The entrance to Washtenaw County's DeVine Preserve on West Liberty Road in Scio Township, part of the natural areas preservation program. It is adjacent to other property that the county parks and recreation commission might buy with NAPP millage proceeds. (Photos by the writer.)

Much of the discussion related to NAPP, including a proposed ordinance change to increase the proportion of funds that can be used for maintaining (as opposed to purchasing) property for natural areas or land preserves. The change would allow the county to set aside up to 25% of annual millage proceeds for stewardship, a significant increase from the 7% currently allowed under the NAPP ordinance. NAPP is funded by a 10-year, 0.25 mill tax that voters first approved in 2000 and renewed in 2010. It generates about $3.2 million in annual revenues.

Commissioners authorized staff to pursue the NAPP ordinance change, which would need to be approved by the county board of commissioners. A June 7 board working session is scheduled on the topic. If approved, WCPARC staff estimate they could set aside enough to build a $6 million fund by 2020, when the current NAPP millage ends.

The commission also approved two new NAPP purchases: (1) $75,000 for the Malikah Muhammad property, 20 acres in Scio Township adjacent to the county’s existing DeVine Preserve; and (2) $245,250 for 33 acres in Northfield  Township owned by J.A. Bloch, contingent on partnering with the Ann Arbor greenbelt program for a portion of the cost.

Related to a project on the east side of the county, commissioners approved a $10,000 payment toward planning for the Eastern County Recreation Center on Ypsilanti’s Water Street site. WCPARC had been briefed on the project at its April 2012 meeting. The planning will be guided by faculty at the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, who will lead a team of six students in developing a conceptual plan for the rec center by the end of December. A grant from UM will pick up $30,000 of the estimated $40,000 in planning expenses.

The commission also got updates on a range of projects, including completion of the extensive Malletts Creek bank stabilization at the County Farm Park, and the receipt of bids for design of the Ann Arbor skatepark, which WCPARC is helping to fund.

Natural Areas Preservation: New Purchases

Two proposed new purchases from proceeds of the natural areas preservation program millage had been given preliminary approval by commissioners at earlier meetings. Tom Freeman, recently retired as WCPARC’s associate director and currently serving as a consultant, made reports on the proposed purchases.

Natural Areas Preservation: New Purchases – Malikah Muhammad Property

The first is the Malikah Muhammad property, 20 acres in Scio Township on the north side of Liberty Road west of Zeeb Road. [Stags Leap, a private road that runs south of Liberty, is at approximately the middle of the property.] The natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC) and several WCPARC staff visited the site several times, and on Nov. 8, 2011, NATAC identified the property as a high priority for acquisition.

Freeman described the property’s several significant features. Honey Creek bisects the property from north to south, flowing into the adjacent DeVine Preserve, which forms a dogleg to the east and north of the Muhammad property. The creek banks are in good condition, as is the creek itself, which is filled with very clear high quality water, Freeman reported. And, he said, the adjacency to the DeVine Preserve is an important feature – there is documented presence of a Native American trail close to, if not right on, the property. Freeman showed slides of the property, and commission members received a road map, an aerial photo, and a topographical map of the site.

The three steps required for due diligence are done, Freeman reported: Bosserd Appraisal Service appraised the property at $75,000 ($3,750/acre); Mannik & Smith Group did a Phase 1 environmental site assessment and found no recognized environmental condition on the property; and there is a boundary survey, including a legal description and certified survey drawing. [On Liberty Road, the property can currently be identified by pink survey tapes at the east and west edges.]

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the motion to authorize purchase of the Muhammad property in Scio Township at a price of $75,000 (approximately $3,750 per acre).

Natural Areas Preservation: New Purchases – J.A. Bloch Property

The second recommended property acquisition coming to the commission on the recommendation of NATAC was a property owned by J.A. Bloch & Co., a land development firm based in Southfield. The 33-acre site in Northfield Township is on the north side of Joy Road east of US-23 and west of Gleaner Hall Road. Freeman noted that Joe Bloch, the firm’s owner, was nearing retirement. [As background, WCPARC records show the purchase of at least four other properties from Bloch, including 23 acres in Ann Arbor Township (across Joy Road and slightly to the east of the Northfield Township site) that WCPARC voted to purchase at its April meeting. At that same meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to buy the Northfield Township property, too.]

The Bloch parcel under consideration is primarily in active agricultural use, Freeman said. It has the advantage of lying directly on the east side of the Northfield Woods Preserve. Its most significant natural feature is a stream corridor, which crosses the property from west to east and then continues south along the eastern border. It contains five wetland areas, he said, two of which are associated with the stream corridor.

NATAC’s report noted “the corridor offers a chance to establish a trail connection between Northfield Woods Preserve and a nearby parcel scheduled for purchase later this month,” and that the acquisition of this Bloch property “offers the chance to connect over 100 acres of protected property.” In addition, Freeman said that the area immediately east may become available for a conservation easement. Finally, Freeman said that the Ann Arbor greenbelt program has indicated interest in contributing 25% of the acquisition cost of the Bloch property.

Freeman showed slides of the property, and went over the road, aerial, and topographic maps in the commissioners’ packets.

The three steps in due diligence are done, Freeman reported, at the expense of the property owner. Bosserd Appraisal Services identified a value of $245,250, or approximately $7,500/acre. Freeman noted this is consistent with the price paid for the Bloch parcel on the south side of Joy Road. Mannik & Smith carried out a Phase 1 environmental site assessment and found no recognized environmental condition. There is a boundary survey including legal description and certified survey drawing.

Before the vote, commissioner Dan Smith noted that this section of the county seemed to be the most valuable, and that he represents it. [Smith serves on the county board of commissioners and represents District 2, in the northeast corner of the county]. That prompted commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman – who also serves on the county board, representing one of the four Ann Arbor districts – to joke that “if we buy enough property out there he’ll run out of voters.”

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the motion to authorize purchase of the J.A. Bloch & Co. property in Northfield Township at a price of $245,500, contingent upon execution of a participation agreement with the city of Ann Arbor detailing its contribution to the cost of acquisition.

Natural Areas Preservation: Stewardship Fund

Bob Tetens, county parks and recreation director, introduced this topic by describing his “recurring nightmare” – that WCPARC acquired acres and acres of land to preserve, but then became unable to maintain it. “What if a millage isn’t renewed?” he speculated, or “what if the county commissioners for whatever reason decided not to ask for a millage renewal?” He then turned the podium over to Tom Freeman to describe the proposed solution: creating a fund that could function like an endowment to support maintenance of the county’s natural areas.

Freeman first provided background. NAPP began in 2000 with the passage of County Ordinance 128 by the county board of commissioners, and a voter-approved 10-year, 0.25 mill dedicated tax to support the program. Voters first approved the millage in 2000 and renewed it in 2010. The county board of commissioners has charged WCPARC with implementing the purchase and management of the protected lands. The ordinance states NAPP’s purpose this way:

The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners declares that Washtenaw County is a desirable place to live, work and visit in large part because of the existence of natural areas within the County. Natural areas have aesthetic as well as practical benefits for County citizens. In addition, the purchase of natural areas can be used to protect fragile lands and environmentally threatened lands. The purchase of natural areas within the County will further these public benefits. Passive recreation would be appropriate use of this land.

