Ann Arbor officials won't put city parkland charter amendment on November ballot
The Ann Arbor City Council heeded the advice of its citizen-led Park Advisory Commission Thursday night and decided against putting a city charter amendment on the November ballot.
Council Member Jane Lumm, the primary sponsor of the defeated proposal, was pushing for an amendment to put new restrictions on repurposing city parkland.
Specifically, she wanted the charter to go a step further to say that longterm repurposing of city parkland requires a vote of the public. Right now a public vote is required only if parkland is actually sold.
Council Member Jane Lumm was pushing for a city charter amendment to put new restrictions on repurposing city parkland but failed to win support.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
After voting down Lumm's proposal, the council unanimously approved putting the city's parks millage on the November ballot for renewal. The parks millage is a six-year property tax levy of 1.1 mills that was last approved by Ann Arbor voters with 60 percent of the vote in November 2006.
According to information provided by Parks Manager Colin Smith, the millage costs the average homeowner $117 a year and would raise more than $5 million in the first year if renewed.
Mayor John Hieftje and other council members pushed for postponement of Lumm's charter amendment regarding parkland at the last council meeting to give PAC a chance to weigh in first.
PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand said the commission met on Wednesday afternoon and unanimously decided Lumm's proposal wasn't a good idea.
She said the commissioners clearly support city parks, but they felt the language in the proposed charter amendment did not match the intent of providing additional protection.
"Instead, there were a number of concerns about the process, uncertainty of the language and unintended consequences of the proposed amendment," Grand said. "We take amending the city charter seriously and did not feel that the proposed amendment was ready."
Grand said PAC will have a retreat in the coming months and it's her hope that a subcommittee can continue to look at the issue of how to effectively protect parkland. Grand wasn't at Thursday's meeting, but Commissioner Alan Jackson appeared before council members to formally represent PAC's position.
"We do think that stricter restrictions on the use of parkland is certainly worth careful consideration," Jackson said. "We think the process of drafting the ballot language was unnecessarily hasty. We think that a more careful process is likely to yield more predictable results."
But he said some question the need for a remedy when "none of these egregious transfers" of city parkland for non-park uses have occurred.
Jackson said PAC also believed there would be a number of gray areas where what constitutes a "non-park" or "non-recreational" use, as worded in the charter amendment, would be left up to interpretation.
"We think there is some potential that the city's exposure to litigation could be increased by this charter amendment," he added.
Nancy Shiffler, chairwoman of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club, lobbied the council to approve the charter amendment Thursday night.
"This proposed amendment can't anticipate every proposal that might come before council, but it's sets the framework for a constructive discussion and citizen involvement in what happens with parkland," she said. "I urge you to put this proposal before the voters and let them weigh in."
Shiffler said a fundamental question has been raised by the city's proposal to build a new Amtrak train station on city parkland on Fuller Road.
"That fundamental question being: Does the City Council have the authority to change city parkland to some other use through long-term leases, agreements, contracts or some re-designation?" she asked.
Anglin, D-5th Ward, made clear the charter amendment was at least in part an effort to give voters a chance to weigh in on building a new train station on Fuller Road.
"And it could be, quite simply, that the voters will say 'we approve.' With that being said, it moves forward," Anglin said.
Hieftje repeatedly has argued that although the piece of property on Fuller Road is technically city parkland, it has been a surface parking lot leased to the University of Michigan since 1993.
Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said it's disingenuous to say the parkland that would be lost is no more than a parking lot, though. He recalled it was a soccer field in the 1980s.
"I know that the mayor in the past has made campaign pledges to add additional soccer fields in our community," he said, suggesting it could go back to being one.
Council Member Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, said she thought it was important for the council to honor the group of citizen volunteers who serve on PAC by listening to their advice.
Smith said the current council has a good track record when it comes to protecting parks and she has full faith that future councils will be good stewards as well.
"Since 2000, we have added 151 acres to our parks system and we have not lost a single acre, nor has it been disposed of or otherwise repurposed," she said. "Since 2007, we've added 44.5 acres. And just this year, we've added 10 acres to our system, so I think that's a pretty good record of being park stewards."
Lumm made references to what she described as "loopholes" in the 2008 charter amendment that added the requirement of voter approval for sale of parkland.
"While the 2008 charter change prohibited sale of parkland without the prior approval of voters, it did not address mechanisms other than a sale, such as lease or longterm contracts," Lumm said. "That could result in the very outcome the 2008 amendment was trying to prevent: Converting parkland to a non-park or a non-recreation use without the approval of residents."
Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, called Lumm's proposal a solution in search of a problem and said it's bad policy. He also said it was flat-out wrong for Lumm to say her proposal closes unintended loopholes since the City Council intentionally deleted references to leases in the 2008 amendment.
"The continued assertion that lease was part of the initiative's intent is, I believe, demonstrably false and its known repetition is simply shocking," he said.
