Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, from the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. Former U.S. Congressman Wes Vivian has now moved out of the residence, which makes the property now available to the city.

The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond. At its Sept. 8, 2009 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of the property, allocating $636,000 from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage, which is used for greenbelt and parkland purchases. Of that total, $600,000 was designated for the purchase price, with the remainder used for closing costs, a property survey and Phase I environmental site assessment. The deal closed in 2010.

A staff memo prepared for the council in 2009 described the site’s future use as “passive recreation”: “The property would be suitable for a picnic area and possibly a picnic shelter. As water and sewer are already on the site, a restroom structure could be constructed as well. The site would provide boaters with access to South Pond.”

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 red circles indicate the general locations of the parcels that the Ann Arbor planning commission was asked to consider for rezoning at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting. Other colors designate various zoning categories. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped in Google Earth.)

The planning commission heard a request to rezone 3325 Packard from R1C (single-family dwelling) to R2A (two-family dwelling) – and voted unanimously to deny that request. A house had burned on the lot, which sits at the corner of Fernwood and Packard. The economics of rebuilding a single-family house and trying to sell or rent it out weren’t realistic, owner Steve Weaver told the commission.

A duplex, Weaver argued, could help stem the commercial creep coming from the west at Packard and Platt, and provide a “thumb in the dike” to preserve the residential character of that stretch.

But planning commissioner Bonnie Bona reflected the view of commissioners and planning staff that the decision was a “no-brainer” in the context of the city’s master plan, which clearly designates the area for single-family houses. They were reluctant to engage in “spot zoning.”

In voting unanimously to deny the rezoning request, commissioners encouraged Weaver to work with neighboring property owners with the idea of bringing forward a request to rezone an entire blockface.

Weaver has said he will exercise his option to make his rezoning request directly to the city council, even without the planning commission’s support.

The other rezoning request on the commission’s Aug. 7 agenda was to designate some city-owned property on 3875 E. Huron River Drive as PL (public land). The move was characterized as a housekeeping step for the planning commission. During the public hearing on the question, one person addressed the commission indicating support, but with some concern about the range of activities that would be promoted there.

One idea mentioned at the meeting was the possibility that the parcel – sold to the city in 2010 by former U.S. Congressman Wes Vivian – could become the headquarters for the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP). Commissioners encouraged nearby residents to work with the park advisory commission (PAC) as that group helps decide the parcel’s eventual use within the park system.

The commission also heard remarks from the representative of a neighbor opposed to a requested land division on Traver Street. But the decision on that item will be made by planning staff, not the planning commission or the city council.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard)

Commissioners considered a request to rezone 3325 Packard from R1C (single-family dwelling) to R2A (two-family dwelling).

Packard Road zoning map with the parcel proposed to be rezoned as a duplex in brighter yellow.

The owner, Steve Weaver, had requested the rezoning in order to build a duplex on the property, which is currently vacant.

The site is located at the northwest corner of Packard and Fernwood, in the Darlington subdivision.

A fire destroyed the single-family house there in April of 2012.

Planning staff had recommended that the zoning request be denied, because the city’s master plan calls for single-family detached housing in that area.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard): Staff Report

The staff report was given by city planner Jill Thacher. She began by noting that the property is located on the north side of Packard Road on the northwest corner of Fernwood and Packard. She showed commissioners the current zoning map, noting that it is in the South Area in the Swift Run watershed. She described the lot as 11,958 square feet in size with a request to rezone it from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R2A (two-family dwelling district) so that a duplex could be built. The lot measures 68 feet × 175 feet and is currently vacant, she said. A single-family house previously stood on the lot, but was destroyed by fire in April of 2012, Thacher explained, so the lot is now vacant.

Thacher noted that the proposed rezoning would not result in any change in setbacks to the side, rear or front – because the setback requirements would be the same for both kinds of zoning district.

Aerial view of 3325 Packard, at the intersection of Fernwood.

She pointed out to commissioners that the neighborhood is predominantly an R1C-zoned area but as you move west down Packard Road, there is some office and commercial zoning. Directly across Packard is an R4 district, which is an apartment building, she said.

Thacher showed commissioners an aerial photo that still included the house that previously stood on the parcel, which had been destroyed by fire. Thacher described the majority of homes in the neighborhood as small, single-family houses. She allowed that there might be some duplexes among those houses but stated that they didn’t “stand out.”

Thacher noted that Packard Road is five lanes wide at this point: “It’s a big road.” She described Fernwood as very residential in character. Thacher showed the commissioners a possible building layout for such a duplex. She pointed out that there are several lovely shade trees that exist on the site. There’s also a driveway curb cut that exists, which served the house that burned down. A sidewalk is located along Packard, Thacher noted. She added that in whatever manner the parcel is developed, a sidewalk would need to be installed along Fernwood as well. A current photo of the parcel taken from the corner of Fernwood and Packard showed it to be a big grassy lot.

Thacher then quoted from Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning ordinance, saying that the zoning ordinance and zoning map shall not be amended except:

… because of a change in municipal policy, or because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the municipality generally, to rezone an area, extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof.

Thacher pointed out that in response to a set of staff questions asked of the property owner, asking for explication of any change or changing conditions, Steve Weaver had indicated that there were not any. Thacher observed that public services city staff had indicated that connection fees would be charged with any new building permits for the site.

Thacher summarized planning staff commentary by saying that the city’s master plan recommends a single-family residential use for this parcel and everything surrounding it on the north side of Packard Road. The area consists of small and moderately sized single-family homes, including those fronting on Packard Road.

Packard Road was characterized by Thacher as a neighborhood boundary, and she did not consider the land uses on the south side of the road to be very influential on the north side of the road. Packard Road, Thacher said, is five lanes wide – so it’s a real boundary. Land uses on the south side, she said, are not hugely influential on the existing block of single-family homes on the other side. The master plan supports only single-family use, she continued, and neither the staff nor the petitioner had observed any change or changing conditions in the neighborhood. And for those reasons, she concluded, the staff did not support the proposed rezoning from R1C to R2A.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard): Public Hearing

A neighbor who lives next to the property appeared before the commission to say there were trees on the parcel, with branches that were touching the roof of her house. She said she wanted the property owner to trim the branches. The owner, Steve Weaver, told her that he was happy to take care of the trees.

Steve Weaver distributes photographs of the 3325 Packard Road area to planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

Weaver distributed some photographs of the area to the planning commissioners – saying that he felt the staff’s photos were also quite good.