So far, the county has purchased over 2,300 acres of land through NAPP (out of 9,077 acres nominated for the program) in 22 new nature preserves. Freeman said that implementing the program “has established strong working relationships with many of the communities within Washtenaw County and with the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy and the Legacy Land Conservancy.” And, he said, the properties “contain many unique areas with critical habitat for birds, animals and plants.”

A side issue developed at this point when commissioner Fred Veigel asked “Why is there no fishing in the preserves? Don’t you need to fish to keep the fish population in control?” Tetens first responded “it’s in the ordinance,” and then agreed that “this is something staff would look into.” Veigel, who also serves on the county road commission, asked that they look into hunting as well, since he feels there are too many deer on some of the properties. [The NAPP ordinance, in the paragraph describing NAPP's purpose (see above), seems to address the matter: "Passive recreation would be appropriate use of the land."]

Freeman then got to the crux of the potential problem: “Establishing these new nature preserves creates a corresponding growth in responsibility for the care and management of the properties, which requires significant resources.” These responsibilities include making and implementing a stewardship plan to provide for “maintenance of trails and boardwalks; monitoring of plant and animal species; habitat restoration including planting of native species; and control of invasive species through prescribed burns and manual removal.”

Freeman moved to the financial aspect of the situation, focusing on the second paragraph of Section 8 of the ordinance [emphasis added]:

The revenues from the deposit and/or investment of the Acquisition Fund along with the revenues from the sale of any natural areas property purchased pursuant to this Ordinance shall be applied and used solely for the purchase of natural areas land (75%) and agricultural development rights (25%) under this Ordinance, provided, however, that no more than 7% of increased millage funds used to purchase land under this Ordinance may be used annually to administer a land preservation program or maintain lands purchased under this Ordinance.

[The projected annual revenue from the 0.25 mill for NAPP is $3.2 million. Of that, 75% is for natural areas purchases ($2.4 million), with 25% for farmland preservation ($800,000), via conservation easements. Prior to 2010, the natural areas ordinance allowed for outright acquisition of land, but not for the purchase of development rights (PDR). PDR is a common mechanism for protecting farmland, letting landowners keep their property for farming but preventing – via a conservation easement – its development. In May of 2010, the county board approved an ordinance revision that incorporated farmland into the county’s natural areas preservation program and clarified the use of PDR for that purpose.

Currently, 93% of the NAPP millage proceeds are used for acquisition of natural areas or conservation easements on agricultural land. The remaining 7% is for stewardship, management, monitoring, maintenance and other oversight.]

Freeman told commissioners that the millage generates $2.4 million for the purchase of natural areas, including about $160,000 (or roughly 7% of $2.4 million) to pay for maintenance. This is enough, he said, to cover the costs of staff who perform the stewardship activities: a naturalist and a park maintenance worker, assisted by two seasonal staff, and other costs such as equipment, supplies and travel.

While the current situation is acceptable, Freeman pointed out two ways in which it is not sustainable.

Tom Freeman gave a presentation at the May 8, 2012 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission about a possible ordinance change related to the county's natural areas preservation program. Freeman recently retired as WCPARC's associate director and is currently serving as a consultant.

First, NAPP continues to make new acquisitions, which must be maintained. Freeman estimated the annual cost of maintaining purchases during the life of the current millage – through 2020 – would be about $240,000. That is, to provide care and maintenance for both current and future properties, WCPARC will need 2.8 full-time permanent staff members and 4 full-time seasonal workers (for 9 months of the year). To arrive at this number, Freeman said, he had consulted with the city of Ann Arbor and Oakland County.

The second danger is “the risk that the existing millage may not be renewed, and without a source of funding, the long-term sustainability of NAPP and the nature preserves it has established is uncertain,” he said.

Freeman then outlined the solution: “establishment of a dedicated reserve that could support a NAPP stewardship program.” As his written report described it, “once established at the necessary level, annual income could be generated similar to that which would be realized from an endowment fund. The principal of the fund would not be spent but would be used solely as the income through earnings generated by interest and dividends.”

[Ordinance 128 requires that "funding for the purchase of natural areas land shall be deposited in a special fund in the office of the Washtenaw County Treasurer...and may be temporarily deposited in such institutions or invested in such obligations as may be lawful for the investment of County money."]

Freeman proposed establishing such a fund “by changing the allocation of 7% of the millage for stewardship to 25%,” which would at present “generate approximately $600,000 per year. After using $240,000 for ongoing [stewardship] activities, $360,000 would remain to be invested in the dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.” Freeman went on to say that by 2020, when the current millage expires, the dedicated reserve would total $6 million.

To clarify the source of the $6 million, Tetens responded to an email query from The Chronicle after the meeting. He noted that the last year for revenue from the 2010 NAPP renewal millage would be 2021. That means there would be nine years with the new ratio of 25% – if approved – and one year (2012) at the current 7%. WCPARC anticipates additional revenue from interest on the principal, and assumes that property values will increase slightly over the term of the millage. Also, he wrote, “similar to our experience during the first ten years, we might receive donations or secure grants to supplement the fund. Six million dollars is our goal, and we think it’s very realistic.”

The Chronicle asked Tetens whether there were any limits on the amount of money that could be accumulated in this manner. He said there are not. Tetens also indicated that there is no specific long-term goal for the amount of land to be acquired through the NAPP program. “What we buy depends on the quality of land, water, and other criteria” in the ordinance, he wrote.

At WCPARC’s May 8 meeting, Freeman told commissioners that “looking ahead, if NAPP had 4,000 acres, we need to be able to maintain that.”

Natural Areas Preservation: Stewardship Fund – Commission Discussion

There was a brief discussion after the presentation, with support for the ordinance change.

Commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman noted that “we won’t buy land forever – there will be a cap. When we go to the board of commissioners, we might add that to the presentation.” Freeman responded that “this [plan] will give the county board options. WCPARC doesn’t want to tell the county board that they have to go for a millage to keep the NAPP program sustainable.” He added that “this money can’t be used for anything but NAPP.”

Tetens reported that the topic is on the agenda for the county board’s June 7 working session.

The rest of the commission discussion focused on the “brilliance” and “foresight” of the plan, and the “critical importance” of stewardship into the future “for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” as commissioner Patricia Scribner put it.

Commissioners then voted on the following motion: ”That the WCPARC support amendment of Ordinance No. 128, allowing up to 25% of annual millage revenues to be dedicated to stewardship, so as to ensure the sustainability of the stewardship of the nature preserves established through the Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation Program.”

Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Natural Areas Preservation: Updates

Tetens’ written report to the commission covered additional items related to NAPP:

• An April 10, 2012, closing on an acquisition of the Pellerito property next to the Meyer Preserve in Superior Township; WCPARC holds a conservation easement and the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy owns the property. [See Chronicle coverage: "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres"]
• An April 20, 2012, closing on the 22-acre Bloch property on Joy Road, approved at last month’s WCPARC meeting. This deal was in collaboration with Ann Arbor Township and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.
• Start of a Phase 2 environmental site assessment for the 70-acre Baker property in Lima Township.
• Removal of surface debris from the Schrock addition to the Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve; and receipt of a permit from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to construct a boardwalk west of the bridge over the Saline River in the same preserve.
• Completion of construction documents for a parking lot for the Squiers Preserve.
• Continuation of staff work on trail layouts for Osborne Mill, Spike, Draper-Houston Meadows and Trinkle Marsh Preserves. [As background, Osborne Mill, Spike, and Trinkle Marsh Preserves are so new that, pending development of trails, there is little or no public access, nor is there information about the Spike or Trinkle Marsh preserves on the WCPARC website.]

