedly considering an investment of $2.4 million in new equipment and hopes to hire five additional people.

The hearing will be held at the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. in the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall at 100 N. Fifth Ave. [Previous Chronicle coverage mentioning Sakti3: "No Secret Sakti3 Wants Its Batteries in Cars" and "Lutz Rides Current Motors Potential"]

During brief deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that Sakti3 is an incredible business, saying that it represents the future and is cutting edge.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to set the hearing on establishing an industrial development district.

City Administrator Hiring Plan

Before the council for consideration was a resolution calling on the mayor to appoint a five-member city council committee, which is to include the mayor, to handle the search process to find a replacement for outgoing city administrator Roger Fraser. Fraser announced his resignation at the council’s Feb. 28, 2011 working session. At the end of April, Fraser will leave the city to become a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan.

The resolution charged the search committee with providing a recommendation to the council at its April 19 meeting for an interim city administrator. At that meeting, the committee is also expected to present a plan for a selection process to hire a permanent administrator. The plan is to provide for internal as well as external candidates.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) share a laugh before the March 21 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje led off council deliberations on the resolution by saying it was gracious of Fraser to stay on through the end of April. He thanked mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) for putting together the resolution. He said he hoped to finish the hiring process before the end of the summer, if not in mid-summer.

Hieftje announced that the following councilmembers would serve on the committee: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Christopher Taylor (Ward 3); Marcia Higgins (Ward 4); and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Higgins will chair the committee. Hieftje indicated that the committee members had not been chosen by seniority, but rather to get a good mix of experience and perspective. He stressed that the committee would only make recommendations and that the whole council would need to approve all the decisions.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that when the plan is presented to the council, they get a cost impact analysis for various options for doing the search.

Derezinski described himself as bringing “a lot of baggage” to the committee, having been involved in some searches for the superintendent of schools. He also said he’d been through the process when the Eastern Michigan University board of regents had chosen Bill Shelton as president. He described it as a unique dynamic. The two main functions of the city council are to hire and fire the city manager and to approve the city budget, but it’s not often that the council has the opportunity to do it. [The council also hires and fires the city attorney.]

Derezinski said his bias was to seek expertise from professionals who help with searches, like Colin Baenziger & Associates or the Michigan Municipal League [.pdf of Michigan Municipal League executive search services description]. He said there’d need to be full and robust discussion by the whole council as well as the public. He described it as “a balance” between adhering to the requirements of open government and the interest by some candidates in maintaining confidentiality in the early stages of a search.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint the search committee.

Schedule Change for Passover

The council considered a resolution to revise its regular meeting schedule for the year by changing its second meeting in April to Tuesday, April 19. The shift was prompted by observation of Passover, the week-long Jewish festival and holy day – its start is celebrated at sundown on Monday, April 18. The council has been holding its meetings recently in the Washtenaw County administration building, due to renovations at city hall. But they are expected to have returned to their chambers on the second floor of city hall for the April 19 meeting, which will begin at 7 p.m.

During deliberations, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why they are moving the meeting, given that Passover lasts a whole week. Mayor John Hieftje indicated he had no explanation. City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that it was a suggestion from the city staff, based on previous city council practice. He noted that it would affect the planning commission’s meeting as well. [The planning commission typically meets on Tuesdays, but during the week of Passover its meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 21.] Hieftje allowed he was not an expert in this area. He said he was interested “only in taking the correcting action here.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1) provided the insight that the first night of Passover is considered especially important.

Outcome: The council voted to change its calendar due to the Passover holiday, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Council OKs Property Transfer to Avalon

Before the council for consideration was a resolution to approve the transfer of property at 1500 Pauline from the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. (WAHC) to Avalon Housing. The council also approved the release of WAHC from all terms of their $700,000 federal HOME loan, $300,000 federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) loan and Housing Affordability Agreement.

The nonprofit Avalon is currently managing all of WAHC’s properties as part of a consolidation, described as a “merger,” that began two years ago. At its Feb. 22, 2011 meeting the city council approved a site plan for the 1500 Pauline property, allowing Avalon to construct 32 dwelling units and 39 surface parking spaces. The plan includes demolition of four existing apartment buildings – known as the Parkhurst Apartment complex – containing 48 units.

The new construction would include six new buildings totaling 53,185 square feet. Five of the buildings would include one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom townhomes. The sixth building would be a community center with a playground. The project won a recommendation from the city’s planning commission at that body’s Jan. 20, 2011 meeting.

Outcome: Without comment, the council voted to approve the transfer.

Street Task Force: “Have a Heart, Give Smart”

The council heard a presentation from its street outreach task force, which the council appointed at its Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

The report was given by two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm.

Highlights of the report included recommendations that: (1) the city council revise the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations; (2) the police chief increase police attention downtown during the busiest hours of the week; (3) the city’s community standards division increase their interaction with the public; and (4) the mayor’s downtown marketing task force take an expanded role working with residents, merchants and service providers. The task force report describes an educational campaign to advise downtown visitors and University of Michigan students about options they have besides giving money to panhandlers, a campaign with the slogan “Have a Heart, Give Smart.” [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

During her communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), chair of the task force, told her council colleagues that a revision to the city’s ordinance on solicitation would be presented to them for consideration at their April 4, 2011 meeting.

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: 415 W. Washington Update Scheduled

Mayor John Hieftje noted that last year, the council had approved a three-way collaboration between the city, the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, and the Arts Alliance to work on a plan for the future of the city-owned lot at 415 W. Washington. He allowed that a report was owed to the council about progress on that project, and there’d be a half hour presentation at the council’s April 4 meeting. [By way of background, the resolution establishing the collaboration specified: "RESOLVED, That a progress report be delivered to City Council at the first meeting in February, 2011." Chronicle coverage: "City Restarts 415 W. Washington Process" ]

Comm/Comm: Increased Public Accessibility for Meetings

During his communications time, city administrator Roger Fraser mentioned that the city council’s meetings would now be available streamed live over the web: CTN Channel 16 Live. Previously, the city has provided access to archived coverage of public meetings through Community Television Network’s video-on-demand service: Ann Arbor Public Meetings Archive. [CTN also provides live broadcasts of the meeting on its cable TV community access channel.] The accomplishment of the live streaming came relatively quickly after Fraser had first mentioned the possibility at the city council’s Feb. 14, 2011 work session on the budget. From Chronicle coverage of that session [emphasis added]:

Community Television Network

Included in the impact sheets was one for CTN, which Fraser indicated was not part of the general fund, but which is also trying to meet reduction targets. The impact sheet indicates an expenditure for a capital investment of $97,431 – to transition to an appropriate digital format. The new format, said Fraser, would allow for live streaming on computers instead of on television.

Comm/Comm: DDA-City

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gave the council an update on progress of discussions between two committees – one from the city council and another from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – to reach agreement on a new contract under which the DDA would continue to manage the city’s public parking system. The committees have been meeting weekly, he said, and had reached the point of discussing contract language. He said they are making good progress and would be able soon to bring forward a document that could form the basis of a spirited, but fruitful, conversation. [As of the meeting on the morning of March 21, the DDA and the city's committees are still not in agreement on what the percentage of gross parking revenues should be that the DDA pays to the city, or on the specifics about the contract's term. For background on these discussions, see Chronicle coverage: "Parking Money for City Budget Still Unclear"]

Comm/Comm: Labor Report

In January, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), the chair of the council’s labor committee, indicated that he would be using the council communications slot on the agenda to give updates on the status of labor negotiations. Since that time, he has done that on several occasions. On Monday, he announced that he wanted to respond to some statements in an article that had appeared about a week before in a publication called AnnArbor.com.

Rapundalo said he’d already conveyed his responses to the author of that article, but that he would not be commenting on the author’s “vivid prose,” which described Rapundalo’s reaction to a report that he’d been looking at. [From the article's opening line: "It's early on a Friday morning and Ann Arbor City Council Member Stephen Rapundalo is shaking his head, a look of distaste frozen in his eyes."]

Rapundalo began by addressing the reporting of some background material provided in the article, which Rapundalo said portrayed some confusion with respect to the purpose of the state’s Act 312 statute.

Rapundalo stressed that Act 312 had not taken away the right to strike by police and fire personnel provided in exchange for compulsory arbitration. [From the AnnArbor.com article: "When it was put in place in 1969, it was seen as a solution to a problem: By sending disputing parties to arbitration, cities could avoid public safety strikes, and police and fire personnel would be guaranteed an arbitrator would consider their requests."] Instead, Rapundalo pointed out, the Public Employment Relations Act 336 of 1947 already prohibited strikes by public sector employees. He quoted the act: “A public employee shall not strike.”

Later, in 1969, the legislature passed Act 312, which Rapundalo then quoted to show again that the right to strike was already prohibited when Act 312 was passed: “It is the public policy of this state that in public police and fire departments, where the right of employees to strike is by law prohibited, …”

Rapundalo also took issue with any implication from statements reported in the article that the city had not bargained in good faith in prior negotiations. Rapundalo said the city had based its negotiations on the economics of that time, noting that economic conditions had changed, even in a very short time period. Today’s economic reality is different, he said, and the city is now negotiating based on current conditions.

Rapundalo then took issue with statements attributed to a representative of the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) about reduction in health care benefits. Rapundalo stressed that the city had not asked and was not asking for reductions in health care benefits. Health coverage is not the issue, he stressed, but rather employee contributions to their own health coverage and retirement.

Rapundalo took issue with the statement by AAPOA reported in the article that expressed a willingness of the union to continue their 2009 contract, without any wage increases. If the union thinks that forgoing a wage increase is a fair sacrifice, Rapundalo contended, then they really haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on around the rest of the state and the country. Other unions have given up longevity bonuses, uniform allowances and retirement plan contribution matches, he said. The “step increases” based on years of service that are a part of the current police contract, together with other features of the contract, will result in a 3.5% increase in costs in FY 2012 compared to the current fiscal year, Rapundalo said – when other groups’ costs are going down.

Rapundalo also disputed a claim by AAPOA that exposure to radon in the city hall building resulted in greater need for health care by its members, and that their health care plans should be left in place. Rapundalo stated that there’d been no demonstrable link between conditions in the building where they’d been previously housed and any increased need for health care. If there were such a link, Rapundalo concluded, it would be covered under a worker’s compensation claim, not under the city’s health care plan.

Comm/Comm: Digital Cities Award

Robert Blake, regional vice president for government and education at AT&T, presented Dan Rainey, the city of Ann Arbor’s IT director, with the 6th place Digital Cities Award for cities in its category for the survey – those with populations from 75,000-124,999.

Though it's not part of his day-to-day responsibilities as head of the city's IT department, Dan Rainey was wrangling cable at the start of the city council meeting. The meeting was held at the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, where council is meeting temporarily due to renovations at city hall.

The top cities for that category – in order of ranking, including ties – were: Pueblo, Colo.; Olathe, Kan.; Lee’s Summit, Mo.; Roseville, Calif.; High Point, N.C.; Independence, Mo.; Simi Valley, Calif.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Arvada, Colo.; Roanoke, Va.; Schaumburg, Ill.; and Berkeley, Calif.

Blake noted that it was the third year in a row that Ann Arbor had been included in the top ten. This year the ranking was especially meaningful, he said, because it was based on a new scoring system that is based on actual results. Among the specific initiatives cited by Blake were: a shared data center with Washtenaw County and adoption of cloud technology; use of in-car digital video in police cars; online water consumption data for consumers; and the city’s use of Facebook and Twitter.

Comm/Comm: Police Incident

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) related how a resident of his ward had called in a report to the police about something and had wound up being cited for a violation, which had caused the person to become very upset. Anglin described how the situation had resolved itself with an apology from the police, and concluded that in this town, you can fight city hall. Anglin portrayed the episode as reflecting positively on the police department.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Henry Herskovitz addressed the council with two items he said he thinks will help promote peace in Palestine: (1) passing a human rights resolution for the cessation of military aid to Israel; and (2) his group’s forum to be held on March 29 at 7 p.m. at the Mallets Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. He told the council that they might think it was risky to challenge the local Jewish community, but he gave them an example of a food co-op in Olympia, Wash. that had passed a boycott of Israeli goods, and had become stronger as a result of it.

Herskovitz told the council that he’d joined the Olympia food co-op and and showed them a picture of himself standing in front of the co-op. He told councilmembers that standing for social justice can, in fact, have an impact. He quoted Rosie the Riveter from World War II: “We can do it!” He asked council members to “shed past acrimonies” and to attend the Mallets Creek forum on March 29.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, April 4, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the city council chambers on the second floor of city hall at 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Leading up to the city administrator’s proposed budget in April, the city council is also holding a series of work sessions on the budget. Their typical scheduling pattern is for the weeks between council meetings. That was the case on Jan. 31, 2011 when the council held its budget work session on the community services area, which includes human services, parks and planning. Another session was held on Feb. 7, prior to the council’s regular meeting, regarding the 15th District Court. A report on the Feb. 14, 2011 session, which focused on police and fire, will follow.

At the podium is community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Partially obscured by the podium is councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Leafing through the budget impact sheets that the council had been given just prior to the meeting is Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). (Photo by the writer.)

The Ann Arbor city council’s budget work session on Jan. 31, 2011 covered a broad range of topics – from the city’s affordable housing stock, to planning and development, to parks and recreation (including golf courses), to human services funding. All these issues fall under the city’s community services area, which is led by Sumedh Bahl.

In a budget year where maintaining the same level of activity in every department is projected to result in a $2.4 million shortfall, city departments have been given reduction targets between 2.5% and 4%. Targets vary across departments depending on health care costs for employees in those departments.

So at their work session, councilmembers heard from heads of individual departments about the specific ways those targets might be met.

For example, Mary Jo Callan, who’s head of the city/county office of community development, told councilmembers that an unrealized $98,000 federal grant would pose an additional challenge. All other things being equal, Callan would meet the reduction target by reducing the city’s allocation to nonprofit human services agencies by $116,714 – from $1,275,744 to $1,159,030. The budget is planned in two-year cycles, even though it’s adopted just one year at a time, so Callan’s reduction strategy for next year’s FY 2013 budget would be to reduce the nonprofit allocation by an additional $48,700.

The planning department plans to meet its reduction target in part by charging the construction fund for 10% of the historic district coordinator’s time, factoring in projected revenue increases due to increased development activity, and leaving a rental housing inspector position vacant. The rental housing inspection activity would be maintained at appropriate levels by using construction inspectors for rental housing inspections as needed.

The city’s housing commission – which maintains more than 350 units of public housing throughout the city – is not proposing to meet reduction targets, but rather to hire what officials say are two crucially needed positions: a financial analyst and a facilities maintenance manager, which together are expected to cost an additional $154,000 per year.

Parks and recreation would meet their targets in part through savings derived from energy improvements that have been made to various recreational facilities over the past few years.

The council focused some of its session on the city’s golf courses, with a council consensus seeming to emerging that for the next two years, the council will be content to stick with the status quo – operating the Leslie Park and Huron Hills facilities as golf courses, and not changing them to other uses.

But the council was also asked to consider a question on which it could be harder to achieve consensus: Should the city continue to help fund park operations, as it has for the last four years, by tapping the city’s general fund reserve for $287,000 annually? The history of the issue dates back to the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage, which was approved in 2006, and which was followed by the council’s approval of its FY 2008 budget the next spring.

That history is rooted partly in a question that the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, addressed in a straightforward fashion at the work session: What exactly does it mean for a department to have a budget reduction target of 2.5%? 

In this report, we take a look at: (1) how the city’s financial staff define budget reduction targets; (2) how and why those targets vary across departments; (3) how reduction targets relate to the parks budget controversy of FY 2008 and the current $287,000 question; and (4) the range of work session topics discussed by the council.

What Is a Budget Reduction Target?

The city is currently in the middle of its 2011 fiscal year – which ends on June 30, 2011 – and is developing its FY 2012 budget. If the city’s chief financial officer has established a 2.5% budget reduction target, how does he check to see that the target has been met?

Percents are all about comparing numbers, so a natural inclination would be to compare this year with next year – that is, the FY 2011 budget expenses with the FY 2012 projected revenue. In more detail, you might think to calculate 2.5% of the FY 2011 expenses, subtract that number from the FY 2011 expenses and ask: Is that number equal to my FY 2012 budgeted revenue? Arithmetically:

[FY 2011 expense] — [FY 2011 expense]*.025 ?=? [FY 2012]

If that checks out, then from this year to next year, we’ve cut the budget by 2.5%, right?

But that’s not what a 2.5% budget reduction target means for the city. When the city’s financial staff calculate a reduction target of 2.5%, they’re not comparing this year’s expenses with next year’s projected revenue. They’re comparing next year’s projected expenses, with next year’s projected revenue.

At the Jan. 31, 2011 city council work session, the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, explained this concept to council members as a stepwise process:

1. Assume the same activities will be maintained next year at the same level they exist this year [staffing levels will remain the same; the same services will be provided; etc.].
2. Project to next year how much it will cost to maintain that same level of activity. [If the cost of electricity is expected to increase by 10%, that's calculated in; if union contracts stipulate that there's a 1.5% salary increase, that's calculated in.]
3. Compare next year’s projected cost with next year’s projected revenue. If cost exceeds revenue, that defines the percentage reduction the organization needs to achieve as a whole.

Arithmetically, the equation looks like this:

[FY 2012 expense] — [FY 2012 expense]*.025 ?=? [FY 2012 revenue]

By way of a made-up example, consider a perfectly balanced FY 2011 budget where expenses and revenues are $100,000. Let’s say that due to contractually obligated salary increases, overall inflation, and a rise in oil prices, it’s possible to project that the same activities/services the city obtained for $100,000 in FY 2011 will instead cost $101,000 in FY 2012. Let’s say that revenues are expected to drop in FY 2012 to $98,475. So the crucial question for the city is how to reduce $101,000 down to $98,475. On this scenario, measured in dollars, the city is looking for some way to trim $2,525. What’s that dollar target in terms of percent?

2,525/101,000 = .025

Let’s say on that scenario, the city does achieve its reduction target of 2.5%. That is, let’s say the city finds a way to cut expenses for FY 2012 down to $98,475. That would mean a reduction target of 2.5% has been met for FY 2012, even though comparing FY 2012 to FY 2011 would indicate only a 1.525% cut.

Different Reduction Targets for Different Departments

Part of the city’s specific labor strategy is to try to convince its unions to adopt a health care and pension plan that would cost the city less – by requiring greater contributions from employees. The public relations component of that strategy was reflected at the Feb. 7, 2011 city council meeting, when Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), chair of the city council’s budget committee, addressed his colleagues. He contrasted the level of health care benefits received by city union workers with benefits received by city non-union workers and by employees at institutions like the University of Michigan.

In addition to the public relations piece, the city’s labor strategy has a budgetary component. As early as the first budget retreat in December 2010, city administrator Roger Fraser and CFO Tom Crawford explained to councilmembers that this year they will align the city’s labor and budget strategies. What that means in terms of budget reduction targets is that different departments will be given different reduction targets, depending on how many employees in the department have adopted the city’s new benefits plan.

All departments have a baseline 2.5% target, with additional reductions assigned to departments depending on the extent to which employees in each department are still on the city’s old benefits plan.