Scott Betzoldt, with Midwestern Consulting, led off the presentation on behalf of Weaver. He noted that there had been an existing house on the property – an older house that had burned down a couple of years ago. He characterized it as a modest house. It had been condemned after the fire, and was not able to be rebuilt.

Betzoldt noted that Packard Road is very busy and it’s not very attractive as a site for a single-family dwelling. It doesn’t really provide an attractive option for someone who wants to purchase a single-family home and raise a family there, he said. The reality of the finances is that building a new home in that area cannot command enough rent to justify the cost of rebuilding. They had looked at various options, including some that were more dense than a duplex, but ultimately had settled on requesting the rezoning as a duplex.

In the area there are already duplexes, Betzoldt observed. The lots are not zoned for duplexes, but they are grandfathered in as a duplex use. There is even a duplex that is just two doors down, which is an operating and legal duplex, he said. At the citizens participation meeting, he continued, neighbors had told them that there were several other operating duplexes in surrounding blocks. So Betzoldt said he did not think it was “a stretch” in this situation to rezone the parcel for a duplex. It might be more attractive for someone who is not looking to maintain a yard but who simply just wants to live in Ann Arbor in affordable, new construction.

A new structure would be an asset to the neighborhood, Betzoldt said. Adding a new structure would be a positive addition, he said – but if the lot sits vacant, it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. A duplex would be a very positive addition, he contended. He also noted that the area had changed, working east from the corner of Platt and Packard. Those single-family houses had been converted to commercial or office uses. So the single-family houses on Packard were dwindling – for obvious reasons, he said.

Directly across the street there was R4A zoning and adjacent to that there is property zoned C3, with an operating apartment building. There is a C1 parcel, where a convenience store is located. Down the street there is an R4A apartment building. So he contended it was not out of character to have a duplex on the corner. A duplex is still single-family living – but with two families under the same roof. A modern duplex, he continued, looks like a large house. It doesn’t look like a motel.

From left: Property owner Steve Weaver and Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting.

Betzoldt showed the commissioners a possible footprint that had been loaned to him from an architect friend of his, for a stacked duplex – with two entrances that both looked like front doors. The attached garage would be accessible to one of the residents, and the detached garage would be available to the other resident. He contended that a duplex on the corner would be a good anchor for the neighborhood.

The property owner, Steve Weaver, followed Betzoldt’s remarks. He told the planning commissioners that he had grown up in Ann Arbor and thought of himself as an Ann Arborite, but just didn’t happen to live in the city today. He believed that if you try to build a single-family house on this particular lot and then sell it, then no one would really want to buy it – especially not a young family, because of the five-lane road that would be right in the front yard. So they’d come up with the idea of putting in a duplex – which would appear to be a single-family house when you drove past it. It would look like a standard home, Weaver said, but would provide the living quarters for two families.

Weaver also characterized the proposed duplex as a “cornerstone” that would keep other developers from buying up properties long Packard, converting the corridor to increasing commercial use. The encroachment was already taking place from the west, he noted. In the last year and a half, a new oriental grocery store had opened down the street, he said. If a brand-new unit were constructed like the proposed duplex, he continued, that would be a cornerstone to keep the area residential.

Weaver ventured that otherwise the parcel would sit vacant – because he saw no way to market a single-family house once it were constructed. So he asked and encouraged the planning commission to provide a positive recommendation, saying he felt it supported the city and city’s residents.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard): Commission Deliberations

Bonnie Bona led off planning commission deliberations by noting that according to the letter of the master plan – which guides the planning commission on making recommendations like this – the decision seems like a “no-brainer.” The master plan calls for single-family housing and it’s currently zoned single-family, and the petitioner had not shown any compelling reason to change it, she concluded.

Bona was also concerned about spot zoning: “Our districts are to be districts, not single sites.” She empathized with the challenges associated with the site, however. She was not sure that planning commissioners had any tools available to address those challenges. But she wanted to know what the process would be for changing the master plan for the properties along Packard Road.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff responded to Bona by describing how the planning commission would need to put together a committee to look at that area of the city. All the abutting municipalities would need to be noticed that the city was contemplating changing a section of the master plan. There would be public meetings, a recommendation made to the city council, public comments, and the planning commission would eventually act on it. Bona confirmed with Thacher that once the master plan was changed, it would open the door to change the zoning.

Bona ventured that single-family small-footprint homes are not a growing market along Packard Road. She asked that planning staff start considering the question: What is an appropriate use along Packard Road? For her, the neighborhood was not defined by Packard Road, but rather by the back of the lots that lined Packard. When she is in the neighborhood, she said, the sites on Packard feel like they are a part of Packard Road. The neighborhood is behind that, she contended. She didn’t feel a strong connection between the houses on Packard Road and the neighborhood.

But Bona was not sure what the appropriate use is for those parcels. It could be office or commercial or multi-family, she ventured. She felt that a major road is a perfect place to put a buffer to the neighborhood. But she did not know what the appropriate nature of such a buffer should be in this particular case. She also said she did not foresee that the planning commission would put a study of small residential sites on its work plan in the very near future. So she was not sure where to go with that, saying that there were bigger issues around the city’s major corridors. But she concluded by saying that based on the master plan, she could not vote to recommend approval of the requested rezoning.

Both votes at the Aug. 7, 2013 planning commission were unanimous among the six commissioners present.

Paras Parekh asked for clarification about the contention that the parcel would not be attractive for the potential buyer of a single-family home. He wondered why it would be attractive to residents of a duplex. He didn’t understand the rationale for one versus the other.

Weaver explained that the difference related to the difference between owning a property and renting it. If you build a single-family home, the idea would be to sell it and have a family live there long term and raise their family there. A duplex would be more likely to be a rental – with people coming and going over time.

Given the cost of construction on the lot, and what would need to be done to meet code, it would be difficult to make a single-family home a profitable rental, Weaver explained. Originally they considered the idea that the best possible situation for the lot would be multi-family, but after talking to some of the staff, it appeared that would be really tough to get approval. But Weaver noted that there was a multi-family unit right across the street – so the duplex zoning would provide a nice buffer. They had opted to request something that was reasonable and in keeping with the city’s desire to keep it residential. The duplex option seemed like “somewhere in the middle,” Weaver said.

Parekh ventured that the issue was less about the experience of living there and more about the economics of building in that particular part of the city. Weaver allowed that was the case – pointing out again that the parcel was on a five-lane road – and it was tough to imagine building and selling a single-family house there. He would have preferred a six-plex, he said, but they had proposed a duplex as a compromise. Parekh came back to the idea that the actual argument that was being made was based on the economics of the situation.