Eastern County Recreation Center

At its April meeting, WCPARC heard an extensive presentation by faculty and students from the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, covering the work they would do on a site plan for a possible recreation center on the Water Street redevelopment on Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti. Parks and rec director Bob Tetens reported on the latest work on the project, which included the first meeting of a steering committee.

Working committees that will advise the planners will start to meet next week, he said. Tetens hopes to create a formal three-party development agreement among WCPARC, the city of Ypsilanti, and the Ann Arbor YMCA, which may manage the center. Tetens agreed to add members of WCPARC to the email list for the planning group. Commissioner Janice Anschuetz, who attended the meeting of WCPARC and Ypsilanti city staff regarding this project, praised city staff for all the information and expertise they brought.

Tetens reported that the total cost of the services provided by the University of Michigan is $40,000, but the cost to WCPARC is $10,000 because the university will cover $30,000 through a faculty seed research grant. Tetens asked the commission to authorize an expenditure of $10,000 to secure the services of the UM faculty and graduate student research assistant team.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously approved the $10,000 expenditure.

Parks & Rec Updates

At various points during the meeting, parks and recreation staff gave updates on a range of topics, including the Mallets Creek stabilization project, Ann Arbor skatepark, Border-to-Border trail, and events in the parks system that occurred recently or are upcoming.

Parks & Rec Updates: Mallets Creek Stabilization

Director Bob Tetens and associate director Coy Vaughn gave an update on the Mallets Creek stabilization and improvement project. They showed slides to illustrate the extensive work, visible to motorists traveling east on Washtenaw Avenue between Manchester and Platt roads, to stabilize the banks of Malletts Creek, enhance water quality, remove dead and invasive plants, regrade to meet the hydrological needs of the site, and install new paved and unpaved paths.

A portion of the Malletts Creek creekbed that's been stabilized with rocks.

Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner who also sits on WCPARC, added further details – her office has overseen the project. The light tan material that covers the entire area contains seeds of native plants and grasses, as well as annual rye. The rye will sprout first, she said, to provide initial stabilization; then the native plants will emerge to provide permanent color, interest, and cover. Bobrin said the project “successfully withstood the big storm on March 15,” in that water flowed as intended and collected as intended.

Commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman was happy to hear about all the new trees that were planted, laughing as she recalled people asking her “How can you take away all those wonderful trees” as the site was being cleared – of dead and invasive trees – over the last several months.

Tetens added that there will be a grand opening in late July, after a new County Farm Park arch, identical to the one at the entrance from the Platt Road parking lot, marks the Washtenaw Avenue entrance to the park. He also pointed out that the path leading from Washtenaw to the pavilion in the play area will be paved.

Bobrin commented that this phase of the Malletts Creek project extends all the way to Chalmers Road – a road that’s east of and parallel to Huron Parkway, running north to the South Pond of the Huron River.

By way of background, County Farm Park is best known for the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, which faces Washtenaw and opened in 1991. However, the park contains much more. Its 141-acre footprint is roughly the size of the University of Michigan golf course at the corner of South Main and East Stadium Boulevard. It boasts a large children’s play area, two pavilions, several miles of walking paths, dozens of Project Grow community gardens, a perennial garden planned for nine months of color, and Britton Woods nature area.

The woods, according to the parks and recreation website, “reflect the Ann Arbor landscape in pre-settlement times.” The land has belonged to the county since 1836, and housed a poor house and insane asylum from 1837 to 1917, and a brick hospital called the Washtenaw Infirmary until 1972. Project Grow then began to use some of the land.

The site also holds the WCPARC administrative offices.

Parks & Rec Updates: Ann Arbor Skatepark

Tetens reported the latest step in developing the Ann Arbor skatepark, to be located at the city of Ann Arbor’s Veterans Memorial Park. By way of background, the skatepark is a joint endeavor of WCPARC, the city of Ann Arbor, and Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, a volunteer group.

Six proposals have been received for design of the project, which will be reviewed by a selection committee consisting of representatives from all three groups. Construction is expected to start in the spring of 2013.  Tetens said it will be a “world class” skatepark unlike any most Ann Arborites have seen.

By way of background, just over $800,000 has been raised toward a $1 million fundraising goal for the skatepark. The roughly $1 million cost of the project will be paid for through a combination of private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from WCPARC. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary for the project.

The six proposals are from the following firms: (1) Pillar Design Studios; (2) New Line Skateparks, partnering with Beckett & Raeder, van der Zalm + Associates, and SPA Skateparks; (3) Dan Joseph Architects; (4) Wormhoudt Inc.; (5) Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Midwestern Consulting; and (6) ASD (Action Sport Design) + Stantec.

The proposals are being reviewed and committee members will meet next week to open the bids. Committee members include Trevor Staples, Chris Cassell and Gregg Iddings of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark; Amy Kuras and Colin Smith of the city of Ann Arbor’s parks & recreation unit; David Barrett, a city of Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner; and Jeff Dehring of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department.

Interviews with finalists are expected to be held during the last week of May.

Parks & Rec Updates: Independence Lake, Pierce Lake, Recreation Center

Tetens described several improvements at Independence Lake Park: a new overflow parking area that will be open all year; the start of construction on a new enlarged “spray and play zone,” which will include areas tailored to toddlers and to teens, separated by a significant difference in elevation; and scheduling of work to clean and fence 10 newly acquired acres.

He also reported that the weather continued to affect attendance at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center and Pierce Lake golf course. Warmer weather discouraged attendance at the recreation center, but enabled Pierce Lake golf course to open two weeks earlier than in 2011 and 2010, bringing in more users and more revenue.

At the golf course, Tetens described an expanded pavilion complete with power and lights. The golf course continues to exceed the last two years in use and revenue.

An information packet provided to commissioners included data on revenues and users for the recreation center and golf course:

Revenues for the MLM Recreation Center and Pierce Lake golf course. (Chart by M. Leary)

Parks & Rec Updates: Border-to-Border Trail

The county’s Border-to-Border Trail, Tetens reported, continues to expand with construction on River Terrace Trail southeast of Dexter, which should be done by the end of the summer. That will enable walking from downtown Dexter to the high school and to Hudson Mills Metropark. In response to a question from commissioner Dan Smith, Tetens said that the village of Dexter is working on a crosswalk at Island Lake Road for residents of the Cedars of Dexter.

Parks & Rec Updates: Events

Tetens described a “wildly successful” Earth Day celebration at the nonprofit Leslie Science & Nature Center, at which WCPARC handed out 400 young trees to children, including white pines, tulip trees, red maples, and sugar maples. And stakes, he added, to mark the trees so parents would not inadvertently mow them.

At the county’s Rolling Hills Park, Tetens said, there will be a ribbon cutting and grand opening of the new “northern parkland and ring road” on Sunday, May 20, from 1-4 p.m. The area suffered some washouts during winter rain events, but they are being repaired while final components of the stormwater management system are still under construction. Construction documents for 50% completion of the Rolling Hills Water Park expansion are ready for staff review, he added.

Park planner Meghan Bonfiglio showed slides of a “River Thing” workshop held April 22, 2012 at Sharon Mills Park. Participating kids wore tall wader boots and used nets to see what they could catch.

Bonfiglio went on to describe a new geocaching adventure for kids in 2012. She said that in addition to 10 adult locations, there will be six for kids. Information will be on the WCPARC website on June 1. Associate director Coy Vaughn underlined the impact the geocaching program has had in bringing people into parks and recreation areas they would otherwise never have known about. [Information about WCPARC's policy and guidelines for geocaching is available online.]

