From left: former Congressman Wes Vivian talks with Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) before the board’s July 9 meeting. Vivian is advocating for the board to put a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. (Photos by the writer.)

Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator, told commissioners that there’s been an increase in young men “terrorizing” their communities. The sheriff’s office and court had started working together several months ago after they began observing an increase in gang-type activity, she said, including home invasions, firearm larceny, and assaulting police officers. They’d been hopeful that they could stem the tide of violence, she added, but it had escalated with a death in Ypsilanti earlier this summer.

So the sheriff’s office and court officials have reached consensus to remove some of these young men from the community and put them into residential facilities in other parts of the state, Edwards-Brown said. The juvenile division of the Washtenaw County trial court will place at least six youths in residential facilities this month, in addition to six youths who are currently in residential placements. According to a staff memo, residential placements are costly, with a typical length of stay at nine to twelve months.

At the July 9 meeting, commissioners and staff expressed the need to continue working on this issue as a community-wide effort.

In other action, commissioners were asked to pass a resolution making mid-year budget adjustments and allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues, as well as putting the $3.9 million surplus from 2013 into unearmarked reserves.

The adjustments passed on a 6-2 vote, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9) dissenting. Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent. Dan Smith objected to spending more than was budgeted and making budget changes outside of the annual budget affirmation process, which takes place later this year. Conan Smith didn’t state his reason for voting against it on July 9, though in the past he has advocated for spending more of the surplus, rather than setting it aside in the fund balance.

Commissioners also authorized putting a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to renew a 10-year, 0.2353-mill countywide parks and recreation operations tax. They held public hearings related to other millages that the county plans to levy later this year: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities, under Act 88. The hearings drew one speaker – Thomas Partridge.

Related to the health department, the board created a new board of health to help oversee public health services in the county. A state official was on hand to talk about the accreditation process that the Washtenaw County public health department completed earlier this year.

Commissioners voted to accept the recommendations of a task force that’s been working on a funding strategy to help end homelessness, and to sunset that task force. The board also made appointments to a new committee that’s charged with exploring funding options for road repair.

Several issues were raised during public commentary. Former Congressman Wes Vivian urged the county board to place a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot enabling Washtenaw County voters to ask the state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. That U.S. Supreme Court ruling has resulted in corporations “sloshing big money into our elections at all levels,” Vivian said.

Also during the meeting, commissioners honored Arthur Williams, who is retiring as principal of Huron High School in Ann Arbor after 19 years in that job. The board also passed proclamations welcoming the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters and the Ironworkers International. Both unions hold training programs in Washtenaw County each summer.

At the beginning of the meeting, Rabhi asked for a moment of silence in memory of Rowan David LaBarre, the newborn son of commissioner Andy LaBarre and his wife Megan LaBarre. Rowan David had passed away earlier in the week. “We all pray and hold Rowan in the light of our prayers and thoughts,” Rabhi said.

Funding to Address Juvenile Crime

The July 9 agenda included a resolution authorizing the use of $642,707 from the Child Care Fund balance to pay for a range of services overseen by the county’s dept. of human services. The use of $642,707 will drop the Child Care Fund balance from $1,041,882 to $399,175. [.pdf of staff memo]

Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator.

The resolution authorized an amendment to the Child Care Fund (CCF) budget for the current fiscal year. The request came from the Washtenaw County Trial Court’s juvenile division and the county’s department of human services – the entities that oversee programs supported by the CCF.

According to a staff memo, the CCF is a collaboration between the state and county circuit courts to support programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. The state reimburses counties for 50% of all eligible CCF expenses.

The specific request on July 9 was for an increase in the CCF budget from $1,872,928 to $2,500,000 for the 2014 county fiscal year, which runs from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31 – an increase of $642,707.

Expenditures for the children’s services department are expected to be $262,341 over the current budget during the county fiscal year. Those expenses relate to use of part-time temporary staff as well as overtime, according to the staff memo, “to ensure that Children’s Services remains in compliance with state licensing requirements for juvenile detention facilities.”

In addition, the Trial Court’s juvenile division planned to put at least six youths in out-of-home placements in July. Another six youths are already placed. The typical length of such placements is nine to twelve months at an average $260 per day, per youth. That cost can range from a low of $150 to a high of $522. The total cost for the remainder of the county fiscal year is projected to be $396,000.

In addition, detention beds in the county’s children’s services facility have been occupied at or near capacity for all of 2014, which has resulted in the need for part-time temporary staff as well as overtime pay.

Funding to Address Juvenile Crime: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked about the timing of this request. Linda Edwards-Brown, the county’s juvenile division administrator, clarified that the request for funding is for the county’s fiscal year, through Dec. 31. However, the Child Care Fund (CCF) budget is aligned with the state’s fiscal year, from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. Edwards-Brown noted that the budget amendment would run only through Dec. 31, 2014. “We’ll be back here in a few months to look at the 2014-2015 Child Care Fund budget,” she said.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Peterson expressed interest in seeing long-term budget projections. It’s not about the money, he added, but it’s important to find out what’s happening in the juvenile justice system. The county needs to know what its financial obligations are to address some of the issues that are occurring in the community, which are causing youth to end up in detention facilities.

Edwards-Brown told commissioners that a group of young men are “terrorizing” their communities. They are carrying weapons, displaying weapons on social media, committing home invasions, and stealing guns.

Several months ago, the sheriff’s office and the court started working together as they saw the beginning of what seemed to be gang-type activity, Edwards-Brown said. “We were hopeful that we would be able, by working together, to stem this tide of violence that we’re seeing in the community. We were unable to do that.”

Last month, a young man was murdered in Ypsilanti, Edwards-Brown said. It’s a problem that the sheriff’s office had predicted, she added. Now, collectively, the court and sheriff’s staff have decided they need to remove the young men from the community, she said. “So that’s the answer as to why we’re here tonight asking for more money for residential placements.”

The trial court has made a concerted effort over the last several years to keep youth in the community and work with them in their homes, Edwards-Brown said. But at this point, public safety is an issue, as well as the safety of these young men, she said. They can’t be “safely maintained” in the community, and need to be taken outside their homes, she said.

Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the sheriff’s office, reported that last summer, deputies started to notice an increase in juvenile violence and an escalation in crimes that juveniles were committing. He noted that in the early 1990s, there was gang activity in the area and a lot of those gang members were taken off the streets for 10-15 years. The question since then has been how can the community change so that when those men got back out, “things won’t go back to the way they were,” he said.

Derrick Jackson, director of community engagement for the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office.

Fortunately, those men didn’t go back to criminal behavior, Jackson added, but some of their children, younger siblings and other relatives are now in their teens, and are starting to get involved in gang-type activity. The good thing about having a conversation now is that it’s at an early stage, he said, “and we’re hoping we can prevent some of this.”

They’re not saying that the answer is to lock up every kid who’s associated with these things, Jackson stressed. But this is one of the answers for a small percentage of kids who are very violent, carrying weapons, doing drugs and who ultimately committed homicide.

A large task force is coming together to talk about a “holistic, wrap-around response to what we’re seeing in the community,” Jackson said, because it’s such a significant issue. He noted that about 55 community leaders – including some county commissioners – had met recently to talk about the juvenile criminal justice system, and everyone had seen an increase in problems. When he talks to high school and middle school teachers in the eastern part of the county, they all say the same thing – they see a difference in how young people are acting.

Jackson said that when you see the train coming down the track, you can prepare to get run over or you can figure out a way to stop it. People in the county are working to stop the train, he said.

Lisa Greco, the county’s youth center director, noted that juvenile detention is where kids are placed when law enforcement removes them from the community. They’re held in secure custody until decisions can be made about what to do next. The juvenile detention center has seen more than a 25% increase in population and days of care, Greco said. Managing the dynamics in the community is challenging, she said, and managing those kids in the confined space of juvenile detention is also a challenge. “I think we’ve been up to it, and have taken good care of the kids,” she said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

The community is at a crossroads, Greco added. There’s a need for an immediate response, as well as a call to action to re-examine the juvenile justice system in Washtenaw County in its entirety. “We need alternatives to juvenile detention,” she said. There needs to be early identification, intervention and assessment for kids who are struggling in the community.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) expressed concern about the kids who’ll be sent to places outside of Washtenaw County. “What happens when they get done and come back here?”

Edwards-Brown replied that none of the young men will be sent out of state. They’ll be sent to Maxey Boys Training School in Whitmore Lake, Turning Point Youth Center in St. Johns, and other facilities within Michigan. “We want them to have the opportunity for their families to visit them and to participate in family therapy while they’re in these placements,” she said.

These young men will eventually be returning home in nine to 12 months, Edwards-Brown noted. So it’s important to bring change to their homes, so that they won’t be returning to the same situation, she said.

Sizemore advocated for having an individual or entity examine all the programs in the county that help youth. He thought there were duplicative services, and the services should be better coordinated. He also hoped the school districts would get involved, and that parents would be supported. He praised Jackson, sheriff Jerry Clayton and deputies for doing difficult work. But it’s time to stop studying the situation and to put some money directly into programs that will help youth, he said.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) said she first heard about the Ypsilanti murder on Facebook, from a friend who lived in that neighborhood. She thought that by removing these young men, it will help the community as a whole. It will provide hope to the people living there, since they won’t be living in a place of fear. It’s important to let residents know that the community cares about what’s happening in those neighborhoods, Ping said, and that action is being taken to help.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3).

Edwards-Brown stressed that “this may not be the panacea.” Although the additional funding will help remove a certain number of young men, “there are brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and cousins – so we have a bigger problem that we have yet to address,” she said. “We’re hoping to, quite frankly, save lives – the lives of these young men, and perhaps someone else in the community. But our work is far from done.”

Peterson said the problem isn’t just isolated to Ypsilanti – it’s something happening nationwide. He noted that the funding for this request is coming from the Child Care Fund reserves, but it’s unclear where funding will come from in the future. It could be a budget that inflates much higher, because the county has an obligation to provide services to all youth in need, he said.

Peterson suggested that the county administrator, Verna McDaniel, and the county board chair, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), work with staff to identify budget projections and future demand for services. If there’s a trend, the board should be aware of it well in advance, he said. “This is not going to be a gang haven,” he said. “The is not the Wild West.” Washtenaw County has the reputation as a great place to raise children, and they need to maintain that, Peterson added.

Jackson offered to make a presentation to the board with more details about the responses that are being planned. He said he’d spoken with three different mothers who had noticed that their sons were changing, but who couldn’t find help until the situation had escalated. That’s what needs to be addressed, he added – how to structure something in this community that will align the human services with the real issues that need attention.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) drew attention to the fact that fund balance is being used. The CCF fund balance will be depleted by two-thirds with just this one allocation, he noted. It’s an important allocation, and the kind of thing that fund balances are used for, he added. “But we’re doing it regularly now – dipping into departmental fund balances for programmatic expenditures.”

At the same time, Smith noted, the board is set to add money to the general fund reserves. He expected to see other proposals from departments later this year, also requesting to use their departmental fund balances. “This is a fiscal policy question that we really ought to be grappling with,” Smith said.

McDaniel pointed out that it’s actually a $1.3 million problem – the county’s $642,707, plus an equal amount that will be reimbursed by the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the Child Care Fund budget amendment.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments

Commissioners were asked to pass a resolution making mid-year budget adjustments and allocating this year’s higher-than-expected property tax revenues, as well as a $3.9 million surplus from 2013.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

The adjustments increased the general fund budget’s expenses and revenues by $720,486 for 2014, $733,233 for 2015, $745,980 for 2016 and $758,727 for 2017. The county operates on a four-year budget, with the fiscal year matching the calendar year.

The adjustments also followed the recommendation of county administrator Verna McDaniel, and set aside the $3,920,818 surplus from 2013 in unearmarked reserves, rather than spending it. The projected year-end 2014 fund balance is $20,638,675. The county board had previously approved a goal of holding a fund balance equal to 20% of its general fund budget. For 2014, the general fund budget is $103,127,202. [.pdf of staff memo and mid-year budget resolution]

In addition, the following mid-year budget adjustments were made to the general fund:

• Structural adjustments resulting in a $494,677 increase in expenditures for (1) providing employee health care coverage for autism; (2) a consultant to help with the board’s budget priority work, (3) a “local government initiatives” intern; (4) reinstatement of two full-time equivalent positions in the sheriff’s office; and (5) salary adjustments for non-union employees.
• Non-structural, one-time, adjustments that increased expenditures by $65,000 for homelessness initiatives.

The administration recommended that the remaining $160,809 be held as an undesignated allocation until budget projections improve as new information becomes available. The administration will present a second-quarter budget update at the board’s next meeting on Aug. 6, 2014.

Mid-Year Budget Adjustments: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that it’s been less than three months since Raman Patel, the county’s equalization director, told the board about higher-than-expected tax revenues, which resulted in about $750,000 more revenue this year than had been budgeted for 2014.

Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Now, the board is already spending almost $600,000 of that surplus, which hadn’t been included in the original 2014 budget, Smith noted. There is no shortage of things to spend this money on, he continued, including over $234 million in unfunded liabilities “which we have no particular plan to pay for, other than amortizing payments over 26 years – something that our actuary is recommending against us doing.” The actuary would like to see that amount amortized over a much shorter period of 10 years.

Smith said he had no problem with making technical budget adjustments as they come along. But one of the reasons to have a four-year budget is to have a plan and then execute that plan, Smith said.

If the board wants to “be constantly in budget mode,” he said, then they could simply have a one-year budget. Unless there’s an emergency situation or deadlines that are outside of the county’s control, he thought it would be more appropriate to make these changes in the fall, during the board’s annual budget reaffirmation process.

There was no additional discussion on this item.

Outcome: The budget adjustments were passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent.

County Parks & Rec Millage

The board was asked to pass a resolution that would authorize putting a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to renew a 10-year countywide parks and recreation operations millage.

Bob Tetens, director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation.

The resolution on July 9 was for an amended version, compared to a resolution given initial approval on May 21, 2014. That’s because some state-mandated information had inadvertently been left off the proposed ballot language in the original resolution, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2352 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.4 million annually – or about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations.

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

County Parks & Rec Millage: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) advocated for support of this millage in November. The county parks & recreation commission has done incredible things, he said. [Conan Smith serves on the commission, along with Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).] There’s a park or preserve or recreation facility in nearly every community throughout Washtenaw County, and most of the county facilities are free to the public, he noted. The parks & rec commission also leverages funds from the state, Smith added, on projects like the Border to Border trail. It’s worthy of the continued support of county citizens, he concluded.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) said he hears a lot from people around the state and nation about how unique the county parks & rec system is. He also supported the millage renewal.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved placing the millage renewal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

Appointments

There were two sets of appointments on the July 9 agenda – for a road funding committee, and the board of public works.

Appointments: Road Funding Committee

Commissioners were asked to approve appointments to a new committee that’s charged with exploring funding options for road repair.

The board had created the road funding committee on June 4, 2014, after debating whether to levy a countywide road millage or put a millage proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot to fund road repair. The final vote to create the committee had been 6-1 vote, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9). Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) were absent.

In arguing against levying a tax at that time, some commissioners cited the need to study funding options – including a possible Act 283 levy, which doesn’t require voter approval – before making a decision.

On July 9, Rabhi proposed an amendment to his original resolution, adding two new slots – one for the director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), and one for an additional county commissioner slot, to make it an odd-numbered roster.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered why nine members were needed. Rabhi said he wanted to add the WATS representation because that group has been doing a lot of work on the road funding issue, and would like to participate. “It’s less a matter of the number of people, and more a matter of who we have at the table,” Rabhi said.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners approved the amendment on a voice vote.