Sabra Briere indicated she had the same problem that Bona had brought up – with spot zoning. She allowed that Weaver might be correct in that it would ease the pressure to convert the other single-family houses along the block to commercial or office uses – but Briere pointed out it would increase the pressure to convert them to duplexes. And that is also something that does not – today, in any case – fit the master plan, she noted. The master plan reflects community values, Briere said, very strongly. That can change, she allowed, as the plan is updated about every five years.

Briere told Weaver that he had gotten himself into a problem, because it’s difficult to justify spot zoning. Weaver indicated he understood the concern about spot zoning. But he ventured that duplex zoning for this parcel would amount to being the “thumb in the dike.” It would help and support the residence as well as the city. Once a duplex is built and becomes a rental property, he said, that’s additional tax revenue to the city. If you multiply that over many years, that’s a lot of revenue to the city as well as support to the local residents.

Wendy Woods also indicated she was concerned about spot zoning. She understood the Weaver’s dilemma, but she took issue with the idea that Bona had expressed – that the houses along Packard Road were not part of the neighborhood to their rear. For those families who live along Packard Road, it is their neighborhood, she contended. She understood the economic challenges, but said that’s not the planning commission’s purview. The planning commission is guided by the master plan, she continued, and she’d not heard anything to convince her that the zoning should be changed at this time. She ventured that Weaver was “between a rock and a hard place.” But she would not support approving the rezoning.

Diane Giannola asked about a question raised at the citizens participation meeting. She asked what would happen if the lot were split. Thacher explained that the lot could not be split right now because it doesn’t meet the minimum lot size in that zoning district for both lots. It would have to be rezoned to R1D. That type of zoning has a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, which could fit two lots on that site.

Kirk Westphal indicated that he would echo the sentiments expressed by other commissioners. When proposals like this are brought to the planning commission, it helped alert the commission that there could be areas of concern that needed to be addressed. However, the planning commission had an obligation to uphold the master plan, he said. So he would find it difficult to support rezoning a single parcel. Westphal inquired about a relatively recent neighborhood-initiated rezoning, which had been to downzone an area. He wondered if a neighborhood-initiated effort could also undertake an upzoning in a particular area.

Thacher ventured that Westphal might have been thinking of a council-initiated rezoning effort on Golden Avenue. Planning manager Wendy Rampson confirmed that residents in the Golden Avenue neighborhood had requested downzoning, and it had been initiated by the city council – from R4C to R2A. Rampson said that if Weaver was able to coordinate with other property owners in the area, and if there were a sense among the property owners that a whole blockface should be rezoned, that would be one approach to address the spot zoning question.

Briere asked for clarification: If the adjacent property owners along Packard Road were to request rezoning to duplex and if it were granted, would those property owners still be able to keep their current use? That is, would they have to set up duplexes? Thacher confirmed for Briere that they could maintain single-family use.

In response to a question from Westphal, Rampson noted that the planning commission had in the past made changes to the zoning map without making changes to the master plan. So the zoning map and master plan are not required to be altered in sync. But the city’s planning staff advised that any changes in the zoning map and master plan should be coordinated, she said.

Bona asked for confirmation that the existing duplexes in the neighborhood had not been created since the time that the land had been zoned. Bona also countered the thumb-in-the-dike argument by saying that as far as “creeping commercial” uses go, she felt that this would not happen – for the same reason that the planning commission was not comfortable rezoning this parcel for a duplex. The planning commission would have the same problem with rezoning properties to commercial.

Bona encouraged Weaver to talk to his neighbors. Weaver asked what his next logical step should be, saying that one of the neighbors he’d talk to had offered to be of assistance in any way he could. Westphal ventured it was a great question to pursue with the city planning staff.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the rezoning.

After the vote, Briere reminded Weaver to trim the tree touching the neighbor’s roof, as he said he would. And Weaver told The Chronicle after the meeting that he’d go ahead and ask the city council to rezone the property, even though the planning commission had recommended not to – which is the right of a petitioner.

Parkland Rezoning (E. Huron River Drive)

Planning commissioners considered a recommendation to rezone city-owned property at 3875 E. Huron River Drive from R1A (single-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The site, which is adjacent to the city’s South Pond nature area, will be used as parkland.

Map of land on East Huron River Drive to be rezoned as PL (public land), indicated with the arrow on the left. That parcel is on the north side of Huron River Drive. Farther to the east on the same side of the road is the loop of Thornoaks Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of Thornoaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond.

City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

At its Sept. 8, 2009 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of the property, allocating $636,000 from open space and parkland preservation millage, which is used for greenbelt and parkland purchases. Of that total, $600,000 was designated for the purchase price, with the remainder used for closing costs, a property survey and Phase I environmental site assessment. The deal closed in 2010.

A staff memo prepared for the council in 2009 described the site’s future use as “passive recreation”: “The property would be suitable for a picnic area and possibly a picnic shelter. As water and sewer are already on the site, a restroom structure could be constructed as well. The site would provide boaters with access to South Pond.”

Parkland Rezoning (E. Huron River Drive): Staff Report

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave commissioners an orientation to the physical location of the parcel, noting that there is city parkland to the south of the site – the South Pond nature area. Beyond the pond to the west lies the Huron Hills golf course, she noted. She reported that Wes Vivian and his wife had worked with the city in 2009 to sell the property to the city, and the city had closed the deal in 2010.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

Right now the property is vacant, and the city is considering the use of the former home on the site, Rampson indicated. There’s been some discussion that it might become the headquarters for the natural area preservation (NAP) program or a recreational facility, she said, adding that no decisions had been made. But the rezoning would make clear that the parcel is now part of the park system through the public land designation.

Rampson told planning commissioners that it was similar to other rezonings to PL (public land) that had come before the commission, as the city cleaned up the zoning map.

Parkland Rezoning (E. Huron River Drive): Public Hearing

Ariel Nicolaci – a nearby resident on Thornoaks – told commissioners he had nothing against the designation of the parcel as public land. He thought it was a good thing. But he had a question: What kind of activity could happen on the land? He wanted to know, for example, if people would be able to rent canoes, or if it would be a camping site, which might draw a lot of people into a fairly confined area. That could generate more traffic, which would require more parking, he ventured. He valued living in the area because of its quiet, peaceful nature. He suggested that it would be helpful to improve the bike lane and pedestrian amenities along the parcel.

Sabra Briere indicated that she fully supported the rezoning. She knew Wes Vivian, and knew how much he and his wife had wanted the land to become part of the city’s parks system. She agreed with Nicolaci, however, saying that the use of the parkland was completely unknown. It’s unknown because it’s not planned yet, she said. When the city acquires land for a park, people always want to know how it’s going to be used, but the city doesn’t always have a specific plan for that, she explained.