During his report later in the meeting, Tetens also mentioned that:

• In April, staff provided 10 programming days in four parks and two preserves.
• More than 225 children have registered for the summer day camp at County Farm Park, which starts June 19.
• A recent food drive at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center yielded 358 pounds of non-perishable food for the local nonprofit Food Gatherers.

Claims Report

The commission approved payments of $1,079,035.23 for park, facility, and capital improvements; and payments of $445,771.38 for NAPP acquisitions and preserve management. The total for the month of April was $1,524,806.61.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the expenditure of $1,524,806.61.

Meeting Calendar

Bob Tetens recommended changing the 2012 calendar, which included June and August meetings but no July meeting. However, the timing of bids from prospective contractors for the replacement of the bath house and expansion of the Rolling Hills Water Park will require a July meeting. Tetens recommended adding a regular meeting the third Tuesday of July, the 24th; and cancelling the scheduled Aug. 10 meeting. The revised calendar shows meetings on June 12, July 24, Sept. 11, Oct. 9, Nov. 13, and Dec. 11.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the revised calendar.

Present: WCPARC commissioners Janice Anschuetz, Barbara Levin Bergman, Janis Bobrin, Robert W. Marans, Nelson K. Meade, Patricia Scribner, Dan Smith, and Fred Veigel. WCPARC staff members Bob Tetens, Meghan Bonfiglio, Tom Freeman, and Coy Vaughn.

Absent: Jimmie Maggard, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 12, 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!

The pink arrow marks the location of the Gordon Hall property, where Civil War Days will be held on June 8-10, 2012. Green blocks are properties protected in part through the city of Ann Arbor's greenbelt program. The green line with red dots is the Ann Arbor greenbelt program boundary for eligible properties. As the map shows, several protected properties lie within Webster Township. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Host for the re-enactor units will be the 4th Michigan Regiment, Company A, led by captain Russ Paul. Also expected at Gordon Hall for Civil War Days this year are the following units: 17th Michigan, Company E; 21st Michigan, Company H; U.S.S. Michigan Marine Guard Battery B; 1st Michigan Light Artillery; and the Confederate Bledsoe’s Battery.

The decision to grant a festival permit came after the board had turned down the permit at its previous meeting on April 17 by a 4-3 vote. The resolutions considered by the board at its two recent meetings differed in a significant way. The resolution rejected at the April 17 meeting stated that the festival would be granted “… with egress and ingress over Webster Township grounds and conservation easement with no parking on Webster Township grounds only Scio Township.”

The resolution ultimately approved by the board stepped back from trying to describe how parking on and crossing of the property would be handled, and instead simply stipulated that the DAHS had to comply with the conservation easement on the property.

Dan Ezekiel, chair of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission, attended the April 24 meeting and addressed the township board on the commission’s behalf. Although the Gordon Hall property lies outside the Ann Arbor greenbelt boundaries, the city of Ann Arbor and Webster Township have partnered on a number of other conservation easements in their collaborative effort to preserve open space. He wanted to encourage the board to defend the easement on the Gordon Hall property and not set a precedent that violating a conservation easement is acceptable.

After the meeting, Ezekiel indicated in conversation that he was, in fact, a history buff and was hoping to attend the Civil War Days – he hoped not as a picketer. 

Land Preservation Background

By way of background, a “conservation easement” is a way for a municipality to preserve land without purchasing it and becoming the owner of the land. A conservation easement is a legally enforceable agreement – between a landowner and a government agency or a land trust – for the purpose of conservation.

Voters in several local municipalities – including the city of Ann Arbor, Webster Township and Scio Township – have approved millages to fund the purchase of development rights (PDR). 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.

A conservation easement restricts real estate development, commercial and industrial use, and certain other activities on a property to a level agreed to in the terms of the easement. In the case of the conservation easement on the Gordon Hall property, different parties have different perspectives on what’s allowed under terms of the easement.

Among land preservationists, it’s assumed that there might eventually be violations to terms of the easements. But if those violations happen, they’re more likely to occur when the property changes hands. So, as a part of every land preservation deal, Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program sets aside funds in an endowment, which will be used to cover expenses to monitor and enforce the greenbelt’s conservations easement – by legal action, if necessary. The Ann Arbor greenbelt’s endowment fund stands at roughly $445,500.

The Gordon Hall Civil War Days festival permit is an issue that piqued the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission’s interest last year. From The Chronicle’s coverage of the commission’s Dec. 14, 2011 meeting:

In addition to serving on Ann Arbor’s GAC, Tom Bloomer serves on the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board. At [the Dec. 14, 2011] GAC meeting, he reported on a situation that’s arisen in Webster Township, which has implications for Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program.

Webster Township’s land preservation program was created in 2005. One of its first actions was to preserve land that includes the historic Gordon Hall, he said. The Dexter Area Historical Society had purchased the land and Gordon Hall from the University of Michigan about 10 years ago, and subsequently sold the development rights to Scio and Webster townships, through conservation easements to those townships.

Last summer, Bloomer said, the society approached Webster Township with a proposal to hold a Civil War re-enactment on the site. The event didn’t conflict with terms of the conservation easement, he said, but the society also wanted permission for spectator parking – and that did conflict with the easement. The township eventually agreed to a one-year exception to allow parking for several hundred vehicles, with the understanding that an exception wouldn’t be granted again, Bloomer said. It was fortunate that there was no rain during the event, so minimum damage was caused to the land.

However, the historic society now wants to amend the conservation easement so that parking for this kind of event would be allowed, Bloomer told GAC. The township’s farmland and open space preservation board has recommended denying that request, he said. The decision will ultimately be made by the Webster Township board of trustees, but the preservation board is looking for support from other land preservation entities – like GAC – before the township trustees vote.

The decision will impact more than just this piece of land, Bloomer said. It will affect Webster Township’s reputation as a conservator of land, and whether it can be trusted by its partners, including Ann Arbor, to adequately protect land in perpetuity.

The following month, at the commission’s Jan. 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor GAC passed a resolution encouraging the township board to strictly enforce all of its conservation easements. [.pdf of resolution]

Minutes of the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board also reflect discussion of the issue. There’s an apparent disagreement about the interpretation of the Gordon Hall conservation easement – between the legal counsel for the open space preservation board and the legal counsel for the township. From the minutes of the April 9, 2012 meeting:

Old Business
A. DAHS easement parking.
[John] Westman reported that he still has not received, in writing, any information from the Township Attorney regarding parking on DAHS easement. Discussion took place regarding this issue. [Tom] Bloomer questioned why Township is not going on the advice of the Land Use Attorney, who is specialized in this area, but instead with the advice of the Township Attorney. Westman will let PDR Board Members know when this issue is on the agenda for the Township Board Meeting. Westman encouraged others to attend the Board meeting to express their concerns.

The wording of the resolution that the Webster Township board initially rejected appeared to try to give an interpretation to the conservation easement, or perhaps even implied a one-time amendment to the easement: “… with egress and ingress over Webster Township grounds and conservation easement with no parking on Webster Township grounds only Scio Township.”

The resolution considered and approved by the board at its most recent meeting did not try to characterize the specific logistical arrangements of crossing and parking, but rather required conformance with the easement: “… with the stipulation that they are in full compliance with the conservation easement.”