In a hypothetical department where all employees were on the new heath and pension plan, the reduction target would be 2.5%. In a department with a large number of union employees who have not yet adopted the new health plan, the reduction target this year can be as high as 4%. The numbers extracted from budget impact sheets submitted by each department for the Jan. 31 work session illustrate how the percentage reduction targets vary across departments. The targets all fall between 2.5% and 4.0%:

                   Community     Plan/Dev     Planning        Parks
Projected FY 012   2,008,008    1,497,874      829,796    3,612,367
Reduction Dollars     55,521       55,182       29,613       92,083
Reduction Percent       2.76         3.68         3.57         2.55

-

Reduction Targets and the 2006 Parks Millage: $287,000

The city’s method for computing reduction targets based on next year’s projected expenses and next year’s projected revenues is not new this year – this is simply the way it’s been done. But that method of computing budget targets is inconsistent with the last-year-vs.-this-year comparison that many people are drawn to when they think about percentages. That inconsistency led to considerable controversy in early 2007 when the city council adopted its FY 2008 budget.

The controversy involved the combined parks maintenance and capital improvements millage that was approved by voters in November 2006. Before passage of the combined millage, the city levied two separate millages at 0.5 mill each – one for parks maintenance and the other for capital improvements. Now, within the combined millage, taxes are collected at a rate of 1.0 mill, but money is allocated to maintenance or capital improvements on a more flexible basis than the previous legally enforced 50-50 split that was expressed by the specialized purpose of each millage.

However, there’s not complete flexibility to allocate money to maintenance or capital improvements within the unified millage. Percentage allocation is guided by a city council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60% to 80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements.

Another part of that resolution was intended to address a fear expressed by some in the community at the time: Even though more money for parks might be generated through the new millage, the amount of money actually spent on parks could be reduced – if the city reduced funding for parks from its general fund. So the intent of the resolution was to allay that fear. In relevant part, the October 2006 resolution reads:

4. If future reductions are necessary in the City’s general fund budget, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning with Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system for that year will be reduced by a percentage no greater than the average percentage reduction of the total City general fund budget;

5. If future increases occur in the City’s general fund budget during any of the six years of this millage, beginning with Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system for that year will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage increase of the total City general fund budget;

By spring the following year – as the council was prepared to adopt the FY 2008 budget – objections were raised when general fund support for parks in the proposed FY 2008 budget was less than in FY 2007. Those who objected, including prominent leaders of two environmental groups, pointed to the increase in the overall general fund budget from the previous year, and contended that parks should enjoy the same increase, not a decrease. From a May 19, 2007 Ann Arbor News account, written by Tom Gantert:

Mike Garfield, director of the Ecology Center, and Doug Cowherd, chairman of the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group, said the city should do what it said it would do in an October 2006 resolution. That resolution stated that if the city’s general fund budget increased, the parks system budget will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage of the total general fund budget.

According to the city, the general fund budget rose from $78.5 million to $80.3 million, an increase of 2 percent. Yet, the parks system budget dropped from $6.7 million to $6.0 million, a decrease of about 11 percent. To get to that 2 percent increase as the resolution states, the city would have to add about $763,000.

On the night the council adopted the FY 2008 budget, an attempted budget amendment – proposed by then-councilmember Bob Johnson – would have added $638,900 to the parks budget from the general fund reserve. But the amendment failed, receiving support only from councilmembers Johnson, Ron Suarez and Stephen Kunselman.

For that vote, the majority of councilmembers seemed persuaded that the intent and purpose of the October 2006 resolution was served by treating the parks budget targets – as they’ve been laid out in the first section of this article – the same as all other departments. At the time, an Ann Arbor News account from May 16, 2007 had Crawford explaining the apparent discrepancy this way:

But now chief financial officer Tom Crawford says the [October 2006] resolution was too simplistic and just looked at overall budget figures and didn’t follow the city budget methodology in place for several years.

For example, because the parks system doesn’t have as many employees as other departments, its budget doesn’t increase as much for rising expenses such as employee health care.

Because of problems in the ordinance language like that, Crawford said the parks would be getting more money than other larger departments that are paying for such benefits.

Crawford said the parks department was treated the same as the other departments in the city.

But later, in October 2007, Johnson brought the issue back to the council with a smaller number to be added to the parks budget from the general fund reserve – $287,000. And that resolution was passed by the council.

Originally the general fund supplement to the parks budget was supposed to be a non-recurring item from the general fund reserve in FY 2008 and FY 2009. But it recurred in the FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets, as well.

So at the Jan. 31, 2011 council work session, community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl asked the council for guidance: Should the city simply set the parks budget at $287,000 higher, continue to tap the general fund reserve, or discontinue the supplement? Mayor John Hieftje wanted to know if the city’s park advisory commission had become more versed in how the budget targets work. Crawford told the mayor he thinks PAC understands it.

Stephen Rapundalo said this is not the first time over the years when the council has talked about tapping the reserve fund balance for recurring operational needs – it needs to stop, he said, because the council was just “kicking the can down the road.”

But Crawford was keen to stress that in general the council has been disciplined about not tapping the general fund reserve for operational expenses. The parks supplement was an old decision, he said, and now it’s time to check and see where the council’s consensus is on the question.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that it is a decision the council would make during the budget process. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered how that would be achieved: Do they do that by resolution? The answer was unclear.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that out of a $7.8 million community services budget, $287,000 is a relatively small order of magnitude. Rapundalo cautioned that the right number to compare the $287,000 against is just the parks portion – around $3.6 million.

Kunselman inquired when the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage is up for renewal, and Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, clarified that it would be on the November 2012 ballot.

Concerning the differing viewpoints on the intent of the October 2006 resolution, city administrator Roger Fraser seemed conciliatory. It was a matter of interpretation, he said, and both groups had made good arguments about whether the budget complied with the intent of voters.

Budget Impact Sheets

The Jan. 31, 2011 budget work session was oriented around budget impact sheets for each department. The city of Ann Arbor is maintaining a separate page in its online budget guide as a repository for the impact sheets. [.pdf of combined budget impact sheets from Jan. 31, 2011] The impact sheets include in detail all the items identified for savings or additional revenue, as well as any items that would increase costs.

Budget Impact Sheets: Planning and Development

Among the ways that the city’s planning and development services departments are meeting their reduction targets, Sumedh Bahl highlighted the following: making sure that staff time is being billed appropriately to other departments; and an additional $3,000 in revenue from already-implemented fee increases in the city’s historic preservation program.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he liked the additional $10,00o in revenue from increased development activity. He wanted to know if there were more development proposals in the pipeline? Yes, answered Bahl.

In the course of questioning, Bahl went on to explain that part of their plan to meet reduction targets is to leave an inspector position vacant and to use construction inspectors for rental housing inspections. Increased efficiency in rental housing inspections is expected to yield an additional $50,000 in revenue.

In response to councilmember questions, Bahl said that regionalization of inspections – using inspectors from surrounding municipalities – is a future possibility. The city is also looking into the establishment of an administrative hearing bureau (AHB), which would help expedite dealing with nuisance properties, Bahl said. That might take around a year to establish, he said.

[Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has, over the last several months, pointed out specific properties in his ward that he says have become nuisances, and are contributing to blight. At the budget retreats, he has also urged that the council and staff  think about ways to address the problem – money for demolition can be clawed back through a lien, for example. Establishment of an AHB is one mechanism that the state's Home Rule Cities Act makes available for dealing with such properties. The city of Ypsilanti established an AHB last year.]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that he’d made a request at one of the budget retreats for a cost/benefit analysis of doing mandatory home inspections upon sale of a property. It’s something that would generate some amount of additional revenue. Is that on the list? he asked. Bahl confirmed that looking at the issue was at the top of his list.

Budget Impact Sheets: Housing Commission

The Ann Arbor Housing Commission oversees around 350 affordable housing units across the city. The housing commission’s impact sheet did not propose to meet the reduction target. Instead, it called for hiring two new positions: a facility maintenance manager and a financial analyst.

Bahl explained that the facility maintenance position  is vacant. The job includes overseeing the maintenance of buildings, plus the mechanicals like boilers and furnaces. Bahl stressed the need to maintain equipment as a way to extend its life, which delays capital expenses.

Bahl recalled his recent experience as head of the city’s drinking water facilities. [Bahl assumed the leadership of the community services area last year when Jayne Miller left the city for another position. Before that, Bahl was head of the drinking water facilities.] His focus was always on maintenance, he said. By way of example, he described for the council how they had gas engines from 1965 and pumps from 1949 that were still in service. That’s how you prolong the life of equipment – by having a good maintenance program.

[The request for two positions for the housing commission comes in the context of a wholesale replacement of the housing commission's board last year. Additional Chronicle coverage: "Housing Commission Reorganizes," and "Investments: Housing, Bridges, Transit." Last year, the council agreed to a $138,000 allocation to the housing commission to help transition it into an operation that is less dependent on the federal HUD program. The transition included making full-time positions of the executive director and deputy director of the housing commission.]

Mayor John Hieftje asked Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – the city council’s liaison to the housing commission – if funding would be available to perform the maintenance, if the maintenance manager position were funded.

Derezinski explained that maintenance was part of needs assessment that had been done [by Schumaker & Company]. The commission is currently “backhoeing” a lot of the deferred maintenance, he said. It’s things like changing filters. [There is also currently an open request for proposals (RFP), with a Feb. 25 deadline, to bid on replacing furnaces at many of the housing commission properties.] They need the management position to organize the staff to do it the regular maintenance.

City administrator Roger Fraser said that $330,000 had been spent on furnaces and boilers in the last year. There are two resident managers who work with people in facilities to do some maintenance, he said, but they don’t have time to look at the capital side.

Fraser reminded the council that in last year’s budget, they’d approved additional money for the housing commission – over $130,000 – but this current request is “not a repeat of that money.” For some of the capital investments necessary, Fraser said, the commission had received grants. [To match those grants, the housing commission has recently asked the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for support, but the DDA has not yet acted on the request.]

About the maintenance issues, Derezinski compared it to opening a drawer and finding more snakes. He said the maintenance issues in the housing units are reflected in the complaints you hear at the housing commission’s board meetings. Two years ago, he said, there were a dozen people at every meeting, but that’s decreasing. The staff is now “on top of it.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) inquired whether maintenance could be done by third party. If you have a schedule for changing filters, could they call up someone in the phone book and have them perform that task? he wondered. Bahl allowed that some tasks could be outsourced to a third party – they take a combined approach. Some maintenance is done by staff, and some is done by contracted sources – for example, for chillers that require a worker with specialized training. But Bahl said that someone has to monitor and manage everything.

Kunselman noted that as part of the reorganization last year, the commission had eliminated two union positions for maintenance. Kunselman wanted to know how that was consistent with needing a maintenance manager. The part of the maintenance that has been outsourced, instead of using union positions, Bahl said, is done when the units turn over to a new occupant. The commission still needs someone to make sure that all the regular maintenance work is getting done.

Earlier in the work session, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out the fact that there is currently $118,000 in the Ann Arbor housing trust fund. Kunselman wanted to know if that included the Burton Commons project. Mary Jo Callan, head of the combined city/county office of community development, explained that four years ago the commission had committed funds the  Burton Commons housing project. Two years ago, she said, the city told “wanted-to-be developers” it could not continue the commitment. So, where’s the money? Kunselman wanted to know. Fraser explained that it was put in back in the trust fund, and it’s been used. Smith inquired about future payments that are due to the fund by developments – specifically, the one at Plymouth Green. Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, explained that based on the Plymouth Green development agreement, two payments of $15,000 had been made and there would be two more, at $15,000 each for next two years.

Smith noted that Avalon Housing is a nonprofit organization in town similar to the housing commission, and Avalon Housing has divested itself of smaller, single-unit housing. Did the needs assessment for the housing commission include consideration of the type of housing stock? She pointed out that it could be a question of replacing 100 furnaces versus one.

Derezinski said that the furnaces that had been replaced were in smaller units. He also said that the question of an appropriate mix of housing stock was receiving attention from the commission. They’d looked at the mix in the Grand Rapids housing commission’s collection of housing, for example.

Fraser wrapped up the discussion of the housing commission by noting that he’d been in public service long enough to see the federal government essentially get out of the business of domestic spending on housing. A lot of the housing we’re dealing with now, he said, dates to the late ’60s and ’70s. The units had 30-year mortgages to guarantee affordability. Fraser noted that the council had previously discussed multi-family units going to market rate. The pressure has rolled downhill to the smallest units of government closest to the people, he said, and the dilemma is only going to get worse.

Fraser pointed to President Obama’s remarks during his state of the union speech, and the new leadership in the U.S. Senate and House, as well as Michigan’s own legislature – all of them have been targeting domestic spending for cuts, he said, and we’ll have to live with it.

Budget Impact Sheets: Community Development

Mary Jo Callan, the director of the combined city/county office of community development, delivered a grim picture for human services allocations to nonprofits. She would meet the budget reduction target in FY 2012 by reducing allocation to nonprofits that provide human services by $116,714 – from $1,275,744 to $1,159,030. Callan’s strategy to meet the target for next year’s FY 2013 budget would be to reduce the nonprofit allocation by an additional $48,700.

Councilmembers appeared slow to grasp the full significance of the numbers on the budget impact sheets. Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked: How did you come up with that number? Where will it hit?

Callan explained that she did not yet know which specific nonprofits would be affected. She said that her department is in the process of gearing up for the new coordinated funding process, beginning July 1, 2011.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) remarked that it was a significant percentage cut, with Teall chiming in that it was greater than 2.5%.

Callan explained that her department had anticipated receiving a $98,000 federal grant from HUD the previous year, to cover administrative costs incurred from city finance and administrative staff. The grant had not materialized – HUD requires documentation that is fairly specific, she said. In a followup email in response to a Chronicle query, Callan described the documentation issue in more detail:

The documentation requires not only the amount of time spent on a specific grant (e.g. CDBG, HOME, CDBG-R, NSP), but also the specific project worked on (e.g. single family demolition, 701 Miller rehab, human services). Community Development has our whole finance and time tracking system set-up to accommodate this documentation threshold, since the vast majority of our funding comes from these sources. City finance and administrative staff however, do not track their time in this detailed way, since the vast majority of their work relates to the general fund.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) mistakenly concluded from Callan’s remarks that the $116,000 reduction did not mean reduction in nonprofit allocations after all – the reduction would be $116,000 minus the $98,000, he ventured. That would make it more palatable in terms of actual service agency cuts, he concluded.

But Callan clarified that they would not be subtracting $98,000 from anything. Rapundalo sought to clarify why support to nonprofits would be reduced if the $98,000 was originally intended to support administrative staff.

City administrator Roger Fraser sought to bring some clarity to the situation by saying that if administrative staff is reduced, the city loses capacity to administer the program. The office of community development had tried to keep the allocations to nonprofit agencies stable, he said. The city’s recommendation is consider the trade-off: What does it take to run the operation, and how much direct support to nonprofits can be provided? The city is trying to figure out how to pay for staff to run the program at the same level, while continuing to provide direct support to programs.

Rapundalo ventured that the budget impact sheet was not a specific proposal for allocating the cut between administrative staff and direct support to programs. Fraser replied that the city was suggesting a balancing act: “These are the adjustments we think are necessary.” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) zeroed in on the significance of the numbers the council had been given: “So it really is a direct reduction?” Yes, said Callan. She continued by saying her department is a lean organization: “We don’t bring this to you lightly.”

Hohnke summarized the situation by saying that one way the city had been working to maintain funding was to identify federal funding opportunities – the proposed cut reflects the fact that federal funding didn’t materialize.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the situation as Callan believing the department is as lean as it can go and it has gotten what revenue is gettable – the only way to meet it is to reduce funding to human services agencies.

Fraser stressed that there was no effort yet to balance the choices in human services funding against other choices in the city’s organization. The office of community development was asked to meet the reduction targets just like every other department, and it was presented in “raw form.” In the proposed budget in April, he said, they might propose a different scenario, but the impact sheet simply recognizes that $98,000 is gone.

Budget Impact Sheets: Parks and Recreation – Basics

Among the dollars identified at the work session by Sumedh Bahl for savings in parks and recreation was $65,083 in energy savings due to improvements done at facilities. He also pointed to $10,000 saved in materials and supplies used for upkeep in facilities. Upgrades in facilities means that for a certain time, there’ll be a reduction in maintenance costs, he said. Additional budget savings would result from adjusting water charges to reflect what actual usage is. And they’re eliminating some software licenses. Some of the software, Bahl said, isn’t used by the staff that much, “so we’re taking it away from them.”

Bahl also pointed to an additional $52,000 in anticipated revenue, starting in FY 2013, from new kayaking and tubing, resulting from the planned construction of the Argo Dam bypass, which was recommended by the city’s park advisory commission and approved by the city council last year.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered about a proposed increase in fees at the city’s outdoor pools for FY 2013 – $4 to $5 for adults and $3.50 to $4 for youth and seniors – which the budget impact sheet showed would generate an additional $40,000 in revenue in FY 2013.  He noted that historically, fee increases had caused revenue to drop. Bahl said he felt the prices would still be pretty competitive.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation program, allowed that fee increases leading to less patronage and lower revenues had happened – but that was a number of years ago, he said. At that time, he said, the increase had been for season passes and it was extraordinary. During the last fee adjustment cycle, the prices on season passes were raised by 10% and the city didn’t get any “hard feedback” on that, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know: What’s “hard feedback”? Smith explained that this meant negative public input about the increase.

But Higgins noted that this is the first year that the city would see the impact of the 10% fee increase – this spring. She clarified that these are additional fee increases planned for the following year. Smith confirmed that’s the case – he didn’t want to implement two kinds of fee increases at once.

Budget Impact Sheets: Parks and Recreation – Huron Hills

Included in the materials provided to city councilmembers was a memo that outlined various options for Huron Hills golf course. [The city also owns the Leslie Park golf course.]

[Last year the city issued an RFP to privatize of some the operations at the course, but ultimately decided not to accept either of the proposals that were made – one from Miles of Golf and the other from a citizen group that envisioned turning the course operations over to a nonprofit.]

Bahl summarized the result of the implementation of recommendations made by a consultant – Golf Convergence, hired by the city in 2007 – to improve patronage at the city’s two golf courses. All of the recommendations have now been implemented:

Rounds Played
Season  Huron    Leslie
2007    13,913   21,857
2008    15,558   27,078
2009    21,150   30,973
2010    22,500   32,000

-

Bahl noted that there’d been a dramatic improvement in the number of rounds played, but there are signs that it’s flattening out.

A memo provided to the council outlines the financial impact of various options for use of the Huron Hills land, including continuing to operate the golf course. In summary strokes, the options for Huron Hills and their costs over the next four years would be:

• Golf course: $162,000-187,000 annually
• Walking trails: $68,000-$309,000 annually
• Naturalization: at least $500,000 annually, falling to around $100,000 after seven years
• Soccer fields: no cost estimate
• Disc golf: no cost estimate
• Farming: no cost estimate

There’s a wide range of cost estimates for the walking trails option. By way of explanation, Bahl noted that for non-golf scenarios at Huron Hills, it’s necessary to include the “legacy costs” for two people currently employed at Huron Hills, both in union positions – one AFSCME and one Teamster. By union contract, he said, those employees cannot be laid off if the city has any temporary, seasonal, or contract worker employed at the city. And the city relies heavily on these types of workers, so laying off the two union workers at Huron Hills is not a realistic option. The net cost to the city of replacing seasonal workers with the Huron Hill’s workers would be around $175,000, Bahl said. Also in the mix is $42,000 in municipal service charges and $24,000 in IT charges that the golf enterprise fund accounting currently pays from the enterprise fund into the general fund.