The best thing that residents can do, Briere said, is to work with the parks staff to talk about the current uses in that area and what needs to be improved. Discussing issues like paths along Huron River Drive is one of those things that should be talked about, she said. Huron River Drive is not a wide or a fast road but it has no shoulders in some places – and riding a bike along there is a little scary, she ventured.

Kirk Westphal got clarification that for the planning commission, this was essentially a housekeeping item. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that the park advisory commission (PAC) would be the group that will be thinking with staff about the use of the property. So she encouraged the residents to work with the Thornoaks neighborhood association. Whenever a park is planned, even if it is just a playground, public engagement is part of that process, Rampson said. Neighbors are consulted about potential uses and design. She offered some assurance that when things get to that point, there would be communication between the park advisory commission and the neighbors. She again encouraged people to work with their neighborhood associations so that they could, as a group, work with the city.

Rampson thought the discussion would happen in the next year, because the city now has access to the home. Paras Parekh got clarification about the procedure. Rampson indicated that what had precipitated the requested rezoning action was the fact that the house is now accessible and available to the city. If you have a structure, she said, it’s not good for it to sit vacant without a plan for how to make sure that it’s maintained. [Wes Vivian has moved out of the residence, according to Rampson.]

Westphal asked for clarification about what a “life estate” is. Was it a common tool for acquiring property? Rampson indicated that it was not especially common for the city to acquire property in this manner. But she noted that the state and federal government have acquired various properties over time in the northern part of the state, and there are people who own homes or cottages that they are allowed to use as long as they are alive. But when they pass away or if there is some exchange within the family, then it gets turned over to the purchasing entity – the state or federal government.

She noted that in the northern part of the state, a lot of homes fit that category. Typically the city of Ann Arbor acquired vacant land, not occupied land, for the park system. But the owners of the land had been longtime supporters of the city park system, Rampson said, and in this case they had felt strongly that the land should go to the park system.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of the parcel to PL (public land).

Land Division: Traver Street

A notice had been published about a property owner request to divide the 0.36 acre parcel at 1643 Traver Street to create a buildable, single-family lot to the north of the existing single-family dwelling located in Ward 1. The land division does not require a planning commission or a city council vote. But it does require public noticing.

During general public commentary time, Mark Merlanti introduced himself as the attorney for Igor Kriz and Po Hu, who live at 1639 Traver – adjacent to the land that’s proposed to be divided. They had received a notice of a proposed property division. They are out of the country right now, which is why he was there, Merlanti explained. They had retained him as legal counsel because their neighbor had approached them through a letter about the boundary of the property. The letter had not mentioned the issue of the petition for a land division. He wondered why the neighbor would ask that a survey be done two years after they bought the property. In the context of the proposed land division, he now understood the land survey.

Attorney Mark Merlanti talked with city of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson before the Aug. 7 meeting started.

Merlanti contended that the character of the property could not afford the division. He had looked at the ordinances for Ann Arbor and the state statutes, saying that the state land act has the size width and depth requirements that local ordinances could change. There is also a section that indicates the local standards can take into account topographical and physical conditions. He’d spoken with city planner Chris Cheng, Merlanti continued, who had referred him to specific parts of the city code. He did not know if the resulting size of the two parcels would allow the land to be divided and still fit within the ordinance. If it doesn’t, then he believed that the matter stops there.

If it does result in adequately-sized parcels, then his clients’ position is that the character of the Traver Street neighborhood does not promote this kind of split. He’d visited the neighborhood and characterized it as an eclectic area. He characterized the land as “severely sloped” on the part of the parcel that does not contain the house right now. Those are the reasons that his clients are opposed to the land division.

At the end of the meeting, Bonnie Bona asked for some additional clarification from the planning staff on the land division item that was included in the packet. She asked if a land division is possible, if the resulting parcel was not buildable. She felt that’s what Merlanti had been suggesting by citing the steep slope.

Rampson told Bona that the state statute indicates very clearly that simply dividing the parcel does not guarantee that it is buildable. When the state law was amended a number of years ago, she continued, it removed most of the discretion for local governments on land divisions. The city could look at depth-width ratios and zoning minimums and make sure that the parcel had access to the street and utilities.

Even if it looks like it would not be a buildable site, if it meets the city standards then the city is obligated to approve the request, Rampson said. Bona asked if the city planning staff had reviewed the issue yet. Rampson indicated that this was in process and was being circulated among staff for comments right now. Jill Thacher is the planning staff member who is working on it, Rampson explained. Based on the zoning review, the proposed land division meets the zoning requirements, Rampson indicated.

Outcome: This was not a voting item for the planning commission.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Paras Parekh.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Jeremy Peters.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond.

City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

At its Sept. 8, 2009 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of the property, allocating $636,000 from open space and parkland preservation millage, which is used for greenbelt and parkland purchases. Of that total, $600,000 was designated for the purchase price, with the remainder used for closing costs, a property survey and Phase I environmental site assessment. The deal closed in 2010.

A staff memo prepared for the council in 2009 described the site’s future use as “passive recreation”: “The property would be suitable for a picnic area and possibly a picnic shelter. As water and sewer are already on the site, a restroom structure could be constructed as well. The site would provide boaters with access to South Pond.”

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

Sign on the Trolz property in Manchester Township, which might become part of a new state recreation area in southwest Washtenaw County. (Photo by Russ Serbay.)

The proposal is to partner with the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources to acquire a total of 2,160 acres straddling the border of Jackson and Washtenaw counties – the Trolz property. The area includes an abandoned rail right-of-way that could become a multipurpose trail.

The county parks system would purchase about 461 acres of that total area – a parcel located in Manchester Township and appraised at $1.37 million. The commission authorized staff to conduct additional work on the potential deal, with a final proposal and request for approval in the coming months.

The commission also received an update on the proposed East County Recreation Center from Craig Borum, professor at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Borum presented two options for laying out the entire 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area in Ypsilanti, where the rec center would be located. He also reviewed two possible draft designs for the recreation building on a portion of the site.

The commission kept up its pace of land preservation efforts, often in partnership with other organizations. It gave final approval to acquire conservation easements on the 124-acre Drake property in Lodi Township, in partnership with the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. Final approvals were also given for easements on the 73-acre Hornback property in Salem Township, partnering with the greenbelt and Salem Township; and for the 213-acre Bailo property in Superior Township. In addition, the commission authorized preparation of a purchase offer for 65 acres in Superior Township – the Ford Road property – at a price of $500,000, contingent on completion of all due diligence and the commission’s final approval. When completed, WCPARC’s contribution to all these deals would total $900,224 to preserve 475 acres.