Initial Public Commentary

As required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act, the Webster Township board provided time for the public to address the body during its April 24 meeting.

Dan Ezekiel introduced himself as the chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. He noted that Gordon Hall lies outside the boundaries of the Ann Arbor greenbelt area. So Ann Arbor does not have any direct interest in the conservation easement on the property, he said. He wanted to speak in general about the importance of maintaining easements, and if necessary enforcing them.

Dan Ezekiel of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. In the background is Webster Township trustee Gary Koch.

Ezekiel told the board that the Ann Arbor greenbelt commission is very appreciative of the work that Webster Township has done to preserve open space. He said he is proud of the support that the Ann Arbor greenbelt had been able to give to the township. Working together, he said, Ann Arbor and Webster Township have secured conservation easements on several properties since 2005 – for example, the Bloomer and Nixon farms, the Webster Church property, as well as the Cares, Smyth and Merkel farms. All of those easements were funded partly by the city Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program, he said.

Ezekiel said the city and the township were working together to preserve the vibrant agricultural industry and the rural quality of the township, to prevent suburban sprawl, strip malls and manufactured home parks. He said he’s proud of the trust that’s grown up between the city and the township. Working together toward a common goal has built a reservoir of trust and goodwill, he said. Tom Bloomer serves on both Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission as well as the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board, so he’s a good communication conduit between the city and the township, Ezekiel said. He noted that Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commissioner Liz Rother was also in attendance, as was Ginny Trocchio, the Conservation Fund staff member who supports the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.

Ezekiel told the board that trust between municipalities isn’t always the norm. Whenever Webster Township has told Ann Arbor it needs help in preserving a property, he said, the Ann Arbor GAC has always acted quickly, because GAC knows that the township has gone through a fair process to select the property and had made clear to a property owner who was selling a conservation easement what rights they were giving up. The process is transparent and everything is above board, he continued. Because of that, the public can trust the process. It would be tragic if anything were to break up the high level of trust between the township and the city, he said. Ann Arbor as well as the federal government have invested millions of dollars in conservation easements in Webster Township. So the city trusted the township to enforce those easements – otherwise those millions of dollars are worthless paper.

The industry standard is that any amendments to easements should enhance, not degrade, the conservation of the land. It’s only with great caution that any amendments at all should be made, Ezekiel said. Typically amendments to conservation easements are only for resolving ambiguity, he said.

Ezekiel noted that the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission had passed a resolution at its Jan. 5, 2012 meeting expressing the basic points he’d just reviewed. He thanked the township board for standing up for the Gordon Hall conservation easement the previous week.

Ray Tell told the board of trustees he hadn’t intended to speak, but hearing Ann Arbor’s concern about the greenbelt program had led him to want to address the trustees. He pointed out that at one time, the previous owner of Gordon Hall – the University of Michigan – had been planning to sell the land to develop condos. In that context, he did not believe that a once-a-year crossing of the land, or even parking on it, is all that big a deal. In the overall scope of things, he said, condos had been prevented from being built there.

The festival helps provide revenue to the nonprofit Dexter Area Historical Society, so that the organization can pay the mortgage on the Gordon Hall property, which it purchased from UM, Tell said. It’s worth reconsidering the issue even if for no other reason than to allow the historical society to pay off its debt. The historical society shouldn’t have to come before the board every year for permission, and he suggested that something along the lines of a 100-year agreement could be worked out.

Township Board Deliberations

Charles Estleman asked if there’d been any changes since the board’s meeting the previous week.

John Kingsley, who presided over the meeting as township supervisor, indicated he was aware of one contact, and he’d had discussions about the possibility of busing being provided [to mitigate the need for visitors to park on the property].

Webster Township supervisor John Kingsley and township clerk Mary Dee Heller.

But nothing has been determined about whether that can happen. He said he’d also heard there’d been a contact made by a land preservation board member that there might be some private resources available for shuttle services. But as for the board’s decision-making that night, they’d have to assume those services are not available. So if the board chooses to grant a festival permit, he said, there may or may not be shuttle service available – he hoped there would be.

Richard Kleinschmidt then made a motion to approve a festival permit for the Dexter Area Historical Society for Civil War Days held on June 8-10, 2012, with the stipulation that they are in full compliance with the conservation easement.

Estleman asked what would happen if DAHS turned out not to be in compliance.

Kingsley recalled that at the board’s meeting the previous week, when the permit had been voted down, they had discussed the possibility of citing and fining the DAHS for any easement violations. But he felt that is not going to be a realistic option. The motion is specific about the time limit – it’s for this year only. So the DAHS would need to come back next year for another permit. He hoped the board can continue the ongoing dialogue they’ve had with DAHS over the past 8-9 months.

Kingsley felt that the details can get worked out so the same situation doesn’t arise every year. He noted that the board does not grant any other organization permits for multiple years – they’re all annual permits. Basically, he said, DAHS needs to abide by the provisions of the easement, and if not, the board would be able to consider that with the request for next year’s permit. He reiterated that he did not feel that citing and fining ($500 per day) was a realistic option for dealing with the situation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the granting of the festival permit to DAHS, with the stipulation that the conservation easement be adhered to.

Concluding Public Commentary

Donna Fisher of the Dexter Area Historical Society addressed the board briefly at the conclusion of the meeting, thanking the trustees. She said she wanted to get started early on the issue for next year so that it could get resolved.

Civil War Re-enactors

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Russ Paul, who captains the Michigan 4th Regiment, Company A re-enactors, explained that the Gordon Hall event on June 8-10 will not include an attempt to re-enact one of the battles from the Civil War.

He pointed out that to do that, you’d need to have sufficient numbers of soldiers on the Confederate side as well. This year, the second year of Civil War Days at Gordon Hall, a Confederate cannon crew will make up the Confederate participation – Bledsoe’s Battery.

Other Union units expected this year include: 17th Michigan, Company E; 21st Michigan, Company H;  U.S.S. Michigan Marine Guard Battery B; and the 1st Michigan Light Artillery.

Responding to a question from The Chronicle about authenticity, Paul said that Civil War re-enactors have varying standards for authenticity. He characterized his unit as fairly middle of the road in that regard. While they’re not among the most extreme hard-core re-enactors, he said, visitors to their camp during Civil War Days won’t see any modern artifacts like pop cans or plastic coolers.

On the issue of authenticity, Paul summed up by saying that to him, it’s less important for a guy to have a museum-quality blue coat than to know something about soldiering.

Other Civil War Resources

For readers who are looking forward to Civil War Days at Gordon Hall and want to prep by doing some background reading, the University of Michigan libraries offer two possibilities.

From the Buell Family papers held by the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan, Dr. Samuel Mills wrote to the parents of Franklin M. Buell on July 24, 1863 from the headquarters of the 4th Michigan at Camp Thomas at Winchester, Tennessee: "It is my unpleasant duty to inform you that your son Frank M., died at the hospital in this camp, at 3 o’clock a.m. this day;" (Image links to Bentley Library collection.)

The Bentley Historical Library at UM offers an online exhibit on the Civil War. It includes photographs of life in camp.

The Bentley’s collection also includes letters, among them one written by the camp surgeon to the parents of a soldier who died while under his care.

The William L. Clements Library also houses an extensive Civil War collection. Last year, an exhibit called “Opening Guns: The First Year of Civil War” ran from Feb. 28–June 3, 2011.

The exhibit consisted of written narratives by soldiers and civilians who experienced the war.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities. 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.