The lower range of cost reflects a scenario in which the two Huron Hill’s union workers can be placed elsewhere in the city, while the higher cost in the range is a scenario where neither worker can be placed elsewhere.

Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation program, stressed that under the walking trails option, the result would not be a natural area, but rather an “unkept golf course.” Converting it to a natural area would require considerably more investment – listed out as a separate option. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Smith that under the walking trails option, there was money factored in for mowing of the 8th and 9th hole areas that are used for sledding in the winter. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the fact that there is not money in that option for mowing areas where people might cross-country ski.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wondered why the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage could not be used for non-golf options. Smith’s answer was that because maintenance would be mowing, which must be paid out of the city’s general fund.

Commenting on the legacy costs, mayor John Hieftje noted that if positions elsewhere in the city opened up, they could be held open for the Huron Hills workers. City administrator Roger Fraser allowed that this would be the city’s strategy, but could not guarantee that positions would open up.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that the walking trails options outlined a range of possibility, but he wanted to know what the range of likelihood is. Bahl told Taylor that chances of finding an opening for the AFSCME employee are better, because of the relatively large pool of such workers. On the Teamster side, the pool is smaller. Summarizing the city’s best realistic estimate for the legacy costs for non-golf options, Colin Smith said it’d be $150,000 and above in the first couple of years.

Higgins stated that the city had committed to five years before evaluating the success of the Golf Convergence recommendations – when does that end? she wondered. Colin Smith clarified that the five-year evaluation period ends in 2013 – there are two years left.

City administrator Roger Fraser weighed in, saying the staff was not suggesting the council had to implement changes before two more years is up. It’s a matter of considering what a sustainable approach to city services is. When the city talks about community engagement to solve problems for the city’s future, the different scenarios for Huron Hills should be a part of the discussion, he concluded.

There seemed to be little enthusiasm from councilmembers at the work session for contemplating anything but a golf course at Huron Hills for the next two years.

City of Ann Arbor Ward 2 is the magenta wedge of the pie in this map on the east side of the city.

While the five candidates for the two wards participated in the same 45-minute forum, this report covers only responses to questions from Ward 2 candidates – incumbent Tony Derezinski, who is the Democratic Party nominee, and Emily Salvette, the nominee of the Libertarian Party. Responses from Ward 5 candidates Carsten Hohnke, John Floyd and Newcombe Clark are reported in a separate account.

As stipulated in the city charter, Ann Arbor wards divide the city into roughly pie-shaped wedges. Ward 2 is a wedge covering roughly the area between the 1 o’clock and 4 o’clock positions on the “city pie.” Each ward is represented on the city council in two council seats, one of which is up for election each year for a two-year term. Stephen Rapundalo serves in the Ward 2 seat that’s not up for election this year.

The four questions posed by the League were confined essentially to two topics: the budget and parks. Candidates uniformly identified the most important challenge facing the city as the budget, and that fit thematically with a specific question about the budget. The remaining two questions focused on specific parks: Huron Hills golf course, which is currently the subject of a request for proposals for private management; and Fuller Park, part of which is a proposed location for a new parking deck to be built primarily for the University of Michigan, and which has a possible future as a train station.

Both Derezinski and Salvette acknowledged the difficulty of the financial situation faced by the city. Salvette focused on her basic philosophy of limited government, stating that she was not in favor of new taxes. Salvette cautioned against an approach of “tinkering around the edges,” instead calling for reducing employee costs.  Derezinski noted that the number of employees has been reduced considerably in the last decade through attrition and early retirements. He warned that if additional cuts could not be made, it might be necessary to think about changing the tax structure. He did not explicitly call for the citizen vote that would be required to levy a city income tax.

With respect to the city parks, Salvette stressed the importance of putting the future use of Fuller Park to a vote – she isn’t opposed to the university purchasing the land for use as a parking deck, but expressed skepticism about the viability of a transit station use. She felt that Huron Hills should be left the way it is. Derezinski expressed his support for the plan for Fuller Road Station, and stressed that Huron Hills would continue to be used for golf, whatever the outcome of the current request for proposals is for the privatization of operations there.

Opening Statements

Each candidate began with a 1-minute opening statement.

Opening: Derezinski

Tony Derezinski led off his remarks by saying that his first two years of service on the city council representing Ward 2 had been an interesting time. He ticked off his council committee assignments: city planning commission; labor and council administration committee; board of insurance administration; WATS alternate; Washtenaw corridor study technical committee; Ann Arbor housing commission; SEMCOG delegate. He then cited the Arbor Hospice Foundation board and membership in Rotary Club as other civic involvement. He cited a credential of a master’s degree in urban legal studies from Harvard University’s law school and 25 years of private practice in the area of municipal law.

Opening: Salvette

Emily Salvette thanked the League of Women Voters for the opportunity to address voters and for the work the league does in the community. She stated that she thinks it’s bad that we have only one political party running the city – all 11 members of the city council are Democrats, she said, and that’s how it’s been for a while. That’s not good for democracy, she said – we need some honest debate at council meetings.

Salvette said she believes in limited government, focusing on the basics: protecting people from violent crime and providing basic infrastructure like roads and water. Then government should step back and let people go about their business, she said. She also said that she thinks government should be fair, open and honest. The government, she said, should follow its own rules. She invited people to find out more by visiting her website: emily4a2.org

Challenges for Next Two Years

Question: What are the primary challenges facing the city council in the next two years and what strengths would you bring to that role?

Derezinski on Challenges: Services in a tough economy

Tony Derezinski identified the first challenge as continuing to provide quality municipal services – that’s a challenge, he said, because of the economic times. The city has had to make painful cuts. The second challenge he identified is planning for the future. Ann Arbor is in a position to keep and improve on its remarkable culture, he said. The question is how to do that during tough times and in collaboration with surrounding communities. He talked about the need to meet challenges in the context of the entire state and cited his experience in the state Senate.

Salvette on Challenges: Debt, employee costs

Emily Salvette stated that the city’s debt is obviously the biggest challenge – the city is spending too much money. She said that city costs need to be brought under control, and the biggest area where more control is needed is in employee costs. She said we need to “look hard” at union contracts, hiring and firing decisions, and make sure we’re running a sustainable operation. This is not the time for new taxes, she said. Spending needs to be brought under control. Her focus on limited government, she said, would help, because she does not always want to use government to solve every problem – it won’t grow under her watch, she concluded.

Parks: Golf

Question: Are Ann Arbor’s city parks under threat? For example, what should be the future use of the Huron Hills golf course?

Salvette on Huron Hills: Leave it publicly operated, the way it is

Emily Salvette said she didn’t necessarily think that the city’s parks are under attack. However, she said a couple of things bother her about the plans for the development of the Fuller Road transit station. If we have a rule that park land can’t be sold without a vote of the people and we enter into a long-term lease – that is for all intents and purposes, for those here today, a sale – then that’s not playing by the rules, she said. Government should be held accountable and be honest about what it’s trying to do, and should live by its own rules. With respect to Huron Hills, she said, as a Libertarian, she supported privatization as much as the next person, but she’s listened to what neighbors of the course have had to say. She does not think that contracting out in this situation is warranted. Huron Hills should be left the way it is right now.

Derezinski on Huron Hills: Consider privatization to make it break even

Tony Derezinski began by calling the city parks one of the “great strengths” of Ann Arbor. The parks are beautiful. He said he lives near Huron Hills golf course and plays it 4-5 times a year – not well, but he tries, he quipped. What the city has done so far, he said, is simply to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to see how Huron Hills could be managed better. The RFP is very specific, he said, that the land would be managed as a golf facility. It’s important to make that inquiry in tough times, he said, to see if there’s a way to do it better. It’s a great facility, but it could be better, and the city needs to make it at least break even, he said. The parks are safe, he said, and they’ll continue to be one of the great strengths of the city.

Parks: Fuller Road Station

Question: Is a transit station and parking structure an appropriate use of Fuller Park?

Derezinski on FRS: Full support

Tony Derezinki began by reacting to the description of the land as a “park” by saying, “I think you mean a ‘parking lot,’ which is what it is right now.” He went on to say that it’s been a parking lot for quite some time. He stated that he felt that a transit station and parking structure was an appropriate use of the land. The Fuller Road Station would be a lot more than just a parking structure – it would become an intermodal transportation hub where many different types of transportation come together.

There are around 30,000 people who come into the city every day – most of them to the university hospital system, Derezinski said. The University of Michigan had planned to build a couple of decks near Broadway and Wall Street, but gave up that plan when the opportunity came to build on Fuller Road. The plans, he said, call for a bridge that goes from the parking structure straight to the medical center, and would eventually include a train station. The current Amtrak station is inadequate, he said, and if high speed rail comes to Ann Arbor, the structure at Fuller Road will be the station for it. It will be a lot more than just a parking structure, he concluded.

Salvette on FRS: Open to purchase by UM, but need a citizen vote

Emily Salvette said that the city has to be open and honest about what should happen with that land – it should go to a vote. She does not think it’s necessarily a bad thing to have a parking lot for the University of Michigan – if they need it, they should buy it. She said she had strong concerns about planning for “transit schemes” that she thinks are unsustainable and impractical and will cost a lot of money. Rail as a transportation option is currently not viable, she said. To build a “dream transit station” in order to get ready for that happening, she said, is “folly.”

Budget

Question: Balancing the budget is a continuing challenge. Do more cuts need to be made – if so, what? Are there additional sources of revenue, and if so, what?

Salvette on Budget: Employee costs are most crucial

Emily Salvette said that it would not be helpful to tinker around the edges with small cuts here and there, especially with popular programs and services. What we should really tackle, she said, are things like employee costs – pension, and health care contributions. We need to get these employee costs under control, she said. There are fewer employees today than there were four years ago, yet the city’s costs are 25% higher, she said. It’s important to get employee costs in line with the private sector, she said – there are taxpayers who are suffering, while city employees have very generous benefit packages.

Derezinski on Budget: Alternative to more cuts is to change tax structure

Tony Derezinski characterized the budget cuts as among the most difficult decisions he’s had to make in his first term and he hears about them – things like leaf collection and paving of roads. Those are essential services, he said, that he as a representative of Ward 2 is concerned about. In the last 10 years, the number of city employees has decreased by 25%. Those are difficult cuts, he said, but they’ve been achieved through attrition and early retirements. At the same time the city has kept up its AA+ bond rating. In the future, he cautioned, the alternative is to cut more or to look for additional funds. That would mean some tough choices or else a change in the structure of the tax system.

Closing Statements

Each candidate gave a 2-minute closing statement.

Salvette’s Closing

Emily Salvette began by thanking the League of Woman Voters for the opportunity to be there. It’s been five years, she said, since there were two names on the ballot in a Ward 2 city council race. It’s been five years since a party other than the Democrat Party was on council. Yet she knows there are different points of view on issues in Ward 2, because she talks politics with her friends and neighbors all the time. Many of them feel that city government is too big, and is pursuing ill-advised projects. She asked her friends and neighbors to seize the opportunity to make a difference in Ann Arbor – put some diversity into the debate on the city council. She suggested that voters could find out more about the Libertarian Party by visiting lp.org

She allowed that voters might not agree with her on every issue, but guaranteed that she would be an independent voice. She would listen, ask questions, and demand answers from city officials. She’d base her decisions on what she heard from voters, what she believes is right and what promotes fair, open and honest government in Ann Arbor. Her decisions would not be based on what she’s been told to do at a party caucus, she said. It’s time for an independent voice in Ann Arbor government, she said, and that’s why she’s running.

Derezinski’s Closing

Tony Derezinski quipped that it’s great to be the last person speaking and said it’s been a pleasure to represent Ward 2 over the last two years. Two years ago, when he ran, his campaign theme had been: “Let’s make this great community even better.” He said he still has faith we can do that, though he allowed it’d been a “tough slide” for the last couple of years due to the financial situation. He assured people that we would get over that crisis. Times are going to be better and we have to plan for them, but right now there are tough decisions we have to make. We have to continue to provide services, he said.

He pointed to the work the planning commission has been doing to rezone parts of the community, because the zoning laws are outdated. He also pointed to the Washtenaw Avenue corridor study technical committee he’s on as a collaboration of four communities: Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and Ypsilanti. That’s the kind of thing we need to do more of, he said. We need to look to the future, he said, and declared that he is optimistic. He said he refused to attack city government and that we can make it better by good planning, by thinking about our goals for 25 years from now and working towards those goals. He concluded by thanking the League of Women Voters.

Eunice Burns and Shirley Axon, co-founders of Huron River Day, were at the podium to receive a proclamation honoring the event to be held July 11. (Photos by the writer.)

Public commentary and deliberations on those two issues sent the council’s meeting well past midnight. [Chronicle coverage of those issues is included in Part 1 of this meeting report: "Unscripted: Historic District, Immigration"]

The council transacted a lot of other business as well. Councilmembers approved a change to the zoning code that modifies the list of allowable uses for public land so that the planned Fuller Road Station can be accommodated. Also passed was a change to the site plan approval process, which relaxes the requirement that up-to-date site plans be accessible to the public on a 24/7 basis.

Parks were front and center, and not just because of the public hearing and council action on allowable uses of public land. At the start of the meeting, a proclamation was made for Huron River Day, which takes place at Gallup Park on Sunday, July 11. And the council continued its pattern at the first meeting of the month of recognizing volunteers who help maintain the city’s parks through the Adopt-a-Park program.

In other action, the council approved the $2.5 million purchase of development rights for the 286-acre Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, as recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission, and established a residential parking permit program for the South University area.

Public Land Uses

Before the council was the second reading of a proposed revision to the city’s zoning ordinances, which calls for a change to the list of allowable land uses for land that is zoned as public land (PL). Some public land, but not all, is used for parks. The change was proposed to include “transportation facilities” so that the planned Fuller Road Station would unambiguously be included in the allowable uses.

[During his communications time, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated the the fourth public meeting on the Fuller Road Station would be held July 8 from 7-9 p.m. at the lower level meeting room at the county building at 200 N. Main St.]

The council had given the item some discussion at its June 21, 2010 meeting:

The planning commission had considered and unanimously recommended the change at its May 4, 2010 meeting. It’s been the subject of conversation in the community over the last couple of months in connection with the proposed Fuller Road Station – the project that prompted the desire to change the possible uses in the PL designation. The proposed change would replace “municipal airport” with “transportation facilities.”

5:10.13. PL public land district.
(1) Intent. This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.
(2) Permitted principal uses.
(a) Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.
(b) Natural open space, such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.
(c) Developed open space, such as: arboreta, botanical and zoological gardens.
(d) Educational services, such as: public primary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.
(e) Cultural services, such as: museums and art galleries.
(f) Public-service institutions, such as: hospitals, sanatoria, homes for the elderly, children’s homes and correctional institutions.
(g) Essential services, buildings containing essential services and electrical substations.
(h) Municipal airports Transportation facilities.
(i) Civic center.
(j) Government offices and courts.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know why the change was a replacement of one term with another – why not add a term instead? Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, indicated that adding a list of possible facilities would possibly be seen as exhaustive. Higgins got confirmation that the impetus for the change was one project – Fuller Road Station.

Public Land Uses: Public Comment and Hearing

During the council’s general commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Julie Grand – the current chair of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) – addressed the council on the topic of Fuller Road Station. She reminded the council that in their communications packet there was a resolution passed unanimously by PAC concerning the Fuller Road Station. She asked the council to read the resolution. Highlights from the resolution are process and revenue, she said. It’s important that the process be public and that a clear schedule be presented. It’s also important that the parks not lose money on the proposal. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

John Satarino, former chair of PAC, addressed the council on the topic of altering the possible uses of public land.

Introducing himself as former PAC chair was John Satarino, who called the change of permissible uses of public land in the city’s zoning code “a peculiar form of municipal corruption.” He called the Fuller Road Station agreement with the University of Michigan probably the “greatest ripoff sweetheart deal” in the city’s history.

He called it a “parkland grab” for the construction of a huge parking structure. Any transit use beyond the parking uses, he said, was years off. Secrecy and distortions, he said, had been used to limit public participation in the project. He said this was orchestrated by the city administrator, who seemed to have a disdain for the city’s parks.

Satarino then ticked through a number of items. He said that the “city bosses” had gotten an appraisal for the entire south end of Fuller Park for over $4 million, for the purpose of selling it to the University of Michigan to be used as housing. He contended there had been no public hearing yet on the Fuller Road Station. There’d been no public participation – by PAC or the Sierra Club – at the major organizational meetings where key planning was updated.

Gwen Nystuen, a current member of PAC, told the council that she’d attended the city planning commission meeting when the proposal had been reviewed by planning commissioners and had watched the city council’s treatment of the topic at the first reading. She said that the possible uses for public land could cover almost anything, and wondered if there was any use that was not possible for public land? She couldn’t think of any, she said. But isn’t the use of public land as open space and parks granted special legal status? she asked.

The real question is the standard by which the use is treated. If there’s a piece of land zoned PL, what is the process required in order to build an intermodal transit center on that land? What impediments currently exist, that have prompted the change in PL uses? The only place that she had found transportation facilities elsewhere in the zoning code is under M2 Heavy Industrial District, she said. There were many buffers required for adjacent land uses, she said, and she wondered if those standards would be used or not.

She concluded by reading aloud the first principal use for PL: “Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

Rita Mitchell suggested that the change meant a change from the way that people actually viewed parkland. Residents have different expectations of public land that’s used as a park than they do for other public land. The city hall building, for example, is also public land, she stated, but parkland is different – it’s something meant for recreation, for open space, available for people to come and go freely. The language change reflects an erosion of that expectation, she said.

Mitchell said that in some of the early meetings, it had been acknowledged that there was a need to change the zoning code to allow the Fuller Road Station project to “fit” better into the code. She said that she considered the current path for the project to be a “taking” of parkland from citizens that was intended to be used as open space. She cited the 2008 charter referendum, when voters expressed by an 80% majority that if parkland was to be sold, they wanted to vote on it. She challenged the council to make the case to the voters.

Brad Mikus noted the “such as” pattern to most of the items on the list – “… such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.” That contrasts with the item that would swap in a single item “transportation facilities.” What is that, he asked? If the amendment is just for Fuller Road Station, he suggested that they should just change it to “parking deck” – so that the item would read “transportation facilities, such as a municipal airport or a parking deck.”

Introducing himself as a candidate for city council in Ward 5, “the only Republican in Ann Arbor,” was John Floyd. He suggested that if the city council thought that constructing a parking structure in the middle of Fuller Park was a great deal, why didn’t they just sell the land to the university? What’s the point of the city owning the land? he asked. The tortured legal reasoning involved by changing the language wasn’t fooling anyone, he said – the city was effectively selling the land to the university without having a sale. Why would the city want to own the university’s commuter parking lot? The idea that we would change the zoning code’s definition of public land use to avoid the process of selling the land just seems silly, he said.

Beverly Strassmann echoed the remarks made by Rita Mitchell and said that she had a new perspective on Fuller Park. In the fall of 2007, she said, she’d been a patient for two months at the University of Michigan hospital after returning from Africa with an undiagnosed illness. What had helped her get through that difficult time was that she’d looked out her hospital window at the parkland – she’d had a room with a view of the park.