The following members were nominated by Rabhi:

• Lew Kidder, representing the general public
• Bill McFarlane, representing the road commission
• Roy Townsend, managing director of the road commission
• Rolland Sizemore Jr., the county board of commissioners’ liaison to the road commission
• Dan Smith, county commissioner
• Kent Martinez-Kratz, county commissioner
• Rodrick Green, Superior Township trustee, representing townships
• Steve Powers, Ann Arbor city administrator, representing incorporated municipalities
• Ryan Buck, director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS)

The resolution directs the committee to meet within 60 days of this appointment to elect officers and draft bylaws. The committee is to report to the county board at its Sept. 17, 2014 meeting, and make quarterly updates after that with a final report due in December 2015.

The county administrator will help provide administrative support to the committee.

For additional Chronicle coverage on road-related issues, see: “County Board Continues Weighing Road Tax,” “County Board Debates Expanded Road Commission,” “County Board Sets Hearing on Road Tax,” “County Considers Road Funding Options,” “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission” and “Group Explores Road Commission’s Future.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the appointments to the road funding committee.

Appointments: Board of Public Works

Yousef Rabhi nominated Steve Feinman to the county’s board of public works for the remainder of a three-year term ending Dec. 31, 2015.

According to the department of public works website, the board of public works “focuses on assisting local communities within Washtenaw County in addressing environmental and public health issues and development needs, including wastewater disposal and collection, water treatment and supply, lake management, and solid waste management.”

There was no discussion on this appointment.

Outcome: Feinman’s appointment was made on a unanimous vote.

Public Hearings: Act 88, Veterans Relief Millages

The board held two hearings on July 9 related to millages that the county plans to levy later this year: (1) for support of indigent veterans and their families; and (2) to fund economic development and agricultural activities.

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1).

For support of indigent veterans, the county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act, Public Act 214 of 1899 – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008, and collects the tax in December. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Since 2008, the county board has slightly increased the rate that it levies each year. In 2012, the rate was 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. It was raised to a rate of 1/30th of a mill in December 2013, to fund services in 2014.

The current proposal is to levy 1/27th of a mill in December 2014, which is expected to raise about $540,887 in revenues for use in 2015.

No increase is proposed for the economic development millage, levied under Act 88 – another pre-Headlee law. The proposal is to levy 0.07 mills in December 2014, raising an estimated $1,022,276 in property tax revenues. In previous years, the resolution setting this millage has outlined how the revenues would be allocated. The largest allocations have gone to the county’s office of community & economic development, and to the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK.

However, at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board adopted a new policy for allocating Act 88 revenues, drafted by Conan Smith (D-District 9). [.pdf of Act 88 policy] The policy included creating an Act 88 advisory committee to make recommendations to the board and prepare an annual report that assesses how Act 88 expenditures have contributed toward progress of goals adopted by the board. The policy allows the committee to distribute up to 10% of annual Act 88 revenues without seeking board approval. The policy also allocates up to 30% of revenues to the county office of community & economic development, which administers Act 88 funding.

On July 9, only one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke at these public hearings. He endorsed the veterans relief millage, and questioned whether it would provide sufficient support for indigent veterans. He also questioned whether the amount levied under the Act 88 millage was sufficient for a county this size.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. A vote to levy these millages would be made at a future meeting.

Task Force on Homelessness

Commissioners were asked to accept the report and recommendations of a task force that’s been working on a funding strategy to help end homelessness. The resolution also sunsets that task force.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The leadership group for the Task Force on Sustainable Revenues for Supportive Housing Services to End Homelessness made a presentation at the board’s May 22, 2014 working session. Their recommendations include the goal of building a $50 million endowment over 20 years. Payouts from the endowment would fund supportive services – such as treatment for mental illness and substance abuse – with the intent of addressing the root causes of homelessness. The concept is called permanent supportive housing, and is part of the community’s broader Blueprint to End Homelessness, which was created in 2004 and is being updated.

A possible millage – recommended at 0.25 mills, for no more than 20 years – would help fund supportive services while the endowment is built. County commissioners are being asked to consider putting such a millage on the ballot, possibly in 2015.

Several steps have already been taken to achieve these goals. An endowment was established in 2011, with $2.1 million in commitments so far. That amount includes a $1 million gift from the St. Joseph Mercy Health System to create the endowment, which is called the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund for Supportive Services for Housing. Gellise is the former CEO of St. Joe’s. She served on the task force and is a founding board member of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Another $1 million commitment comes from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), where the endowment is housed. AAACF CEO Cheryl Elliott is another task force member. In addition, an anonymous donor has contributed $100,000.

The first fund distribution – of $26,100 – will be made this fall in a competitive grant process. AAACF’s distribution committee – an all-volunteer group – will be responsible for making grant recommendations.

AAACF is also helping provide a three-year, part-time development job to support fundraising for this endowment. Funding for the position will come from the Washtenaw Housing Alliance ($25,000), the AAACF ($5,000) and an anonymous donor ($10,000).

The foundation posted the position earlier this summer, with the intent of making a hire as soon as possible. The position would be in place until at least mid-2017. The employee will report to AAACF’s vice president for development and donor services, and to the Sister Yvonne Gellise Fund development committee. Members of that committee are the same people who’ve served on the leadership team of the task force, Elliott said. In addition to herself, members include Bob Chapman, Sister Yvonne Gellise, Bob Guenzel, Norm Herbert and Dave Lutton.

There was no discussion on this item at the July 9 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the report and sunset the task force.

Public Health Accreditation

Mark Miller, director of local health services with the Michigan Dept. of Community Health, attended the July 9 meeting to talk about the accreditation process that the Washtenaw County public health department completed earlier this year. [.pdf of letter from Dept. of Community Health director]

Washtenaw County health officer Ellen Rabinowitz and sheriff Jerry Clayton.

Miller thanked commissioners and staff, including county health officer Ellen Rabinowitz and retired health officer Dick Fleece, who both attended the July 9 meeting. Miller presented certificates of accreditation, and praised the achievement. It’s the fifth cycle that Washtenaw County has completed, passing stringent standards in the accreditation program, he said. The standards are hard to meet, Miller added, especially when budgets are tight.

Ten program areas were reviewed, and of 140 indicators, the Washtenaw County health department only missed one, Miller reported. “I don’t get to go to too many counties and get to say that – generally, [other counties] miss quite a few more.” Washtenaw County eventually achieved 100%, he noted.

Washtenaw County also passed an optional quality improvement supplement, which only about half of the health departments in Michigan have achieved, Miller reported. It means the county has a comprehensive program for improvement.

“This performance is no fluke,” Miller told commissioners. The Washtenaw County health department maintains many partnerships, which allow it to leverage resources and provide better services for residents. That’s admirable, he said.

Miller highlighted several comments included in the accreditation report, including praise for the health department’s website and for support from county commissioners for initiatives like breastfeeding-friendly policies. He called out Sharon Sheldon, the program administrator for health promotion and disease prevention, for her unit’s work. Special recognition is deserved for the HIV/STD program, the report noted, because client return rates for HIV test results have exceeded 96%. Programs in hearing and vision care were also commended, as was the food safety unit, overseen by Kristen Schweighoefer, and several other programs. Miller also noted that Washtenaw County is a pioneer in trying to manage requests for vaccine waivers.

Miller concluded by saying the state was very impressed by the county health department’s efficient and innovative programs. “You guys have a really terrific health department here,” he said.

Board of Health

A resolution to create a board of health was originally on the board’s June 4, 2014 agenda for final approval, but was postponed until the July 9 meeting. The entity would provide advice on public health issues for the county. Commissioners had given initial approval to the item at their May 21, 2014 meeting.

A description of the board’s duties is outlined in a staff memo that accompanied the resolution:

The purpose and role of a Washtenaw County Board of Health will be to identify public health problems and concerns in the community, establish health priorities, and advise the Board of Commissioners and the Health Department on issues and possible solutions. The Board of Health will serve as advocates and educators for public health services and policies. The Board of Health will provide oversight and guidance to the Health Department, and will recommend a program of basic health services to the Board of Commissioners.

The new Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals and requests for variances from the local public health and environmental regulations established under the Public Health Code. The Board of Health will have the authority to hear appeals regarding the suspension or revocation of food service licenses.

The resolution creating the health board also dissolves an existing environmental health code appeals board and the hearing board for the Health Department Food Service Regulation. The duties of those boards would be absorbed by the new health board. [.pdf of staff memo]

The recommended size is 10 members, including one ex-officio representative from the county board of commissioners. According to the staff memo, appointments could represent “health service delivery (physicians, dentists, mental health practitioners, administrators); environmental health and conservation, land use planning, food service and nutrition, academia, K-12 education, philanthropy, social service delivery, legal services, and consumers of public health services.”

Members would be compensated for attending each meeting. The total cost for the health board, including in-kind staff support, is estimated at $19,000 annually. The board of health would be expected to convene for the first time in October 2014.

Ellen Rabinowitz, the county’s public health officer, attended the July 9 meeting but did not formally address the board.

Board of Health: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9), who had moved to postpone the resolution last month without explanation, told commissioners on July 9 that he had distributed three amendments to the board via email. All of them are making additions to the resolution, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Smith noted that commissioners have talked about a board of health taking a leadership role in the county, coordinating public health responses across many agencies. He thought it was important for the board of health to think actively about its role as a coordinator, so one of his amendments included that sentiment in a whereas clause.

Smith also proposed adding two resolved clauses. One clause clarified the roles and expectations of the board of health, to do three things: (1) develop and oversee the strategic plan for the department of health; (2) recommend the annual budget to the county administrator; and (3) work with the county administrator to evaluate the performance of the county public health officer.

The second additional resolved clause is to ensure that the bylaws that will be developed for the board of health will be brought to the county board of commissioners for review and approval. “That’s the document that’s truly going to delegate any authorities that we have from this board,” Smith said.

There was no discussion on these amendments.

Outcome: Smith’s amendments were approved on a voice vote.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners approved creation of a board of health, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5). Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) was absent.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said that establishing the board of health is a major step in improving the health for residents of this community, especially children.

Communications & Commentary

During the July 9 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Budget Work

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) reported that Susan McGraw has been hired as a consultant to work with the board on its budget priorities. That work will kick off later this month, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Taubman Fellowship

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’d learned a lot earlier this summer at Harvard University’s Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) pointed out that Rabhi had received the Taubman Fellowship for Executive Excellence, which is given to selected officials and staff through the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Peterson said that to be chosen for a fellowship is one of the highest recognitions that SEMCOG awards. “We should be honored to know that Washtenaw County and a Washtenaw County commissioner was selected,” Peterson said, joking “I just don’t know why they didn’t ask me.”

Arthur Williams, who retired as principle of Huron High School after 19 years in that position.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations

Several proclamations were given during the July 9 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Retirements

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) presented a proclamation honoring Arthur Williams, who is retiring as principal of Huron High School in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of Williams' proclamation]

Rabhi noted that he graduated from Huron High School “and Dr. Williams was my principal!” Williams was also a neighbor to Rabhi’s family as Rabhi grew up, so he knows Williams well. Williams has served as principal at Huron High since 1995.

Williams spoke briefly. As educators, he said, “we touch the future.” Many times they don’t know what the effects are of what they do in the schools, he added. Williams noted that Martin Luther King said everyone can be great, because everyone can serve. Williams said his goal has been to try to make this world a better place, by helping raise young people and families, and by trying to make an impact on lives.

He received a round of applause from commissioners and staff.

The board also made a proclamation to Mary Sue Coleman, who recently stepped down as president of the University of Michigan. Coleman did not attend the July 9 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Ironworkers, UA

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Visitors & Convention Bureau, was on hand to receive a proclamation welcoming the Ironworkers International annual instructor training program, which ran from July 12-18 this year. That program, held at Washtenaw Community College, brought in about 700 participants and an estimated economic impact of $2 million. It’s their fifth year holding the program in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of Ironworkers proclamation]

Mary Kerr, president of the Ann Arbor Visitors & Convention Bureau.

The board also gave a proclamation welcoming the United Association (UA) of plumbers and pipefitters for their 61st annual training program. For the past 25 years, that program has been held in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of UA proclamation]

This year, the program runs from Aug. 9-15, also on the WCC campus, bringing about 2,400 participants to the county with an estimated economic impact of $5 million.

Kerr noted that the county also hosts the training week for the National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (NJATC) for the Electrical Industry. This year is a milestone for all three groups, she said. NJATC is in its 25th year and has been coming to Washtenaw County for six years. This year, the NJATC National Training Institute runs from July 26-Aug. 1 at the University of Michigan, and expects a 15% increase in participation compared to last year, Kerr reported.

Kerr said that a conservative economic impact estimate for all three programs is $12 million. “This is new spending in our community – spending that wouldn’t be here if these three training programs were not here,” she added. The spending is on hotels, restaurants, recreation, entertainment, shopping and transportation.

Her goal is to keep these events in Washtenaw County by providing a high level of service and making sure the unions know that they’re appreciated by the community. She thanked commissioners for their continued support.

Communications & Commentary: Proclamations – Gun Safety

The board passed a proclamation declaring July 20-26 as Gun Safety Week in Washtenaw County. [.pdf of gun safety resolution] The goal is to increase public safety “by raising awareness and educating residents of Washtenaw County about how to keep themselves and their families safe.”

During the week, local law enforcement agencies will be providing free gun locks and gun safety information. More information about the week is provided on the county’s website.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Speaking during public commentary, former Congressman Wes Vivian told commissioners that until four years ago, the U.S. had laws that prohibited or limited contributions by corporations to candidates for political office.

Former Congressman Wes Vivian.

But four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned those laws in the Citizens United decision, he said. Now, “corporations are sloshing big money into our elections at all levels,” Vivian said. Polls show that about 90% of U.S. citizens oppose that Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, almost 20 state governments have asked the U.S. government to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. “To date, the state of Michigan has not done so, even though it’s been asked to,” Vivian noted.

The Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils have asked Michigan’s government to take action on this issue, Vivian said. But so far, the state legislature has refused to bring it up for a vote, he added. He asked the county board to place a proposal on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot enabling Washtenaw County voters to ask the state to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. He didn’t have suggested wording for such a ballot proposal, but said he’d be glad to work on it.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), the board’s chair, thanked Vivian and said he hoped the board would take action of some sort at a later date. It was an issue about the sustainability of this nation’s democracy, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) also thanked Vivian for raising this issue. The idea of corporate personhood has raised many challenges, he said, “and the notion that just regular citizens are somehow second class in our decision-making process has got to be pre-empted.” It’s incumbent upon elected officials and the county board as a body of elected officials to take a stand, he said. Smith liked the idea of asking county residents to weigh in, saying it would send a great signal to people throughout the state and nation.

Ruth Ann Jamnick also addressed the board during public commentary. She pointed out that she’s one of the four candidates in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary election for the District 5 seat on the county board. She provided a handout with information about her experience and accomplishments.

Ruth Ann Jamnick.

Referring to the board’s discussion about juvenile crime earlier in the evening, Jamnick noted that she had been involved in addressing similar issues years ago in Ypsilanti Township. What makes it different now are the ages of the young people who are involved, she said. At that time, it was youth in their late teens – but now, the youth who are creating these problems are younger. It’s important to make some changes and address these issues. She also noted that the situation isn’t isolated to Ypsilanti Township.

Jamnick concluded by thanking Rolland Sizemore Jr., the district’s current commissioner, for his work.