The nine-member commission will face some turnover in 2013. At the end of the meeting, commissioner Jimmie Maggard announced his intent to resign after 24 years of serving on WCPARC. Barbara Bergman, who serves on WCPARC because of her position as a county commissioner, did not seek re-election and will be leaving the county board at the end of 2012. The same is true for Janis Bobrin, who did not seek re-election as the county’s water resources commissioner. She’ll be replaced by Evan Pratt, who won the seat in the Nov. 6 election. Bergman expressed the hope that Bobrin would be appointed to a vacancy on WCPARC – those appointments are made by the county board.

Trolz Property Acquisition

Bob Marans, the commission’s president, introduced a proposal to acquire about 461 acres in Manchester Township, an opportunity for partnership with the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources to create a much larger new state recreation area at the headwaters of the Raisin River. He said the state’s new emphasis on place-making means the DNR is not just looking at areas “way out in nowhere,” but rather is looking for land with possibilities for recreation and wildlife preservation closer to populated areas.

The concept is, Marans said, that WCPARC and DNR would purchase all of the 2,160 acres remaining in what was originally the 3,500-acre Trolz estate. Tom Freeman, retired deputy director of WCPARC who now serves as a consultant, made a presentation to supplement a written recommendation by director Bob Tetens. Freeman explained that the proposal was for WCPARC to buy the 461 acres in Washtenaw County, using primarily funds from the county’s natural areas preservation program. The county would purchase the bulk of those acres with NAPP money, then use recreation funds to buy an abandoned rail track that runs through the entire property, which could become a multi-use trail to serve pedestrian, cyclists, and the equestrian community.

Freeman said it would be “fabulous kayaking and a fine migratory bird area.” The property includes a building that is ¼-mile long and could be used as part of an equestrian center, he said. According to the staff report, the property includes a “significantly diverse landscape,” with woodlots, wetlands and open fields. As part of the headlands for the River Raisin, the property is crossed by several small streams with a “rolling topography.” An appraisal prepared on behalf of the DNR found the 461 acres to be worth $1,374,295 – or $2,981 per acre. [.pdf of details for Trolz property appraisal] [.pdf map of Trolz property]

Trolz Property Acquisition: Commission Discussion

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz asked about the funding, saying: “We have specific ways to use NAPP, but we don’t have that with rec money. How are we going to sort it out?”

A view of the Watkins home on the Trolz property. (Photo by Russ Serbay.)

Bob Tetens replied that WCPARC would use parks & recreation funds for land to connect the natural areas – that is, to purchase the 36.53 acres that are in the rail corridor. Tom Freeman pointed out that the land in Jackson County includes Watkins Lake. Asked about the lake’s depth, Freeman reported that it’s no more than 8-10 feet deep. That prompted commissioner Fred Veigel to ask whether it would hold fish in the winter. Yes, Freeman said. Tetens then interposed: “The only thing they [MDNR] are not interested in is hunting.”

Freeman noted that the property in Jackson County includes historic structures, such as the Watkins home, which was part of the Underground Railroad – a recent article in Michigan History magazine featured this property, he said. There were exclamations over a slide of a brick Italianate house.

“Don’t get too excited,” Tetens joked, reminding the group “we’re not taking any action tonight” on the actual purchase.

Commissioner Janis Bobrin asked about the property’s operation or management. Freeman replied that a majority of the responsibility would be the state’s. Anschuetz asked what the DNR plans to do with the buildings. Freeman responded, “as a historic property, the farm house would stay.” He added that “the property is so large that Watkins had his own train stop.”

Freeman also pointed out that the property is very close to the Leonard Preserve, the largest NAPP area, just northwest of the village of Manchester.

Tetens added, “We need to take a trip out there. It is breathtaking. If I won the lotto, I would buy it all.”

Outcome: Unanimous approval of the motion to authorize WCPARC staff to initiate the necessary due diligence examination of the Washtenaw County portion of the Trolz property, including preparation of a survey, environmental site assessment, and if justified, a sales offer, contingent upon development of an acceptable participation agreement with the Michigan DNR. All items subject to review and final approval by the WCPARC

East County Recreation Center

About a year ago, the county parks & recreation commission announced plans to explore a possible new recreation center for the eastern side of Washtenaw County. The 12-acre site is located within Ypsilanti’s Water Street area, on the south side of Michigan Avenue just east of downtown and next to the Huron River.

At WCPARC’s Nov. 13 meeting, director Bob Tetens began the discussion by reviewing the project’s background, including a letter of intent signed earlier this year with the city of Ypsilanti for WCPARC to carry out preliminary planning. The concept is that Washtenaw County would pay for the building, while Ypsilanti would donate the land and the Ann Arbor YMCA would operate the facility. Tetens further explained that the design team, WCPARC staff and YMCA president Cathi Duchon had visited several rec building around the state to get ideas. [See Chronicle coverage: "More Planning for Rec Center in Ypsilanti." Information about the project is also posted on the county’s parks and recreation website and on the PLY Architecture site.]

Tetens introduced Craig Borum, a professor of architecture at the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning (TCAUP), who is leading the preliminary design work. Borum used slides and models to illustrate his description of the work that a team of TCAUP faculty and students have done over the last six months to develop both a site plan for the entire 38-acre Water Street redevelopment area, and a design for a recreation center building. The presentation was essentially the same as the Sept. 27, 2012 public forum at SPARK East in Ypsilanti. [See Chronicle coverage: "Public Gives Input on East County Rec Center"]

Borum’s presentation focused on the main qualities of the proposal: that it aimed to provided sustainable urban design; that the rec center would become a catalyst for other development; and that the project would “promote environmental consciousness even after the [rec] building is finished.” The project also is intended to highlight the significance of both the Huron River, which runs along the west side of the site, and of Michigan Avenue, on the north side of the site.

Borum pointed out that the Water Street site was the same size – 38 acres – as all the rest of downtown Ypsilanti, to underline the importance of continuing the sense that you are still in the city when you are on the east side of the Michigan Avenue bridge over the Huron River.

East County Recreation Center: Site Plans, Building Design

Borum presented two possible ways to organize the whole Water Street site: (1) Jeffersonian squares creating a grid, similar to the existing grid in downtown Ypsilanti, of about 12 blocks; or (2) long narrow “French” lots – or ribbons – that would run between the Huron River and Michigan Avenue. The grid scheme would have commercial uses along Michigan Avenue, transitioning to residential uses on the south side, where the Huron River bends to create the southern border of the site. The ribbon scheme creates an extension of River Street as a boulevard connecting Michigan Avenue to the Huron River. Both approaches are urban and emphasize both the river and the canopy of trees that will eventually develop on the site.