In addition to Fuller Park, Lumm has said she fears the Huron Hills Golf Course, technically a city park, is vulnerable without the further protections offered by her proposed charter amendment.
The city considered a proposal in 2010 to privatize management of the golf course and allow a company called Miles of Golf to build an 11,000-square-foot golf center and driving range on the property. The city ultimately decided against the idea, but it left some nervous.
Hieftje argued the way Lumm's charter amendment proposal is worded right now, it still wouldn't have stopped the city from contracting with Miles of Golf.
"This doesn't do what it says it does," he said.
Hieftje said Ann Arbor has a growing parks system and no steps have been taken to diminish it during his time as mayor.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
OverTaxed
Sun, Aug 12, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.
More Middle Class taxes from the Obama led Democrats, more crooked government from the Ann Arbor city leaders.
warren weeder
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 : 9:02 p.m.
Seems like this is clearly about the proposed fuller station. I just hope we get to vote on that. Cant wait to also vote out whoever supports the fuller station.
DJBudSonic
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
I've sat in on enough committee and commission meetings to see that it is really a small group of pro-Heiftje appointees that run this town. You would not believe the conversations I have heard before and after these 'open meetings act compliant' sessions. Just go to the city's website and look up all the different groups and see how many names are common to multiple groups, it explains it all. Did anyone really think that sending this to the PAC for review would have any different result? It is analogous to money laundering, it is policy laundering, intended to give pre-determined actions an air of legitimacy.
golfer
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.
what did you expect. the mayor appointed them. what else would they say. just like Washington. keep your hands off the parks. you saw what the last election did. wait until the next..
Tom
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.
I'm glad the obstructionists had yet another defeat. Fuller road station will happen, it's only a matter of when.
LXIX
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
Aug 10, 2022 A2com reported today that the United States President will be on hand in Ann Arbor for the grand opening ceremony of the city's long awaited Fuller Road Station. The city's previous Mayor originally envisioned the station as being a transportation gateway. It will instead apply the latest in rail-gun technology to loft eager space tourists up the now vacant UM hostpial hillside into low earth orbit. The station is widely considered to be yet another great national accomplishment among the many that have originated in that quiet little Midwestern town of parks and trees.
xmo
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.
All of this discussion over the new Hieftje Regional Transportation Center! Just let the Mayor and his "Groupies" decide what is best for us Ignorant voters! After all, They are Progressives!
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.
This is the same PAC that decided it's suitable to charge $167 per game for use of a city baseball field.
davecj
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
So the PAC, which is completely made up off Heftje appointees, voted with the mayor! How coincidental!
golfer
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.
games and more games being played. got to vote them out.
Brad
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
Add in that it happened the day after the election and you get the "trifecta of transparency".
Stephen Landes
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.
Fear not, the Mayor's majority on Council is soon to be history. With that change we can get people on the parkland commission who actually care about what the citizens of Ann Arbor want, not just what the Mayor's power block wants. Question: is there a direct way for citizens to put a charter amendment on the ballot? MUST we go through council and its minions to get this done?
RUKiddingMe
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.
"none of these egregious transfers" of city parkland for non-park uses have occurred." Well, once was certainly ABOUT to occur, wasn't it? Didn't they spend MILLIONS of dollars preparing this site for the parking structure, which was to eventually beomce a new train station as well. This whole group of entrenched management has been there too long; they are all either corrupt or complacent. We need a serious clean sweep. By the way, I encourage residents to wander around the justice center and Larcom, just take note of how much sitting around you see. City management is WAAAAYYY overstaffed. How much office space do you really think is required to runa tiny tiny city the size of Ann Arbor? This is what happens when they can keep getting more money whenever they want. You all DO know they added to the Public Art staff, right?
RUKiddingMe
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
"I know that the mayor in the past has made campaign pledges to add additional soccer fields in our community," Hmm. I wonder what that fencing off of those huge multiple soccer fields was all about. Before that happened, I saw people out there playing soccer about 3 times per week. After they re-sodded everything and fenced/locked it all in, I very rarely see it being used. Wonder what kind of payoff we got from that.
LXIX
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
Those are pre-pay soccer fields? I thought they were quarentine pens being leased to the UM. Or holding areas for the overly-inebriated football fans.. Well, in that case I don't imagine the million plus was ever recouped.
Veracity
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
The Park Advisory Commission (PAC) chairwoman Julie Grand said that the PAC rejected the parks amendment to the City Charter because "... there were a number of concerns about the process, uncertainty of the language and unintended consequences of the proposed amendment." However, Ms. Grand did not clarify exactly what process concerns or uncertainty of language or unintended consequences were present in the amendment. As an "advisory commission", the PAC did not advise Jane Lumm or the City Council on how to resolve process uncertainties or how to correct the language or how to avoid unintended consequences. In this regard the PAC failed at its job. I would encourage Jane Lumm and other City Council members to consult with Julie Grand and other members of the PAC about altering the amendment so that it will be acceptable to the PAC and can be placed on a future ballot. In hindsight, such consultation prior to submitting the amendment to City Council might have assured a better reception.