Earlier this year, Sizemore announced that he did not intend to seek re-election. In addition to Jamnick, the three other Democratic candidates are Victor Dobrin, Wilma Gold-Jones, and Keith P. Jason. The winner of that primary will face Republican Timothy King in the Nov. 4 general election. King is unopposed in the primary.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the state legislature. He urged the public to elect Democrat Mark Schauer as governor in November, and to address the critical needs of affordable housing, public transportation, human rights and health care in Washtenaw County. Too many residents are vulnerable and don’t have the services they need, he said. He criticized the county board’s agenda for not including items that address ending homelessness, providing affordable housing and access to countywide public transportation, and supporting better health care and education for adults. These should be priorities for the board, he said.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Andy LaBarre.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The action on July 9 was for an amended version, compared to a resolution given initial approval on May 21, 2014. That’s because some state-mandated information had inadvertently been left off the proposed ballot language in the original resolution, according to a staff memo. [.pdf of staff memo]

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2352 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.4 million annually – or about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations.

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

This brief was filed from the county administration building at 220 N. Main. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The parks & recreation operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & recreation annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

Regarding the June 4 vote to set the 2014 millage rate, this is an annual process that includes a public hearing, which was also held on June 4. One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke, advocating for more resources to provide services for the county’s most vulnerable residents.

Several other county millages are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (for operations at 0.2353 mills and capital improvements at 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate levied in July to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2013. [.pdf of staff memo]

This is a mandatory procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes. With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.

The rates will be included on the July tax bills for property owners in Washtenaw County.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The operations millage was first authorized by voters in November 1976 at 0.25 mills for a 10-year period and has been renewed three times. Because of the state’s Headlee amendment, the rate that’s actually levied has been rolled back and is now 0.2353 mills. The current millage expires in December 2016.

If renewed again, it would generate an estimated $3.2 million annually. That’s about half of the parks & rec annual operating expenses of $6.7 million. Other revenue sources are admission/gate/membership fees charged seasonally at facilities including the Meri Lou Murray recreation center, the water/spray parks, and the Pierce Lake golf course. Funding is also received from state and federal grants as well as private donations. [.pdf of staff memo]

The county parks system receives most of its funding from two countywide millages. In addition to the operations millage, another millage pays for capital improvements and park development. It was also originally levied at 0.25 mills, but has been rolled back to 0.2367 mills.

In addition, a third millage – levied at 0.25 mills but rolled back to 0.2409 mills – funds natural areas preservation, bringing in about $3 million annually. It was first approved by voters in 2000, and renewed for another 10 years in 2010.

The county’s parks & recreation department is overseen by a separate entity – the parks & recreation commission – whose members are appointed by the county board. The county board has the authority to put a parks millage proposal on the ballot, but does not authorize expenditure of the funds. That responsibility rests with the parks & recreation commission. The group meets monthly at the parks & recreation office at County Farm Park, and its meetings are open to the public.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Signs for Ann Arbor parks millage renewal. PAC member Ingrid Ault has formed a campaign committee – called Friends of the Parks – to support the renewal. (Photos by the writer.)

A committee that has focused on identifying possible locations for a new dog park recommended the West Park site – specifically, a parcel in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off of Chapin Street. No formal vote was taken, but PAC’s support means that staff will bring back a proposal for PAC’s consideration, and hold a public meeting for community input.

PAC members did formally vote on a recommendation to relocate tennis courts within Windemere Park, to the east of the current location. Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended the meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision. They noted that the option being recommended by staff had not been presented at an Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, later explained that the fourth option had emerged from a consensus of ideas at the meeting.

Berla, who voted against the PAC resolution, felt there was nothing to lose in giving residents another month to review the proposal. But other commissioners believed that moving ahead was the best approach, and that no option would satisfy all residents – especially people with property facing the park. The resolution also recommended incorporating input from residents regarding landscaping around the courts, which was a concern raised by some of the homeowners.

In an unusual move, PAC member Ingrid Ault spoke to her fellow commissioners during public commentary. Telling them that she was speaking as a citizen, not a commissioner, Ault said she had formed a campaign committee – called Friends of the Parks – to support the park maintenance & capital improvements millage renewal, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. Ault brought yard signs to distribute, and encouraged commissioners and the public to support the renewal. PAC had passed a resolution in support of the millage at their June 2012 meeting.

As part of his manager’s report, Colin Smith noted that city staff will be meeting with representatives from the state on Nov. 2 to get a better understanding of concerns that have been raised regarding a planned whitewater section of the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. He said he’d have an update on that situation at PAC’s November meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

Commissioners held their annual officer elections, re-electing Julie Grand as chair. Ingrid Ault was elected vice chair and Tim Doyle was tapped as chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. All nominations were uncontested, and the votes were unanimous. PAC also welcomed Missy Stults to her first meeting as commissioner. Her nomination had been confirmed by the city council earlier this month.

Dog Parks

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave PAC an update on the effort to create another dog park. John Lawter, the commissioner who’s been leading this project, was not at the meeting. Commissioners had most recently discussed this issue during their meeting on Sept. 18, 2012. The city currently has two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city.

Kuras provided some background on the effort, and reviewed a scoring sheet that had been included in the meeting packet. Five potential locations had been evaluated: West Park (the new lot on Chapin Street), two sites at Bandemer Park (south of Huron River, and north of Huron River at Barton Drive), South Maple Park, and Ward Park. Criteria included location relative to other dog parks, size, parking, access to water, shade, and neighborhood buffer. [.pdf of scoring sheet and map of existing and potential dog parks]

The site at West Park emerged as the preferred location. Commissioners involved in the evaluation included Kuras, Lawter, Karen Levin and Ingrid Ault.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

A couple of commissioners asked about the scoring. Karen Levin, who devised the system, explained that each aspect of the location had been rated on a scale of 1 to 5, from best to worst. Then the scores from each of the four raters were added to come up with a total – the lower the score, the better the location.

Alan Jackson asked if any consideration had been given to Riverside Park. Amy Kuras replied that Riverside had been considered a possible location when the original effort to identify dog parks took place several years ago, but since then it has become more heavily used by Ann Arbor Rec & Ed programs. Much of the park is also on the floodplain, she noted, so about a third of it is under water after a heavy rain.

From left: Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, and Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation.

Ault observed that the West Park site is a piece of land that would be difficult to use for any other purpose. It’s a long, narrow strip, with a church parking lot on one side and the driveway entrance into West Park on the other. It was previously the site of a single-family home, which the city demolished after purchasing the property. Using it for a dog park makes sense, she said.

Kuras added that the parks staff has also been looking for ways to draw more people to West Park. A dog park would be one way to do that.

Julie Grand, who serves on the technical committee for the city’s North Main Huron River task force, reported that there’s a large portion of the city-owned site at 721 N. Main that can’t be developed because it’s located in a floodway. One idea that’s been suggested for that part of the site is a dog park, she said. Grand wondered whether that information changed anyone’s perspective on putting a dog park at West Park.

Not necessarily, Kuras replied. For one thing, it’s unclear whether a dog park could be located in the floodway.

Tim Doyle wondered about congestion at the West Park site – would it be too small? Putting more than five dogs in the space of a single-family lot might not work. He liked the location, but was concerned about the size.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the West Park lot as about half the size of the Olson dog park. The Swift Run dog park is much larger. Even so, he said, Olson can accommodate about as many dogs as Swift Run – but the dogs do different things there. At Olson, there’s more socializing, while dogs have more room to run at Swift Run. The West Park site might be crowded, he said, but it could still work well as a dog park.

Levin said the dog park committee had visited the Chapin site at West Park, and it’s larger than she’d originally thought – it’s narrow, but long. She also noted that there’s the possibility of adding another dog park at a different location.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC, asked whether the city council needs an update on the situation at Slauson Middle School. He indicated that the choice of West Park as a dog park grew out of the unofficial use of Slauson property as a dog park, because people didn’t feel they had any other place to go.

Kuras replied that the Slauson situation might have brought things to a head, but the West Park location isn’t recommended in response to it. Smith added that the idea for a centrally-located dog park has been in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and was a goal long before dog owners started using Slauson. PAC has been working on this issue for some time, he said. West Park had also been discussed as a possible location during that park’s recent renovations, but at that time the city hadn’t yet acquired the Chapin Street property.

Tim Berla said he’d like to stay away from the implication that people used Slauson as an unofficial dog park because they had no alternatives. There are alternatives in the form of the two dog parks in the city, he noted. He didn’t feel PAC should accept the idea that if there’s no place within walking distance for a dog to run free, than people should just use whatever park or school property is convenient. Even if the city keeps adding dog parks, it would take a long time to satisfy a goal of having dog parks within walking distance of all residents. Berla felt that playgrounds should take a higher priority, but he agreed that the city should look for more opportunities to add dog parks.

Grand concluded the discussion by saying it seemed they’d reached consensus on West Park as a possible location. Kuras said she’d be coming back to PAC with a formal proposal for their consideration, and would hold a public meeting for community input.

Outcome: This was not a voting item, and no action was taken.

Windemere Tennis Courts

At their Oct. 16 meeting, PAC members were asked to recommend a new location for the tennis courts within the park. Commissioners had already supported the project in May of 2012. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, briefed commissioners on the project.

Windemere Park is a nearly four-acre parcel on the city’s northeast side, north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Map showing proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts.

Over the past few months, city staff has held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by staff – which locates the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of participants at the most recent public meeting had favored, according to staff and commissioners who attended. That meeting took place on Oct. 8.

The plan also calls for adding a rain garden to help handle stormwater runoff. There are low-interest loans available for that, Kuras said, with the possibility of loan forgiveness – it’s another possible funding source for the project.

The cost of the project is estimated at around $100,000. Kuras said she planned to solicit bids this winter, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision.

Mary Catherine Spires said she lives on Windemere Drive and her front window faces the park. Her understanding was that the neighbors had originally reached a consensus that they preferred a different option – Option 1. [.pdf of Option 1] Then in early October, suddenly this new proposal came up. She said she hadn’t seen it until a few days ago. Calling it a last-minute proposal, she requested that PAC delay action for a month so that she and others would have time to understand the impact on their homes and traffic in the area. That’s especially important for neighbors with homes on the perimeter of the park, she’s said, who need time to reflect on this significant change.

From left: Ann McCarren and Catherine Spires, residents who live near Windemere Park, spoke during public commentary and urged commissioners to postpone action on the tennis court project.

Ann McCarren, who also lives on the park’s perimeter, described the process that the neighbors had gone through with Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner. She pointed out that Option 1 had been the preferred proposal, but that a new proposal had emerged at the Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting. Some people at the meeting had supported that new option, she said, but others didn’t say anything. She also urged commissioners to postpone a decision until their November meeting.

Sven Hahr, another Windemere Drive resident whose home is near the park’s southeast corner, also advocated for a postponement. He felt the tennis courts shouldn’t be located in the area where soccer is played. Perhaps the courts could be swapped with the location where the children’s playground is, he suggested. He didn’t think it would take much to do that.

Joseph Dorenbaum told commissioners that his living room, office and a bedroom look onto the park, and it’s very nice now. He and his wife are quite distressed, because they spend a lot of time at home and don’t want to look at a fence. It would feel like they’re living in a prison, he said. Dorenbaum asked that the city provide landscaping to mask the fence. He noted that when his home was built there 30 years ago, the park was for the subdivision. But now, as a city park, it’s used by lots of other people. He requested that the city put up signs indicating that people should park only in certain areas while using Windemere Park.

Ruth Huff said she also lived in the neighborhood and agreed with Dorenbaum about the traffic in the area. Kids run across the street and it’s an accident waiting to happen. The park is important, but she’d like to see the land cleaned up. In a perfect world, the tennis courts would be dug up, the land would be cleaned up, and the courts would be rebuilt at the same location. She acknowledged that it’s not a perfect world, but she hoped at least there could be landscaping around the courts to help with noise and to make it look better.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson wanted to know if a rain garden could be included in the plan, regardless of where the tennis courts are relocated. It’s possible, Kuras said, though a rain garden in the courts’ current location would involve cutting through an existing berm.

Tim Berla asked whether delaying a decision by a month would impact the project. Is there anything that would prevent having additional public meetings? He saw a benefit in having more time, if it meant getting the best possible plan. More public process might be a good thing, he said.

Kuras replied that one more month wouldn’t set the project back, but she wasn’t sure the extra time would help the neighbors reach more of a consensus.

From left: Park commissioners Tim Doyle, Alan Jackson and Bob Galardi.

Berla noted that in her presentation, Kuras had cited a lack of other tennis courts in that part of the city. However, she hadn’t included the courts at Huron High School, which are located in that area.

Kuras indicated that she didn’t feel comfortable telling people to go to a school site. The reason that the staff recommended this option is because they didn’t feel there were any suitable alternatives, she said.

Julie Grand weighed in, saying that PAC had already discussed this issue and had voted at their May 15, 2012 meeting to support the rebuilding of tennis courts at Windemere, based on feedback from neighbors. To her, now it was just a question of where to locate the courts within the park.

In response to a query from Ingrid Ault, Kuras said the proposed location would not interfere with other activities, like the use of the park for soccer. Jackson noted that there’s an unused baseball area that would be affected. That’s right, Kuras said – that former baseball diamond would be removed.

Missy Stults cited the concerns that had been raised during public commentary, and asked whether all the options would include landscaping. Kuras replied that landscaping would be part of any plan. She later explained that the fence would be on three sides, about 10 feet high.

Tim Doyle asked what would happen to the area where the courts are currently located. Kuras said it would likely be “naturalized,” since it’s frequently soggy and would be difficult to mow. An area to the north of the courts is currently naturalized for that reason, she said.

Both Jackson and Grand reported that they had attended the Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting, and both felt that there had been general agreement among the neighbors in support of Option 4 – the one that was being recommended by staff. Jackson said there would likely be some opposition to any plan. Grand noted that this option is the one that seemed to be the furthest away from the sight lines for most residences.

Berla again advocated for postponement until PAC’s November meeting. Grand wondered what the process would be, if they postponed the vote. Smith didn’t think there was the need for another public meeting, but staff could continue to gather and share feedback they receive from the neighbors. The Oct. 8 meeting had been well-attended with about 30 people, he said, and there had been a spirited and productive discussion.

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio non-voting PAC member who serves on city council, said that if it doesn’t cause a problem for staff, then allowing another month for the neighbors to mull over the proposal “strikes me as a good thing.”

From left: Missy Stults, the newest park advisory commissioner, and PAC chair Julie Grand.

There was some discussion about whether a delay would allow for the two neighborhood associations in the area to take a formal vote of their membership. Kuras pointed out that since it’s a public park, it didn’t seem fair to rely on that kind of vote.

Grand reported that there had been an informal vote of neighbors who attended the Oct. 8 public forum. When asked if the vote had been unanimous, she laughed – it had not. However, she felt there had been a “fair amount of consensus” supporting Option 4. Given the spirited nature of the meeting, she had been surprised by that consensus. The option seemed like something that most people could live with.

Jackson didn’t want to put more staff resources into the decision-making process, and felt there would be some complaints no matter what was decided.

In response to a question from Bob Galardi, Kuras reported that there had been two previous neighborhood meetings – so this was the third PAC meeting that had addressed the situation.

Commissioners then voted on a resolution, put forward by Grand, that recommended moving forward with Option 4.

Outcome: The proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts was recommended for approval by a 6-1 vote, with Tim Berla dissenting. John Lawter was absent and Missy Stults abstained.

Parks Millage Renewal

Ingrid Ault, who was appointed to PAC earlier this year, moved from her seat at the council table to the podium during the first opportunity for public commentary, telling her fellow commissioners that she was speaking to them as a citizen, not as a member of PAC.

Ingrid Ault

Ault said she wanted to update the community about actions related to renewal of the park maintenance & capital improvements millage, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. She’d been concerned that the renewal would get lost on the “burgeoning” ballot, so she decided to form a campaign – called Friends of the Parks – to support the millage and educate the public about it. [According to records on Washtenaw County’s campaign finance database, the committee was formed on Oct. 1, with Ault listed as treasurer.]

