Park Advisory Commission set to discuss city charter amendment at special meeting
The future of Ann Arbor parks will be a major topic when the Park Advisory Commission holds a special meeting Aug. 8 to discuss a city charter amendment.
City Council Member Jane Lumm and others are pushing for an amendment to put new restrictions on repurposing city parkland.
Specifically, they want the charter to go a step further to say that longterm repurposing of city parkland requires a vote of the public.
The Huron Hills Golf Course is a city park property that some are nervous could be repurposed without a public vote in the future.
File photo
The City Council must first vote to put the issue on the ballot, and then voters will be able to decide whether the charter should be amended.
Mayor John Hieftje and other council members pushed for postponement of the amendment's consideration at the last council meeting to give PAC a chance to weigh in first.
Supporters of the charter amendment, who wanted a vote on the issue just before the Aug. 7 primary without input from PAC, were accused of a "poorly disguised political stunt." People on both sides of the issue are anxiously waiting to hear what PAC has to say about the issue now.
PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand said the main portion of the Aug. 8 meeting will start at 3:30 p.m. in the council chambers inside city hall.
"We will offer time for public comment at both the beginning and the end of the meeting to allow flexibility for those who also wish to attend the North Main task force meeting," she said.
Before the main portion of the meeting, PAC's land acquisition committee will meet at 3 p.m. in the council workroom. Grand said most of that portion of the meeting likely will be in closed session while the committee discusses potential acquisitions.
Following input from PAC at the Aug. 8 meeting, the issue is expected to quickly go back to the City Council for consideration at 7 p.m. Aug. 9.
If the council doesn't vote on the issue on Aug. 9, it still could act at its second meeting in August in time to place the issue on the November ballot.
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
Sabra C Briere
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
The proposed charter amendment states: " The City shall not sell [already in the charter], lease, or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long-term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the City voting on the question at a regular or special election, any City park, or land in the City acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years." This language would not prevent the City from contracting *long-term* with Miles of Golf to run Huron Hills, change part of it into a driving range, or build a clubhouse on part of it. It also wouldn't stop the City from building a parking structure or train station on Fuller (no sale, no lease, no contract necessary). And to do these things, the City Council would not be legally required to ask the voters first. What would it prevent? It would prevent a long-term lease with an entity like UM to use park land for a non-recreational purpose -- what's called a constructive sale -- without voter approval. But if the UM used the land for a recreational purpose, even only part of the time, voter approval would not be required. And that's the problem. One of the assistant city attorneys advises that too many restrictions would create difficulties with already existing arrangements. I was asked whether I thought Leslie Science Center and Project Grow should have to go before the voters every 5 years. I was asked whether I thought the public market -- a park -- should have to go to the voters to get approval for using the space for the Sunday Artisans' Market (which isn't run by the market staff). These are questions I hope the Parks Advisory Commission can help us address. The goal is clear -- ensure that the City staff and City Council receive voter approval for any use of park land that doesn't benefit public parks. Getting to that goal is the challenge.
Stan Hyne
Tue, Jul 31, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.
I like the thought that any use of park land should benefit public parks. There may be times when it would be a great deal to trade one piece of park land for a larger or more valuable piece of land.
Veracity
Tue, Jul 31, 2012 : 3:38 p.m.
Thank you for the clarification.
1bit
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.
What exactly is a "repurposed park"? Certainly not a park anymore. I'm tired of the City Council treating taxpayer land as if it were their personal property to use as they deem necessary. Yes, I want them to represent us and make decisions but there are limits to what they should be able to do with our parks. If it is important enough, the voters will agree with their proposal but it should always be a high burden on the Council to "repurpose" any park.
Brad
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.
Anybody who doesn't think that the PAC and council could've sorted this out before the election is kidding themselves. It's a stall and a diversion. Talk about "political stunt"!
SonnyDog09
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
A 3:30pm start on a weekday is not very convenient for those of us that have real jobs.
sojourner truth
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 12:36 p.m.