Introducing himself as a candidate for the 18th District state senate seat in the Democratic primary was Thomas Partridge. He suggested that the city and the university could find a better location for the parking deck than the already very congested area of Fuller Road. He is not against a transit station, he said, but was against one at that location.

Public Land Uses: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) offered an amendment very much along similar lines as the suggestion from Brad Mikus during public commentary. The replacement language offered an elaboration of examples of what “transportation facilities” might include: ” … such as: municipal airports, train stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified with Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office that “such as” was not limiting language. Otherwise put, it was not construed as exhaustive of permissible facility types, and there was no limitation.

Mayor John Hieftje then clarified something that had also been discussed at the council’s previous meeting when the ordinance change had been given its first reading – the change in language was not substantial enough that it needed to go back to first reading.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he felt that simple use of a generic term was preferable, but had no objections to the “such as” language. However, Derezinski said he wanted to make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflected the belief of the council that the examples were not being given in a limiting way. [Note: The city council's minutes conform to the minimum requirements of the Open Meetings Act, but do not typically include the kind of detail that Derezinski wanted.]

Outcome: The amendment to the resolution as well as the ordinance change itself was unanimously approved.

Required Display of Plans

Before the council for its first reading was an ordinance revision affecting the availability of site plans for public inspection.

Currently, the city code on the approval process requires that up-to-date drawings for site plans be available in the lobby of the city hall 24/7 for a week before public hearings. The proposal recommended by the planning commission would relax the code by deleting the 24/7 requirement and by making clear that there’s not an obligation to continually update the material with any changes that might be made. Material recommended to be deleted is struck through, with proposed added language in italics.

5:135. Public information and hearings.

(2) Area plans, site plans, site plans for Planning Commission approval, PUD site plans, and preliminary plats and land divisions under review shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location in City Hall open to the public 24 hours per day, 7 days each week, for at least 1 week prior to the City Council and Planning Commission public hearings. Plans shall be current at the time of placement and subsequent revisions, if any, shall be available in the planning offices.

The issue had received brief discussion at the council’s previous meeting on June 21, 2010, with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asking if technologies had been explored to expand accessibility to drawings. [For additional background, which includes how the accessibility requirement factored into a delay for the approval process for the City Place project last year, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission: A Matter of Timing" The timing change referenced in that headline – from strict deadlines for planning commission and city council action, to a "reasonable time" standard – was approved on first reading at the July 6 council meeting, but will need approval on a second reading to be enacted.]

Required Display of Plans: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge decried the fact that the ordinance revision did not include a provision to ensure that fundamental requirements of affordable housing are included in the city’s ordinances. Mayor John Hieftje admonished Partridge to speak to the topic of the hearing, which was accessibility to site plan drawings. Partridge responded by saying that the issue related to a lack of transparency for site plans that lacked access to affordable housing. Because of the lack of transparency, he said, the city had been able to subvert the needs of residents for accessibility to affordable housing.

Required Display of Plans: Council Deliberations

The council did not deliberate on the resolution.

Outcome: The ordinance change that no longer requires updated site plans to be accessible to the public 24/7 a week before pubic hearings was unanimously approved.

Residential Parking District

The rationale for establishing Residential Parking Districts is to give residents of an area an advantage over non-residents in competition for street parking. From the city code:

Residential parking districts. If a residential area has excessive parking of vehicles not owned by residents of the area, the Administrator may, after notice to City Council, issue a traffic control order designating a residential parking district. The city shall install signs in a residential parking district indicating that parking time limits do not apply to vehicles with permits.

Before the council was a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program (RPP) in the South University area. The South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) has not been able to file a petition with 60% signed support, which is required. The staff memo accompanying the resolution attributed the failure to achieve 60% to the low number of long-term residents in the area, and recommended the district be established by waiving the requirement that the association submit a petition request with 60% signed support. [.pdf map of SUNA RPP]

At its June 21 meeting, the council had considered and approved an RPP in the Old Fourth Ward, with a similar rationale for waiving the 60% requirement. [.pdf map of OFW RPP]

The installation of signs for the OFW and SUNA districts will cost $20,985 ($415.55 x 50.5) and $4,156 ($415.55 x 10), respectively. The money will be taken from the city’s unobligated fund balance.

Permits for RPP districts are sold for $50, but only to residents, as defined in the application for a permit:

Residential Parking Permits will only be issued TO APPLICANTS LIVING IN THE AFFECTED AREA. You must show proof that residency has been established by providing a copy of:
1.    Motor vehicle registration showing the vehicle is registered in your name (applicant, spouse, or licensed dependent living at address – if last names differ, also provide a copy of birth certificate, marriage license, or other official document supporting request), and
2.    One of the Following: a. Current utility bill containing the appropriate name and address. b. Rent or lease agreement containing the appropriate name and address. c. Notarized declaration of residency by the owner or manager of a rental property. d. Driver’s license with the appropriate name and address.

The two residential parking permit programs are being established in connection with the University of Michigan dormitory at Huron and State, slated to open this fall.

During the brief council deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) described the SUNA parking district as the next area down the ring from the OFW parking district that the council had just put into place. The area has already been heavily impacted with commuter and long-term car storage, she said.

Outcome: The residential parking permit program for SUNA was unanimously approved.

Greenbelt

Before the council was an item to authorize $2,548,667 using money from the city’s greenbelt and open space millage to purchase development rights on the Charles F. and Catherine A. Braun property. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Also, New Appraisals Hike City's Cost for Two Properties"]

Mayor John Hieftje asked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – who serves on the city’s greenbelt advisory commission – to explain some of the background for the item. Hohnke described the property as one of those that inspired the desire to create the greenbelt program. The property was appraised, he said, and Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) funds were awarded. Delays at the federal level in reviewing the application moved the process past a 12-month window, during which appraisals are required to be current, so a new appraisal was requested. In the interim, property values went down, and the appraisal was reduced. Consequently matching FRPP funds were also reduced, explained Hohnke.

The net impact to the city is $121,000, Hohnke said, or roughly 5% of the budget for the project. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission continues to recommend purchase of the property, he said.

Outcome: The purchase of development rights for the Braun property was unanimously approved.

Unions

Before the council was a resolution approving the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for Police Deputy Chiefs Unit, Teamsters Local 214. The contract runs from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 and was subject to a wage and health care reopener for the final year of the contract.

Highlights from the human resources staff memorandum on the terms:

1. Updated Healthcare Plan to include a High and Low Plan Options, with an increase in deductibles and premiums, an increase to Preventative Care from the current level of $750 to $1000, and an increase in Co-Pays for Mandatory Mail Order Prescriptions to two co-pays for every three months of mail order prescriptions, effective August 1, 2010.

2. Increase in pension contribution to 6% (pre-tax) effective August 1, 2010.

3. Elimination of ICMA 457 match by the City effective July 1, 2010.

4. A $500 HRA contribution for each member effective July 1, 2010.

5. No across the board increase in wages.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that as chair of the council’s labor committee, he was pleased to see the agreement and the resolution come forward. The terms provide savings to the city, he said, specifically in the area of increasing their own contributions to health care benefits. The health care plan they were voting on, Rapundalo said, is the same one enjoyed by the city’s non-union workers, with the same contribution level. Rapundalo also highlighted the fact that there’ll be an increase in the pension contribution made by employees and no across-the-board increase in wages.

Rapundalo thanked members of the union for stepping up and making sacrifices to help the city work within its budgetary constraints.

Ann Arbor is not unique in the need to achieve savings, Rapundalo reminded his council colleagues. He ticked through several other Michigan cities where safety services personnel had accepted significant percentage decreases in total benefits.

Outcome: The resolution was unanimously approved.

Miscellaneous Communications

Communications: Parks and Procs

The Golden Paintbrush Awards were handed out by Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.

Carrie Hatcher Kay was honored for her volunteer work in the city's parks.

The council continued its pattern of recognizing volunteers who help maintain the city’s parks through the Adopt-a-Park program. On Tuesday, Carrie Hatcher Kay was honored for her work in Waterworks and Maryfield Wildwood parks.

Huron River Day – which will take place at Gallup Park on the Huron River from 12-4 p.m Sunday, July 11, 2010 – was highlighted with a proclamation received by Huron River Day co-founders Shirley Axon and Eunice Burns.

Later, during his communications to the council, city administrator Roger Fraser highlighted the sponsors of the event: DTE Energy Foundation, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing, Whole Foods, University of Michigan Credit Union, Stantec Consulting Services Inc, Bank of Ann Arbor, City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County Drain Commission, Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, National Wildlife Federation, Huron River Watershed Council, and Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority.

Fraser also highlighted a variety of other activities that day – the Gallup Gallop, a 5K run and walk sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club, plus $5 canoe and kayak rentals.

Communications: Single-Stream Recycling

Single-stream recycling had started the previous day, Fraser reported. There’s no longer any need to keep paper separate from containers, he said. Except for #3 plastic, all clean plastic items can go into the curbside pickup program, including plastic yogurt cups. Even lawn furniture and 5-gallon buckets are also now acceptable.

Batteries and motor oil, Fraser said, are no longer accepted as part of the curbside program – however, residents could continue to bring those items to the drop-off station at Ellsworth and Platt.

Later in the evening, mayor John Hieftje made a point in connection with a tangentially-related item that the new $3 entrance fee to the drop-off station would be included in the range of rewards that residents could earn through the new RecycleBank awards program. [RecycleBank will begin Sept. 1, 2010.] Solid waste manager for the city, Tom McMurtie, explained that the fee had been instituted by Recycle Ann Arbor when the county withdrew its funding. Recycle Ann Arbor then chose to not accept city funding, rather than try to distinguish between city residents and non-city residents in assessing an entrance fee.

The new recycling carts will be distributed, starting Friday, July 9 – it’ll take 6-8 weeks for that process to take place. In the meantime, Fraser said, residents can continue to use their dual-stream totes. The totes can continue to be used by residents as they like, or placed in the new recycling carts.

Communications: Environment

The city has been selected to compete for two $500,000 two-year grants from the Home Depot Foundation as part of the Sustainable Cities Institute program. The city is partnering with the University of Michigan’s Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute on a proposal to make the city’s rental housing stock more energy efficient. There are only four cities competing for the two $500,000 grants, Fraser said.

Speaking to the topic of the impact of the heavy rains from June 6 on the community, Fraser said that the city would be purchasing radar data to understand better how the storm hit the city and what the impact was. It would help to evaluate the sanitary sewer system’s response to the storm and to make decisions about future capital improvement investments, including the footing drain disconnect program and the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system.

Road damages sustained during the storm are being reviewed, Fraser said.

Communications: Infrastructure

Regarding funding for the replacement of the East Stadium bridges, Fraser reported that the federal TIGER 2 preliminary grant phase is open – those applications are due by July 16. On July 30, the city will find out if they’ll be invited to submit the application for the second phase. A crucial criterion for advancement to the second phase, said Fraser, is the existence of local matching funds. The deadline for the second phase application is Aug. 23, with news expected on approval anticipated by the end of the year. The project is expected to start after the spring thaw in 2011, Fraser said.

Fraser also ticked through a number of road construction projects that are in progress.

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

Absent: Mike Anglin,

Next council meeting: July 19, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.

Park advisory commissioners Gwen Nystuen, David Barrett and Doug Chapman at Tuesday's meeting of PAC's land acquisition committee, held at Cobblestone Farm. Nystuen has been pushing for more input into the Fuller Road Station project. (Photos by the writer.)

Spurred by concerns that Ann Arbor parks are being shortchanged, members of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) discussed a resolution on Tuesday that would urge city council not to proceed with plans for Fuller Road Station at its proposed site on city-owned land that’s designated as parkland.

The draft resolution also states that if the city council does continue with the project, the city should renegotiate the deal to get additional revenues from the University of Michigan, with those funds being allocated to city parks. The resolution calls for an annual payment of $127,500 from the university – under the current agreement, UM would pay $19,379 per year, starting in 2012.

Park commissioners didn’t take any action, and plan to discuss the draft resolution further at their May 18 meeting.

But Tuesday evening, the city’s planning commission did take action related to Fuller Road Station. They voted unanimously to amend the list of permitted principal uses of public land – specifically, changing a “municipal airports” use to “transportation facilities.” During a public hearing on the issue, several speakers – including park commissioner Gwen Nystuen – objected to the change.

It’s expected that the project – located on the south side of Fuller Road, just east of East Medical Center Drive – will be submitted by the design team on May 17 for review by planning staff. It will likely come before the planning commission at its first meeting in July. A public meeting on the project is set for Thursday, May 6 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor city council chambers, 100 N. Fifth Ave.

Fuller Road Station: Shortchanging the City?

At PAC’s April 20, 2010 meeting, Gwen Nystuen introduced a resolution to form a subcommittee that would evaluate the $46 million Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

If approved by PAC, the subcommittee would review the environmental, financial, legal, operational and visual impacts of the project, as it relates to the city’s parks and recreation program, Fuller Park, and the Huron River valley.

In 1993, Nystuen noted, there were no surface parking lots in that area, other than those around the pool at Fuller Park. Today there are several lots, including those that are leased by UM. “What are we doing?” she asked. “This is awful.” Though the city’s stated goals are to develop parks along the Huron River, she said, “we seem to be filling the space up with a big parking lot.”

The Fuller Road Station, a structure which will have about 1,000 parking spaces but the capacity to eventually contain 1,700 spaces in eight levels, poses legal questions because it’s being proposed on city land that’s designated as parkland, Nystuen said. She also cited financial concerns about how the city would pay for its share of the project. Additionally, she wondered why alternative designs – like one shown at PAC’s March 16, 2010 meeting by architect Peter Pollack – weren’t being considered.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, has made two presentations to PAC, but Nystuen said commissioners just listen and ask questions – they’ve taken no action. It’s been brought to them as though it’s all done, she said. Her proposal for a subcommittee would allow PAC to take a more active role in evaluating the project’s impact on parks.

Nystuen had suggested discussing her resolution at Tuesday’s May 4 meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee, which includes all members of the commission. By that date, however, she had worked with commissioners Sam Offen and Julie Grand – PAC’s new chair – to craft a different resolution. Rather than forming a subcommittee to study Fuller Road Station, the draft resolution handed out on Tuesday aims at halting the project, or at the least renegotiating its terms. There are two “resolved” clauses:

Resolved, that PAC recommends that the City Council does not proceed in its approval of plans for the Fuller Road Station at the site where it is currently proposed.

Resolved, that if such plans are approved by Council, that the agreement with the University of Michigan is renegotiated to include a significant increase in revenue allocated to the Parks and Recreation Department. 100% of payments should come from the University of Michigan. Revenue at the current FY 2010 rate of approximately $125 per space would result in an annual payment of $127,500 to the Parks Department.

According to a footnote in the resolution, the figure of $125 per space was calculated based on the city’s current lease agreement with the university for the surface lots, but doesn’t take into account the value of (1) covered parking or (2) the university’s ability to park cars in the structure 24/7.  Those two factors could increase the payment “by a substantial margin,” the resolution states.

The resolution lays out several concerns that have been voiced by some commissioners at previous PAC meetings:

• UM parking on city-owned lots is currently restricted to workday hours, but at Fuller Road Station, the university would be allowed to use the parking structure 24 hours a day.
• Fuller Road Station wouldn’t offer any amenities to users of the city parks, and parking is not one of the goals outlined in the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan.
• PAC has “serious reservations” about setting a precedent for agreeing to a long-term lease of parkland.
• Building a permanent parking structure on parkland raises concerns that the city is potentially violating its zoning ordinances.
• There are safety issues for park users, pedestrians and bicycle commuters, due to the increased traffic.
• The city’s parks and recreation unit will lose revenue, compared to what it currently receives from UM’s lease of surface lots along Fuller Road. Currently, UM pays the city $31,057 to lease 250 parking spaces in the “south lot,” where Fuller Road Station is planned. The memorandum of understanding with UM for Fuller Road Station calls for the university to pay $19,379, with a 3% annual increase. In addition, because of the added parking capacity at the new structure, there’s no guarantee that UM will continue to lease spaces from the city’s two “north lots” on Fuller Road, which bring in roughly $38,500 each year.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners at Tuesday's meeting of the PAC land acquisition committee. Clockwise from far left: Sam Offen, Julie Grand, Ginny Trocchio (staff of The Conservation Fund), Tim Berla, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, David Barrett, Mike Anglin, Doug Chapman.

On Tuesday, Julie Grand began discussion by saying she wanted feedback from other commissioners. The first reaction from some was this: Isn’t it a done deal? Will this resolution have any effect?

Grand said that’s why there are two parts – first, urging council to hold off on approval at the current site, and barring that, at least to renegotiate a better deal to get more revenue from the university.

Gwen Nystuen noted that when the concept was first introduced to the community in early 2009, it was presented as a transit station that included some parking, with a pedestrian bridge to the university’s medical complex to the south. The idea of a train station for commuter rail was part of the original plan – it was only later that the project was split into phases, with the initial phases being primarily a parking structure and bus station. City officials hope a train station will eventually be built, but no funding has been secured for that.

The push for parking is coming from the university, Nystuen said, adding that UM had been planning to build additional parking along Wall Street, near the Kellogg Eye Center. [The Chronicle's first encounter with the Fuller Road Station project was at a Jan. 27, 2009 meeting for residents of the Wall Street area. At that meeting, Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, briefed neighbors on initial plans for the transit station.]

On Tuesday, Nystuen said that the memorandum of understanding between the city and UM stated that as part of the agreement, the university would suspend its pursuit of parking along Wall Street “at this time.” But she noted there’s no guarantee, and UM might eventually build even more parking there: “They, of course, can do whatever they want.” [.pdf file of the memorandum of understanding on Fuller Road Station]

Commissioners also discussed the issue of building on land that’s designated as parkland. Grand noted that the city is allowed to violate its own zoning laws. Offen agreed, saying it wasn’t an issue of zoning but an issue of land use. Nystuen added that in the city code, parkland has a special status. The relevant section from Chapter 55 of the city code is this (emphasis added):

5:10.13.  PL public land district.

(1) Intent. This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.
(2) Permitted principal uses. (a) Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.

Offen noted that even though the land wasn’t being sold, construction of a parking structure certainly violated the spirit of the voter-approved amendment to the city charter, which requires a voter referendum on the sale of parkland.

David Barrett asked whether it would be useful to have Eli Cooper come back to a PAC meeting and answer questions. Cooper’s past presentations to PAC had been more akin to a “magic show,” he said.

At this point Tim Berla weighed in, saying that he’d talked to Mayor John Hieftje when they’d gone out for beers at Casey’s on the occasion of Scott Rosencrans’ last meeting. [Rosencrans, who previously chaired PAC, did not seek reappointment when his term ended in April.] Berla reported that the mayor had said there’s still a lot in play in the Fuller Road Station project – it’s not a done deal. But Hieftje did indicate that the university’s participation is critical to eventually getting the rail service, Berla said.

Nystuen was glad to hear that the mayor thinks there’s room for change in the project.

Asking for A Better Deal

Saying they seemed to be in agreement that the current deal was bad for the city’s parks, Grand asked for feedback on the suggested revenue request contained in the draft resolution.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

They’d settled on the $125-per-space amount because it was better than the current deal, but “not laughable,” she said. It was calculated by taking the current annual amount that UM pays the city – $31,057 – for leasing the south lot on Fuller Road, divided by the number of spaces there: 250.