She brought yards signs to the meeting, and encouraged people to take one. She said more information is on the campaign website. Ault asked everyone to vote yes on the renewal and to volunteer with the campaign.

After the meeting adjourned, Ault told commissioners that she’d like them each to either donate at least $50 to the campaign, or raise that amount. She again encouraged them to take yard signs and to volunteer, especially on election day.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo distributed to PAC in June. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. [More projects are listed on the city's website.]

Commissioners have received updates on the millage renewal at previous meetings, and in June 2012 passed a resolution of support for it. City employees are not allowed to advocate for it, but can provide information. Colin Smith, manager for parks and recreation, told The Chronicle that he’d checked with the city attorney’s office regarding Ault’s presentation to PAC – and they’d advised that she could address the issue as a citizen during public commentary, he said.

Commission Elections

PAC chair Julie Grand apologized to commissioners, noting that elections should have been held in September but she had forgotten to put it on the agenda. Three officers needed to be elected: chair, vice chair, and chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, was re-elected for another one-year term.

Grand has served as chair since April 2010. Before the vote – which the PAC bylaws require to be conducted by a secret ballot – Tim Doyle asked when her term ends. Grand said she will serve on PAC through 2013. Tim Berla asked if she would be willing to serve another one-year term as chair. She indicated that she would.

The term on PAC for the current vice chair – John Lawter, who was absent from the Oct. 16 meeting – ends on Dec. 31, 2012. He would not be running for re-election as vice chair. Grand encouraged any of the new commissioners who might be interested in eventually chairing PAC to consider first serving as vice chair. Duties aren’t excessive, and many relate to planning and leading meetings if the chair is absent, she said.

Ingrid Ault nominated herself. There were no other nominations for chair and vice chair. Commissioners indicated their votes on pieces of paper, which were passed to parks and recreation manager Colin Smith who tallied them. Both Grand and Ault were elected unanimously.

Grand then nominated Tim Doyle to continue serving as chair of the budget and finance committee. He reported that he might not seek a second term on PAC, but he’d be willing to chair the committee for now. [His current term on PAC runs through May of 2013.] There were no other nominations, and Doyle was elected unanimously on a voice vote.

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, highlighted several items during his brief report to the commission.

He noted that a public forum was set for the following day to get feedback on possible designs for a new Ann Arbor skatepark. State grant funding for the skatepark had been formally accepted by city council the previous evening, he said, along with grants for other city park projects.

Work on South University Park is almost done. Smith reminded PAC members that the project had been funded with a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris. “It’s been well-spent,” he said.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager.

Smith also reported that construction is underway on trails around the raptor enclosures at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. A grand opening of a new raptor enclosure – for the center’s second bald eagle – is planned for Nov. 11.

Tim Doyle asked for an update on the status of the whitewater project in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. By way of background, at PAC’s September meeting, Smith had reported to commissioners that several letters of objection from different organizations had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. Objections were filed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council. [See Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

On Oct. 16, Smith told commissioners that city staff will be meeting with representatives from the state on Nov. 2 to get a better understanding of the situation, and of potential solutions to concerns that have been raised. He said he’d have more to report at PAC’s November meeting.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Karen Levin, Julie Grand, Missy Stults and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: John Lawter.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

At its Aug. 9 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered three different charter amendments for inclusion on the Nov. 6 ballot. Two were for millages, and a third was for a restriction on the contractual powers of the city with respect to parkland.

The council voted unanimously to place on the ballot a renewal of the city’s parks maintenance and capital improvements millage at the rate of 1.1 mills. One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value on a property. So for a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, a 1.1 mill tax would cost that property owner $110 per year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $5 million next year.

Examples of park maintenance activities include forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. The city’s park advisory commission (PAC) had voted unanimously nearly two months ago at its June 19, 2012 meeting to recommend placing that millage renewal before voters.

But one day before the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, PAC had voted unanimously against recommending that another park-related question be placed on the ballot – one that would have asked voters if they wanted to amend the city charter to require a referendum to lease parkland for non-park or non-recreational use for longer than five years. PAC was able to consider a recommendation only because the council had postponed the measure at its July 16, 2012 meeting.

And at its Aug. 9 meeting, the city council did not meet the 7-vote threshold on the 11-member body to place that charter amendment on the ballot. It got just four votes – from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the original resolution, did not vote for it, after modifications to the wording had failed to win the council’s approval.

Not originally on the council’s Aug. 9 agenda, but added at the start of the meeting, was a resolution to place a ballot question before voters in November that would ask them if they want – at least temporarily – to change the way that funds are accumulated to pay for public art in the city. Currently, funds must be set aside as part of most capital improvement project budgets – 1% up to a limit of $250,000 per project.

The ballot proposal on public art would levy a 0.1 mill tax for a four-year period – which translates roughly to $450,000 per year. In its current version, the wording of the proposal would suspend the collection of Percent for Art funds under the city’s ordinance just for the four-year period of the millage. So if voters approved the public art millage this year, and then failed to approve a millage renewal four years from now – either because the council did not place a renewal on the ballot, or voters rejected the renewal – the Percent for Art ordinance would again require that funds from capital project budgets be set aside for public art.

The reaction from councilmembers to the proposal from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was generally positive; however, there was considerable dissatisfaction expressed – at the meeting and subsequently – with the secretive nature of the work that had produced it. Taylor’s apparent goal in placing it on the agenda at all was to reveal the content of the proposal, without asking his colleagues to vote on it. Taylor asked for postponement of the resolution after reading aloud a speech about it. The council agreed unanimously to postpone action until its next meeting, on Aug. 20.

Voting on Aug. 20 to place the question on the ballot would allow for some public discussion before taking action on that issue, while still meeting the statutory deadline for delivering ballot language to the Washtenaw County clerk.

The public art commission has called a special meeting for Aug. 15 in order to weigh in on the subject.

Part 1 of this council meeting report deals just with these ballot questions. Part 2 will handle other business items at the Aug. 9 meeting.

Public Art Millage

The council was asked to consider a resolution that would place a question on the Nov. 6 ballot, asking Ann Arbor voters to pay a 0.1 mill tax for four years to support public art.

Public Art Millage: Content

The ballot question would read:

Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for public art and to authorize a new tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill for 2013 through 2016 to fund public art, which 0.10 mill will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $459,273?

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

Funds for Public Art
SECTION 8.24. In addition to any other amount which the City is authorized to raise by general tax upon the real and personal property by this Charter or any other provision of law, the City shall, in 2013 through 2016, annually levy a tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill on all taxable real and personal property situated within the City for the purpose of providing funds for public art, including but not limited to the permanent and temporary acquisition, maintenance and repair of works of art for display in or on public structures or sites and/or as part of or adjacent to public streets and sidewalks, and performance art on City streets, sidewalks or sites. Except for funds previously raised, set aside, allocated or otherwise designated to be used for public art, including such funds in the July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 fiscal year budget, and except for funds that are received by grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City for public art, for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner. This millage also shall not preclude the grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City of works of art.

One mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value on a property. So for a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, a 0.1 mill public art tax would cost that property owner $10 per year. In Ann Arbor, a rule of thumb for the amount of revenue generate by 1 mill is $4.5 million. So a 0.1 mill public art tax would generate roughly $450,000 annually.

In place since 2007, the city’s Percent for Art program requires that 1% of the budget for any capital improvement project be set aside for public art – up to a cap of $250,000 per project. More than $1 million in Percent for Art revenues have been expended to date, primarily for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall.

By year, here’s how much money has been set aside for public art by the Percent for Art program, according to information provided to The Chronicle by public art administrator Aaron Seagraves:

FY 08    $318,689    
FY 09    $521,457    
FY 10    $450,166    
FY 11    $451,213    
FY 12    $334,660    
FY 13    $320,837 (estimated)

-
So the proposed millage would generate somewhat more money per year than the Percent for Art program has generated, on average, over its first six years of existence.

If approved by voters, the public art funds from a millage would not necessarily be restricted to permanent “monumental” type art, as the current Percent for Art funds are. The additional flexibility afforded by a millage-based public art program might include the ability to fund performance art or support artist-in-residency programs. It would also enjoy the endorsement of a referendum, eliminating the criticism that residents had not voted on the question of the Percent for Art program.

Public Art Millage: History

As far back as Feb. 1, 2009 at a council Sunday caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) publicly expressed her concern about the large amount of money the program was generating. Later that year, at a Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance revision that would have reduced the allotment from 1% to 0.5%. But at the council’s following meeting, on Dec. 21, 2009, the council voted down the ordinance revision, with councilmembers citing art as key to Ann Arbor’s identity.

At the Aug. 9 meeting, Ann Arbor resident Thomas Partridge peruses a Detroit Free Press article about the Detroit Institute of Arts millage that won voter approval on Aug. 7, 2012.

In connection with approval of the fiscal year 2012 budget in May 2011, Higgins brought forward a budget amendment that would have directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment to reduce the percentage in the public art ordinance from 1% to 0.5%. That attempted amendment failed on a 4-7 vote. Six months later, the council again gave initial approval to a reduction in the percentage allocated from 1% to 0.5%. But in its Dec. 5, 2011 vote, the council ultimately opted to make only a minor tweak to the ordinance, without changing the basic percentage.

During deliberations on May 7, 2012 about a piece of public art to be commissioned for the city’s new justice center, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentioned the possibility of establishing a millage just for public art. Kunselman has been a vocal critic of the funding mechanism of the Percent for Art program, based on the idea that it is not legal to appropriate public utility funds or dedicated millage funds for other purposes to public art, as the city’s Percent for Art ordinance does.

The council voted down a proposal by Kunselman on April 2, 2012 to request a legal opinion on the question from city attorney Stephen Postema.

Public Art Millage: Analysis

The effect of passing the public art millage would be to suspend the accumulation of funds for public art purposes under the city’s current Percent for Art ordinance. The language that does that is this:

… for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner.

Christopher Taylor has stated that the reason that the Percent for Art ordinance cannot be repealed with the same ballot resolution is a state law restricting ballot proposals to a single question. [From an email Taylor has sent to constituents of his]:

… state law requires that ballot measures be one-subject, Yes/No questions. For this reason, we cannot ask the voters to approve or reject a millage AND effect an ordinance repeal in the event of a No vote.

The state law in question is the Home Rule City Act:

A proposed charter amendment shall be confined to 1 subject. If the subject of a charter amendment includes more than 1 related proposition, each proposition shall be separately stated to afford an opportunity for an elector to vote for or against each proposition. If a proposed charter amendment is rejected at an election, the amendment shall not be resubmitted for a period of 2 years.

Taylor’s email to constituents continues:

That said, after a No vote, one could easily imagine an effort to wind down the program on the grounds that the people had spoken and rejected taxpayer support for the arts.

Taylor does not indicate that he would support such an effort to “wind down” the Percent for Art program – only that he can imagine such an effort. Based on the results of the Aug. 7 primary election, the necessary votes to repeal the Percent for Art ordinance might exist on post-general-election council in November – even without Taylor’s vote to repeal it. That scenario would allow Taylor to maintain that he’d never voted in a way to place funding for public art in jeopardy.

But if the public art millage were approved by voters, then the ballot initiative mandates that funds would not be set aside for public art through the Percent for Art ordinance for the duration of the millage. And if the public art millage were not approved by voters, then Taylor appears to be indicating that the council would be inclined to repeal the Percent for Art ordinance – even if that took place without his vote.

If the Percent of Art ordinance will not persist after the millage vote election – no matter what the outcome – it is not clear what argument would exist against repealing of the ordinance before a millage vote.

With the Percent for Art ordinance in place during the millage vote, the intent of voters in casting yes and no votes is not necessarily clear. A no vote might mean, “I support public art funding, and I think that the best way is through the Percent for Art ordinance, not this millage that I’m being asked to approve.” On the other hand, a yes vote might mean, “I do not support the use of public money on public art, but if it’s going to be spent, then I prefer that the funds be flexible enough to support performance art.”

If the city council were to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism before the millage vote – through a partial rescinding of the ordinance (keeping the parts that establish the public art commission) – it would give clarity to the question on the ballot and to voters’ intent.

However, repeal of the Percent for Art ordinance before the millage vote would likely require Taylor’s vote of support for the repeal – given the current composition of the council.

Public Art Millage: Adding to the Agenda

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had added the item to the agenda at the start of the meeting, though he seemingly had not wanted or planned to do so, and had intended only to share the content of the resolution with his colleagues, without placing it on the agenda formally. Taylor’s demeanor at the table as he added the item, and the fact that he was unprepared to name the title of the agenda item, is consistent with the idea that Taylor added the item to the agenda only because of pressure from a council colleague just prior to the meeting.

According to city council rules, an item can only be added to the agenda with a 3/4 majority, and typically a separate vote is taken on the action to add the item, and then on the amended agenda. However, mayor John Hieftje, who chairs city council meetings, skipped the vote on the agenda addition.

The secrecy that Taylor maintained around the proposal was a point of friction for some councilmembers. Responding to an email from a WDET reporter asking for an interview, Jane Lumm wrote back to the reporter:

When I became aware that a ballot initiative was to be added (again, at the start of the council meeting), I did attempt to obtain information about the initiative from [city attorney] staff, but was told they were instructed and “not permitted to discuss” the matter. (That’s a verbatim statement.)

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Taylor refused to say whether he’d instructed the assistant city attorney to keep information from other councilmembers, but defended that kind of secrecy as an appropriate application of the attorney-client privilege:

… the ACP [attorney-client privilege] exists to incentivize clients to consult with their lawyers. Client knowledge of the law, its boundaries and opportunities is a social good. In this context, we want council members to consult with the attorney’s office – we want members to enlist the assistance of counsel early and often. If Member Jones thought that Attorney Miller would cavalierly discuss the subject of their conversation – the legal advice given to Jones – then that would have a chilling effect. In this case, Jones would not readily consult with counsel and the public would be harmed. It strikes me, therefore, that the attorney who declines to speak with one council member about legal advice given to another council member does so in the public interest.

By way of comparison, the Legislative Services Bureau – the group of attorneys who help legislators in Lansing do research, draft bills and the like – is bound by strict confidentiality rules with respect to their work for different legislators. So if a state legislator wants to work on a new bill and shield that work from other legislators, then the rules of confidentiality for the LSB would allow a legislator to keep that work secret, as Taylor did.

Public Art Millage: Taylor’s Remarks

The secretive nature of the work was one aspect Taylor had anticipated as objectionable, based on the prepared speech he read aloud. Although he had not previously indicated publicly his intent to bring forward this proposal, he portrayed the initiative as one that had been arrived at collectively:

I view this proposal without a sense of authorship, but rather as a collective product – the sum total of the many conversations we’ve had at this table and in and among the public.

Another foreseeable objection to the timing of the proposal was that input from the public art commission had not yet been sought.

The proposal did not originate with the commission; when The Chronicle reached Marsha Chamberlin, chair of Ann Arbor’s public art commission, by phone on the afternoon of Aug. 9, she told The Chronicle that she had not heard anything about the specific proposal until a few days ago, when she’d received a phone call to get her reaction to the concept. The issue has not been discussed at AAPAC’s monthly meetings, which are regularly covered by The Chronicle.

Taylor appeared to have anticipated the same criticism that had been made against the timing of the parks charter amendment proposal – that the park advisory commission had not yet been consulted. So Taylor indicated that he hoped to receive input from the public art commission, as part of the public input the council would receive before the council voted on the question of putting an art millage in front of voters.