A history lesson: The reason that Jane Lumm is so supportative of the resolution to bring any resolution to repurpose parkland before the voters is that twice the Council has tried surreptiously to use parkland for other purposes. The first and most grievous was when they had marked off part of Huron Hills for development, which jane Lumm discovered and made public, and was blasted for it as a "fear monger" even though she had the documentation to prove that they had indeed thought of selling part of the golf course. When that failed, and a proposal was passed that said that no parkland could be SOLD. the Council came up with an ingenious scheme to"LEASE" the golf course (for a very long term) so Miles of Golf could possibily build their facility on the course. Then came the parking garage fiasco with the University, which the University backed out of, and now the Council is determined to build a new train station on park land which has been leased to the University for years. So it is no wonder that Jane Lumm and many of her constituents want to bring the resolution that to REPURPOSE parkland, it must be brought before the voters. This would secure park land's place in our city. The Council would like to have the option to use the park land as they "see fit", but often they do that before the voters even know what is happening.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 10:39 a.m.
"PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand said the main portion of the Aug. 8 meeting will start at 3:30 p.m. in the council chambers inside city hall." So was the Council chambers booked at 3:30 am? August 8th? I expected nothing less from a group appointed by the Mayor and Council Party.
Bcar
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 10:24 a.m.
Wait, the city council will have to listen to the people??? we're dreaming...
davecj
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 1:37 a.m.
So PAC, a non-elected body, gets to make the recommendation. Every person on PAC was appointed by Heifjte. How fair do we think this 'recommendation' will be?
Veracity
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 4:15 a.m.
Esactly!
JRW
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 12:02 a.m.
Leave the parks alone. They are fine. NO takeovers. "Grand said most of that portion of the meeting likely will be in closed session while the committee discusses potential acquisitions." Acquisitions????
Linda Peck
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.
I will support people who support this proposal to protect our parks from takeovers. I will not support people who do not, or who say they will not protect them. I sure hope we have the candidate in ward 5 who will do this for us.
packman
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
@DogGuy - Are you talking about King John or King Barack? Thank goodness King John and CC can't print money.
Veracity
Mon, Jul 30, 2012 : 4:11 a.m.
I believe the referral is to John Hieftje. President Obama can not print money and all monetary bills must originate in the House of Representatives, if you check the Constitution.
golfer
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.
city council keep you noses out of the parks. you have messed up enough do not start messing up the parks. they are fine and a big part of ann arbor.
Rita Mitchell
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.
It is good that Council determined that a resolution regarding protection of park land be reviewed by PAC prior to consideration by Council. Attention to process, and involving the relevant city Commission in this way, should be the established norm from now on. A reason to proceed with the resolution is to protect park land from predetermined decisions for non-park use of park land that do not involve actual sale of the land. As an example, the City and the University agreed to build a 1,000 car parking structure in Fuller Park and developed concept plan under a Memorandum of Understanding (not a sale), without any prior discussion with PAC. We have the chance to avoid setting a precedent that allows park land to be used for non-park purposes, like a parking structure. The parking structure in Fuller Park was narrowly averted, and possibly only temporarily. Right now any park will be at risk for similar re-purposing without the requirement of greater public decision making. The proposed resolution will allow Ann Arbor voters to determine whether to modify the narrow protection of SALE of park land that exists today, to a broader protection that will be activated for any proposed park land will be sale, lease or non-park use. It's a good idea.
Dog Guy
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
This attempt to restrict the boss shall fail. Even if this proposal passes, he might use executive orders, stonewall by claiming executive privilege over data and documents, simply ignore it on lack-of-advice by the city attorney, or refuse allow it to be enforced. Our indomitable boss shall prevail.
Brad
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.
"Following input from PAC at the Aug. 8 meeting, the issue is expected to quickly go back to the City Council for consideration at 7 p.m. Aug. 9." As quickly AFTER the election as they could. They sure wouldn't want to go on record about anything before that, would they? Remember on the 7th!