Doug Chapman pointed out that the original numbers in the memorandum of understanding were based on building an intermodal station – that’s not happening at this point, he said. So it makes sense to raise the amount now, then renegotiate later if the train station is actually built.

Sam Offen also noted that given the city’s current financial condition, they need more money for parks. And with the current deal, “we’re getting short-changed,” he said. The city isn’t even keeping revenues at the same rate – they’ll be getting less money.

Offen said he’d like to see more information on rates that the university currently charges for its own parking permits, as well as rates that the city charges to park in its structures. Grand said she had that information, and would provide it to commissioners. [.pdf file of UM 2009-10 parking permits] [link to Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority website with information on parking permits]

The group also discussed the value of the land – both financially and as a community asset – as a factor in opposing the location of a parking structure at that site. Nystuen said that city staff had initially said an appraisal of the land wasn’t relevant because there was no intent to sell. However, they did report that in 2004, the property had been considered by the city for an affordable housing project and was appraised at that time at $4.25 million.

“It’s prime land,” Offen said.

The fact that it’s land along the river – the Huron River runs nearby, on the opposite side of Fuller Road – should make it inviolable, Nystuen said.

Tim Berla noted that it wasn’t as if they’re paving paradise – that happened in 1993, when the surface parking lot was installed there, he said. Grand agreed, but pointed out that a surface lot can be dug up in a day. That’s not the case with a permanent parking structure.

The commissioners voted to table the discussion until PAC’s next meeting, on Tuesday, May 18. The meeting begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St.

Planning Commission: The Policy, Not the Parcel

Later that day, at their Tuesday evening meeting in city council chambers, the Ann Arbor planning commission addressed a change to language in Chapter 55 of the city code, which relates to the Fuller Road Station project. Two words were proposed to be changed under (h) in the list of permitted principal uses for public land (PL):

5:10.13.  PL public land district.

(1)   Intent.  This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.

(2)   Permitted principal uses.

(a)   Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.

(b)   Natural open space, such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.

(c)   Developed open space, such as: arboreta, botanical and zoological gardens.

(d)   Educational services, such as: public primary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.

(e)   Cultural services, such as: museums and art galleries.

(f)   Public-service institutions, such as: hospitals, sanatoria, homes for the elderly, children’s homes and correctional institutions.

(g)   Essential services, buildings containing essential services and electrical substations.

(h)   Municipal airports. Transportation facilities.

(i)   Civic center.

(j)   Government offices and courts.

PL Text Change: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke at the public hearing on the proposed text amendment, all of them raising concerns about the change.

Rita Mitchell and John Satarino read parts from the same prepared statement, representing the Ad Hoc Citizen Group for Sensible Planning. The language change will broaden the types of uses allowed on property zoned as public land, Mitchell said. Noting that the staff report explicitly mentions the Fuller Road Station, she said the goal isn’t to clear up the regulatory language, but rather to assure that the project passes muster during review by funding sources.

They cited several concerns: (1) the planning commission isn’t adequately reviewing background information in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan and project documents; (2) building structures on that site would violate city zoning; (3) the planning commission should challenge the concept of “municipal immunity,” which exempts the city from its own zoning; (4) the commission hasn’t followed a city charter-mandated process for making this kind of amendment; and (5) the commission hasn’t sufficiently defined the meaning of a “transportation facility.”

They urged the commission to table the resolution.

Gwen Nystuen, the park advisory commissioner who has been instrumental in bringing forward the PAC resolution regarding Fuller Road Station, told planning commissioners that she was mostly coming to them with questions. What is a transportation facility, she asked – are there any conditions regarding how it would function? What do they think the public’s understanding is of parks? Most people see the PL zoning and think it’s parkland, when parkland is actually a special category of the PL classification, with its own conditions, she said. How can the city legally go about building structures on land that’s dedicated parkland?

Eppie Potts said the change would open the door to any public land being used for any purpose that’s listed. She referred to it as “repurposing.” As another example, she pointed to the recent proposal by the city administrator to use Allmendinger and Frisinger parks for parking on football Saturdays. She said that the planning commission had previously approved rezoning parkland to public land, because staff had given them assurance that it would remain parkland if it were designated as such in the PROS plan. She asked them to explain why this was no longer the case for the Fuller Road Station site.

Alice Ralph told commissioners that changing a couple of words might not seem significant, but it is. She recalled listening to deliberations on the ballot language for the charter amendment to require a voter referendum on the sale of parkland. By chipping away at the language, the final version provided “little or no additional protection for parkland,” she said. The language change being proposed really amounted to spot zoning, and conflicted with the PROS plan. She urged commissioners to understand the public’s expectations – the public really does expect parkland to be used for parks.

Jim Mogensen said that the PL zoning conveyed expectations about what kinds of things will happen on that land. Public schools are on public land, but charter schools are not. The Blake Transit Center is, but the Greyhound bus station isn’t. Mogensen recalled the concepts that students in local developer Peter Allen’s class at UM had come up with to develop the Fuller Road site – he noted that their ideas entailed using public/private partnerships, and it seems that the city is moving toward that. It might end up being a way that the city deals with funding the project, he said.

Margaret Wong said she had a gut feeling that the difference between park and parking structure was getting smaller. She urged commissioners to consider unintended consequences of the change – the need for precision of language is relevant.

PL Text Change: Commissioner Deliberations

Bonnie Bona, chair of the planning commissioner, noted that generally speaking, property zoning has nothing to do with whether land is designated as parkland. Parkland is designated as such under the PROS plan, which is currently being updated.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, clarified the process that would need to occur to shift parkland to another use. If parkland were being sold, it would require the approval of voters. Otherwise, a park evolves based on what the community is looking for, she said, and by working its way through the parks planning process.

Regarding Fuller Road Station, the surface lot was put there about 15 years ago, Rampson said. It was a decision make by UM and the city, with input from the park advisory commission. Fuller Road Station had evolved the same way. She said there has not been a park turned over for another use. Like what? As Rampson paused to come up with an example, some residents attending the meeting called out: “a parking structure!” The example Rampson settled on was “governmental office.” She noted that the conference center at Gallup Park might be an example. [On the city's website, it's described as a meeting room.]

From left: Jeff Kahan of the city's planning staff; planning commissioners Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods.

Wendy Woods noted that several of the speakers at the public hearing had been past or current members of the park advisory commission, as had she. Woods wondered whether the project had been vetted by PAC. She said the question was especially relevant given that the planning commission had just recently discussed the importance of communicating and coordinating among other city commissions, like the energy and environmental commissions. [Woods was alluding to an April 13 joint meeting of the planning, energy and environmental commissions. See Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor"]

Rampson said that presentations had been made to PAC about Fuller Road Station, to get their comments. [Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, made presentations at PAC's Sept. 15, 2009 and March 16, 2010 meetings. See Chronicle coverage: "City Seeks Feedback on Transit Center" and "Concerns Voiced over Fuller Road Station"] Rampson also pointed to the upcoming May 6 public meeting as another way that public input is being sought.

Clearly, she said, the project is viewed as a continuation of the parking use that’s currently on the site. She said the language change in the zoning code is being proposed because it was pointed out to staff that transportation facilities weren’t part of the current list of permitted principal uses.

Woods asked whether the language change needed to happen before the planning staff reviewed the project – it’s expected to be submitted on May 17. Rampson said the city was exempt from zoning.

Tony Derezinski – a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council – picked up on that comment. The basic principal is that as a city project on public land, the city is exempt from zoning. “If it comes right down to it,” he said, “this (language change) is not necessary.” It’s being done to clarify to the public what’s happening, he added.

From left: Planning commissioners Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal.

Evan Pratt acknowledged that people had raised solid concerns that need to be discussed. The city needs to be careful in making any change. However, his view was that the commission was being asked to make a determination on policy, not on a specific parcel. In addition, the city has gone above and beyond what it’s required to do, given its exemption from zoning, he said.

Parkland is protected by virtue of its principal use, Pratt said, but in the case of the Fuller Road Station site, its principal use is parking – UM leases the lot for its employees. He didn’t feel that by moving forward they would be opening up the parks to be used for any purpose. Decisions are made project by project, he said, parcel by parcel.

Erica Briggs agreed that a lot of legitimate concerns had been brought up – some that likely couldn’t be resolved at this meeting. Among them was an expectation that parking structures wouldn’t be built on parkland. Obviously, the language change they were voting on was designed to facilitate the Fuller Road Station, she said. A parking lot has been tolerated because it’s reversible – a parking structure is not. She recalled that at a previous meeting, commissioners had been assured that if public land was designated as parkland in the PROS plan, then it was protected. Now, that doesn’t seem to be the case, she said, and they should openly address that.

Jean Carlberg said the term “transportation facilities” made more sense than the outmoded “municipal airports.” The change to her seemed unrelated to the Fuller Road Station project. It seemed that many of the people objecting to the word change believed that if the language wasn’t altered, it would somehow hamper the project, Carlberg said. She didn’t believe it would matter one way or another: “That train has left the station and is on its own track.”

Diane Giannola agreed, saying she looked at it from a bigger picture perspective. The new wording allows the city to put a bus station or other transportation facility on any piece of public land. It allows more flexibility, and isn’t tied directly to Fuller Road Station.

Woods said it was difficult not to link the wording change to Fuller Road Station – the project was specifically cited in the staff report, she noted. [The staff report states: "This proposed amendment would ensure that projects such as Fuller Road Station are consistent with the permitted principal use section of the PL zoning district."]

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Bonnie Bona said it wasn’t in the planning commission’s purview to deal with restrictions on the uses or sale of parkland – that’s up to the park advisory commission and city council. She voiced support for the term “transportation facilities,” especially since the city was moving into a time when there would be more alternative transportation options. She’d like to keep the definition as open as possible, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to change “municipal airports” to “transportation facilities” in Chapter 55 of the city code. The amendment will next be considered for approval by city council.

Public Commentary: Coda

During the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the meeting, three people again addressed Fuller Road Station.

Acknowledging that it wouldn’t make any difference, John Satarino said he wanted to correct some statements that planning commissioners had made as motivations for their vote. It was never intended for the parking lot at Fuller Road to be permanent, he said. In fact, the university coerced the city into providing the parking lot there, he said, as part of a land swap deal to save some centuries-old burr oak trees near a planned expansion of the VA Medical Center. [The headline of a June 26, 1993 Ann Arbor News article states: "Oak trees to be spared from ax – A request from U-M officials for a temporary parking lot may be the key to saving condemned burr oak trees." The article describes negotiations between the city and university as "tortuous."]

Regarding principal use, greenspace just sitting by itself is a principal use, Satarino said – a very special one. Parking is secondary. He said he was also bothered because he didn’t feel that commissioners had read all of the available information on the project. To make it easier to get federal funding, the city needs the land to be given status as a transportation center on public land. The wording change in the city code is very clearly a device to get that, he said.

Lou Glorie said it seems like parkland is being dissolved into public land.

Rita Mitchell argued that the commission’s action affected precedent. The parking lot at Fuller Road was once a park. Think about what this means for the future of Allmendinger and Frisinger parks, she said. It might not happen now, but what about in 15 years, if the university decides it needs more parking for Michigan Stadium? Parkland should be thought of as a principal use, and that should lead the city’s thinking as they move into the future.

Commissioner Response to Public Commentary

Bonnie Bona asked Erica Briggs to report to the PROS plan committee the concerns that had been raised that evening. [Briggs is the planning commission's representative on the PROS plan committee.]

Bona asked what the timeline was for putting together the PROS plan update. Briggs reported that the staff is doing a survey to seek public input. [An online version is available here.]

Wendy Rampson said that Amy Kuras, the city parks planner who’s leading the update efforts, hopes to meet with the planning commission as a focus group on the PROS plan, perhaps at a June working session.

Scott Rosencrans, center, is chair of the city's park advisory commission, but will be stepping down from PAC when his term ends this month. At Rosencrans' right is developer Peter Allen, a member of the greenbelt advisory commission. In the background is Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund, which manages the land acquisition millage for the parks and greenbelt.

As members arrived at the Ann Arbor Senior Center, where their joint meeting was held on April 6, some knew each other, but many others needed to introduce themselves. Among them were an attorney, a farmer, an ecologist, a teacher, a carpenter, a developer, a research scientist, a landscape architect – and many avid users of the local parks.

Scott Rosencrans, chair of the park advisory commission, told the group he thought it was important to strengthen communication between the two commissions, given the overlap in their strategic goals. And even though he’s stepping down from PAC when his term ends later this month, “hopefully you’ll pursue that,” he said.

At last week’s meeting, commission members got overviews of the parks and greenbelt programs from staff of The Conservation Fund, which manages the greenbelt and parks acquisition programs. In some ways, the meeting was a mini-tutorial for each group on the activities of the other, and an informal discussion about some ways to partner in the future.

There was also some frustration about what they couldn’t discuss. Typically, PAC’s land acquisition committee – a committee of the entire PAC membership – and the greenbelt commission spend much of their meetings in closed sessions, to discuss negotiations with landowners. But because each group needed a six-member quorum required by the Open Meetings Act to enter a joint closed session – and only five members of GAC attended – all of the meeting remained public. There was one property in particular that some commissioners and staff wanted to discuss in private, but couldn’t. About their inability to undertake that discussion, Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund said, “It’s killing me!”

Land Acquisition Millage: An Overview

In 2003, Ann Arbor voters passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax for land acquisition – called the open space and parkland preservation millage. Two-thirds of it is used for the city’s greenbelt program, and one-third for parks land acquisition. The millage and the programs that it supports are managed by staff of The Conservation Fund, Ginny Trocchio and Peg Kohring.

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. Trocchio told commissioners that the remaining fund balance for the greenbelt is $8.8 million, with $3.8 million for parks. [A detailed financial report on the millage was given at GAC's Dec. 9, 2009 meeting by Kelli Martin, the city’s financial manager for community services.]

Greenbelt’s Strategic Plan and Discussion

Trocchio gave a brief overview of the greenbelt’s strategic plan, which has focused on three areas: 1) preserving 1,000-acre blocks of land, 2) working with partners on land deals, and 3) protecting land connected to the Huron River. More recently, they’ve also been looking to support local food production, by prioritizing smaller farms in the 10-15 acre range.

Trocchio said the greenbelt has focused on preserving land through the purchase of development rights, or PDRs. Buying the rights to development prevents the land from being used for purposes other than farmland or open space. To date, there have been 15 transactions, she said, protecting about 1,800 acres of land.

Scio, Webster and Ann Arbor townships also have land preservation millages, as does Washtenaw County – the greenbelt has partnered with those entities, and has tapped federal funds as well. They haven’t protected land directly on the Huron River, but Trocchio said a lot of greenbelt properties are along the river’s tributaries.

The market has changed dramatically since the millage passed, Trocchio noted. Land values have dropped sharply, but landowner expectations remain higher than the actual market price – that’s an issue in trying to negotiate deals.

Discussion: Opening Greenbelt Land to the Public

Dan Ezekiel of GAC highlighted properties that Washtenaw County has purchased, with contributions from the city’s greenbelt millage: the Fox Science Preserve on Peters Road and the Scio Woods Preserve on Scio-Church Road east of Zeeb, both in Scio Township, and Meyer Preserve on Prospect Road in Superior Township. He recently went to the Scio Woods Preserve and saw that the county had put in a new parking lot – volunteers were at the site, pulling invasive plants. It was quite a change from the last time he’d been there, when the property had been privately owned. Peg Kohring said, “The county really gets stuff done.”

PAC member Julie Grand recalled that when the greenbelt millage was marketed to voters, there were two benefits cited: 1) reducing sprawl, and 2) creating a network of land not just for preservation, but also for active use. Referring to greenbelt land being used for recreation, like biking or walking trails, Grand said, “When I hear the priorities now, I don’t hear that.”

Ezekiel said that since the program started, some issues have emerged. For one, the city doesn’t want to hold title to greenbelt land – that’s why they’ve taken the PDR approach, which allows the city to hold development rights, but not the property itself. He noted that the greenbelt has partnered with other entities that do buy land, like Washtenaw County. In those deals – the Fox Science Preserve and Scio Woods Preserve, for example – the county owns the property and it’s open to the public. Even though the greenbelt program contributed to the purchase, they don’t always get credit, Ezekiel said.

They also learned that “bike trails are radioactive to the farming community,” Ezekiel said. When the program began, there was a lot of suspicion among farmers that Ann Arbor was trying to take over the county. “That’s a perception we’ve been working very hard to overcome,” he said. Although the current generation of farmers is dramatically opposed to opening up even a portion of their land to the public, that might change for future owners. He also noted that so far, no property connected to the county’s Border-to-Border trail has been nominated to the greenbelt program – that, too, might change.

Ezekiel cited a program in Columbus, Ohio in which bike trails are placed along the land that runs underneath power lines in rural areas. But even this idea has been opposed by farmers in Washtenaw, he said.

Kohring clarified that in addition to owner hostility toward the idea of having greenbelt land open to the public, there’s also no budget for the city to manage additional property. Millage funds can only be used for land acquisition, not property management.

Discussion: Farming

Responding to questions from PAC commissioners, Kohring said there’s been a seachange in interest for small farms and locally produced food. There are two properties that the greenbelt could technically buy, she said, but it’s a hot market for young farmers. Trocchio reported that during the program’s first three years, she never got calls for people interested in buying farms. “I get calls quite often now,” she said, especially from people connected to Michigan State University’s organic farm program. These farmers are interested in being close to the Ann Arbor market, but the land cost can still be prohibitive.

Scott Rosencrans asked about the economic health of farms and community-supported agriculture, or CSAs. Kohring said it’s too soon to say – they’ll know in 10 or 20 years. She noted that the greenbelt had recently completed its first deal that helped transition land to a new farmer. [See Chronicle coverage: "Frederick Farm in Line to Join Greenbelt"]

Kohring pointed out that GAC member Tom Bloomer grows soybeans, with a lot of his produce sold locally.

Bloomer, a farmer from Webster Township who also serves on the township’s farmland and open space preservation board, then gave a lengthy description of issues facing local farms, and their connection to the greenbelt program. It’s hard for many people to understand the complexity of agriculture, he said. There are no new farms or old farms – there are just farms. “We protect the land,” he said. “We don’t really protect the business.”

The greenbelt program makes it possible for farmers to continue working the land. And though there’s been an increased focus on small farms and food produced for local consumers, most farmland that’s been preserved by the greenbelt already has some involvement in the local market – “you just might not see it,” he said.

Bloomer said that small farms alone won’t support an agricultural economy in Washtenaw. It takes 1,000 to 1,500 acres to earn a living, he said – smaller than that, and it’s likely a hobby.

Agriculture is mostly invisible to residents of Ann Arbor, Bloomer said. Most people think of fruits and vegetables when they think of local farms, but that’s really just a small portion of the agricultural economy. There’s actually a lot of other agricultural activity in the county, he said, though it’s been under duress, especially before the greenbelt program started.

Farmers think in terms of 20-50 years, Bloomer said. Before the greenbelt program, there was uncertainty about whether farms would survive. But by selling their development rights, farmers know that even when they’re gone, the property will be protected. And that makes them more comfortable in making major investments in infrastructure, like barns. Their planning horizon is instantly extended, he said.

Finally, Bloomer noted that even though farmers aren’t keen to have people walk or ride bikes on their property – it’s just not practical, he said – the roads in these rural areas are public. And it’s pretty pleasant to take a ride in the country.