He then contrasted the function of the public art commission as compared to the park advisory commission, pointing out that the public art commission is primarily a body that implements policy, not one that advises the council on policy as the park advisory commission does.

In order to meet before the council’s Aug. 20 vote, the commission would need to call a special meeting – because its next regular meeting is scheduled for Aug. 22. And subsequently the public art commission did call a special meeting, for Aug. 15 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement of city hall.

Taylor’s remarks also included the standard arguments for using public money to pay for art.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations

After Taylor’s immediate move to postpone the issue, councilmembers weighed in with generally supportive comments. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told his colleagues that he’d already submitted his request for co-sponsorship as soon as he’d found out about the resolution. “Kudos to councilmember Taylor, I’m so, so, so pleased that you have taken the lead on this.” Kunselman said he’d support the resolution, saying it’s exactly what the community needs to move forward with public art.

Mayor John Hieftje followed up on Taylor’s attempt to portray the effort as “collective,” pointing out that several other councilmembers had previously floated the idea. He noted that the restrictions that are placed on the funding due to their source make it difficult to fund the kind of art that people would like to – and that’s the fundamental reason why the millage is needed.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, noted that the commission had bemoaned the restrictions on the use of funding. The restrictions are onerous, he said, but the millage is a good alternative to that. He felt that the public art commission would want to understand the reasons for the proposal.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) appreciated the postponement, because she wanted the public art commission to have a chance to weigh in on it – to be consistent with the council’s approach to the parks charter amendment, when the council had sought input from PAC before voting. Hieftje assured Smith that the public art commission would be able to meet, saying that the commission was going to meet anyway to talk about something else. [It's not clear what he was referring to, as there had not been any special meeting scheduled at that point.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) supported the postponement, because the council had not had a chance to look at the proposal, and the public needed to weigh in as well. It’s not desirable for the council to look like the proposal was being rushed onto the ballot.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) supported the postponement, as well as the resolution. But she complained about the lack of a heads up about the proposal. She told Taylor it would have been a nice gesture to have included those councilmembers who also had been interested in the topic.

She called Taylor’s announcement the “most surprising thing” she has seen since she has returned to the council [following her election in November 2011, after having served in the mid-1990s]. She wanted to see the council work in a more open, collaborative, cohesive fashion. Analyzing the resolution as partially a response to the Aug. 7 primary elections, Lumm concluded, “It’s truly amazing what a few elections will do.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated support for the postponement. He felt the point of introducing it and then postponing it was to seek the kind of collaboration that Lumm had mentioned. So rather than having the resolution on the agenda on the Wednesday before the next council meeting, it would be available to the public sooner. He looked forward to the conversation over the next couple of weeks and hearing from residents about what they thought.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone action on the public art millage resolution until Aug. 20.

Contractual Powers: Sale, Leasing of Parkland

Two other ballot-related issues were on the Aug.9 city council agenda, including a possible ballot proposal to amend the city charter with respect to the leasing of parkland.

Concerns about parkland sale are not peculiar to Ann Arbor. Michigan state law addresses the question of parkland sale; and other communities in Michigan have their own recent history with controversial parkland sales. The question of amending the parkland protection clause in Ann Arbor’s city charter dates back to at least 2006.

So this section begins with some general historical background, continues with Ann Arbor’s specific history, before characterizing the public commentary and council deliberations at the Aug. 9 meeting.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: General Background

Michigan’s Home Rule City Act addresses the question of parkland sale by stipulating that cities don’t have the power to sell parkland, except under certain conditions [emphasis added]:

117.5 Prohibited powers.
Sec. 5. (1) A city does not have power to do any of the following: … to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city; [Home Rule City Act, Act 279 of 1909]

Before November 2008, the charter of the city of Ann Arbor mirrored that statutory language as follows:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3
(b) The city shall not sell any park or cemetery, or any part thereof except in accordance with restrictions imposed by law. [Pre-2008 Ann Arbor city charter]

The idea that city parkland could be sold by a city – by first removing it from the official master plan – was tested (successfully) by the city of Novi around a decade ago in connection with the settlement of a legal dispute. The city owed a developer a considerable sum, and sought to meet that financial obligation by transferring 95 acres of parkland to the developer. The Oakland County circuit court ruled that the transfer could only meet the statutory requirement if the 95 acres were first re-designated in the city’s master plan as not parkland.

So that’s what the city of Novi did, beginning the process with review by its planning commission:

After a full hearing, the Court entered an Order on December 11, 2001, which held that, while most aspects of the settlement concept were approved, in order to provide the full approval of the Court, the following action could be taken: If the city’s Master Plan is amended so as to reflect a designation of the property to be transferred in a manner other than “park” . . . it is the determination of this Court that, without further action on the part of any party, the land in question may be transferred as contemplated in the [city council Resolution of October 15, 2001] in conformance with MCL 117.5(e) [the Home Rule Cities Act]. [Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2002 city of Novi planning commission minutes]

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Ann Arbor’s Background – 2006-2007

In 2006, Ann Arbor’s park advisory commission (PAC) passed a resolution recommending to the city council that a charter amendment be placed before voters, asking them to change the city charter’s clause on parkland sale. The resolution contemplated by PAC offered the potential for some confusion, because the text includes not only the clause to be changed, section 14.3(b), but also section 14.3(a) – even though no change was proposed to 14.3(a).

Section 14.3(a) imposes a requirement that real estate transactions – generally, not just related to parks – require an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. Leases are among the real estate transactions that require the eight-vote majority . So glancing quickly at the 2006 PAC resolution might lead to the unwarranted conclusion that the PAC resolution proposed some change in the charter with regard to leasing of parkland.

Here’s the language that PAC, in its Aug. 15, 2006 resolution, recommended that the council add to the city charter [added text in italics]:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(a) The city shall not purchase, sell, or lease any real estate or any interest therein except by resolution concurred in by at least eight members of the council.
(b) The city shall not sell any park, cemetery, or any part thereof except in accordance with restrictions imposed by law and with the approval of a majority of the electors voting in a regular or special election. No park, or any part thereof, identified in the official master plan of the city, or any subsequent acquisition to the park system, or any part thereof, identified as part of the official master plan of the city after January 23, 2006, shall be severable from the city park system and the official master plan of the city. [PAC resolution from Aug. 15, 2006]

A year later, the city council considered placing a ballot question in front of voters. The text of the charter initially considered by the city council at its Aug. 20, 2007 meeting was more succinct than the language recommended by PAC, did not include the issue of severability and underwent some further refinement at the meeting, which resulted in the following:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(a) The city shall not purchase, sell, or lease any real estate or any interest therein except by resolution concurred in by at least eight members of the council.
(b) The city shall not sell without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land acquired by the city for park purposes (whether or not currently designated as a park), cemetery, or any part thereof. [Amended language considered in city council resolution from Aug. 20, 2007]

The council then rejected placing the question before voters – on 2-7 vote. The two yes votes were from then Ward 1 councilmembers Ron Suarez and Bob Johnson.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Ann Arbor’s Background – 2008

A year later, the council again considered that kind of ballot question on a charter amendment protecting parks. This time, the text of the resolution included just section 14.3(b) – because 14.3(a), which involves general real estate transactions (like leasing), had never been at issue. The council considered the following text for the charter on Aug. 7, 2008.

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park purposes, (whether or not currently designated as a park), cemetery, or any part thereof. [Initial resolution considered by the city council on Aug. 7, 2008]

The council postponed until Aug. 18, 2008 a vote to place the question on the ballot. And on Aug. 18 the council amended that text as follows:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park purposes, (whether or not currently designated as a park), cemetery, or any part thereof. [Final resolution considered by the city council on Aug. 18, 2008]

The council voted to place a question on the ballot for November 2008. Voters in November that year decisively approved the change to the charter – 80% voted yes.

Compared to the pre-2008 version of the charter, here’s how the current (2012) language stacks up [added text in italics and deleted text in strikethrough]:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof , except in accordance with restrictions imposed by law.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Ann Arbor’s Background – 2012

The city council formally considered a resolution at its July 16, 2012 to place a question on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot, asking voters if they would like to revise the city charter further [proposed additions indicated in italics]:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3.
(b) The city shall not sell, lease, license or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.

Two weeks before the July 16 meeting, one of the resolution’s sponsors, Jane Lumm (Ward 2), had alerted her council colleagues that she was intending to bring the question forward. At that point, she’d been working with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) on the resolution. At the PAC meeting held on Aug. 8, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told commissioners that when she saw a draft of the resolution, she was interested in supporting it, but wanted some “whereas” clauses deleted. Briere felt those “whereas” clauses introduced needless contentiousness. The clauses in question included these:

Whereas, subsequent to the November 2008 passage of the amended section 14.3(b) section of the Ann Arbor City Charter the City has proposed that alternative long-term uses for parkland would be considered and issued an initial RFP for Huron Hills that included the phrase, “at the time of execution of the SALES contract” in the letter to respondents, and the final RFP did not use the words “sale” or “lease”, but “agreement” and “contract for services”, and
Whereas, a sale, lease, agreement, or contract for services are not dissimilar to the extent that they essentially permit the City to enter into a long term arrangement that potentially involves development at a city park and, in so doing, violates the spirit and intent of the voter approval requirement, and
Whereas, the voter approval requirement was not intended to permit the City to utilize alternative terminology to avoid the requirement to present a parkland sale question to voters, but was intended to provide the necessary protection for parkland, and
Whereas, the City continues to utilize language other than the words “sale” or “sell” to permit long-term leases and alternative uses of parkland to avoid the voter approval and referendum requirement,

When the “whereas” clauses were deleted, Briere told PAC, she added herself as a sponsor to the resolution that came forward on July 16, 2012. The council voted to postpone its vote until Aug. 9, amid questions that Briere had raised about interpretation, as well as a desire to have PAC weigh in on the issue.

At PAC’s Aug. 8 meeting, commissioners voted unanimously not to recommend that the council pursue the charter amendment that would require a popular referendum on long-term leasing of parkland for non-park uses.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Public Commentary

Public commentary at the Aug. 9 city council meeting featured many of the same speakers who’d addressed PAC the previous day.

Rita Mitchell asked the council to join her as park stewards – and in that capacity, she asked for their continued support for parkland as “a treasured resource in our community.” Parks are valuable to future generations, she said. That’s why the resolution is important. She reminded councilmembers that she’s appeared before them in the past – because she’s concerned about the potential precedent that various projects might set. Parkland has been targeted for permanent transformation, she said – as a parking structure or a train station [at Fuller Road] and to allow a private management group to use parkland for private profit [an allusion to the Miles of Golf proposal for operation of Huron Hills golf course]. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs), long-term leases and various legal agreements other than a direct sale set a precedent to circumvent the referendum requirement in the event that the city desired to sell city parkland, she said.

Dark green patches indicate city of Ann Arbor parkland.

That allows the city to dispose of parkland using a more casual method of transfer. She believes that the council should consult the public regarding the initial basic question of whether to change the ownership or the use of parkland to something else. If the council wants to consider a change in the use of parkland, she suggested, the council should make a good case for it and convince voters.

The point of the resolution, Mitchell said, is to reinforce the public nature of park ownership. She ventured that referenda would come into play only rarely, as part of the routine management of city parkland. The resolution was initiated due to specific projects, she allowed – and that’s how she knew that such protection was needed for all of the city’s parkland. Members of PAC had raised good questions, she said, about what would constitute a park use versus a non-park use of land as specified in the proposed charter amendment.

Diane Giannola told the council she had two things to say about the proposed charter amendment. First, she said, there is “nothing wrong, improper, devious, unethical or inappropriate” about using parkland for a public purpose that benefits the rest of the city. Parks are not just about nature – they’re also about recreation, athletics, entertainment and community.

She contended that the local chapter of the Sierra Club would like to convince residents that parkland should be exclusively nature areas. But that’s not been the intent of residents, Giannola said. She called that an overreach by a private group with its own agenda. She would welcome some repurposing of parkland as long as it benefits residents. She would not welcome a vote on decisions about every change in use. She felt that a train station built on top of an already paved parking lot that lies between a road and the University of Michigan hospital is in the best interests of the residents of the city.

She called it patently false that the intent of voters in 2008 was to prevent the city council from repurposing or leasing parkland. She had voted for the 2008 charter amendment because she thought she was preventing the balancing of the city budget through parkland sale. She did not think it was about changing the definition of a sale. She objected to the idea that anyone should be able to interpret the intent of voters in a way that was false.

Alan Jackson introduced himself as a park advisory commissioner. [He was recently appointed to replace Sam Offen, who was term limited.] He had been asked to summarize PAC’s conclusions from the previous day’s meeting of the commission.

PAC had voted unanimously against that resolution, he reported. That’s not to say that the commissioners are not passionate about the parks, he said, and they felt that stricter restrictions on the use of parkland is worth careful consideration. PAC felt that the drafting of the ballot language was unnecessarily hasty, he said. PAC felt that a more careful process would yield more predictable results, and would allow citizens to understand the implications better and to develop better informed opinions. Some commissioners also questioned the need for a remedy, given that none of the “egregious transfers” – which people have been concerned about – have actually occurred. There are a number of gray areas, regarding the definition of non-park and non-recreational uses of land. Who would arbitrate the definition of those terms?

There are also a number of unintended consequences, Jackson said, with regard to some institutions that are near and dear to him, giving the example of Leslie Science and Nature Center and other groups that have arrangements with the city. The charter amendment could have a chilling effect. PAC feels that the city’s exposure to litigation could be increased by this charter amendment, he said. PAC wondered what the charter amendment would accomplish, given that the city council would be the arbiter of what constituted park and non-park use.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. She began by responding implicitly to remarks from Diane Giannola, whose public commentary had come a couple of turns earlier. For the last 30 years – during the time Shiffler has been involved with the group – the local Sierra Club has been engaged in protecting the park system, both natural areas and recreational areas. A fundamental question raised by the Fuller Road parking structure and now the rail station is this, she said: Does the city council have the authority to change the use of city parkland to some other use, through lease agreements, contracts or some re-designation?

The council has not sought to answer that question as it has discussed the Fuller Road site, Shiffler said. Instead, the city has been “backing in” to setting a precedent that has the potential to subvert the assumption that voters make when they vote to support parks millages – that the parks they voted to support will continue to be parks. The charter amendment would establish a process by which the council would be forced to answer that fundamental question. The language of the charter can’t anticipate every proposal that might come before the council, she allowed, but she encouraged the council to put the question before the voters.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Council Deliberations – Initial Round

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution, stressing that it was unchanged from the version she’d provided to the rest of the city council on July 9. She reviewed much of the historical context and the intent of resolution. She noted that the previous day, the city’s park advisory commission had met and voted not to recommend its support.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The 2008 change was a solid step forward in strengthening protection for parks, she said. But since that time, it’s become apparent that “loopholes” still exist that need to be closed in order to ensure that the clear intent of the voters in 2008 is to be realized. The 2008 charter amendment addressed only the sale of parkland, but did not address other mechanisms, such as leasing or long-term contracts. That could result in the outcome that the 2008 amendment was trying to prevent, she contended – conversion of parkland to a non-park or non-recreational use without the approval of residents. The goal of the current amendment, she said, is to close that loophole.

She pointed out that the five-year span that defines “long-term” in the proposed amendment corresponds to the parks planning cycle. She stressed that the proposed amendment doesn’t mean that no city park could ever have its use changed, but rather that voters would need to decide the question.

The intent, she said, is not to require the shorter-term arrangements the city has with various organizations to be subjected to voter approval – as those arrangements are part of ongoing management of the parks system.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described PAC as the protectors of the parks. He described the previous day’s discussion as lively and diverse. But with any piece of legislation, he said, there are uncertainties. He contended that the intent of the legislation back in 2008 was to make the restrictions tighter [than just "sale" of parkland], but he said there was concern that the tighter restrictions would not have been approved for the ballot by the city council.