Ron Granger
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.
The council can no longer be trusted with our park land. How many signatures does the public need to force this on the ballot?
Brad
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
Note to mayor and council: If the people trusted you this wouldn't even be an issue. And the PAC meets and unanimously rejects it ONE DAY after the election. Just more of that "Heiftje bloc" transparency.
golfer
Sat, Aug 11, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.
they are his people. what did you expect. they waited until the right movement. gee did not even last a week before they came out. CROOKS.
63Townie
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
Lumm had a novel idea, giving the voters a say in what our tax dollars should do.
LXIX
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
PAC "none of these egregious transfers" of city parkland for non-park uses have occurred. True - the UM does not lease parkland for non-park use. Strictly to "park". True - Huron Hills lease never ever happened. Sounds like the delay was used to pick apart PAC - Make dem an offa dey canna refuse.
Larry Baird
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
"Council Member Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, called Lumm's proposal a solution in search of a problem and said it's bad policy." Well, the problem goes back much farther than either the Huron Hills or the Fuller Park(ing) Structure/Train Station examples. Case in point - Ann Arbor's first municipal golf course, Island Park Municipal Golf Course covered an area including both Fuller Park and Mitchell Field (Mitchell Field was once owned by the city). Fuller Park and Mitchell Field had better pedestrian connectivity back then thanks to a suspension bridge (The Swinging Bridge) connecting the two sides of the golf course (Fuller to Mitchell). Also, a small vehicle bridge existed (The Sunken Bridge) connecting the Arb to Mitchell Field. Since the U took possession of Mitchell Field, the pedestrian bridges in this vital section along the river and border-to-border trail have been lost and never replaced. More recently, the utilities work at Fuller Park., ripped up the sidewalks and fields on the south side of Fuller Rd. making pedestrian crossing more difficult. So , what was once a green river valley, spanning both Fuller Park and Mitchell Field has now on the south side of Fuller Rd., become one large extended surface parking lot for hospital employees - hardly a recreational/parks usage. I wonder what Eli Gallup, Ann Arbor's first parks supervisor would think if he drove down Fuller Rd. today?
Basic Bob
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
They just approved a charter amendment, now in the first application they don't like it. So they want to rush through an ill-prepared charter amendment to replace the first one. Take your time and get it right, or don't do it. They like to drag in the future of Huron Hills into the argument, which is a valid concern. But the real issue is the future of a gravel parking lot. When the city terminates their agreement with the hospital and starts picking stones out of the so-called park, I might begin to recognize it a park. Until then I will call it a parking lot, no different from many other city-owned parcels which are used for parking cars.
jcj
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 12:14 p.m.
Just what we need more parkland we can let go to weeds and mow once a summer! City council thought they were untouchable. Too bad the dictators didn't decide on this BEFORE Tue! We could have really cleaned house.
DNB
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
Yes, too bad they didn't vote on this before the primary...I wonder why?! It sure would have made a difference, especially in our 4th ward, where only 18 votes gave Margie her very comfortable seat on council.
KJMClark
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
Maybe they should have worded the amendment to say "City park land shall only be used for purposes of recreation or natural area preservation, or uses necessary to support recreation or natural area preservation." We probably shouldn't be in the business of providing parkland for UM parking lots. But that mistake was made back in the "gas will always be cheap" early 90s, under a previous Mayor and Council. If that location is best used as a parking lot, maybe we should arrange a land swap with the University for parkland somewhere else. The University certainly has enough land. If we use the Fuller parkland for a train station, it's probably reasonable to buy/dedicate land somewhere else in the city as new parkland to replace that property.
Mike
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.
The government should not be in the business of removing land from the tax roles and buying public land. They can't even do what they are supposed to do like supply police, fire, and goos schools. This money could be spent elsewhere. I'm sure it will pass again and all will cry that we need more money for the items I mentioned above.
Ron Granger
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.
This town likes their parks. A Lot! There are plenty of towns that share your view regarding parks. Have you checked any out?
a2grateful
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 11:30 a.m.
Regarding issue two: replace Tony D's name with Christopher T. . . Also, if issue two passes will the city refund the $2 million surplus it has already legislatively diverted to art from the other dedicated millages? (This figure does not include past expenditures.)
a2grateful
Fri, Aug 10, 2012 : 10:37 a.m.
Juxtapose two ballot issues: Issue one: Voter-approved and citizen-led initiatives to protect and preserve use of parkland for intended purpose. . . Zero priority for mayor and crony council. . . There is not enough time to "achieve efficacy against our crookedness. Even if you reword it, we'll still do whatever we want with your parkland." Issue two: Tony D's new public art millage proposal: Fast-track folly hitting the agenda before council even had a chance to read it. . . "And we have plenty of time to work it out any details so language will appear on the November ballot." Who is surprised?