Model of a conceptual “canopy” design for a proposed new recreation center near downtown Ypsilanti. It was one of two models displayed at a Sept. 27 open house to get feedback on the proposed project.

Borum tagged the two possible designs for the recreation building itself as the “storefront” and the “canopy.” The “storefront” would be narrow and long, presenting its face on Michigan Avenue almost like the downtown buildings west of the river and running along the river. The exterior of the building would be “frit glass,” which Borum explained was glass embedded with ceramic bits that could create whatever image the owner desired. His slides showed the glass “fritted” to resemble the façades of a few typical downtown Ypsilanti buildings.

The “canopy” building design had a completely clear glass exterior, so that “you would feel you were under the canopy in a park,” Borum said. Both designs had similar amounts of space devoted to the several activities in the rec building: a reception desk, running track, exercise and meeting rooms, a two-part indoor pool with cool-water lanes for lap-swimmers, and a warm-water pool with a graded entry area suitable for children and those who need assistance such as a walker or chair.

East County Recreation Center: Commission Discussion

Commission member Jan Anschuetz commented that the use of glass for natural interior illumination was similar to the architectural style of early Ypsilanti buildings. She specifically cited the Woodruff School, which was built before there was electricity. Borum replied that the interior sketches in his presentation showed the spaces as they would be when lit by natural light.

Anschuetz commented on the “canopy” design by saying that “this one is very unpopular – people feel it is ugly.” She was referring to comments she had seen on Facebook. She noted that many people in Ypsilanti have spent a lot of money restoring their houses, and even have restored city hall. “We have to be sensitive about why people live in Ypsilanti,” Anschuetz said. “We want to have a rec center, but you have to be very careful with this. People don’t like this one [the canopy design] at all. Many neighborhood groups are strongly opposed.”

WCPARC commission chair Bob Marans responded by saying that the UM team led by Borum is not designing the building – these are conceptual ideas. “Once we get the funding, we will hire someone to design it,” he said. Anschuetz repeated her objections to the “canopy” design, concluding, “The strength of our community is in restoration.” Borum noted that feedback from the public presentation in September showed that the canopy design was ahead with perhaps 80% of the votes that were submitted by the public. WCPARC planner Meghan Bonfiglio spoke in agreement.

Commission member Fred Veigel asked whether Borum had considered translucent panels on the roof. Borum said he had, but that “the payoff on solar is long, about 30 years now. It will get better down the road. The 30-year payback includes the cost of equipment and installation.”

Anschuetz asked Tetens why the project contemplated having the Ann Arbor YMCA operate the facility. Tetens answered that WCPARC can’t afford to both build and operate it, because at the start there will not be a lot of members. He added that the Y has decades of experience running an urban rec center.

Commissioner Barbara Bergman asked for confirmation that the Y was “willing to take the financial risk.” Yes, Tetens replied. Bergman than inquired, “How is the [Ypsilanti] city government responding to this?” Tetens said there is some concern, but the Water Street property – which is owned by the city – hasn’t been on the tax rolls for years. The site also is in the floodplain, and “the valuable property is at the corner of Michigan and River Street” – not where the rec center would be located.

Tetens then segued into a related matter: How the Border-to-Border Trail (B2B) would cross Michigan Avenue. He said he had just gotten word that WCPARC’s application for funding from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources had scored very high, “so we are likely to get it.”

Discussion closed with Anschuetz’ comment that the September rec center presentation was “wonderful.” There had been standing room only, she said. Borum promised to provide booklets on the presentation to commission members, and Tetens said the Ypsilanti city council would get briefed in November or December. “We have until July 2013 to come to agreement,” he said, based on terms outlined in the letter of intent with the city of Ypsilanti.

Outcome: This was an item for discussion only, with no vote required.

Conservation Easements

During their Nov. 13 meeting, commissioners approved several new conservation easements that will protect land through the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP). A conservation easement is a legally enforceable agreement – between a landowner and a government agency or a land trust – for the purpose of conservation. The purchase of development rights (PDR) is a common mechanism for protecting undeveloped land by letting owners keep their property for farming or other specified uses but preventing its development. Development is prevented through a conservation easement.

WCPARC contracts with the nonprofit Legacy Land Conservancy (LLC) for work on conservation easements like the ones discussed during the November meeting. Susan Lackey, the conservancy’s executive director, and Robin Burke, the LLC land protection coordinator, were on hand to brief commissioners about these deals. Commissioners also were provided written reports prepared by WCPARC director Bob Tetens.

Conservation Easements: Bailo Property

The seven parcels in this deal – owned by the Bailo family – are located in Salem Township, covering 213 acres on the north and south sides of Six Mile Road between Dixboro Road and Pontiac Trail. [.pdf map of Bailo property] According to Tetens’ written report, the acquisition of development rights by WCPARC “would compensate the landowner for the cost of development rights, would establish an agricultural conservation agreement between the landowner and WCPARC to keep the land in agriculture in perpetuity, and would maintain the private ownership of the land.” An appraisal by Bosserd Appraisal Services identified a value of development rights of approximately $430,000. To facilitate this purchase of development rights, the report continued, WCPARC had received a grant of $203,840 from the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP).

Lackey noted that the property has been in the Bailo family for 80 years. It’s a valuable parcel because of the woodland (with a harness track in the middle) that is relatively intact, with a wetland that drains into the river. Burke showed photos taken from walking through the property, including a 60-acre pumpkin field. She described “high quality woods on the north side, with a vernal pond where there is habitat opportunity for salamanders, toads, and turtles.”

Lackey reported that the phase one environmental survey revealed “nothing scary.” Salem Township, she said, “would contribute paperwork worth $2,000.” That comment brought a simultaneous response from Janis Bobrin and Barbara Bergman: “Is that all?” Tetens added that Salem Township had done the application for FRPP funding, and “as time goes on, that participation will grow.”

Commissioner Jimmie Maggard asked whether WCPARC would own this land. Lackey explained that the county would hold a conservation easement, so that the land is protected and can’t be built on. However, the property would be owned by the private landowner, who will continue to pay taxes. She noted that it’s part of a farmland protection program adopted by the county board of commissioners in May 2010.