Anglin described the amount of energy and money that had been invested by citizens to oppose different proposals that have come forward, citing the Miles of Golf proposal for the operation of Huron Hills golf course as an example.

The choice is between having a law that has a high standard, or whether the council says to voters that they have to come together, get organized, and “fight your city.” The council should be fair with the citizens and be fair with the proposals. As a hypothetical, he suggested that perhaps he wanted to donate a merry-go-round to Veterans Memorial Park and it would cost $2 million – he’d pay for all of it. Would that be supported? The charter amendment would help us understand that, he said. He ventured that parks uses continually change.

He suggested that the charter amendment was not perfect, and alluded to the medical marijuana ordinance, which was not perfect, describing that situation as “total chaos.” Based on the charter amendment, Anglin said, if the city chooses to go ahead with locating a rail station at Fuller Road, then the charter amendment would require asking voters. It might be that voters approve it, he said. He also contended that the proposed charter amendment would require a proposal like Miles of Golf had made for operation of Huron Hills to get voter approval. He also maintained that a possible removal of Argo Dam would also require voter approval.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) followed up on Anglin’s statements about different projects that would and would not require a voter referendum, and ventured that some councilmembers have different understandings of what the proposed resolution would accomplish. She asked assistant city attorney Mary Fales, who had helped draft the language, how the proposed charter amendment would have applied to various past proposals, or hypothetical future proposals, if it had then been in place. In bulleted list form, here are responses by Fales to the topics Briere asked her about:

• Building Argo Cascades: The proposed charter amendment would not have applied, because it’s a recreational use.
• Removing Argo Dam: If the purpose of removing it was to improve the waterway for recreational purposes, then the proposed charter amendment would not apply, because the use would be recreational.
• Ice Cube operation of Veterans Memorial Park ice rink or Miles of Golf operation of Huron Hills golf course: Because those parks would still be used for ice rink and golf course services, the proposed charter amendment would not apply.
• Closing Huron Hills golf course and using it for wild land and sledding: The proposed charter amendment would have no bearing on closing a city park – because it affects only the contractual powers of the city. If the city administration or park advisory commission recommended that a golf course be used in a different recreational format, then that could be done without a voter referendum – even under the proposed charter amendment.
• Building a parking structure on a park: A surface lot or a structure could be incidental to the customary use of the land as a park – because it creates a place for people to be able to use the park safely, so no referendum would necessarily be required.
• A 15-year lease with University of Michigan for a parking structure at Fuller Road: If the purpose is to commercialize the property or for some other purpose that is not for park or recreational use, and the contract is longer than five years, then it would require a vote of the people.

Both mayor John Hieftje and Margie Teall (Ward 4) appeared to want to explore the idea that if the commercial purpose of a parking facility would generate revenue supporting the parks [as is the case with the current arrangement between UM and the city for the surface parking lot at Fuller Road], then that arrangement might be construed as a park purpose. But the question was never framed clearly enough to get a specific response from Fales.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he’d be supporting the proposal. A 99-year lease for the Fuller Road parking structure would be outrageous, he said. That went beyond any reasonable expectation about the use of the city’s parkland. [.pdf of MOU with University of Michigan. It does not appear to stipulate any term lengths, but rather an intent to develop some kind of agreement.]

Kunselman felt that the five-year period was reasonable, based on the park planning cycle. There could be multiple renewals of shorter arrangements, so he did not see that as a problem. He did see a problem with a 99-year lease.

Kunselman allowed that they’d been hearing things about voter intent in 2008 – from both sides of the debate. He was not looking at it from a past perspective, but rather was looking toward the future. He did not want to see a future council trying to lease parkland for 99 years. One attempt had been seen, he said, and he doubted it would be tried again anytime soon. But because it has happened once, it could happen again, because it’s a typical response, he contended.

Responding to a standard argument that the Fuller Road site is currently a paved parking lot, he pointed out that it had not always been a parking lot – as he’d played soccer there as a kid back in the 1980s. In the past, Hieftje had made campaign pledges to add additional soccer fields, Kunselman contended – and this was a chance to do that, if the city wanted to convert the Fuller Road parking lot to a soccer field. That would take away the “piddly” amount of money that the lease arrangement with UM generates – about $30,000 he said. That’s small compared to what UM charges its employees for parking passes, he said, and he ventured that UM is making money off the city’s parking lot.

Kunselman figured that if the voter intent wasn’t there, they would vote down the charter amendment: “Let’s just give them that opportunity.” He didn’t think the city would harm itself, the public or the relationship with UM by doing that.

Responding implicitly to remarks from Diane Giannola about repurposing parkland – as long as it benefits the residents – Kunselman asked: Did a 1,000 car parking garage at Fuller Road offer a benefit to residents or rather to UM?

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Council Deliberations – Amendment

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told her colleagues that she’d sent around a draft of a proposed amendment. She said she did not think the charter amendment is a terrible thing to put on the ballot – but we have to be honest about what it accomplishes, she said. She felt like there was confusion in the public about whether a proposal like the one that Miles of Golf had made to operate Huron Hills would require a voter referendum. [Anglin and Lumm feel it would require a referendum; assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated it would not.]

A very informal poll of Briere’s constituents showed that more than 37% believe the proposed amendment would protect parks from bad decisions by the city council, she said. “But I have to tell you, it wouldn’t, as drafted,” she cautioned.

She did not think there’s any way to amend the charter to prevent the council from making a mistake.

She then proposed a substitute amendment for the charter language:

Limitations on Contractual Power
SECTION 14.3(b)
The city shall not, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, do any or all of the following with any city park or land in the city acquired for a park or cemetery or with any part thereof: (1) sell any such land; (2) lease, license or contract for any non-park or non-recreational use any such land for a period longer than 5 years; (3) contract for the operation of any such land for non-park or non-recreational use for a period longer than 5 years; (4) contract for the construction of any building on any such land, except as is customarily incidental to the principal use and enjoyment of such land.

Briere said that in her personal view, this was a legitimate effort to look at what the city could do and to worry about whether the city could contract for recreational services and what the implications of that would be. The answer is that the city could maintain its current relationships with vendors at the farmers market, and also with Project Grow, the Leslie Science and Nature Center, and Community Action Network, she said. But it means there could not be automatic renewals. Leases for non-park use would have to come back to the council at least every five years, she said.

The text about customarily incidental use, Briere said, she’d taken from the allowable uses of parks as public land, as described in the city’s zoning ordinance.

She noted that it meant that the city council could still contract with a builder to construct a new swimming pool or a skatepark or a new ice rink, without having a referendum on it. But the city might have a problem if the city wanted to build a new senior center on a park, she ventured. And the city might have a problem, she said, if it wanted to contract to build a train station on parkland. She indicated that with all the additional language, she had wanted to make the language accomplish what people thought it already did.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) expressed the view that even with Briere’s changes, there are still some unclear issues, and she didn’t think that’s a good way to dive into something. At the PAC meeting the previous day [which Smith attended], she observed that at least two people spoke about the Leslie Science and Nature Center. For an organization of that small size, running a campaign to make sure an arrangement for use of the parkland is approved by voters takes away from the core mission of the center, she said – which is about educating young citizens about nature. And if the voters didn’t approve it, then what?

Smith also pointed to the possibilities for things we haven’t thought about – like new land that the city is thinking about developing along the Huron River. If the city had the opportunity to develop a restaurant, there’s no way a small-business owner would make that kind of investment on a five-year basis. She allowed that Briere’s amendment made things slightly clearer, but didn’t feel she could support the amendment.

Hieftje picked up on Smith’s point about a restaurant. He reported that he’d talked to three restaurateurs about it in the last couple of weeks. He asked them to consider the possibility that the city could make some land available for a restaurant in the Huron River corridor. They said: Great! And they said they could imagine that people would come from a long way away to eat at such a restaurant. The restaurateurs indicated that for them to bring a development proposal would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars – and that would be necessary, because people won’t vote based just on a concept. They would not be willing to risk that on a vote of the people, or base it on a five-year arrangement – which depending on the city council might not be renewed. At some point, he said, folks around this table are elected to make decisions. He appreciated Briere’s amendment but did not see that it achieved enough clarity.

Lumm felt that the example of a restaurant had been floated before at the Huron Parkway bridge near the golf course, and that residents had said that that’s the kind of repurposing that they opposed. She felt that it’s important to know from voters what they think about such a proposal. Lumm then responded implicitly to Smith’s description of the PAC meeting, saying she [Lumm] was there for the duration. [Her point appeared to be that Smith had left a bit before the conclusion of the meeting.]

Lumm did not understand what is so difficult to understand about the proposal. It does restrict what can be done with parks, she allowed, but not if it stays within what any reasonable human being would say is an acceptable parks and recreation use. She felt that the changes proposed by Briere were redundant and unnecessarily complicating. She felt the original language was clear, concise and had the right level of detail.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5)

Kunselman responded to comments from Smith and Hieftje about efforts to commercialize parks along the river. He pointed out that the national park system has concessionaires for many of the national parks. The city could own the building and then contract out the operation, if you want to have a restaurant down on the riverfront. That reduces the risk to the vendor, he pointed out. So those goals can be accomplished, he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he appreciated Briere’s efforts with the amendment – but for him, it made an unclear bad policy a much more clear worse policy. He felt that asking PAC to look at the proposal was exactly the right thing to do. The discussion by PAC highlighted that the language in the amendment was not capturing what we’re trying to capture. He called it a classic example of “hard cases making bad law.”

Hohnke also suggested that all the significant decisions take time – and each year it’s possible to turn over half the council, so voters have had the chance to turn over this council three times over since the Fuller Road memorandum of understanding was signed. So he did not support the amendment or the underlying resolution.

Anglin described the amendments as covering a lot of “what-ifs.” It’s not possible to build in language that covers every possible situation, he said. But it’s possible to start a process for how to treat the city parks. He reminded his council colleagues that he had voted against the PROS plan [the city's Parks and Recreation Open Space plan], because he did not think that the city was protecting its own land as well as it was protecting private investments.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) felt that the system of representative democracy has worked – it worked with the Huron Hills proposal from Miles of Golf. Staff had been asked to bring ideas to the table and they had brought ideas to the table. The golf course has never made any money, she said. The process worked for the people who wanted that land to be protected. She didn’t feel there was a need for Briere’s amendment or the charter amendment, so she’d be voting against both of them, she said.

Briere said her efforts to go through the hypotheticals was an effort to make sure she’d considered as many possibilities as she could. The real question, she said, is whether you view this an improvement of the city charter, and whether the language belongs in the city charter. It’s not just whether the council reassures residents that the council values parks by giving them an opportunity to affirm that they value parks. She believed that we all value parks.

If you feel it’s not an improvement to the city charter, she said, she respected that viewpoint. If you feel it’s an improvement because it clarifies things about the contractual limits on the council, that’s also fine, she said. She’d heard that PAC’s concern was not whether the city could contract, or whether the city could lease, or even whether the city could use parkland for non-park purposes. Their concern was to have a coherent process to follow that would put PAC’s considerations before other considerations. The idea would be that when someone had an idea about how parkland would be used, then that would go to PAC first.

Kunselman addressed the issue of representative democracy. He gave the example of Sylvan Township – a legislative body that moved ahead with a project that put the community into an extreme amount of debt. None of the members of the township board are still on the board. The charter amendment, he said, was to protect citizens from “representative democracy gone awry.”

“It’s important that we protect our parks from ourselves as councilmembers,” he said. He called the 2008 charter amendment redundant, given the Home Rule City Act, but Ann Arbor had gone ahead with that amendment because other communities had found a way around the state statute.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that the amendment increases the specificity and scope of the provided language. He shared PAC’s concerns, and the amendment creates opportunities for those concerns to be exacerbated. So he’d decline to support the amendment, he said.

Outcome: Briere’s amendment failed, with support only from Briere herself and Kunselman.

Sale, Leasing of Parkland: Council Deliberations – Final

Back on the discussion on the main motion, Lumm asked assistant city attorney Mary Fales if the charter amendment would allow renewal of leases in 5-year increments. Fales essentially confirmed that was the case. Lumm also got Fales to confirm that she’d looked at all the various existing contractual arrangements the city had with different groups, related to the parks – like the rowers at Bandemer, the farmers market, Leslie Science Center and the like.

Lumm returned to her basic point – that even though some interpretation is required, the language is clear, straightforward and focused on how parkland is used. The leases that arise in the course of normal operations, she said, would not trigger a vote. She did not feel the standard is hard to apply.

Responding to the idea that the ultimate rejection of the Miles of Golf proposal showed there was no reason for the charter amendment, Lumm contended that it had been rejected only because it wasn’t a good financial deal for the city. She contended that a proposal like Miles of Golf’s could not have been accepted without prior approval of the voters – based on the language of her proposed charter amendment. [However, Fales had indicated that it would not have triggered a referendum, based on the fact that it would have maintained a recreational use.]

Lumm raised an implicit specter that voters might not approve the parks maintenance and capital millage [which the council placed on the ballot later that evening], if the council did not place the charter amendment before voters. She saw no better way to complement that “ask” than by reassuring voters that the city would be good stewards of the “precious assets of the parks.”

Anglin allowed that the council has discussed the issues and they’re well understood. He described Ann Arbor as a place where people have the free time and expertise to participate in the community, and it makes the community better. The park system is the envy of many towns, he said. In other communities, they’re taking little bits of green away, which Ann Arbor has not yet begun to do. He ventured that in a poorer community, parkland would have already been lost.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5)

In light of Lumm’s statement about Miles of Golf, Briere came back to the past Miles of Golf proposal by asking Fales again to confirm that if the city had contracted for management of the existing course, or a converted 9-hole course with a driving range, the proposed charter amendment would not have triggered a popular vote – Fales confirmed that was the case.

Sandi Smith noted that the council postponed a vote on July 16 in order for PAC to be consulted. That body of citizen volunteers had voted unanimously against placing the ballot question before voters, she said, so she wanted to honor that group by following their advice.

She’d heard terms like “steward” and “sacred trust” and she had faith that future councils will also be good park stewards. She noted that since 2000 Ann Arbor has added 151 acres to the park system and no parkland has been lost or repurposed. Since 2007, she said, 44.5 acres have been added. And just this year 10 acres have been added to the park system. That’s a pretty good record, she said. Since 2007 the acreage added represents almost $1 million in taxable value, and that’s about $45,000 in general fund revenue that the city is forgoing. She asked, “Who is the park steward?” She did not want to tie the hands of future councils on ways the city can grow the park system, or find a way to maintain the parks. She pointed to the longer mowing cycle the city had to use last year (19 days), noting that the grass was knee-deep in some places. The city was not able to maintain the soccer fields it has, she contended.

Smith did not want a future council to be in a situation where it could work with a commercial entity to solve a problem, but could not do that without taking it to the voters. The amendment would not allow the city to be as “nimble” as it needs to be. And if it’s a non-presidential election, she wondered how many people might get to the polls to make these decisions. She would trust future councils, she said.

Christopher Taylor began by saying that the Fuller Road Station was never contemplated as a “lease” but rather as a “use agreement.” That’s an important legal distinction, he contended. [In the context of standard principles of statutory interpretation that would apply to a city charter – namely, their ordinary and plain meaning as would have been understood by the electorate, not the way a real estate attorney would understand them – it's not obvious that the distinction Taylor is drawing between a lease and a use agreement would be relevant.]