Discussion: The Big Picture, and Future Acquisitions

Peter Allen, a member of GAC, described what he saw as two “big picture” issues related to the greenbelt. One was that they’re trying to build clusters of 1,000-acre greenbelt-protected land in three regions of the county: Superior Township to the east, Northfield and Ann Arbor townships to the north, and Scio and Webster townships to the northwest.

The second issue is the impact of land values, which have gone from more than $12,000 per acre to roughly $5,000 to $8,000 for development rights, he said. Because of that, “we can make our money go at least two times greater than before,” he said.

Scott Rosencrans asked how GAC determined what property to buy – what criteria did they use to identify “extraordinary” land? Tom Bloomer said the Scio Woods Preserve property, with its mature woods, was one of those, but that it’s hard to define. “When you see it, you know it,” he said.

Catherine Riseng mentioned property along the Huron River would be a priority, but said that’s more in the purview of the county or the city’s natural area preservation programs.

Dan Ezekiel noted that the greenbelt is a voluntary program – landowners can apply, and properties are scored based on several criteria. The criteria include the type of land, parcel size, availability of matching funds, and adjacent land use, among others [.pdf file of complete greenbelt scoring criteria]. There’s some flexibility, he said, if something comes along that’s clearly desirable like the Fox Science Preserve, where “every fourth grader goes on a field trip.”

Ezekiel also mentioned that in addition to the geographic areas that Peter Allen had cited, there’s also a large block of preserved land in Pittsfield Township – referring to the Pittsfield Preserve, more than 500 acres owned by the township, and the nearby 94-acre Morgan Farm.

Sam Offen of PAC asked what kinds of stipulations are on the greenbelt land. Trocchio explained that the PDR agreements include about 25 pages outlining what can and can’t be done on the land. For example, hunting is allowed, and though there are restrictions on what can be built on the land, it doesn’t have to be used for agriculture.

Later in the meeting, Gil Omenn brought up another issue related to spending priorities. He said that when the greenbelt program first started, the market was such that developers were buying farmland and the commission made a commitment “not to dally about committing resources.” Now, however, times have changed, he said. By continuing to spend the greenbelt money, they’re taking away the opportunity for the next generation to make choices, he added: “We haven’t talked about that for quite a long time.”

Kohring responded that with land prices at historic lows, this was not the time to stop buying property.

Parks & Rec Strategic Plan and Discussion

Ginny Trocchio showed the group a map identifying areas in the city that aren’t within a quarter-mile walking distance of a park. [.pdf file of underserved areas map] That’s helpful in prioritizing acquisitions, she said, as is the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space plan, known as PROS, which is being updated this year. [Section F of the plan, covering 25 pages, is devoted to land use planning and acquisition principles.]

Gil Omenn, left, introduces himself to Gwen Nystuen at the April 6 joint meeting of the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission and the Park Advisory Commission. Omenn serves on GAC; Nystuen is a member of PAC.

Some parcels for land acquisition are highlighted in the PROS plan, she said, with the focus generally on needs for existing city parkland, such as better access to the Bluffs Nature Area off of North Main. Land that provides linkages between parks is another priority.

Trocchio also noted that in the last few years, most of the park land acquisitions have been for natural areas, including Camp Hilltop Park.

Commenting on the map of underserved areas, Scott Rosencrans noted that while some areas technically fit the category of underserved – they don’t have a city park within a quarter mile – there are other factors to consider. The upscale area of Arbor Hills, for example, shows up on the map but wouldn’t be a priority – their large lot sizes provide a fair amount of greenspace for residents. But on the city’s far west side there are genuinely underserved low-income neighborhoods, he said. “So there’s still a lot to be done.”

In addition to underserved areas, Rosencrans said priorities included downtown playgrounds – something that would be important if the city intends to encourage more density, especially for families – and perhaps a downtown dog park. Greenways are another priority, he said.

Allen Creek Greenway

Peter Allen queried PAC members specifically about the Allen Creek Greenway, and Rosencrans responded, “That’s not dead in our world.”

Gwen Nystuen of PAC noted that city property located in the floodway is supposed to be designated as parkland – and that would contribute to building the greenway. Rosencrans cited the land at First & William as an example, which prompted Nystuen to say, “But there are still cars on it!” [The land is currently a surface parking lot.] She pointed to city property on North Main and at First and Washington as other city-owned property that could be part of the greenway.

Funding Sources, Financial Challenges

Tom Bloomer asked whether PAC used state or federal funding sources to augment the millage, in the same way that the greenbelt taps the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. Rosencrans said they sometimes partner with other entities, citing the Swift Run Dog Park, a joint city/Washtenaw County venture – the city provided the land for that.

Tim Berla noted that the renovations underway at West Park are using federal stimulus funds, and funding from the county water resources commission. [See Chronicle coverage: "West Park Improvements Get Fast-Tracked"] The renovations at Mary Beth Doyle Park were another example of partnering with the water resources commission.

Peg Kohring of The Conservation Fund told the group that federal funding for city parks hadn’t been available, and that the city was too wealthy to be awarded state funds through the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.

Funding is one of the reasons he wanted GAC and PAC to meet, Rosencrans said. He’d like the groups to communicate better in the event that PAC identified a property that might exceed the amount of funds available from its share of the millage. Sam Offen said he didn’t think people realized how many properties PAC passed on because they were too expensive.

Julie Grand said they’d been told they might see a council resolution putting a moratorium on buying land within the city – Rosencrans said he’d heard that rumor too. The question, he said, is how big of a park system can the city afford to maintain. Grand pointed out that they were very thoughtful in their acquisitions, and that she’d hate to pass on a fantastic property, if something became available. Nystuen said that the public needs to be better educated – people don’t understand that revenues from the millage can only be used for land acquisition, and can’t be allocated elsewhere.

Fuller Road Station

Mike Anglin, an ex-officio PAC member who also represents Ward 5 on city council, brought up the issue of the Fuller Road Station. He said there seems to be some movement about using parkland for other purposes, and “this might be the first salvo, so to speak.” [Fuller Road Station is a joint project with the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, located near UM's medical complex on city-owned land that's designated as parkland. The first phase is a parking structure with about 1,000 spaces, plus a bus station. Later, a station for commuter rail might be added.]

The city staff’s presentation about the project focused on the commuter rail aspect, Anglin said, when “in fact, we’re getting a parking structure.” He added that the salesmanship did not have the factual data to support the “sale.” [See Chronicle coverage: "Concerns Voiced over Fuller Road Station"]

Gwen Nystuen also questioned whether it was an appropriate use of parkland. Currently, the university leases a surface parking lot on that site, as well as on another city lot north of Fuller Road, next to Fuller Park. Those lots have fewer spaces and limited hours for university parking – weekdays between 6 a.m. and 4-5 p.m. In contrast, she said, the parking structure would have 1,000 spots and be used 24/7.

Working Together

Scott Rosencrans asked whether there was interest in having the two commissions meet one or two times a year, or perhaps schedule meetings when there was a property that both groups were interested in.

At that, Tim Berla said that during a PAC land acquisition committee meeting, they’d heard about some land that GAC had decided against buying. PAC members had wondered about doing it as a joint project with GAC, sharing the cost – “since the money is coming from the same place,” he said. Rosencrans said there are always unanswered questions and lots of conjecture in those kinds of situations – for example, why didn’t GAC see value in the land?

Dan Ezekiel said it was too bad they couldn’t talk about the land in question – which wasn’t identified at the meeting, but which all commissioners seemed aware of. His remark prompted Peg Kohring to exclaim, “It’s killing me!” It was clarified that to enter closed session, each commission needed a quorum of six members – PAC had eight people attending, but only five GAC members were present.

Ginny Trocchio explained that even though she and Kohring participate in closed sessions for each group, they can’t share information from one meeting with participants of the other. Berla asked whether ex-officio members of both groups could share information, and Trocchio said she’d ask the city attorney’s office about it.

She also pointed out that if someone applied to have their land considered for the greenbelt but was turned down for that, GAC could pass the application on to PAC for consideration.

Returning to the issue of partnering on land acquisition, Sam Offen said that PAC has some interest in fields for soccer or disc golf – if there were a large parcel for recreational use outside the city, would that be something that GAC would consider? Catherine Riseng pointed out that the greenbelt doesn’t have money for maintenance, so they’d have to be a minor contributor in that kind of a deal.

Berla said there was some danger of both groups going after the same property, and that would be a bad thing since it could result in bidding up the price of the land. Dan Ezekiel had mentioned this earlier in the meeting, recalling that several years ago the city and the Ann Arbor District Library both had been bidding for the property that’s now Dicken Woods, a park owned by the city.

On the topic of joint meetings, Julie Grand said she liked the idea of everyone getting together each year. “It reminds us that we’re all on the same side, using the same millage,” she said. Several other commissioners also expressed interest in a joint meeting, citing the benefits of better communication.

Rosencrans encouraged them to do that, saying it reduced the chance of mis-communication or conjecture, and would allow them to meet their strategic goals better, since the groups have so much in common. “Hopefully, you’ll pursue that,” he said.

Present: (Park Advisory Commission): Mike Anglin, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, Julie Grand, John Lawter, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, Scott Rosencrans. (Greenbelt Advisory Commission): Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Gil Omenn, Catherine Riseng. Staff: Peg Kohring, Ginny Trocchio.

A student stands next to the sculpture-in-progress by William Dennisuk, in the studio of the University of Michigan School of Art & Design. When finished, the piece made of bronze rods will be flipped – its base is at the top of the photo. (Photos by the writer.)

William Dennisuk is still waiting for the state to sign off on a public art installation that could dot a stretch of the Huron River with large vase-like sculptures. As he waits, he spends most of his days in a studio, hoping to complete the project before he returns to Finland later this year.

The Chronicle first met Dennisuk – a visiting artist and lecturer at the University of Michigan School of Art & Design – when he came to the October 2009 meeting of the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission. He described his project, called Vessels, as a way to bring together the city and campus communities, and to raise awareness about how we interact with the natural world.

When The Chronicle dropped by the art school’s studio recently to get an update on the project, Dennisuk said that working through the required approval process took longer than expected. Also taking longer than projected was working through his own learning curve for some new techniques he’s trying with these sculptures.

Although he had hoped to install his artwork in April, now it looks like late May will be a more realistic goal.

Who Decides? Navigating Red Tape

A native of the Detroit area who now lives and teaches in Finland, Dennisuk has been supported this academic year as a visiting artist by the UM School of Art & Design’s Witt Residency program. In materials submitted to the city’s park advisory commission last year, here’s how he describes his vision:

I would like to see artworks, projects, interventions and performances which illuminate hidden or neglected dimensions of nature, while perhaps also redefining our relationships toward it. While the immediate goal of this project would be to heighten visitors’ experience of the parks and pathways of Ann Arbor, what I am aiming for is a wide‐ranging examination of how our various disciplines can shed light on our relationship with the environment.

In this public art project I would like to see what Robert Irwin defines as a, ‘site‐determined’ approach to the public space. This approach stands in contrast to the sculpture‐park or gallery outof‐doors approach to the public space. In this respect the object or artwork should be considered as only one of the elements within a wider matrix of considerations. In this site‐determined approach each artwork, performance or intervention should evolve out of an intimate dialogue with a particular setting.

This approach to the public space calls for a hands‐on assessment of the various levels in which we move through and experience a particular site: all the tactile or haptic components, the particular historical context, personal memory and emotional layers, how people use the site, the overall social/political atmosphere, as well as the intangible dimensions each site engenders. It is my hope that if this detailed “reading” of the various sites along the Huron River can be conjoined with developments in our respective disciplines we could see the beginning of a new model for engaging the environment; one that arise out of an on‐going dialogue with the world around us.

Last fall, Dennisuk began exploring what kinds of permissions he’d need to install his artwork both on campus and along stretches of the Huron River that run through city parks. Conceived of as a temporary public art project, these large sculptures – standing six or seven feet tall – would appear to hover above the water, affixed to steel bases that would be weighted down in the riverbed with heavy stones. He’s hoping to place the artwork at a location in the river next to Riverside Park, Gallup Park and Nichols Arboretum, plus at two locations on UM’s north campus.

He discovered there’s no single place you can go to get information about doing a public art installation, especially one that crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries. For the city, he talked with parks staff as well as the park advisory commission, attending PAC meetings in October and November 2009 to explain what he was hoping to do.

William Dennisuk, in a fabrication studio at the UM School of Art & Design.

Dennisuk couldn’t attend PAC’s December 2009 meeting, but two UM staff members came to speak on his behalf: Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors programs at the UM School of Art & Design who also oversees the Witt Residency program; and Heather Blatnik, with the university’s environmental permitting program.

Blatnik told PAC that the project needed a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – because it involved placing artwork in the Huron River. As part of the application process, MDEQ required a signature from the city.

At that meeting, Hamilton and Blatnik also addressed some concerns expressed by PAC members – for example, they explained that UM’s insurance would cover liability.  The commissioners unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the university’s application to the MDEQ for a permit for Dennisuk’s project.

Since then, the MDEQ has merged with the state’s Dept. of Natural Resources – it’s now the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment. Reached by The Chronicle last week, DNRE spokesperson Linda Jones said that on Feb. 11, 2010, a public notice of the application was posted and sent to public officials in this area, including the Ann Arbor city clerk and the Washtenaw County health department, among others. That triggered a 20-day public comment period, she said, which is required by law for work that’s done in or over Michigan’s inland waters.

When that period passed, Jones said, the application and file were forwarded to the DNRE’s regional office in Jackson, which oversees an area that includes Washtenaw County. The Chronicle hasn’t yet received a response to calls placed to the staff member there who’s handling the permit.

The application cost $500 – Dennisuk said the state agreed to combine the three sites into one application, rather than charging for three separate applications.

Aside from the pieces near the parks, Dennisuk plans to place two similar sculptures on UM’s north campus: In the formal reflecting pool next to the Lurie Engineering Center, and in a pond next to the School of Music. (He hopes to install the reflecting pool sculpture on April 30 – in time for commencement ceremonies and President Obama’s visit to campus.)

The artist's rendering of his sculpture as it might appear in the Lurie Engineering Center's reflecting pool on UM's north campus.

For those two pieces, he’s had to navigate a different path to permission. He told The Chronicle that there seems to be several avenues for placing public art.

If the art goes into a building on campus, you need permission from the top administrator. For example, if you wanted to put your work in the Lurie Biomedical Engineering Building, you’d need permission from the dean of the College of Engineering. Plant maintenance supervisors would also have a say.

For artwork on campus grounds, there are several groups that might need to vet a project, including the Dept. of Public Safety (if security needs to be on site during installation), grounds maintenance, the campus External Elements Design Review Committee, and the UM president’s Advisory Committee on Public Art.

Dennisuk is sanguine about the process. The good news, he said, both with the city and the university, is that nobody he’s encountered has been antagonistic about the project. “That’s been encouraging,” he says.

Trying New Techniques: A Learning Curve

Seeking permits hasn’t been the only challenge. Dennisuk points to his own learning curve, as he tries new techniques and materials for these sculptures. For one, he’s been learning to use a new computer numerically controlled (CNC) system to design the artwork – the School of Art & Design has some sophisticated software and equipment, he says.

William Dennison holds copies of computer-generated images of his sculpture designs.

Materials have been a challenge, too. Rather than using iron, as he has in the past, Dennison is making the new pieces out of bronze rods, which he describes as a “very difficult material to work with.” If the metal overheats when it’s being welded, “it will bend in ways you don’t want it to,” he said.

Another complicating factor: Dennisuk’s designs for some of the sculptures in this project are more complex than his usual approach of welding horizontal and vertical bars. Some of the pieces require twisting the metal, a process that takes longer to execute, he said.

It also takes a delicate touch to weld two round rods together. Depending on what angle you’re using, the torch interacts with the metal differently, causing it to flatten or crimp.

That difficulty is in evidence on one of his nearly finished sculptures in a School of Art & Design fabrication studio, located in a building off of Fuller Road. The piece is checkered with small slips of green paper, which Dennisuk explains are used to mark some “lousy” welds. Someone at the school who’s more of an expert in working with bronze will be helping him fix those spots, he said.

Beyond strengthening the welds, Dennisuk plans to sandblast the piece, then apply a patina to give the bronze a slightly greenish cast. The idea is to help it better set into its environment, he says, so that it appears to be emerging more naturally from the river. Bronze would normally develop a patina on its own, but that process would take several years. At this point, the sculptures are planned as temporary installations, to be removed at the end of the summer.

William Dennisuk points to problematic welds on a sculpture he's making that he hopes to eventually place in the Huron River.

Green tags mark problematic welds on a bronze sculpture by William Dennisuk.

A nearly finished bronze sculpture by William Dennisuk, suspended from a wooden frame in a studio at the UM School of Art & Design.

William Dennisuk's rendering of his bronze sculpture as it might appear when installed in the Huron River, next to Riverside Park.

Another rendering by the artist of a bronze sculpture as envisioned in Gallup Park.

The vacant building on city-owned property at 415 W. Washington. This view is looking west – an entrance to a surface parking lot is in the foreground. (Photo by the writer.)

In its main land use business, the council approved a resolution to start a process for redeveloping the city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel. The resolution calls for the arts and greenway communities to lead fundraising and development of a vision for the parcel’s use. The site, across from the YMCA, is currently providing revenue to the city as a surface parking lot. It was previously the city’s maintenance yard.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) convinced her colleagues to add language that would make any future use of the parcel cost-neutral with respect to the general fund. But a bid by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to add a “citizens committee” to the mix was rejected.

And while council approved several deals under the city’s greenbelt program, it postponed consideration of another – in the area of the Bluffs park and the Black Elks lodge on Sunset. The postponement was prompted by concern from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) that the property’s appraised value seemed too high.

The council also extended an emergency moratorium on demolition and other work in a historic district study area south of William along Fourth and Fifth avenues, and adjusted permissible on-street parking locations along Baldwin Avenue in the Burns Park neighborhood.

And the council took time to thank some volunteers for its Adopt-a-Park program. The volunteers who were recognized at the meeting helped out at Ann Arbor’s parks through CHS Group Inc.

415 W. Washington Resolution

Several people spoke on the topic of the council’s resolution on 415 W. Washington during public commentary, before the council deliberated. The resolution called for creating a community process to develop a vision for the parcel, to be led by the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy and the Arts Alliance.

Public Comment on 415 W. Washington

Margaret Wong: Wong spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board. She said that the creation of a greenway park and art center on the 415 W. Washington parcel would result in a “true public benefit.” She said the conservancy would step up as a young nonprofit and participate in the process that the council’s resolution would create. She stressed that the process should be open to all and not just some. She also suggested that the goal of the process should not just be a report by 2011, but rather the goal should be to have artists actually installed there, working and performing in the space by March of 2011. In a year’s time, she suggested, the community have something real to show off.

Ray Fullerton: Fullerton spoke as a board member of the Greenway Conservancy and agreed with Wong that they needed to speed up the time frame. They had already spent five years on this, he said. He gave an example of Seoul, Korea where they had ripped up expressways and created a greenway in the city, which now enjoyed 40,000 visitors a day. He suggested that the next site they should look at was 721 N. Main, another city-owned maintenance facility.