A sign at Ypsilanti's Water Street property indicating that this will be a future segment of Washtenaw County's Border to Border Trail. A portion of the site adjacent to the Huron River is being considered for a possible new county recreation center. (Photos by Mary Morgan.)

The commission heard from faculty of the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, who will lead a team of six students in developing a conceptual plan for the rec center by the end of December. They also heard from deputy parks and rec director Coy Vaughn about the steering committee and working groups that will oversee and coordinate the design team’s work, and ensure adequate participation by community members and other stakeholders, including the Ann Arbor YMCA. Some commissioners indicated that community input was especially important for this project.

Among the meeting’s action items, the commission approved the acquisition of additional land through the county’s natural areas preservation program, in partnership with other governmental entities, including the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. The properties include 23 acres in Ann Arbor Township and 33 acres in Northfield Township – both owned by J.A. Bloch & Co. – and the 35-acre Sloan property in Scio Township.

Additional items included a report from parks and rec director Bob Tetens about the department’s help in cleaning up after the March 15 tornado touchdown in Dexter; an update on improvement projects and activities at park facilities and preserves; and the latest milestones in a project to connect the Border-to-Border Trail in the village of Dexter, including a new bridge.

Other major action in the meeting included a review of the parks and rec budget to date, through the first quarter of the fiscal year. Tetens reported that the unusually warm weather this year had two effects: much less participation and revenue from Rolling Hills winter park compared to the last two years; and much more activity and revenue at the Pierce Lake Golf Course, which was also in part related to the March 15 tornado’s damage to other golf courses in the area.

Eastern County Recreation Center

By way of background, the site for a proposed new county recreation center is in downtown Ypsilanti, on the south side of Michigan Avenue with the Huron River flowing along the west side of the site. The center would be located on city-owned property in the Water Street redevelopment project. The project was first officially pitched to the Ypsilanti city council last fall. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ypsi Council To Be Briefed on Rec Center."] The county currently operates the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, which opened in 1991 at the corner of Washtenaw Avenue and Platt Road on Ann Arbor’s east side.

At the WCPARC’s April 10 meeting, Craig Borum – a professor of architecture and director of the University of Michigan master of architecture program – provided commissioners with an overview of the project. He began by introducing two assistant professors of architecture and urban planning who would be involved with the project: Maria Arquero and Jen Maigret.

The faculty will work with a team of six students: four in the master of architecture program, one in the master of urban planning program, and one in a joint program of urban planning and natural resources and the environment. WCPARC president Bob Marans, a UM professor emeritus of architecture, spoke of the value of the multi-disciplinary approach this team would take.

Borum underlined the complexity of the student project, which is compounded by its tight timeframe: they must finish by the end of December. The UM Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning is helping to fund the project by paying all the students to work through the summer, he said, and for one of them to continue through December. Other faculty would also participate, he added, including experts in business, real estate, and landscape architecture.

Borum used slides from a design project for a school in Trenton, N.J., to illustrate the principles of their process. He described those principles as a “transparent relationship between data analysis and our qualitative design process”; an emphasis on “visualization and communication through two- and three-dimensional representation techniques”; and an “emphasis on multiple expertise and an interdisciplinary team.” He showed slides of the models for the Trenton school project, including one model that was seven feet long, which included images of people using the spaces. The presentation, he said, was designed to show those who would use the school what it would be like for students to move through the spaces during a typical day.

The whole point, Borum said, is to “communicate the ideas and intentions behind the design, to build complex relationships that are meaningful.” They hope to do similar visualizations and models for the project in Ypsilanti. He also showed examples of their work in Detroit’s Brightmoor neighborhood, which they began by a careful analysis of land use, including vacant land.

Borum provided a schedule and timeline for the rec center project:

• May: Site analysis, including geographic information systems (GIS) assessment of soil groups, location of the water table, the planned location for the county’s Border-to-Border Trail, and an examination of historic aerial photos.
• June: The team will work on programming aspects: indoor and outdoor recreation, community and educational uses, parking, user capacity and more as they discover it.
• July: Community involvement, with scheduled public meetings and presentations, including ones with current stakeholders such as the Ann Arbor YMCA and potential stakeholders such as Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College.
• Aug.-Sept.: Outreach will continue with publications and exhibits.
• Sept.-Dec.: Conceptual plans will be reviewed, revised and finalized, aiming for completion by the end of December.

The total cost for Borum’s team will be $40,000. WCPARC will cover $10,000 and the Taubman College will pitch in $15,000. The final $15,000 may come from a pending grant application to the University of Michigan’s vice president for research.

Bob Tetens, WCPARC director, told commissioners that deputy director Coy Vaughn would later describe the working groups he was putting together. Vaughn said that Cathi Duchon, president and CEO of the Ann Arbor YMCA, had recently worked on a similarly complex plan and site, and that WCPARC would apply the lessons learned from that project – the working groups would serve as a sounding board. There will be monthly reports to the WCPARC, Vaughn said, and perhaps quarterly reports to the Ypsilanti city council.

Eastern County Recreation Center: Commission Discussion

Barbara Levin Bergman, who also serves on the county board of commissioners, asked how new students would be able to build on previous work. Bob Marans replied that they had chosen the students carefully – they already know each other and have worked together before. Craig Borum added that this is not “just a class” for the students; this is “what they will do as professionals” and they will be paid. “They will be interns as they would be in an architect’s office.”

The University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning rents space in the Liberty Lofts building, at the corner of Liberty and First in Ann Arbor. Students developing the concept design for the county recreation center in Ypsilanti will work out of an office here part of the time.

Coy Vaughn added that the students will work out of an office that the Taubman College has in the building connected to Liberty Lofts in Ann Arbor [at the southwest corner of Liberty and South First Street].

Janice Anschuetz then asked whether the team would have a place to work in Ypsilanti, because that’s where the project is and that’s where the community members are. Bob Tetens responded that “both the city and Rich Fischer [of Fischer Honda on Michigan Avenue] are willing to give them space in Ypsilanti.” He noted that city planner Teresa Gillotti will be on half of the working groups. Anschuetz suggested that “You need to be careful in Ypsilanti. We have the [Eastern Michigan University] COB [College of Business] sitting there like a space bubble, and people in Ypsilanti want a building that is part of their town.”

To that, Tetens responded: “I am confident this will be an award-winning building.” And Marans added: “We may consider getting some citizen groups involved.” Jimmie Maggard suggested that they consider finding a place to display what’s being planned, after the concept is developed. Dan Smith, another representative from the county board of commissioners, said he was “thrilled with this approach, leveraging the brainpower in the county” and that he was “glad to see collaboration and $30,000 in labor going to people in the county.”

Bergman suggested hanging some of this information in Ypsilanti’s city hall now, showing what the process is. And Anschuetz suggested creating a Facebook page. Tetens clarified that this project is structured as a three-party agreement – with the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor YMCA – and that they are committed to “collecting citizen input this summer.”

Maggard expressed thanks “to the two Bobs who have really pushed this and done a great job” – a reference to Tetens and Marans.

Eastern County Recreation Center: Working Groups

Later in the meeting, deputy director Coy Vaughn described the working groups, composed of WCPARC staff, city of Ypsilanti staff and perhaps others, who would coordinate the work of the team of planners from the UM Taubman College. There will be four such groups: (1) architecture and site planning, led by Tetens; (2) greenway and Border-to-Border Trail, led by Vaughn; (3) infrastructure and environment, led by superintendent of park planning Meghan Bonfiglio; and (4) partnerships and funding, also led by Tetens. This last group will work on grants, private gifts, and identify partners in addition to the YMCA, perhaps including Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College, which might want to use classrooms in the new building.