He addressed the suggestion that the charter amendment is necessary in order to save residents from the need to advocate for their positions. He felt that it is completely appropriate that residents gather on questions of public interest – and it’s not something to be “feared or bemoaned or coddled.” He didn’t think the language of the resolution, if passed, would be a disaster, but did not feel it would be good policy or good for parks. He called it a “solution in search of a problem.” So he opposed the resolution for the reasons cited by PAC – reviewing each of them.

Taylor then turned his attention to the idea that this charter amendment would finally redeem the intent of the voters in 2008. Aside from the fact that the word “sale” could not be more plain, he contended, and that voters are presumed to have read the ballot language that they passed, he reported that he’d learned at PAC’s meeting the previous day that the council specifically removed the word “lease” from the ballot language that went before the voters in 2008. In light of this specific and intentional deletion of “lease” from the 2008 ballot language, he said, the continued assertion that “lease” was part of the initiative’s intent is “demonstrably false.” Its knowing repetition, he claimed, is “simply shocking.” It may be a good idea or a bad idea, he said, but to suggest that opposition to the current proposal is contrary to the demonstrated will of the people is patently false.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

By way of additional background, Taylor did not make clear at the council table how he reasoned from the city council’s reported action of deleting the word “lease” back in 2008 to conclusions about what some voters wanted out of the initiative. Responding to an email query from The Chronicle, Taylor identified Rita Mitchell’s remarks to PAC on Aug. 8 as the source of his contention that the council had consciously acted to delete “lease” from the charter amendment proposal – and conceded he could not cite “chapter and verse” of relevant documents. However, The Chronicle did not discern in Mitchell’s remarks any claims about deletion of the word “lease.” In her remarks, Mitchell’s mention of the 2008 proposal included the outcome of the vote – which was 80% in favor – and her statement that: “The value of adding the terminology that we’re talking about today will provide that extra protection that I believe voters did want.”

Taylor might have confused Mitchell’s comments with those of Jane Lumm – whose remarks at the Aug. 8 PAC meeting included the following: “The language that was brought forward in 2008 and approved by PAC included ‘lease.’ Council chose to amend it and remove that language.”

However, based on The Chronicle’s review of meeting minutes from PAC and the city council during the relevant time frame, it does not appear that the council ever had before it a proposal that included the word lease in Section 14.3(b) – despite Lumm’s characterization. [See the background subsection earlier in this report for the possible source of the confusion.] Taylor maintained in his emailed response to The Chronicle that in his remarks made at the council table he did not draw a negative inference about residents themselves, but rather their tactics.

Taylor also contended that his conclusion that residents’ claims are demonstrably false – about the intent of voters in 2008 – could be derived from the plain meaning of “sale” alone. Taylor did not respond to a follow-up question about the possibility that voters in 2008 might have included a 99-year lease as part of their notion of sale.

At the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, Hieftje wrapped up the deliberations by contending that the council is sometimes punished even for considering options. He would put his record on parks up against any elected official in the state, he said.

Outcome: The resolution received support only from Marcia Higgins, Mike Anglin, Jane Lumm and Stephen Kunselman. Sabra Briere, who pointedly paused when the roll call came to her turn, voted no.

The vote eliminated the chance of placing that type of ballot question before voters on Nov. 6. There have been some smattering of conversations about the possibility of placing the charter amendment before the voters, perhaps in May, through a petition drive, which would require around 4,000 signatures.

However, an easier path to another consideration of the issue might result from the new composition of the city council that will result from the Aug. 7 primary election and subsequent Nov. 6 general election. Democratic primary winners Sally Petersen in Ward 2 and Sumi Kailasapathy in Ward 1, assuming they win the general election, would almost certainly replace no votes with yes votes. And the version that Briere proposed might win her vote. That would give the council the seven votes it needs to put the measure on a future ballot.

Parks Maintenance, Capital Improvements Millage

The council also considered placing a question on the Nov. 6 ballot that would renew the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage at the rate of 1.1 mills.

The city’s park advisory commission had voted at its June 19, 2012 meeting to recommend that the council put the millage renewal on the ballot. The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $5 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities.

PAC was first briefed about the millage renewal at its March 22, 2012 meeting. At the time, PAC chair Julie Grand – who served on a working group to strategize about the renewal – said concerns about the economic climate were a major reason why an increase wasn’t being recommended. City parks staff and PAC members subsequently held several public forums about the renewal that were sparsely attended. Technically, the rate of 1.1 is an “increase” inasmuch as the currently authorized millage rate has been reduced from 1.1 mills to 1.0969 by the Headlee Amendment.

The proposed ballot language reads as follows: “Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 1.10 mills for park maintenance and capital improvements for 2013 through 2018 to replace the previously authorized tax for park maintenance and capital improvements for 2007 through 2012, which will raise in the first year of the levy the estimated total revenue of $5,052,000.”

Deliberations were brief at the Aug. 9 council meeting, as Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gave the background on the millage. He’s one of two council representatives to the park advisory commission. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that it’s a “frugal” millage in that it does not ask for an increase above the originally approved amount – but she noted that costs have increased.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to place the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 20, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Francie Krawcke, raptor program director with the Leslie Science & Nature Center, brought a snowy owl to the June 19, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The owl did not fly around council chambers, but did enjoy a few snacks at the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

An $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks – for design and construction oversight of a new skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park – was unanimously recommended for approval. Trevor Staples, president of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, was on hand to answer questions, and several commissioners congratulated him for spearheading this project. Staples noted that fundraising is still underway, focused now on building a $100,000 endowment for future maintenance. Funding for design and construction of the skatepark has been secured primarily from a $300,000 state grant and $400,000 from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

PAC also unanimously recommended approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to build barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

This first phase of a broader renovation project on the center’s grounds will include making the raptor enclosures – housing owls, falcons, a bald eagle and other birds of prey – more accessible. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Also unanimously recommended for approval was placement of a millage renewal on the Nov. 6 ballot. The current 1.1 mill Ann Arbor park maintenance and capital improvements millage expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and is expected to generate about $4.9 million next year.

The June 19 meeting included a quarterly financial update, and the election of Tim Doyle as chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. Commissioners also were briefed on a Traver Creek streambank stabilization project at Leslie Park golf course, designed to improve the water quality of this Huron River tributary.

Other water-related issues were brought up during the parks and recreation manager’s report. Colin Smith told commissioners that final repairs on swirl concentrators at West Park – designed to help stormwater management – will start later this month, with final renovations of the park occurring over the summer. And city staff will be harvesting Eurasian watermilfoil from about 6-7 acres around the Gallup Park canoe livery, using what Smith described as a “Zamboni on the water.” The aquatic plants have overgrown the area around the livery, making it hard for people to use paddleboats, canoes and kayaks.

During public commentary, Alan Haber urged commissioners to support the Library Green project, a citizen-led effort to put a public commons on top of the new city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure. He invited PAC to a July 14 “Imagine a Park” block party on the site, from noon until 5 p.m. Later in the meeting, park commissioner Tim Berla picked up the idea, saying he wasn’t advocating for that particular project but that he felt PAC should be “in the game” for discussions of a downtown park.

The June 19 meeting was the last one for commissioner David Barrett, who is term-limited after serving two three-year terms. PAC chair Julie Grand praised his work, particularly in advocating for renovations to the city’s athletic fields and ballparks. The mayor has not yet publicly put forward a nomination for Barrett’s replacement.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the Ann Arbor Skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. The $89,560 contract would cover design and construction oversight of the project.

Sketch from the Wally Hollyday Skateparks proposal for the Ann Arbor skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. Hollyday told The Chronicle that he considers this an example that addresses many of the community’s desires for the skatepark, but that considerable public input will be sought to shape his development of the design.

A selection committee reviewed six responses to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the city of Ann Arbor in April, and selected two California firms – Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Wormhoudt Inc. – as finalists. Additional review and interviews resulted in the choice of Wally Hollyday Skateparks as the recommended designer. Wally Hollyday had already been involved in the project to some extent, leading design workshops for the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark in 2009 and 2010.

The roughly $1 million project – including an anticipated $100,000 endowment for ongoing maintenance – will be financed through a combination of funds. Those include private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – as well as a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary.

Representatives from all of these groups attended PAC’s June 19 meeting: Trevor Staples, president of Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark; Jeff Dehring of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department; and Jennie Hale, development/program officer with the community foundation.

Park planner Amy Kuras is the city’s point person on the project, and briefed commissioners on the selection process. The pre-qualifications were written tightly, she said, including requirements like a minimum of 10 years experience in designing and overseeing skatepark construction, extensive work with municipalities, building in climates similar to Michigan, a track record of at least 10 parks that have been in place at least 10 years, and experience with stormwater management.

The two finalists rose to the top pretty quickly among the six bids that were submitted, Kuras said.

Staples also addressed commissioners, reminding them that it’s been about five years since skatepark supporters filled council chambers to advocate for the project. He thanked PAC for its support. [At its March 2011 meeting, PAC had recommended support for the city to apply for the $300,000 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund grant, with one commissioner – Sam Offen – voting against it. Offen ended his two terms on PAC in May.]

It had been exciting to go through the RFP process, Staples said, and they could have picked either of the finalists. But Hollyday is the right person for this job at this point, he added. Staples said he’s skated several skateparks designed by Hollyday, describing him as a skateboarder who is hands-on. “It’s art for him,” Staples said.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Commission Discussion – Design

Several commissioners congratulated Staples for his work in spearheading this effort. Karen Levin said it sounded like Hollyday’s skateparks have stood up well over time, and she assumed that his design would take Michigan’s weather into account.

Staples noted that Hollyday is based in the San Diego area, as several skatepark companies are. It’s a specialized project that requires a particular kind of expertise. But the plan is to incorporate a lot of Michigan-based elements – labor and public art, for example. Regarding climate, Staples noted that part of the selection criteria included a requirement that the company have experience in building skateparks in northern climates.

Trevor Staples, president of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark.

David Barrett asked for more details about where the skatepark will be located. The site will be at the park’s northwest corner, near the intersection of North Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads. Smith noted that there might be an opportunity for an amphitheater there, too.

Barrett, who served on the selection committee, said that even though the skatepark is for kids, it’s also for the entire community. The idea is to create a skatepark so that people can come and watch, even if they don’t “hop on a board” themselves, he said.

Smith added that the location is important because this will likely be a regional draw, and the site is close to I-94 and M-14 interchanges. It’s also close to businesses and neighborhoods, and is very visible and accessible, he said. As people enter the city from that area, it will be a very dynamic site.

Staples also clarified that the large stand of trees at that corner will remain in place. The trees are an asset, he noted – most skateparks don’t have shade.

During the discussion specifically about the resolution of support for the contract, Alan Jackson initially requested that the resolution strike the word “concrete” from this whereas clause:

Whereas, Construction of a custom, concrete skatepark is being proposed using funds from a State of Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant, Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission and the Friends of Ann Arbor Skatepark to be constructed in Veterans Memorial Park;

Smith said it wouldn’t be possible to strike the word – the specifications are very specific. Staples explained that the main reason the resolution and RFP specified “concrete” is that many non-concrete skateparks are built in a modular way. That type of construction falls apart quickly and requires a lot of maintenance. The quality of a concrete skatepark is better.

Jackson withdrew his suggestion, saying that his intent simply had been to eliminate constraints on the project. Staples replied that the constraints are self-imposed.

Smith also pointed out that one aspect of the design includes stormwater management, in recognition of the fact that the skatepark will be adding impervious surfaces. The stormwater management might be in the form of rain gardens or other elements.

Tim Doyle noted that there are a number of design specs – are there any elements that PAC should be aware of, from a parks perspective? Kuras replied that the city will be relying heavily on Hollyday for this project. Midwestern Consulting, a civil engineering firm based in Ann Arbor, will be hired as a subcontractor to handle certain aspects, she said. But it will be a collaborative process, she added, to work through any concerns that might arise.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Commission Discussion – Financing

John Lawter asked whether all of the fundraising was in place. Fundraising is still happening, Staples replied. The goal is $1 million – $900,000 for design and construction, and $100,000 for an endowment to fund future maintenance. The majority of the $820,000 they’ve raised so far is in the form of grants, which can’t be used for the endowment, he said. So the focus now is on the endowment. He noted that he had dropped off a pile of bricks at Arnet’s Monuments earlier that day to be engraved as part of a fundraising drive.

Lawter asked how someone could buy a brick. Staples explained that details are on the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark website, where payments can be made online. There are three sizes: $100, $250 and $1,000. Purchases are tax deductible, he said.

The group will also have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs, he said, in the nonprofit section.

Christopher Taylor observed that about $100,000 is “in the bank,” but he wondered when the remaining funds would “land.” Smith reported the city expects that the $300,000 DNR grant will be distributed later this summer. After that, the county’s $400,000 in matching funds will be available. Jeff Dehring of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department clarified that county funds would be available as soon as the construction contract is awarded. Staples noted that the design needs to be completed before state funds can be accessed, and Amy Kuras added that the state funds are actually reimbursements – so the city would pay, and be reimbursed from the DNR grant.

In response to a question from Tim Berla, Smith explained that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is holding the funds now, but later the money will be transferred into a segregated city account for the project. There also is a reference in a memorandum of intent regarding how the funds will be transferred, he said. [The city council approved the MOI with the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee – the predecessor to the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – at its Dec. 1, 2008 meeting. .pdf of 2008 memorandum of intent]

Do the other funders have to give approval for the selection of the Hollyday? Berla asked. Smith replied that the other groups had input via their membership on the selection committee. Staples added that all parties have agreed on this decision.

Tim Doyle observed that it’s a challenging project, and until it’s designed and the construction bids are in, it’s difficult to know how much it will actually cost.

Ann Arbor Skatepark: Next Steps

Colin Smith explained that the plan is to put this contract on the city council’s July 16 agenda. If approved, the project will move forward for design and construction. Amy Kuras noted that several public meetings will be held to get input on the design, and when a design is developed, it will be presented to both PAC and the city council for review and input. The hope is to have a design and construction drawings finalized by early fall to put the project out to bid for a builder, with the goal of starting construction in the spring of 2013.

Over the winter, Smith said, he’d work with Staples to develop an operating agreement for the facility.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended that the city council approve a contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks. It will now be forwarded to the city council for review, likely at the council’s July 16 meeting.

Leslie Science Path Renovations

In an item added to the agenda during the June 19 meeting, PAC was asked to recommend approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to construct barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

JB Contractors provided the lowest of two bids. Fonson Inc. had submitted a much higher bid of $197,459. Funding is available from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

PAC had been briefed on this project – the first phase of a larger renovation – at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Parks planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that the goal of the changes to the pathways is to make the center compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to make the pathways and overall organization of the site less confusing. The project includes replacing the paths that connect various buildings on the site, and constructing new paths to connect the center’s raptor enclosures.

From right: Susan Westhoff, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center, talks with city park planner Amy Kuras.

Those enclosures house owls, falcons, a bald eagle and other birds of prey, and are located at the highest part of the site. The birds are very popular, so the intent is to make the area as accessible as possible. The paths connecting the raptor enclosures will be made from porous pavement of recycled glass, Kuras said. In addition to pathways, there will be better signs indicating how to get to the enclosures, as well as directions to other parts of the center.

A master plan for the broader project includes renovating the parking lot, creating a new drop-off are, and reconfiguring the remaining paths.

Kuras said construction drawings for this phase are complete, and she hoped that following PAC’s recommendation, a resolution could be placed on the city council’s July 16 agenda. If approved, construction could start after Labor Day and would likely last a couple of months.

Susan Westhoff, the center’s executive director, attended the June 19 PAC meeting and spoke briefly about the need for the path improvements and overall renovations. Francie Krawcke, the center’s raptor program director, was also on hand with a snowy owl, which she kept on a tether and fed snacks during the presentation.

