The resolution received four votes of support – 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. So the vote on the 11-member body was 4-7.

The version of the charter amendment considered by the council on July 16 was [added language in italics]: “The city shall not sell, lease, 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.”

Part of the argument for the postponement by the council at that July 16 meeting was a desire by some councilmembers to receive input from the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) on the proposed charter amendment, before taking a vote. And on Aug. 8, 2012 PAC met to deliberate on the resolution, but ultimately voted unanimously not to support placing the charter amendment before voters.

Concerns cited by PAC members in declining to recommend their support of the resolution included the idea that the language of the proposed amendment introduced a “gray area,” and possible unintended consequences. They also had questions about who the arbiter would be for the meaning of “non-park” and “non-recreational.” Some commissioners also had concerns about the public process that had been used thus far to evaluate the proposed charter amendment.

At the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, an alternate version was also discussed, which was put forward by one of the three sponsors of the original resolution, Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s version departs from the syntactic pattern of the existing charter section, which separates the verb “sell” from its direct object “park” with a 23-word clause. The other two co-sponsors were Lumm and Anglin.

Briere’s proposed amendment took the approach of enumerating the actions that trigger a popular referendum: “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’s amendment failed with support from only one other councilmember – Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Councilmembers voting against the main resolution cited the same concerns that had been mentioned at the PAC meeting, as well as the function of a representative democracy and a desire not to tie the hands of future councils. Kunselman, who voted for the resolution, called the charter amendment a way to guard against representative democracy “gone awry” that would “protect our parks from ourselves.”

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

The charter amendment would require that certain long-term leasing arrangements on city parkland for non-park and non-recreational use be subject to a voter referendum. In 2008, voters had already approved a charter amendment that subjects any sale of parkland to a popular vote. The resolution will be considered on Aug. 9 by the city council at a rare Thursday council meeting, due to the primary election that fell on Tuesday, the day following the council’s scheduled regular meeting. The council had postponed the proposed charter amendment item from its July 16, 2012 meeting.

The vote by the park advisory commission (PAC) came after extensive public commentary – some for and some against – and remarks delivered to PAC by councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Five councilmembers were thus present at the PAC meeting – including the two city council ex officio non-voting members of PAC, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), as well as Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who sat in the audience but did not address PAC.

Concerns cited by PAC members in declining to recommend their support of the resolution to place the question on the ballot included the idea that the language of the proposed amendment introduced a “gray area,” and possible unintended consequences. They also had questions about who the arbiter would be for the meaning of “non-park” and “non-recreational.” Some commissioners also had concerns about the public process that had been used thus far to evaluate the proposed charter amendment.

The Ann Arbor city attorney’s office has now forwarded the proposed charter and ballot language to the state attorney general’s office for informal review.

The question that voters may be asked to decide involves extending the current prohibition of a parkland sale without a voter referendum to cover leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale. Lumm had previously indicated she expected to bring forward the resolution at the council’s July 16 meeting, and the forwarding of the draft language for the attorney general’s review is consistent with that timeframe.

If approved by a seven-member (2/3) majority on the 11-member council, the current draft of the question to be placed on the ballot would read: “Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor city charter be amended to require voter approval for long-term (greater than 5 yrs) non-park or non-recreational uses of parkland within the city while retaining the section’s current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any city park, or land acquired by the city for a park or cemetery?”

The current draft of the city charter amendment associated with that ballot question would read [added language in italics]: ”The city shall not sell, lease, 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.”  [.pdf draft resolution for July 16, 2012 council meeting]

A charter amendment passed in 2008 had added the section on the sale of parkland. At that time, there was concern over possible sale of Huron Hills golf course. The current concern is over the possibility of using a portion of Fuller Park as a train station. The portion of the park in question currently functions as a surface parking lot.

The charter provision had been approved in November 2008 by a 81%-19% margin (42,969 to 9,944). The tweak would involve adding actions like “lease,” “license,” or “re-designate” to the set of actions on city parkland that would require a voter referendum.

The 2008 ballot question had asked voters if they wanted to add a clause to the city charter that would prevent the sale of city parkland without a voter referendum. Michigan’s Home Rule City Act already lists among a city’s prohibited powers: “… 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 …” But that year some residents were concerned that the city was looking to sell Huron Hills golf course – and they saw the exception in the state statute as a possible loophole. The council voted to place the question before voters that year over dissent from councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and former councilmember Leigh Greden.

That year, the council had consciously settled on wording that included just selling, as opposed to leasing. In an Oct. 31, 2008 Ann Arbor News article, mayor John Hieftje was quoted as follows: “From time to time, we’ve thought about how nice it might be to have a restaurant near the river. I think it’s something people would really enjoy … That would be impossible if the ballot measure was expanded to include leasing.”

What prompts the current desire to contemplate adding “leasing” and other arrangements to the mix is concern that a portion of Fuller Park could eventually be used for a new rail station. Amtrak currently operates a station on Depot Street near the Broadway bridges. [See coverage of the council's June 4, 2012 meeting, when it accepted a $2.8 million federal grant to complete a planning study to confirm the Fuller Road site as the locally preferred alternative location for a new rail station.]

One draft of the ballot question that Lumm and Anglin are crafting reads: “Shall the voters of the City of Ann Arbor amend the city charter to require that the city shall not sell, lease, license, recategorize or repurpose, 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 a park, cemetery, or any part thereof?” Lumm indicated that she’d bring the resolution to the council for a vote at its July 16 meeting.

While council support for placing a parkland lease question on the November 2012 ballot is uncertain, it’s likely that the council will follow the park advisory commission’s recommendation to place a renewal of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage on the ballot. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who is one of two council ex officio members of PAC, indicated that consideration of that millage question would take place at the July 16 meeting.

Other possible ballot questions that have received some consideration by councilmembers include a charter amendment that would make city elections non-partisan.

And 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. That would require placing a question on the ballot.

Locally, any city of Ann Arbor ballot questions might be joined by one that is likely to be put forward by the Ann Arbor District Library to support a downtown building project. A countywide transportation millage is less likely to be  placed on the November ballot, given the delays in approval of all the necessary documents.

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