The discussion among commissioners identified the need to select people from the Ypsilanti community. Patricia Scribner asked how people would be chosen. Tetens replied that Vaughn had made a presentation to the Ypsilanti city council and that councilmember Peter Murdoch had offered to serve. Vaughn added that there would be room for representation from the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority. “There will be a cast of thousands,” Tetens joked. Marans suggested using a slide show to demonstrate the plans as they evolved.

Vaughn said each of the working groups would have five to eight members, and would meet at least monthly. The leads of each group will form a steering committee, which will meet more often. Marans asked Vaughn to supply a list of the groups and their members, and said that WCPARC commissioners could participate as they wanted.

Financial Reports

Several reports were presented during the April 10 meeting that related to WCPARC finances.

Financial Reports: Claims

The claims report includes a list of expenses by park/facility/function, including administration, the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, park maintenance, capital improvements, and each of the seven major WCPARC locations: Pierce Lake Golf Course, Independence Lake Park, Rolling Hills Park, Parker Mill, Sharon Mills, Staebler Farm, and the Swift Run Dog Park. [.pdf of April 2012 claims report]

There is a separate budget for each of the two components of the natural areas preservation program: (1) natural areas and preserves, overseen by the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC); and (2) farmland preservation, overseen by the agricultural land preservation advisory Committee (ALPAC). In each category, there is a line item for acquisition and another for preserve management.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the expenses in the claims report.

Financial Report: Year-to-Date vs. Budget

The second part of the financial report compared expenditures for the year-to-date with the budgeted amounts. The fiscal year, which mirrors the calendar year, began with a fund balance of $20,421,471. The budget projects ending the year with a fund balance of $6,052,350, with projected revenue of $9,469,000 and projected expenses of $15,513,721, plus contributions to operating reserves of $6,700,000 and to partnership commitments of $1,624,400. [.pdf of fund balance statement]

There was no substantive discussion on this item.

Financial Report: Recreation – March 2012

WCPARC director Bob Tetens provided a recreation report that covered the financial performance of the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center and Rolling Hills winter park.

Attendance at Rolling Hills was down, and therefore 2012 revenues are down about 50% from 2010 and 2011 because “we had no winter,” Tetens said. The chart below shows year-to-date (Jan.-March) revenue and the number of users at both locations, from 2010-2012.

This chart shows year-to-date revenues and user counts for Washtenaw County's Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center (MLMRC) and Rolling Hills Park. (Links to larger image.)

-

Projects Update

During the April 10 meeting, WCPARC director Bob Tetens reported on several improvement projects the department has undertaken, including activity related to the Border-to-Border Trail and the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Projects Update: Parks & Recreation

At Rolling Hills Park, the ring road project is nearing completion. A grand opening dedication is set for Sunday, May 20 from 1-4 p.m. Sidock Architects are working on construction documents for the Rolling Hills water park expansion, and a contractor was engaged to complete upgrades to the sewage pump system.

Entrance to County Farm Park and the Washtenaw County parks and recreation administrative offices.

At Pierce Lake Golf Course, CMA Design Services is continuing work on the pavilion expansion.

A request for proposals (RFP) to repair the pedestrian bridge at Sharon Mills Park was reissued, and Food Art signed a contract to provide catering services there until Dec. 31, 2016.

At Independence Lake Park, SG Construction Services has started site-work operations for a “spray and play zone” project. Fourteen trees were transplanted from that area to elsewhere in the park. The new gravel parking lot for the disc golf course has been opened. Final grading and seeding work will be done this month. The lot will also provide overflow parking for the “spray and play zone” participants.

Work on the County Farm portion of the Mallets Creek drain project continues and should be done by mid-June.

A trail was staked in the field at Osborne Mill Preserve to connect a new parking lot to the existing trail accessing the Huron River.

Projects Update: Border-to-Border Trail

Tetens reported that construction of the Border-to-Border (B2B) Trail continues on the segment southeast of Dexter. The westside connector project in Dexter is complete and there was a ribbon-cutting ceremony on March 24 – a day when over 700 people used the trail as part of the Dexter Wellness Walk.

Scio and Ypsilanti townships received awards from the WCPARC’s Connecting Communities program for trail construction. [WCPARC will make available up to $600,000 each year during the period from 2010 to 2014 – $3 million in total – toward the cost of eligible projects.]

Tetens also reported that WCPARC staff assisted the city of Ypsilanti in preparing a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant application to extend the B2B from Michigan Avenue to Grove Road. The application was submitted to the state on April 2. [More information about MNRTF grants is available online.]

Projects Update: Natural Areas

There was also activity in the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP), Tetens reported. Closing for the acquisition of the Pellerito property, adjacent to the Meyer Preserve in Superior Township, was scheduled for April 10. [On Friday, April 13, the closing was announced as a deal involving the county, the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, and the city of Ann Arbor greenbelt program. See Chronicle coverage: "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres"]

The closing on a 22-acre property on Joy Road – the J.A. Bloch & Co. property, to be purchased in collaboration with Ann Arbor Township – is tentatively scheduled for April 20. [Later in this meeting, the commission approved the deal – see below.]

Additional items in this part of Tetens report included:

• Completion of a survey for the Arbor Vistas property, to be purchased with assistance from an MNRTF grant. [Late last year, WCPARC was recommended to receive an MNRTF grant of $2,275,000 to purchase this 54 acres in Ann Arbor Township. The parcel would connect three existing protected areas: Ann Arbor's Marshall Park; the University of Michigan's Horner Woods; and WCPARC's Goodrich Preserve.]
• Continuing an appraisal of a 70-acre property – the Baker property – in Lima Township, where identification of a recognized environmental condition on the site necessitated a “phase two” investigation.
• Engagement of a contractor to remove surficial debris from the Schrock addition to the Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve. Also, submission of a permit application to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to construct a boardwalk west of the bridge over the Saline River in that preserve.
• Completion of landscape plan drawings for a parking lot for the Squiers Preserve, and preparation of construction drawings. [There is not yet public access to this preserve.]
• The start of staff work on trail layouts for Osborne Mill, the Clark & Avis Spike Preserve, Draper-Houston Meadows, and Trinkle Marsh Preserves. [The latter is located just east of Chelsea at Trinkle and Dancer Roads. It is not yet open to the public, pending construction of a parking lot and trail system.]

Tetens also listed other accomplishments in the last month: four programming days, a presentation for the Washtenaw County Historical Consortium, and attendance at the Ohio Environmental Council’s Vernal Pool workshop. The WCPARC’s website was updated, a planning intern is working on informational kiosks for parks, and two new park and facility coordinators – Lyla Ellens and Allison Richards – began work at the MLM Recreation Center.

Land Acquisition

During the meeting several parcels of land were considered for acquisition, using proceeds of a natural areas preservation program millage that voters renewed in 2010. [For a recent update on one aspect of this program, see Chronicle coverage: "County Working on Farmland Preservation."]

Land Acquisition: J.A. Bloch Property – Ann Arbor Township

The commission discussed the acquisition of the J.A. Bloch parcel, 23 acres in Ann Arbor Township. [J.A. Bloch & Co. is a land development firm based in Southfield.] Tom Freeman – who recently retired as WCPARC deputy director and now is working on special projects – described the parcel using photographs to supplement his written report and maps. The parcel’s north edge is Joy Road; it lies west of Gleaner Hall Road and its east edge is adjacent to Conrail property.