Maggard responded that “it seems funny we would put in two to three hundred thousand dollars and the land will just sit there.” Bergman pushed back: “There is a legacy for the citizens in the future. We are buying beauty.” Bobrin joined in: “The commissioners and the community place a value on knowing that farming will continue. Without this, the incentive to sell for development is a danger.”

Commissioner Fred Veigel raised a different concern, asking “Is it too late to get a separate appraisal, from another group?“ Lackey responded, “This appraisal was done for the county. I was surprised at how low it was for this location. I had expected it to be twice that.” Bergman added, “This is the time to do it.”

Outcome: The motion to accept the recommendation to authorize final approval to purchase the development rights on the Bailo property at a price of $430,000, with $203,840 to be reimbursed by the FRPP, passed with dissent by Jimmie Maggard.

Conservation Easement: Drake Property

This item had received preliminary approval at the September 2012 WCPARC meeting. The Drake property is 124 acres in Lodi Township on the south side of Waters Road. [.pdf map of Drake property] Preservation of the property is “a high priority for both the Ann Arbor Greenbelt and Lodi Township. A collaborative or partnership approach is proposed,” according to Tetens’ written report. The Ann Arbor greenbelt program would contribute 80% of the price of the conservation easement, or $439,456. WCPARC’s natural areas preservation program would contribute 20%, or $109,864. Lodi Township is contributing $1,000.

The Ann Arbor city council had approved the greenbelt contribution at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

Tom Freeman, former deputy director of WCPARC now serving as a consultant, highlighted that the Drake property is one of the few remaining dairy farms in the county. Of the acres under consideration for the conservation easement, about half are farmed and half are natural. The property contains a high quality woodlot and wetland, and has been “well-managed from a forestry standpoint,” Freeman said. There is a “diversity of trees in age, with a clean understory,” he said.

There was no discussion among commissioners.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the Drake conservation easement was unanimously approved at $109,864.

Conservation Easement: Hornback Property

This conservation easement would be for 73 acres in Salem Township at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt, on the east side of Pontiac Trail extending due east and widening to the south to meet Brookville Road, according to Tetens’ written report. The property contains a mature woodlots and wetland areas, with about 30% of the property used for farming. The owners want to retain five acres for a future home site. [.pdf map of Hornback property] WCPARC gave initial approval to this deal at their September 2012 meeting.

Consultant Tom Freeman noted that like the Drake property, the Hornback land was nominated by the Ann Arbor greenbelt for a conservation easement. He was impressed with both the quality of the property and with the partnership being offered: 20% of the cost would come from Salem Township ($64,200), 20% from the county’s NAPP program ($64,200), and 50% from the Ann Arbor greenbelt program ($160,500). The final 10% would come from the property owners, who offer a 10% reduction in the price of the conservation easement.

An appraisal by Williams & Associates put the value of a conservation easement at $321,000, or $4,400 an acre. Mannik & Smith Group did a phase I environmental assessment, and there is a boundary survey including legal description and sealed survey drawing.

Outcome: There was no discussion. A roll call vote was unanimously in support of the recommendation to commit $64,200 toward the purchase of a conservation easement on 73 acres of the Hornback property.

NAPP Acquisition: Ford Road Property

This proposal had been on the agenda for the October meeting, which was cancelled for lack of a quorum. There are three parcels totaling 147 acres in the northeast portion of Superior Township. The proposal before WCPARC was the purchase the northern two parcels – 65 acres – for $500,000. Bosserd Appraisal Services established this value. [.pdf map of Ford Road property]

The property lies north of Ford Road on the east side of Berry Road, just south of Superior Township’s Schroeter Park, which can provide both parking and a trail into the Ford Road land. Tom Freeman presented information about the site, saying that Superior Township has wanted it for some time but is financially unable to acquire it. He pointed to a survey conducted in 1992 by Ellen Weatherbee, who had described the property in glowing terms, noting the high quality of its plant life and stating that it was one of the highest quality pieces of property in the township.

Freeman described the “dramatic contour lines and heavy woods, comprised of red and white oaks, along with a small area of hardwood swamp filled with red maples. A perennial stream cuts through a steeply sloped topography,” part of the River Rouge headwaters.

The county’s natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC) identified this as a high priority property for acquisition. The relatively high price of $7,692 per acre is due to the property’s proximity to residential development and the Lucas nursery, Freeman explained. This price, he added, is consistent with what NAPP paid for other property in Superior Township: about $8,000 per acre for the J.A. Bloch property on Prospect Road [for the Meyer Preserve], and comparable to the Pellerito property on the southeast corner of Prospect and Cherry Hill Roads.

There was no commission discussion on this item.

Outcome: Unanimous approval to authorize preparation of a purchase offer for the northern portion, 65 acres, of the Ford Road Property LLC at a price of $500,000, contingent upon completion of all necessary due diligence examination of the property and the commission’s final approval.

Rolling Hills Contract Change

WCPARC deputy director Coy Vaughn reported on the Rolling Hills master plan, with the most recent work being on the ring road and trails.

In addition to reporting on completion of phase I, Vaughn asked for approval of change orders to the contract with Dan’s Excavating – for an additional $328,123, or about 10.5% of the original contract for $3.121 million. With the change order, the total contract amount now comes to $3,449,373.

Of the added expenses in the change orders, Vaughn said, 80% were “advancing the capital improvements program.” WCPARC director Bob Tetens added that the biggest changes were in the width of the road, and storm water management. This was, he said, the final change order.

Tetens’ written memo to commissioners listed seven additions to the work and cited several unforeseen unfavorable site conditions, including “multiple areas of heavy clay soils within the storm water management features” and “areas disturbed by Detroit Edison’s crew installing underground electrical service.” The report concluded that “Dan’s will continue to maintain the seeded landscape areas…and are responsible for replacement/repair of deficient items during the warranty period….In general terms, the project is now complete.”

There was no substantive discussion among commissioners on this item.

Outcome: The commission gave unanimous approval to a one-time change order of $328,123, based on the overall work performance of Dan’s Excavating Inc., and their ability to complete the project elements on schedule. The vote also established a final total contract value of $3,449,373 to complete the Rolling Hills Phase I master plan.

Financial Reports

The November meeting included written financial reports covering two months, since WCPARC’s October meeting had been cancelled.