Tamara Real: Real spoke as president of the Arts Alliance and supported the resolution on the 415 W. Washington parcel. She stated that there is a great need for a facility like that. Based on a survey that had been conducted after the Tech Center was demolished [on the site of what is now the Ann Arbor YMCA], it was found that 50,000 square feet of artist space was needed. Based on a 2008 study, she said, there are at least 1,000 artists in Ann Arbor. But she cautioned that Ann Arbor is losing its cultural vitality, as younger artists are moving away. She pointed to the Ann Arbor Comic Opera Guild, which performs in Canton because there is no suitable performance facility for them here. In contrast to Wong and Fullerton, Real thinks the time frame of producing a report in a year is realistic.

Lou Glorie: Glorie said it is important to make Ann Arbor more welcoming to artists. She pointed to a lack of space for artists and asked that the 415 W. Washington space be considered for studios. She also alluded to the possibility of a sculpture park. However, she advised the council that the resolution could be tightened up a bit, suggesting it should say that the process would be open to the whole community. She described how such a process usually worked, where perhaps 40 people would show up initially, and then it would melt down to a much smaller number. She suggested that some teeth be put in the resolution beyond some vague wishes to find money, and that the Downtown Development Authority be asked explicitly to invest in the process.

Connie Cronenwett: Cronenwett spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor Women Artists, which has 230 members and has existed since 1951, she said. She emphasized the lack of primary exhibit space for artists. Her group puts on three juried shows per year, she told the council, using venues like the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, the Mallets Creek Branch of the AADL, the University Michigan hospital, and the UM Power Center. But none of those venues were primary exhibit spaces, she said. With respect to the 415 W. Washington building – which the resolution calls for possibly rehabilitating – she said she did not want to wait 10-15 years. If the rehabilitation of the building is not possible, or if it was too costly, she said they needed to think about achieving primary exhibit space now, and suggested looking at the city-owned Library Lot site for that purpose.

John D’Addona: Speaking at the end of the meeting during unreserved public commentary time, he expressed concern that adequate attention hadn’t been paid to the environmental problems at the 415 W. Washington parcel. He noted that there were three large underground storage tanks, on which proper due diligence would need to be done. He reminded the council not to forget about those problems: “You might decide what you want to do, and find you can’t do what you want.”

Council Deliberations on 415 W. Washington

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off council deliberations on the 415 W. Washington resolution by describing Allen Creek as one of the most significant topographical features of the city – but one that was largely hidden. He described the resolution as another step forward in the creation of a greenway along the creek’s path.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that she looked at the resolution from the point view of the art component. She reported that her daughter had previously rehearsed with the Young People’s Theater at the old Tech Center. When the Tech Center had been demolished and replaced with the new YMCA building, the Young People’s Theater had needed to move out to the townships to rehearse.

In his comments, mayor John Hieftje cited the greenway task force report from 2007 that had made three different recommendations for the site. He described the RFP (request for proposals) process that had followed from the greenway task force’s report as “long forgotten now, I believe.”

Historical Interlude

Based on the council deliberations at the Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010 caucus and during council’s Monday night meeting, it’s probably fair to characterize the substance of the RFP committee’s work as “forgotten.” But the committee concluded its work just about one year ago. In fact, local developer Peter Allen gave the council a presentation at their Sunday, Jan. 4, 2009 caucus on his group’s proposal in response to the city’s request.

The greenway task force’s report included the following alternative recommendations for 415 W. Washington: (a) open space and a community art park, (b) a community building and, (c) new housing and additional open space. The (b) alternative mentioned the arts community specifically, but was not limited to that nonprofit sector. From the report:

Another rationale for maintaining the current structure has been provided by a variety of artists, artist  organizations and other non-profit entities such as Kiwanis, many of which have expressed a desire to maintain the building for use by their respective organizations.

The city’s subsequent RFP included a range of  site objectives, but did not specify any one of the three recommended greenway task force alternatives for the site. The RFP site objectives, in excerpted form, are these:

1. Beneficial use of the site. … Preference will be given to proposals that incorporate a use (or uses) that provides a publicly available service to the community, for instance, building space that may be used for public meetings and civic or cultural events. Additional consideration will be given for the development of dwelling units affordable to downtown workers earning between 60% and 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
2. Public greenway linkage. The floodway portion of the site should be reserved in some manner as open space for the Allen Creek Greenway. … The proposal should include provisions for long- term maintenance of the public elements by the applicant.
3. Flood risk mitigation. A successful proposal will employ the best management practices identified in the City of Ann Arbor Flood Mitigation Plan. …
4. Environmental benefits. The development proposal should incorporate to the greatest extent possible environmentally sensitive design and energy efficiency features that follow Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Preference will be given to proposals that reuse or rehabilitate existing structures, consistent with historic district standards. …
5. Historic preservation. The project design must respect the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood and comply with the Old West Side historic district regulations. …
6. Financial return. The proposal must provide a positive financial return to the City. …

The three proposals received by the city, in severely abbreviated form, were as follows:

Old West Side Design Group: This proposal calls for construction of a 3-story artist loft and live/work building totaling 24-36 units with above grade-level parking. The building, which would contain a minimum of 5-8 affordable units, would be located south of the main building on land currently occupied by garage structures. It would be designed for a LEED Silver rating or higher. A 24-unit residential condominium and commercial building is proposed on the adjacent 318 W. Liberty, to be developed under a separate site plan by members of the OWSDG proposal team.

Morningside: Construction of a new five-story, 52-unit condominium building with 48 parking spaces on the grade level under the building. Second floor residences are proposed for artist live/work space. Units would be priced in the mid-$200,000 range. The building, which would be designed for LEED Gold certification, would be located south of the main building on land currently occupied by garage structures.

Ann Arbor Art Center: Renovation of the 415 W. Washington building and garages into a community arts facility, to be owned by the Art Center. The Art Center would occupy approximately 13,000 square feet and rent or lease the remaining space to art groups and individuals.

After meeting seven times from May to December 2008 to review and evaluate the proposals, the RFP committee offered praise for all three proposals but did not designate any one of the three a recommended choice. From the committee report:

Notwithstanding these positive elements, the Committee finds that no single proposal is able to satisfy all of the site objectives and requirements of the RFP on its own merits. This evaluation is described in the findings below, followed by recommendations for the next steps in the site redevelopment process.

The RFP committee then kicked the  process back to council by asking council to refine the RFP and allow opportunity until mid-March 2009 for revision to the proposals:

City council should further clarify its vision for the intended uses of the site and revise the site objectives in the RFP accordingly. The Committee recommends that city council include the following elements in its vision for the site:

• A publicly-owned greenway along the existing floodway
• Renovation of the 415 W. Washington office building for an arts and/or civic use.
• Removal of the garages behind the office building.
• Construction of a new multi-family or live-work residential building at the southwest corner of the site
• Pedestrian and vehicle connections to both Liberty and Washington streets

City council should provide each of the three proposers an opportunity to amend their proposal to respond to the revised site objectives and to provide for collaboration between the parties. The charge of the advisory committee should be extended to review the amended proposals and make its recommendation to city council by March 16, 2009.

Membership on the RFP review committee was as follows: Christine Brummer (Old West Side Association), Chris Easthope (then city council member), Sue McCormick (director of public services with the city of Ann Arbor), John Mouat (Downtown Development Authority board member), and Scott Rosencrans (city’s park advisory commission).

The city council’s current path for moving forward on the 415 W. Washington proposal could fairly be described as taking the concept from the Ann Arbor Art Center’s proposal in response to the RFP and starting a community-based process to explore its realization.

Not a part of the current discussion seems to be the possibility of residential uses on the site, which a year ago were pointed to as providing “eyes on the park” 24-7 to help address concerns about security.

Also not included in the current discussion seems to be the idea of a transit station use, which would theoretically serve the proposed WALLY north-south commuter rail. The future of WALLY seems somewhat bleak – although at the council’s Monday meeting councilmembers heard from SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) that six railroad cars were being refurbished for WALLY.

More Council Deliberations on 415 W. Washington

Mayor John Hieftje then read aloud for a few minutes from the greenway task force report, and said that they needed to respect the work of the task force, which had lasted for over a year. He said that the city had tried to take action but there wasn’t a good result. They had tried for the third option for the site recommended by the greenway task force, he contended, but that hadn’t worked out. He said he felt it was worth it now, though, to take a shot with this resolution to develop the second option [alternative B], a process he described as “a beginning point.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) expressed thanks to the 415 W. Washington RFP committee, which she said had spent a great deal of time and worked very hard, although nothing had come to fruition. She said that the failure of any proposal to move forward was perhaps a mark of the times or a mark of a flawed RFP process, but certainly not a reflection on committee members.

Briere noted that the 415 W. Washington building is protected as part of the Old West Side historic district. She said that in discussion with both her artist friends and other friends who are involved in the greenway effort, they felt like the resolution provided some needed momentum. “It’s a win for us,” Briere said. She allowed that there was not a commitment of money in the resolution, but said that now was not the time for that.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who was a member of the greenway task force, recalled how there were many challenges and problems involved with crossing streets and how the route of the greenway is very difficult to lay on top of the fabric of the Old West Side – still, she understood the vision. That vision, she said, is still 30-50 years off. [Other members of the greenway task force were: Linda Berauer, Jean Carlberg, James D’Amour, Larissa Larsen, Barbara Murphy, Peter Osler, Peter Pollack and Margaret Wong.]

Smith compared the parks to be established along the route of the greenway to pearls on a string, and suggested that this was one of the first pearls. Smith noted a bit of irony in the fact that one of the strategies the city is at least putting on the table to contend with the current budget difficulties is the sale of parkland. Sale of the land would reduce maintenance costs in the parks system.

So it was a natural question to ask whether now was the time to add an additional park facility, Smith said. Still, she said, she supported the resolution and wanted to add a “resolved” clause stating that in any eventual proposal there would be a goal that it be revenue neutral for the city’s general fund. Smith’s amendment was accepted by her colleagues on the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) drew out the fact that currently the parcel is a parking lot and is generating revenue to the general fund.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) then made a bid to amend the resolution in a way that was substantial enough that his council colleagues described it as a “substitute resolution” rather than an amendment. Anglin’s proposal for a different resolution was driven by concerns about inclusiveness, and he expressed concern that some in the community did not share the vision and that those individuals needed to be included as well. Anglin’s resolution called specifically for the creation of a “citizens committee” and asked for $50,000 of support from the DDA.

Hieftje was the first to respond to Anglin’s proposal by saying that he objected to the fact that Anglin would eliminate the explicit mention of the Arts Alliance and the Greenway Conservancy in the resolution. He also worried that a citizens committee – that allowed any resident of Ann Arbor who wanted to participate to be on the committee – could wind up with 100 people. Such a  large group was not consistent with the kind of shortened time frame that some of the public speakers called for, he said.

Kunselman said he appreciated Anglin’s passion for citizen involvement and wanted to try to retain something of Anglin’s resolution in whatever they passed. But Kunselman expressed no enthusiasm for trying to wordsmith at the table on this question.

Briere addressed Anglin’s concern for citizen involvement by saying that his idea of the citizens committee reflected the idea that citizens should play an integral role – and that role was played by the citizen involvement in the two organizations that the resolution named. Smith said her basic concern was that community partners like the Arts Alliance and Greenway Conservancy be identified, so the process could start at that level.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) described the request for money from the DDA as “far premature.” Spending money, he said, was not the first step. The first step was to involve a process, determine how much money was needed, and then talk about where to go get the money. A totally unstructured citizens committee did not appeal at all Rapundalo.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) affirmed his support of the idea that the collective wisdom of citizens should always be harnessed if possible. But he echoed sentiments made earlier by Briere in saying that the organizations identified in the resolution are themselves made up of citizens.

Outcome: The vote on Anglin’s amendment got no votes except from Anglin. The resolution itself was unanimously approved.

Land Acquisition: Greenbelt

Also on the council’s Feb. 1 agenda were approvals of several greenbelt related items: (i) a participation agreement for purchase of development rights on Zeeb Farm, (ii) a grant application for purchase of development rights on the G. Whitney Property, and (iii) a grant application for the purchase of development rights on the Honke Family LLC Property. These were approved with little discussion.

Another greenbelt item was postponed, however. The postponed item was the purchase of 0.58 acres of land at 220 Sunset St. for $381,170. The property is currently owned by James L. Crawford Lodge No. 322 of Improved Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the World (IBPOEW) – the Black Elks.

In the summer of 2007, the city council had rejected a development proposal by the Black Elks that would have put housing on the site, and that called for construction of a new lodge. From a June 19, 2007 Ann Arbor News article by Tom Gantert:

The Avery House/Elks Lodge development was a 37-unit condo building that would stand 53 feet, 7 inches high in a neighborhood of mostly one- and two-story homes. The developer was to demolish the old, deteriorating Elks lodge off Sunset Road and replace it with a new one, key to the Elks staying on the site.

But the council was swayed by dozens of concerned residents who said the project would ruin their neighborhood.

Mayor John Hieftje said when neighborhoods come forward with overwhelming opposition, the council has to listen. The only people that spoke in favor of the project were either members of the development team or the Elks lodge.

At Monday’s meeting, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off discussion by asking Jayne Miller, community services area administrator, to explain the rationale for the acquisition. Miller described how it would help access to Bluffs Nature Area. Addressing the concern that it would increase maintenance costs by adding yet another park to the system, Miller described any investment as limited – it would consist mainly of chip paths so that people could get into the area. Miller told Smith that she did not know how the cash would affect the Black Elks’ specific ability to refurbish their lodge.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was struggling with the amount of money that was being spent for half an acre. Miller explained that for all greenbelt properties there is due diligence done and appraisals made of fair market value. Those appraisals had to be made within 12 months of purchase, Miller said. Higgins noted that even within the last 12 months there is bound to have been a great deal of fluctuation. Miller did not have the exact date on the appraisal. The greenbelt acquisition was postponed.

Outcome: The council postponed consideration of the purchase of property from the Black Elks, pending clarification on the appraisal.

Historic District Study and Parking

In other business, the council extended a moratorium on demolition and other work in a study area for a proposed historic district south of William Street along Fourth and Fifth avenues. Such moratoria can only be passed six months at a time, even though the period of study was planned for one year. So the extension of the moratorium was not unexpected.

There had been hope expressed by some residents south of the study area that this area would also be included in the recommended scope for a historic district. However, current indications from the committee are that this additional area will not be included.

Also, new parking regulations were approved by the council for Baldwin Avenue, which runs north-south just east of Burns Park. The regulations restrict on-street parking to just one side or the other –  the side where parking is allowed was determined through resident input.

Three Percent for Symbolism

On the subject of the symbolic 3% give-back to the city from their salaries, which some councilmembers had promised at their last meeting, Stephen Rapundalo reminded his colleagues that he had said he would “consider it.” Now that he had considered it and discussed it with the “boss at home,” he said he had decided to make a 3% contribution back to the city on a quarterly basis.

Marcia Higgins also announced that she would be joining other councilmembers and making a 3% contribution back to the city from her paycheck.

Other Council Communications

Stephen Rapundalo indicated that he and his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, would be bringing to council a proposed ordinance that would ban use of cell phones and texting devices while driving.

Derezinski said that his remarks at a previous council meeting on deer-car interactions and possible plans to cull the herd had generated a great number of e-mails and phone calls. He felt the interest that had been generated merited some looking into. In response to city administrator Roger Fraser’s previous comment that the 30 deer-car incidents a year are really not that high, comparatively speaking, Derezinski contended that there were a lot of things that have not yet been reported. Derezinski allowed that he knew the topic was controversial, but remarked, “That’s why we get the big bucks.” [It's not completely clear whether the pun was intended.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanked the city administrator for providing a tour of the construction at the new municipal center, which will house the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor Police Department. He said he was proud of the way the money is being spent.

Other Public Commentary

-

Crosswalks and Ordinary Process

Kathy Griswold: In public commentary time available at the conclusion of the meeting, Kathy Griswold alluded to her 15 years of service on the transportation and safety committee – a joint committee of the city and the Ann Arbor public schools. She urged that a meeting be finalized that is supposed to deal with the King Elementary School mid-block crosswalk. [Griswold has advocated on multiple occasions at council meetings and caucus for moving the mid-block crossing to the nearby four-way stop intersection.] She described how there are many incidents that are handled efficiently and appropriately concerning the crosswalk. For example, a driver had been speeding down the street and disregarded an adult crossing guard. The transportation and safety committee had contacted the police department and officer Clock had handled it appropriately, she reported.

These kinds of incidents, Griswold said, get handled all the time, without involvement of the city administrator. The effort to move the crosswalk from its mid-block location to a four-way stop intersection had now taken a two-year effort and it was “mind-boggling to understand why it’s taking so long.” Griswold read from a series of e-mails she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which supported her contention that the city administrator was involved in the process concerning the crosswalk.

Medical Marijuana

Chuck Ream: Ream spoke to the council about therapeutic cannabis. He reminded them that in 2004, more than 74% of Ann Arbor voters had voted for medical marijuana. He described it not as a victory or a mandate but as “clear marching orders.” He suggested that six centers be established as dispensaries and noted that the city charter already enabled it. He said that he had a formal legal opinion written by a lawyer that stated it was legal. He had a draft law that they could adopt, he said. Ream suggested that establishing six large centers that would be well run was a better alternative to dispensaries showing up on every street corner.

Musical Interlude

Libby Hunter: For her turn at public commentary reserved time, Hunter sang a tune to the melody of “My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean” that included the lyric “Roger [Fraser] makes the money go away.”

Serving the Underserved

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw Democrat who was there to represent those who are underserved – seniors and disabled people, lower income and unemployed individuals. He called for the need to respect these groups and suggested that instead of simply being willing to accommodate disabled people’s needs in addressing the council, that they should have a permanent area established for their use. He alluded to the 50th anniversary of the sit-in at the Woolworth coffee counter during the country’s civil rights demonstrations. He stated that past progress was good, but they could not rest on that.

Palestine

Blaine Coleman: Coleman asked that the CTN camera operator focus on his sign, which read “Boycott Israel.” He told the council that he had asked for years for a boycott against Israel, which he described as the most openly racist country in the world. He criticized the council’s choice of Neil Elyakin as an appointee to the city’s human rights commission, because of Elyakin’s affiliation with Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces. Coleman alluded to the fact that Elyakin was in attendance at the council meeting. Coleman then told the council that they would eventually pass a resolution to boycott Israel in the same way that they had eventually passed a resolution to divest from South Africa. Coleman compared the situation to the passage of a local anti-discrimination housing law in 1963 which white Realtors “went crazy opposing,” but that had eventually been passed.

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

Next council meeting: Tues. Feb. 16, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The barns and out buildings at Staebler Farm, on Plymouth Road in Superior Township. Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation bought the farm in 2001, and will be developing a master plan for the property in the coming years. (Photos by The Chronicle.)

“I’m open to suggestions,” Staebler told The Chronicle, “and willing to give up plenty of what I know.”

During their presentation about a five-year master plan for the parks system, county staff outlined plans for the Staebler Farm – a proposed $2.3 million investment – as well as for several other county parks, recreational facilities and preserves. It was one of three public meetings to get input on the master plan; the next meeting will be on Wednesday, Feb. 3, at the Dexter Library, starting at 7 p.m.