Leslie Science Path Renovations: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked how long the project would taken and if it would impact the center’s programming. Amy Kuras estimated that construction could last 6-8 weeks, though there was not yet a schedule. Much like the current work in Buhr Park and Cobblestone Farm, she said, it will be coordinated closely with staff. [The Buhr/Cobblestone contract – $865,190 to Fonson Inc. for road, parking, pathway and other exterior renovations – was recommended for approval at PAC's Feb. 28, 2012 meeting, and subsequently authorized by the city council.]

Kuras said she’s stressed to the contractor the importance of safety, since the work will be done while people are coming to the center. When people call the center to reserve space for events, they’ll be informed about the work, too. There will be constant information-sharing, Kuras said.

David Barrett asked if Kuras had ever worked with this contractor. No, she said, but the firm recently merged with Abbott Concrete, a company she has worked with. She told commissioners that she’d keep reminding the workers that the job is in a public park.

Responding to a question from Alan Jackson, Kuras clarified that the circular drive would remain in place as a drop-off, until the second phase of the project. That phase, which hasn’t yet been bid out, would require additional recommendation by PAC and authorization by city council.

Julie Grand asked whether schools had also been notified about the work. Susan Westhoff replied that September, when the work will start, is typically a light programming month for the center. And a lot of the October programming tends to be staff going out to schools, rather than students coming to the center, she said. The only building that won’t be accessible during the work is the Critter House, which is completely surrounded by the sidewalk that’s being rebuilt.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. for barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

Park Millage Renewal

On the PAC agenda was a resolution recommending that city council put a 1.1 mill renewal of the Ann Arbor park maintenance and capital improvements millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager for the city of Ann Arbor.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities.

PAC was first briefed about the millage renewal at its March 22, 2012 meeting. At the time, PAC chair Julie Grand – who served on a working group to strategize about the renewal – said concerns about the economic climate were a major reason why an increase wasn’t being recommended. City parks staff and PAC members subsequently held several public forums about the renewal that were sparsely attended.

The proposed ballot language reads as follows: “Shall the city renew the existing park maintenance and capital improvements millage for 2013 through 2018, which will raise in the first year of the levy an estimated revenue of $4,900,000 for park maintenance and park capital improvements?”

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, gave a brief overview of the process to date, noting that the city council would need to take action in order to put the millage renewal on the November ballot. At that point, the city staff could have additional public forums to educate the community about the renewal request and how the millage revenues are used.

A public hearing on the millage had been held at PAC’s April 2012 meeting, but no one attended. On June 19, there were no comments or questions from commissioners about the renewal.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend that city council put the millage renewal on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot.

Traver Creek Stabilization

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager for the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, was on hand to update PAC about a Traver Creek streambank stabilization project at Leslie Park golf course. Commissioners had initially been briefed about the project at their Dec. 20, 2011 meeting by Jen Lawson, the city’s water quality manager.

Sheehan told commissioners that the purpose of the project is to improve water quality flowing into the Huron River – Traver Creek is a tributary. The project aims to reduce the amount of phosphorus that’s discharged into the river, address erosion and flooding issues, control the amount of sediment that’s being deposited downstream, enhance the wetlands and habitat for wildlife, and improve the aesthetics of the Leslie Park golf course.

The city council had authorized petitioning the county for the $1.05 million project at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting. The city’s portion is $981,540, which will be assessed by the county over a period of up to 20 years, at a maximum of $62,415 per year, according to a staff memo prepared for council. The first payment was included in the FY 2013 stormwater fund operations and maintenance budget, approved by the council earlier this year.

The resolution passed by the council on Jan. 9 also authorized annual payments to the county for this project from the stormwater fund (Fund 0069). The project has been approved for a 2.5% low-interest loan from the state revolving fund, and up to 50% of the loan could be forgiven by the state.

Sheehan reported that the construction work is out for bid, and the plan is to start work in November of 2012, after the golf season ends, through March of 2013.

It’s essentially a drain project, Sheehan said, but the work is being done with an understanding of the site’s special nature within a golf course.

Traver Creek Stabilization: Commission Discussion

John Lawter asked for more details about how the position of the creek would be affected. Sheehan explained that the creek would be made more “meandering,” compared to its current course.

David Barrett wondered what will happen if all the work can’t be done within the November-to-March timeframe – would it be delayed until the following winter? And if so, how would that affect the project’s financing?

From left: Christopher Taylor, a Ward 3 city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC, and Alan Jackson, one of the newest PAC members.

There’s no hard deadline for getting the work done, Sheehan replied. If next winter was like the most recent one, then it won’t be a problem to do the work, he said. The final part of the project is more contained to the area around the south part of the course, so conceivably that work could be done during the summer, and it wouldn’t disrupt play.

Alan Jackson wanted to know how the project is being coordinated with the city’s golf staff. Sheehan said the golf staff have been integrated into the design process. They’ve provided suggestions for removal of sediment and its use elsewhere on the course – for example, to fill in areas that are chronically wet.

Jackson also asked whether any public meetings had been held. Yes, Sheehan said. The first one was held several years ago to discuss the financing aspect, he said. Earlier this year, about 25 people – mostly stakeholders in the golf community – attended a public forum on the project. Another forum held a few weeks ago drew only one person, he said, although residents in the nearby neighborhoods were all sent notices.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said the golf staff have been involved from the outset. There has also been communication with golfers about the project, as well as with other user groups. All the feedback has been positive, he said.

Responding to a question from Tim Doyle, Smith reported that because of warmer-than-usual weather, the golf courses opened this year in mid-March – usually, opening day is April 1. He noted that even if the courses were to open early in 2013, the work by that time would be more out of the way and wouldn’t disrupt play.

Jackson wanted to know whether ongoing maintenance costs would be incurred because of this project. Sheehan replied that sediment maintenance would likely be needed every two to five years, but would cost only in the $2,000 to $5,000 range. The costs would be handled through an assessment fee paid by the city, but the work would be done through the county’s office of the water resources commissioner.

Outcome: This was not an action item – no vote was required.

Financial Update

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, walked commissioners through a quarterly update of the parks and recreation budget. The current fiscal year ends June 30, 2012. [.pdf of parks & rec quarterly financial statement]

Recreational facilities supported by the city’s general fund are forecast to bring in $2,372,166 in revenues for the fiscal year, about $6,000 more than budgeted. Expenses of $3,442,592 are $17,500 less than budgeted. That means $1,070,426 will be used from the general fund to cover the difference between revenues and expenses.

Three units – the farmers market, Huron Hills golf course, and Leslie Park golf course – are operated in “enterprise funds,” where the expectation is that revenues will cover expenses.

For the farmers market, revenues are projected to be on budget at $165,118. Projected expenses of $160,118 are $5,000 lower than budgeted, in part because of a transitional period between the departure of former market manager Molly Notarianni and the hiring of Sarah Benoit, who was introduced at PAC’s May meeting.

At Huron Hills, revenues of $382,375 are on budget, while expenses of $541,080 are $7,500 lower than budgeted. The general fund will contribute $158,705 to operations at Huron Hills.

The Leslie Park golf course is expected to bring in revenues of $901,319 – about $20,000 less than budgeted. Expenses of $999,580 are also about $20,000 lower than budgeted. The general fund will contribute $98,261 to fund that golf course.

Matt Warba, supervisor of field operations, reviewed the financial statements for those parks operations that funded out of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage. He noted that expenses will be about $300,000 lower than the budgeted $2.353 million because the unit did not have a full complement of full-time staff this year. However, over the past month four full-time employees have been hired – two paid for from the general fund, and two from the millage.

There are 12 employees in field operations now, plus about 18 seasonal workers. The additional staff allows for a mowing cycle of 14 days, compared to the previous 19-day cycle.

Financial Update: Election of Committee Chair

Later in the meeting, the commission took action related to park finances – by voting on a new chair for the group’s budget and finance committee. It had previously been chaired by Sam Offen, whose term on PAC ended last month.

PAC chair Julie Grand nominated Tim Doyle, who’s been working with Offen on the committee. Doyle had been expected to take that leadership role.

In announcing her nomination, Grand told Doyle, “You’d better not say no!” He did not.

Outcome: Tim Doyle was unanimously elected chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Library Green: PAC Action?

During public commentary, the only speaker was Alan Haber, who told commissioners that he frequently had spoken to other public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council on behalf of a group that’s trying to develop a community park, commons and gathering place on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Recently, members of the advocacy group had suggested coming to PAC as well. He asked commissioners to urge the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to separate out the Library Lane from its consideration of other parcels in the downtown area.

[Haber was referring to an effort called Connecting William Street, which is exploring alternate uses for the surface parking lots in the area bounded by William, Ashley, Liberty and Division streets – including the top of the underground parking structure. The project is being undertaken by the DDA at the direction of the Ann Arbor city council, given last year on April 4, 2011.]

The DDA should separate out the Library Lane parcel, Haber said, and gather ideas from the community about how to make a Central Park-type gathering space. There are so many people who say that’s what they want, he said – ask anyone whether they want a building or a park, and almost everyone will say a park. But this effort needs energy from people with responsibility for the parks who can actively pursue it. Don’t wait until another plan is presented, he said. He urged PAC to take some initiative. Haber said that advocates for Library Green are having an “Imagine a Park” block party on July 14, a couple of days after the grand opening of the parking structure earlier in the day. The event will run from noon until 5 p.m. on the top of the structure.

Haber contended that the conversation about this option was completely suppressed by the group that evaluated a request for proposals (RFP) for the top of the Library Lane. PAC should start to think about the possibility, and offer its advice to the DDA, he said.

Library Green: PAC Action? – Commission Discussion

Later in the meeting, Tim Berla asked what the process would be for following up on Haber’s suggestion. He felt that PAC should get ahead of the issue regarding downtown parks. It seems like there does need to be a park downtown. The Library Lane site might be an obvious place, though not necessarily the best place – and Berla said he wasn’t advocating for that. But he wanted PAC to get in the discussion. Berla said he knows that money is part of it, in terms of whether a park will raise the value of land surrounding it. But he didn’t think PAC should be involved in evaluating the financial aspects. His question was this: What can PAC do to move the discussion along so that the commission’s input is given? Berla said he’d been surprised that a surface parking lot is going on top of the 700-space underground structure, which seemed odd, though it might be the cheapest option at this point.

Tim Berla, a member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that PAC always has the option of forming a subcommittee or focus group to look into any issue. If that’s what the commission as a whole wants to do, it can do that. There are a lot of discussions related to city-owned property in and near downtown, he noted, including the Allen Creek greenway, 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main sites, and Liberty Plaza – a city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division, near the underground parking structure. From the staff’s perspective, Smith said, it would make sense for PAC as a group to decide what it wants to do.

PAC chair Julie Grand noted that at the last meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee, committee members talked about holding a priority-setting session after all of the new commissioners come on board. [Gwen Nystuen and Sam Offen recently left PAC, and the June 19 meeting was the last one for David Barrett. All were term-limited. Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson were appointed to replace Nystuen and Offen, but Barrett's replacement hasn't been appointed yet.]

Berla said he’d like to see several different plans developed for the Library Lane site, so that people could start evaluating options. Another insight he’d had related to Sonic Lunch – the weekly summer music series that’s held in Liberty Plaza and organized by the Bank of Ann Arbor. Wouldn’t it be awesome to have a music performance space downtown? He wanted to explore ideas like this, though perhaps they should wait until the Connecting William Street process played out, though it seemed like the focus for that project was different.

John Lawter noted that members of PAC and the DDA had met, and he had thought there would be a follow-up meeting. Julie Grand agreed, and said that one approach would be to advocate for involvement in the Connecting William Street effort.

Smith said that in the past, the city council has given PAC a charge to make recommendations back to the council. He asked Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who is an ex officio member of PAC, if Anglin knew who might be working on this issue. [PAC's other council representative, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), had left the June 19 meeting by that point.]

Anglin replied that a lot of things are happening, and it’s important for PAC to be involved. Fuller Road is another area of interest, he said – an allusion to the possibility of building a transit station on land that’s part of Fuller Park. He noted that the Ann Arbor District Library is discussing what to do on its downtown site, too. It would be good for PAC to be more actively involved, he said, and perhaps form a focus group that could track some of these projects.

Outcome: There was no action taken on this issue, and it’s not clear if there’s consensus among commissioners about what steps to take next.

Parks & Recreation Manager’s Report

Colin Smith gave updates on two projects during his manager’s report: Repairs of the swirl concentrators at West Park, and “aquatic plant management” near the Gallup Park canoe livery.

Parks & Rec Manager’s Report: West Park

In late June, Smith said, the city expects the manufacturer of the swirl concentrators at West Park to replace the lids and finish repairs on those units. That work should take about three weeks. After that, the project’s contractor will rebuild the diversion structures, finish the access paths, and complete native plant restoration in that area, located along Seventh Street. That work will likely last throughout the summer. There are three entrances to the park off of Seventh, and during this work only the middle entrance will remain open, he said. Other activities at the park will be uninterrupted. He told commissioners that updates will be posted online.

Swirl concentrators had been installed for stormwater management as part of a major renovation of West Park in 2010. Most recently, PAC received a detailed update on the project at its Jan. 24, 2012 meeting from Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer and one of the project managers in the city’s public services unit. Hutchinson had told the commission that after the manufacturer of the swirl concentrators makes repairs on the units, the city would hire a contractor to complete additional work that was recommended by Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM), which the city had engaged in 2010 to look into the problems with that aspect of the West Park project. City staff had previously hoped to have that work completed by July of 2012.

Parks & Rec Manager’s Report: Aquatic Plants at Gallup

Smith reported that aquatic plants near the Gallup Park canoe livery are extremely overgrown, and that city staff will be harvesting excess plants in the coming weeks. Specifically, Eurasian watermilfoil is making it difficult for people to use paddleboats or canoe on that part of the pond.

Staff will use what Smith described as a “Zamboni on the water” to harvest about 6-7 acres around the livery. They’ll deposit the plants in an area of the park that’s unused, where the plants will dry out and shrink, he said. The work will start in late June.

Farewell to David Barrett

Turnover of park commissioners continued at the June 19 meeting – the last one for David Barrett, who has served on PAC since 2006.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Tim Doyle and David Barrett. The June 19 meeting was the last one for Barrett, whose term expires this month.

Near the end of the meeting, PAC chair Julie Grand thanked Barrett for his service. He had been a tireless advocate for improving the city’s athletic fields, she noted, and had been a quiet advocate on a lot of other issues over the past six years. He was an incredible human being and a good soul, she said.

Barrett is a songwriter and musician who is best known for the song “One Shining Moment.” It’s become the anthem for the NCAA basketball finals, with versions sung by Luther Vandross and Jennifer Hudson. He has written music for other sporting events and TV networks, and won an Emmy for the score of a PBS documentary on C.S. Lewis.

Barrett thanked the mayor for his appointment, and also thanked his fellow commissioners. He praised the city’s parks staff, saying they do a great job. It’s been an honor to serve, he said.

Barrett is the latest of three PAC members who have left the commission after being term-limited. Park advisory commissioners are limited to two consecutive three-year terms. Sam Offen and Gwen Nystuen recently ended their two terms on PAC as well. New commissioners replacing Offen and Nystuen are Alan Jackson and Ingrid Ault. No replacement has been nominated yet for Barrett.

Two other commissioners – Doug Chapman and Karen Levin – will be ending their first three-year terms in September of 2012, and could seek reappointment for another term.

Present: Ingrid Ault, David Barrett, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Alan Jackson, John Lawter, Karen Levin, Julie Grand, councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio), councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Doug Chapman.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle kickflip to financial sustainability, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to grab some air as well. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.