Financial Reports: Claims

The commission received two claims reports: for October and November 2012. In October, a total of $651,872 claims were paid: $647,944 on parks and facilities’ operation and improvements (of which $412,596.24 was for capital improvements primarily at Independence Lake parks); and $3,928 for NAPP acquisition and management. [.pdf of October claims]

In November, a total of $1,890,407 in claims were paid: $1,804,792 on parks and facilities’ operation and improvements (of which $1,266,293 was for capital improvements at the Meri Lou Murray Center, Rolling Hills, and Independence Lake parks); and 400,000 for funding partnerships, primarily for the Border-to-Border Trail in Dexter. [.pdf of November claims]

Outcome: The commission approved payment of claims in the amounts above, which for the two months totaled $2,542,279.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance Statements

Two financial reports were provided – for the months of September and October. Neither required approval, and neither generated comments or questions. [.pdf of fund balance statement through Sept. 30, 2012] [.pdf of fund balance statement through Oct. 31, 2012]

Recreation Reports

WCPARC director Bob Tetens highlighted the increase in rounds at the Pierce Lake golf course, which as of the end of October 2012 were 19,246, up 31% from the previous year’s 14,677, in spite of the heat this year. [The number was up only 7% from 17,926 rounds in 2010]. Revenues for all operations at Pierce Lake were $613,449, up 21% from $508,437 in 2011; but an increase of 17% from $523,869 in 2010.

Tetens also underlined the effect of the warmer-than-usual year on attendance at the Meri Lou Murray Rec Center. In the last three years, 2010 through 2012, attendance was 281,326; 282,669; and 268,978. Revenues for those three years were $977,986; $1,006,356; and $997,406. So even though attendance was 12,348 less in 2012 than in 2010, revenues increased $19,420 from 2010 to 2012.

Independence Lake County Park gate attendance (and total revenue) through October was 17,743 ($211,458) in 2012; 16,968 ($209,427) in 2011; and 16,842 ($201,458) in 2010.

Rolling Hills County Park’s numbers are more complex, because there are two different admission counts and charges: just to use the park; and to use the water park. Attendance at the park (and revenue) was 34,288 ($265,617) in 2012; 34,816 ($266,930) in 2011; and 33,583 ($258,910) in 2010. Attendance at the water park dwarfed that at the rest of the park: 114,522 ($780,122) in 2012; 115,012 ($780,995) in 2011; and 113,635 ($761,453) in 2010. Total revenue at Rolling Hills – which has rental facilities, food concessions, and winter operations exceeding those of the other parks – was $1,317,900 in 2012; $1,310,255 in 2011; and $1,247,549 in 2010.

Recreation Reports: Development Projects

Tetens reported that the spray-and-play zone at Independence Lake is about 80% complete for the building, spray zone, landscaping, and electrical service. TriMedia was hired to update the sewage pump system serving the beach center.

At Rolling Hills, the water park expansion is well underway, with the block structure for the bathhouse building nearly done and underground utility piping and storm water piping complete. The improvement in both parks will be done and ready for opening on Memorial Day 2013. Tetens predicted that 2013 “will be a remarkable year for us,” with these two huge improvements.

At the County Farm Park, paving work and site restoration is nearing completion for the pathway from Washtenaw Avenue to the Platt Road pavilion, creating what Tetens called “a new front door.” He reassured commissioner Fred Veigel that “all the dead trees have been taken out.”

At Sharon Mills Park, replacement of the pedestrian bridge adjacent to the millpond dam with a new, prefab steel truss bridge is in progress.

Recreation Reports: Border-to-Border (B2B) Trail

The Border-to-Border (B2B) Trail continues to be built at Dexter’s River Terrace. The boardwalk sections are nearly finished and asphalt paving is underway. Staff also erected blazes on the B2B in Ann Arbor from Fuller Road to the Argo Cascades.

In Ypsilanti, city staff revised the application to the state DNR to extend the B2B into the Water Street redevelopment area, with WCPARC financial support. That application is under review.

Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP) Update

Several updates were given in a written report presented to commissioners.

Acquiring natural areas requires several steps, and after acquisition they must be maintained. To assist acquisition, a baseline environmental assessment was done for the Baker property purchased in Lima Township and sent to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality. WCPARC staff also made site visits to properties under consideration in Manchester, Freedom and Salem townships; and WCPARC forwarded the title search and a revised phase 1 environmental assessment for the Arbor Vistas project to the state DNR.

Staff also received a schedule for constructing a boardwalk in the Draper-Houston preserve; engaged a contractor to build a parking lot and observation decks for the Trinkle Marsh at Easton Farm preserve and another to construct boardwalks and bridges through the wetlands of the Spike Preserve; continued to remove invasive species, especially invasive shrubs, from parks and preserves; and began to develop management plans for Scio Woods and West Lake preserves, as well as a low-impact wayfinding system for all NAPP preserves.

Commission Changes

As business drew to a close, commission member Jimmie Maggard announced, “As of today, this will be my last meeting.” He said he was resigning from the commission after 24 years, and has other projects in the works in Ypsilanti Township.

Jimmie Maggard at the Nov. 13 meeting of the county parks & recreation commission. (Photo by M. Leary.)

President Bob Marans expressed surprise and said, “I am sorry to see you go, and I appreciate your contributions.” When Fred Veigel proposed that the commission present Maggard with a plaque to commemorate his service, Maggard replied: “I just want my golf course pass.”

Maggard then thanked his colleagues on the commission. “We’ve always been on the same level, always thinking about the citizens, what we can do for them, keeping the parks clean. We’ve had Bob [Tetens] for quite a while now and he’s done a great job.”  Maggard said Tetens was leading them in the right direction. He also praised the transition when Coy Vaughn was promoted to succeed Tom Freeman as deputy director. “I want to thank everybody,” Maggard concluded. “I’ll change my resignation to the end of the year.”

Commission member Barbara Bergman chimed in to say, “The next meeting will be my last. [She did not seek re-election to the county board of commissioners, the reason for her seat on WCPARC.] I hope to remain on the mental health board. Hopefully there will be one slot that the chair can appoint and I hope it will be Janis [Bobrin, who is retiring as county water resources commissioner – position that entitled her to a seat on WCPARC. Evan Pratt, newly elected water resources commissioner, will take that place]. As much as I love WCPARC, this spot belongs to Janis. I haven’t,” she added, “been here long enough to get a cake.”

Present: President Robert Marans, vice president Patricia Scribner, secretary/treasurer Nelson Meade, Jan Anschuetz, Barbara Bergman, Janis Bobrin, Jimmie Maggard, Dan Smith, and Fred Veigel.
Absent: Rolland Sizemore, Jr.

WCPARC staff: Director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, planner Megan Bonfiglio, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Legal Legacy Land Conservancy: Executive director Susan Lackey and land protection coordinator Robin Burke.

Next regular WCPARC meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012 at 7 p.m. at the parks and recreation commission administrative offices, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. 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!

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!