A draft of the master plan – which is also available online – includes items in an extensive capital improvement program that was approved last year by the county’s Parks & Recreation Commission. Several of the largest projects are planned for Rolling Hills Park, including the addition of a dog park, an expansion of the water park and construction of softball fields and an amphitheater. The county also plans to invest nearly $12 million in greenway and non-motorized trails over the next five years.

Shaping the Master Plan

The Washtenew County Parks & Recreation department manages 3,654 acres of land, including more than 1,800 acres protected through the Natural Areas Preservation Program. The parks system has 35 permanent employees who work as park planners, administrators, supervisors and field workers, among other positions. The department also hires as many as 400 seasonal workers throughout the year to provide services such as life guarding and facilities staffing.

The parks system receives most of its funding from two county millages, each levied at 0.2367 mill. One millage, which runs through 2020, pays for capital improvements and park development; the other goes to park operations, and expires in 2016. Other funding sources include fees, federal and state grants, concessions and private donations.

In addition, a third millage – at 0.25 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually, according to Bob Tetens, the county’s parks director. That millage expires in 2011, and would need to be put on the ballot for renewal this year. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Natural Areas Tax Up for Renewal"]

The department, with a budget of about $8.5 million, does not receive support from the county’s general fund. It has a fund balance of $21.5 million for parks and recreation, and another $6 million fund balance for the natural areas program.

Those fund balances will be used for some of the projects in the pipeline, as laid out by the master plan. The parks system updates its master plan every five years – for the current plan, the county hired the private consulting firm URS Corp., which in turn enlisted the planning firm JJR. The process of drafting the plan included examining state and national recreational trends, reviewing the county’s demographics and meeting with county recreation staff and officials.

In addition to the public meetings on Jan. 26 and Feb. 3, the master plan will be open for public comment at the March 9 meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission. That meeting runs from 7-9 p.m. at the parks administration office at County Park Farm, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor. Park planner Richard Kent said the commission will likely adopt the master plan at its regular monthly meeting in April, at the earliest. Then the plan will be sent for approval at the state level – a requirement necessary in order to be eligible for state recreation funding.

Parks Projects through 2014

Within its broad goals – such as preserving the county’s natural resources and promoting an active lifestyle for community residents – the parks system has a range of specific projects outlined in the master plan over the next five years. [.pdf file of complete parks capital improvement program budget] Here’s a sampling.

Rolling Hills Park, Ypsilanti Township

Just over $13 million in projects – or about 40% of the park’s five-year capital improvement program – have been identified for this 363-acre park off of Stony Creek Road, between Bemis and Merritt in Ypsilanti Township. Proposed actions over the next few years include continued upgrades to the playground, tree house, pavilions, dock and fishing pier. About $3.2 million is earmarked for work on paved trails and the main road. Another big-ticket item is $3.6 million to expand the water park and build a promenade and new bath house.

In addition, the master plan for Rolling Hills calls for expanding a disc golf course, constructing a mountain bike course, putting in a dog park, and building an amphitheater and softball facilities. The department also has allotted $50,000 to conduct a feasibility study for a new recreation center. Other projects include installing soccer fields, expanding the park’s prairie acreage, installing interpretive signs in natural areas and gardens, and forming a trail connection with the adjacent Hewen’s Creek Park.

County Farm Park and Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, Ann Arbor

The 141-acre County Farm Park is located on Ann Arbor’s east side, at the southwest corner of Washtenaw and Platt – behind the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center. For the park, proposed projects include ongoing playground improvements, renovation of the Platt Road entrance, renovation of the Platt Road pavilion restrooms, adding restrooms and water service at the Medford Lot entrance, reconstructing the Platt parking lot, replacing signs at the entrances, renovating the trail system and replacing the fitness trail equipment.

The Platt Road entrance to County Farm Park, where the administrative offices for Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation are also located.

Other anticipated projects in the master plan include expanding natural areas in the park, reducing the acreage of mowed lawn, renovating the perennial gardens and pergola, collaborating with stakeholders on creek restoration, increasing programming related to horticultural gardens and creating a system of signs for the park’s planting areas.

Action items for the recreation center include making improvements and updates to the building, investigating solar applications, and improving connections to County Farm Park and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Independence Lake Park, Webster Township

Located northwest of Ann Arbor, Independence Lake Park is slated for $3.3 million in proposed projects over the next few years. That includes a new nature center, a new boardwalk and observation deck, and a new access drive, among other projects.

Other facilities and parks included in the master plan are Parker Mill in Ann Arbor Township; Sharon Mills Park in Sharon Township; Pierce Lake Golf Course and Park in Chelsea; Park Northfield in Northfield Township; Park Lyndon of Lyndon Township; the Osborne Mill Preserve in Scio Township; and Cavanaugh Lake Park in Sylvan Township.

Greenways and Non-Motorized Trails

The county park system is looking at investing nearly $12 million over the next five years in greenways and non-motorized trails – or 34% of the total capital improvement program. That includes ongoing development of the county’s Border-to-Border Trail system, as well as $600,000 each year made available to local municipalities for connecting their parks with the Border-to-Border network.

Staebler Farm

And, of course, there’s Donald Staebler’s farm in Superior Township. The master plan calls for improving the entrance drives, possibly renovating the farm house and coming up with other projects in a master site development plan. Nearly $2.3 million is allocated for this project.

Mary Staebler, Donald Staebler’s sister-in-law and caretaker who also attended the Jan. 26 meeting, seemed to have faith in the county’s ability to take care of the farm.

“They have done such an excellent job on everything they’ve done,” she said. “I’m sure they’ll do equally as well with the Staebler Farm.”

About the author: Helen Nevius, a student at Eastern Michigan University, is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

Mary Jo Callan, left, head of the city/county community development office, and Jayne Miller, the city of Ann Arbor's community service area administrator.

As to possible measures that could affect the FY 2011 budget, which begins July 1, 2010, Miller focused on several areas: (i) reorganizing the housing commission; (ii) reducing the scope for planning projects and outsourcing planning review and/or collaborating with other municipalities for construction inspection, (iii) cutting human services funding, (iv) reducing maintenance for specific parks and changing the parks maintenance/improvements millage resolution, which specifies how the millage money is allocated.

Some possibilities that were mentioned – but described as unlikely to have an impact on the FY 2011 budget – included allowing a private vendor to operate Huron Hills Golf Course as a combination driving range (where the front nine holes are currently located), plus a 9-hole golf course.

Specific parks were also identified in Miller’s report that would be recommended for sale – if parkland sale were to be used as a strategy. However, that too, said Miller, would be unlikely to have a short-term impact for two reasons: the sale of parkland requires a voter referendum, and the market for land is currently uncertain, given the overall economic climate.

The presentation also served as a bit of a tutorial on which parts of the city’s operations Miller administers, in a job she’ll be leaving on Feb. 11. Sumedh Bahl, unit manager of the water treatment plant, was also on hand Monday night – he’ll be filling in for Miller on an interim basis.

Housing Commission

Jayne Miller reviewed for the council the key point from a Jan. 11 work session regarding the housing commission: a $228,163 gap for the commission that would result from additional staffing and outsourcing of maintenance. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for housing commission]

Of that amount, the city had already specified $90,000 in its FY 2011 plan, which would still leave a shortfall of $138,163 above and beyond what’s been planned for. As Miller reiterated on Monday, the beefed up staffing was expected over the next two years to recoup an investment in the form of additional grants they’d have staff time to apply for. Further, the housing commission had a variety of strategies it would be using to bridge the gap – but the bottom line was that council could be getting a request for additional funds beyond the $90,000 it had already planned for. [See Chronicle coverage: "Housing Commission Reorganizes"]

Planning and Development

Miller ticked through the basic services provided by planning and development: administration of rental housing inspection, administration of the construction code, and administration of the planning program. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for planning and development]

Of these, the last item has the highest profile, as it involves site plan review for various projects, as well as the various planning initiatives that entail public engagement: A2D2 (downtown zoning), ZORO (comprehensive zoning code review), AHP (revisions to area height and placement requirements), as well as the current review of the R4C/R2A (residential housing) districts.

Of the various planning initiatives underway, Miller said, some were deemed too far along to consider modifications in schedule or scope. But in order to keep staffing at an already reduced level, she said, reductions in scope of other projects were a possibility. Projects that could be reduced in scope, she said, included the  second phase of master plan consolidation, which could be narrowed in focus to consider just those elements that were outdated.

And the review of the R4C/R2A zoning areas could, said Miller, be reduced in scope by eliminating the R2A (two-family dwelling) from consideration and truncating the review period at six months, instead of taking the entire year originally scheduled. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the council’s representative to the planning commission, did not embrace the idea of truncating the work of the R4C/R2A task force, saying there were groups that had already expressed some concern about their lack of inclusion in the process.

Other sources inside the task force have indicated that in the 3-4 months of work done to date, they’re really only at the point of gathering stakeholder input – including landlords who had perceived they were being excluded. It seems unlikely that the task force’s work could be wrapped up much short of the originally scheduled year.

In addition to the possibility of reducing the scope of projects, Miller outlined the possibility of outsourcing activities – plan review services, for example. One consideration is that all clerical and inspection staff is unionized, and union contract language would guide any outsourcing.

In the past, the city has had agreements with Washtenaw County and Pittsfield Township for mutual aid in construction inspection services. Those arrangements have been re-implemented, with ongoing discussions of additional opportunities for maximizing service, while minimizing costs.

Based on emails The Chronicle has seen circulated among building tradespeople in late November 2009, there is dissatisfaction in Ann Arbor with the performance of Pittsfield Township construction inspectors – failure rates of 50% are cited, which is high.

A somewhat more dramatic possibility outlined by Miller on Monday night was the possibility of transferring the authority for the enforcement of construction code to the state of Michigan. That would require the city to  substantiate a claim that administering and enforcing the rules would cause certain hardships and undue burdens on it.

Human Services

When the city council last allocated human services dollars – nearly $1.3 million worth in April of 2009 – it did so using a new scoring rubric. There was then already a sense that the following year, this year, things could be grim. From Chronicle coverage:

[Mayor John] Hieftje expressed concern that it was only going to get tougher next year and that to hold the human services funding level this year (as compared to last) was difficult.

For FY 2011, the coming budget year, the number $260,000 crops up multiple times throughout the cover memo on human services issues from Miller to the council. To appreciate the significance of that number, it’s important to understand that the city of Ann Arbor adopts a budget one year at a time, but plans two years at a time.

So when the council adopted the FY 2010 budget, there was a plan for FY 2011 accompanying it as well, even though that FY 2011 plan was not formally adopted.

In that FY 2011 plan, there was a reduction of $260,000 for human services support. So the various alternatives – discussed by Miller on Monday night and outlined in her cover memo – are portrayed in terms of this $260,000 reduction. Among the alternatives would be to restore the $260,000 to bring funding levels up to FY 2010 levels. That would be accomplished by allocating staff costs to federal funds and by not making a $100,000 contribution to the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund.

In response to a question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Miller reported the current fund balance of the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund is $393,000.

Also among the alternatives sketched out by Miller was the possibility of reducing human services funding by more than the $260,000 in the FY 2011 plan.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who was one of the chief architects of the scoring metric for human services allocations – wanted to know if the various nonprofits that had previously received money were aware of the potential for cuts. Miller said they were aware of what had been proposed.

Mayor John Hieftje appeared somewhat dissatisfied with Miller’s comparative portrayal of Ann Arbor materials in the context of five other cities: Lansing, Mich.; Austin, Texas.; Boulder, Colo.;  Fredericksburg, Va.; and Madison, Wisc. Those five cities fund nonprofits at an average rate of 1.45% of their general fund, compared to 1.7% for Ann Arbor. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for humans services]

[That 1.7% is more than the other five cities – but the average of 1.45% did not include three other cities in Michigan, none of which allocate any of their general fund money to nonprofits: Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. Inclusion of those three zeros in the average would put the contrast at 0.9% average for eight other cities versus Ann Arbor's 1.7%.]

Hieftje concluded that Ann Arbor, compared to other cities in Michigan, was still quite strong with respect to its human services funding.

Parks

Discussion of parks took up more of the council’s time than other parts of the community services area covered on Monday night. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for parks]

Parks: Open Space Millage

One of the questions that the city council had asked city staff to explore was the possible re-purposing of the open space (a.k.a greenbelt) millage to support the city’s park system. The city issued $20 million in bonds based on the millage, which was passed in 2003 and last through 2033. The debt service on those bonds is roughly $1.2 million to $1.4 million per year through 2033. Revenue from the millage is projected to be a little over $2 million, leaving an estimated $700,000 to $900,000 in available funds per year.

The current fund balance for the open space millage is $18,266,602, of which $6,318,071 has either been recently spent or approved to be spent by the council, leaving a practical balance of $11,948,531.

Neither in the cover memo or during council discussions on Monday night did there seem to be any great enthusiasm for exploring the possibility of re-purposing the open space millage in support of the city park system.

Parks: Do You Golf?

However, the idea of issuing an RFP (request for proposals) to convert part of the Huron Hills Golf Course to a driving range with just a 9-hole course was fairly warmly embraced. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) described the notion as “intriguing” and said that to pursue it, the timing would be “the sooner, the better” in order to get the proposal before the golf advisory task force as well as the park advisory commission.

The RFP would need to be issued by the end of March, thought Rapundalo, in order to be able to factor it into the FY 2011 budget discussion. But Miller cautioned that the end of March would be “pushing it.” City administrator Roger Fraser pointed out that the RFP would ask people to come in with a financial plan and a market analysis. There’d need to be a period of due diligence – he was not sanguine about the expectation that it could be done before the end of the fiscal year.

If it made sense for a private vendor to put in a driving range and operate it, asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), why wouldn’t the city undertake that itself? Miller allowed that it was a good question. She explained that the advantage would be that the capital outlay to install the range would be carried by the vendor instead of the city. Miller concurred with Taylor’s conclusion that it would likely be a situation where the risk – but also the reward – would be shared with the private vendor.

It was established through several conversational turns that it’s the front nine holes – near the river – that were candidates for replacement with a driving range. The back nine holes are preferred for play at the course, which was described as more of a community asset used for beginning players. That contrasts with Leslie Park Golf Course, which is more of a “championship” course, said Rapundalo.

Of the two golf courses, it’s Leslie that stands the best chance of eventually breaking even, said Miller. The forecasted losses for both courses in FY 2010 is $517,288. Maintaining (mowing) Huron Hills as open parkland, not as a golf course, would be $320,000.

Parks: Mowing

The materials provided to the council by Miller provide a park-by-park breakdown of possible areas to reduce mowing in order to save money. However, Miller cautioned that it was somewhat difficult to estimate exactly how much money could be saved, because reducing mowing at a site reduced the time spent at a particular park, but the time it took to haul the equipment to the location stayed the same.

Parks: Facility Evaluation

Included in the materials prepared by Miller was a table of data on facilities and their revenue versus expenses, plus number of visitors. It drew praise from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who described it as providing a lot of very useful data.

The table gives data for facilities starting in 2003 through the present for each year, as well as aggregated data for all years. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for parks]

Parks: Reallocation of Parks Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage

One possibility covered by Miller was to revisit the resolution of intent associated with the parks maintenance  and capital improvements millage. The millage was passed in November 2006  and combined two previously separate millages.

Its distribution of funding to maintenance versus capital improvements is governed by a council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60-80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements. The resolution also calls for any reduction in the overall general fund to be reflected no more severely in parks programs supported by the general fund than in other general fund activities. For example, if the general fund were to suffer a 7.5% reduction, then parks programs supported by the general fund would suffer no greater a reduction that 7.5%.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) raised the question of whether it would be necessary to go back to the voters in order to revise that resolution – voters had felt that it accompanied the ballot language, she pointed out.

Briere could have been alluding to the controversy after the millage was passed – with its accompanying “hold harmless” clause for parks programs within the general fund – when Leslie Science and Nature Center was spun off as an independent nonprofit. The city initially calculated the baseline for general fund park activity without the Leslie Science and Nature Center, reasoning that the item itself was no longer in the general fund and that it was not a matter of reducing it. However in response to public criticism, funding was put back into parks programs to bring their funding to the level they would have been with Leslie Science and Nature Center as a part of the calculation.

Parks: Use of Volunteers

One of the options presented by Miller was increased use of volunteers – but that, she cautioned, would require some additional staffing in order to coordinate them. One idea for providing that staffing, she said, was to use a still-vacant park planner position [likely Jeff Dehring's position] as a volunteer coordinator.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the use of volunteers for creating of outdoor ice rinks – there’s a Facebook group that has formed, calling for the city to bring back the Burns Park outdoor ice rinks. In oversimplified form, the technique could be described as turning on a hose and  letting the water freeze.

Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, was on hand Monday night to report that looking back over the temperature patterns for the last three years, there would have been no good opportunities for creating such ice rinks in those years.

Parkland Sale

At the city council’s request, the staff identified parks where further exploration might be warranted:

• Arboretum – possible University of Michigan interest
• Bader – low use, not visible
• Berkshire Creek – potentially buildable
• Depot – only a visual resource, has issues with loitering/trash
• Devonshire – would need to retain path access to Gallup, but may be able to reduce size
• Dicken Park – low use
• Dicken Woods – potential developer interest
• Douglas Park – potentially buildable
• Eisenhower Park – currently numerous encroachment issues
• Ellsworth Park – duplicates SE Area Park uses, especially since University Townhouses installed fence blocking off park from residents
• Foxfire East – low use
• Fuller Park – small triangle west of park is not usable part of park
• Garden Homes Park – there has been some interest in smaller sections of the park for private use
• George Washington Park – property more an extension of right-of-way
• Glazier Way – sell back access easement to homeowners
• Manchester – potentially buildable
• Mill Creek – low use
• Molin Nature Area – back yards of residents
• Pittsview – potentially buildable
• Rose White Park – low use
• South University – underused, but in an area without many parks
• Stone School – low use

But the memo accompanying the list is fairly pessimistic and there were no councilmembers clamoring on Monday night for the sale of parks. From the staff cover memo:

Many parks have deed restrictions so further research would have to be done at a park-specific level should Council wish to further explore this option. It is also worth considering that current land value is much lower than it recently has been. It may be difficult to attract buyers and if a sale was achieved, the land could be undervalued given the current market. Finally, prior to the sale of any parkland, an affirmative vote of Ann Arbor voters would be required.

Charter: Budget Procedure

As city administrator Roger Fraser pointed out, part of the timing for what comes next is specified in the city’s charter:

SECTION 8.2. On or before the first day of February of each year, each City officer and department head shall submit to the City Administrator estimates of revenues and expenditures of their office or department for the next fiscal year. The City Administrator shall … present that proposed budget to the Council at its second regular meeting in April.

SECTION 8.6. Not later than its second meeting in May, the Council shall, by resolution concurred in by at least seven members, adopt the budget for the next fiscal year. …

SECTION 8.8. Should the Council fail to adopt a budget for the next fiscal year at or before the second meeting of the Council in May, the budget proposal as recommended to the Council by the City Administrator, shall be deemed to have been finally adopted by the Council and, without further action by the Council, shall constitute an appropriation of the money needed for municipal purposes during the next fiscal year.

On the city’s website, “budget central” is on the Our Town page, where presentation materials and next meeting dates can be found.

Next up will be a meeting on Feb. 8 to revisit the community services area in earnest before Jayne Miller’s departure from that position three days later. Following that will be a Feb. 22 meeting, when public services will likely be on the agenda.