WCPARC staff and the natural areas technical advisory committee – which advises the commission on land acquisitions – made a number of site visits, Freeman reported, and feel it is a high priority property for acquisition for several reasons. Half of the parcel is a high quality woodlot with a diverse mix of tree types. It has a number of vernal ponds. In addition, the parcel is close to other property that’s already protected through conservation easements, so that “protection of this property would effectively enlarge the already existing preserve and enhance its value to the community,” Freeman said.

Further, Freeman reported that Ann Arbor Township and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program have expressed an interest in collaborating on protection of the property. The proposal, he said, is that Ann Arbor Township would purchase a conservation easement and then WCPARC would purchase the fee simple title to the property.

Williams & Associates had appraised the property at $173,000, or $7,450 an acre. The value of a conservation easement on the property is $99,000, leaving an after-easement value of $74,000.

Commission discussion, after a motion to authorize the purchase, focused on the nature of an earthen berm containing coal, which had warranted further investigation by Mannik & Smith Group, an environmental assessment firm. The firm determined that the coal had come from a tipped-over railroad car rather than a “facility” on the site, and therefore it does not represent a hazard nor require any remediation.

Outcome: A roll call vote led to unanimous approval of the proposal to acquire the property at a price of $74,000, contingent upon purchase of a conservation easement on the property by Ann Arbor Township.

Land Acquisition: J.A. Bloch Property – Northfield Township

Tom Freeman also presented information about another parcel owned by J.A. Bloch – a 33-acre site in Northfield Township, with its south edge on Joy Road. The parcel is immediately adjacent to the Northfield Woods Preserve.

“The most significant natural feature is the stream corridor which crosses the property from west to east and then continues south along the eastern border. Five wetland areas were identified,” he reported. Freeman said that acquisition of this Bloch property offers the chance to create a significant trail experience, connecting over 100 acres of protected property. The natural areas technical advisory committee identified this property as a high priority property for acquisition, and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program has expressed a strong interest in collaborating on protection of the property, he added, explaining that the greenbelt program was interested in yet another property immediately west of this, which is also owned by J.A. Bloch.

Due diligence investigations have been conducted: an appraisal by Bosserd Appraisal Services identified a value of $245,250, or about $7,500 an acre. Mannik & Smith Group did a Phase I environmental site assessment and did not indicate any recognized environmental condition on the property. Finally, a boundary survey, legal description, and certified survey drawing were prepared, all at the expense of the property owner.

A motion was made to authorize preparation of a contingent purchase offer for this property, at a price of $245,500. The purchase would be contingent upon development of a participation agreement with the city of Ann Arbor greenbelt program detailing its contribution to the purchase. It would also be subject to final authorization by the WCPARC at a future meeting.

Outcome: The resolution to authorize a $245,500 purchase of the Northfield Township property, with contingencies, passed unanimously.

Following the vote, Bob Tetens commented that he was not sure when the matter would return to the WCPARC. “Ann Arbor’s process is slower than ours,” he explained, “but I hope it will come back in May or June.”

Land Acquisition: Sloan Property – Scio Township

Tom Freeman reported that this 35-acre parcel in Scio Township is located on the west side of Baker Road, south of the village of Dexter. “The most significant natural feature is Mill Creek, which serves as the property’s western boundary,” he said, adding that preserving this property is a high priority for the Scio Township land preservation program, and that Scio Township has applied for and received grant funds through the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to acquire the property.

However, the due diligence environmental review revealed the presence of a recognized environmental condition, and Scio Township officials decided to proceed with consideration of only the portion of that property – about 35 acres – that does not have any environmental concerns. An appraisal identified a value of $8,000 an acre. The grant funds would cover 75% of the cost of acquisition and require a local match for the remaining 25%. The local match could be split between Scio Township and WCPARC.

WCPARC’s natural areas technical advisory committee recommends purchase of the property.

A motion was made and seconded to authorize commitment of $35,000 toward the purchase of the Sloan property in Scio Township, which will be used along with an equal amount from Scio Township as the local match requirement for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

Discussion among commissioners focused on the DTE power lines on the site and the need for DTE to maintain access by keeping a cleared area. Dan Smith asked: Would that be detrimental, and was there any way to minimize the clearing? Freeman responded that although there was little that could be done because DTE has to maintain the area, it would be possible to meet with DTE and by being cooperative, minimize the amount cleared each time.

Outcome: The motion to authorize the expenditure passed unanimously.

Other Business: Minutes, Communications

During the meeting there are opportunities for communications from staff and the public, as well as housekeeping items such as approval of the agenda and of minutes from previous meetings. At the April 10 meeting, no one spoke during the time for public commentary.

Other Business: Approval, Format of Minutes

Commissioners were asked to approve the minutes of the March 6 meeting. The minutes for WCPARC meetings provide a fair amount of narrative description and detail.

Jimmie Maggard asked “Can these minutes be condensed?” Dan Smith agreed, saying “it is better to have as little as possible for official minutes, and to use a second document you could call notes” to hold details. Janis Bobrin, who also serves as the county’s water resources commissioner, also agreed, indicating that’s the approach she takes with public meetings held by her office. [The minutes of public meetings are the official record and are subject to disclosure under the state's Freedom of Information Act. Unofficial notes of the meeting would not necessarily be subject to FOIA.]

Outcome: Without further discussion, the minutes were unanimously approved.

Other Business: Communications

During his communications to the commission, director Bob Tetens prefaced his remarks by saying “Don’t be alarmed by this.” He was referring to the fact that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) had not approved a plan for a section of the county’s Border-to-Border Trail to be built under the Michigan Avenue bridge spanning the Huron River, adjacent to the site for the proposed recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti.

Tetens then described a possible pedestrian crossing of Michigan Avenue with appropriate devices – not yet determined – to alert cars to the presence of pedestrians. MDOT would have to approve the crossing and any flashers. Tetens said that funds that would have been used for the under-the-bridge project could be used for the Michigan Avenue street level crossing. The Ypsilanti city council has already approved a fund transfer for this project, Tetens reported.

Present: WCPARC members Janice Anschuetz, Barbara Levin Bergman, Janis Bobrin, Jimmie Maggard, Robert W. Marans, Nelson K. Meade, Patricia Scribner, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, and Fred Veigel. WCPARC staff members Bob Tetens, Meghan Bonfiglio, Tom Freeman, and Coy Vaughn.

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 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!

Members of the Ann Arbor planning commission, from left: Eleanore Adenekan, Kirk Westphal and Diane Giannola. At the right is Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff. Commissioners were attending the March 8, 2012 meeting of the master plan revisions committee. (Photos by the writer.)

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan, known as HRIMP, was completed in 2009. But in large part because of controversy related to Argo Dam – centered on whether or not the dam should be removed – none of the 30 other recommendations were implemented.

Only one of the HRIMP recommendations relates to land use, and is therefore in the purview of the planning commission. That recommendation calls for limited commercial development – such as a restaurant or other publicly-used entity – in the Broadway bridge/Argo area.

Much of the discussion at the March 8 committee meeting centered on the property now owned by MichCon, a subsidiary of DTE Energy, located north of Broadway Street, between the Huron River and the railroad tracks that run past the Amtrak station. A state-supervised cleanup effort is underway at that site, but its future use – including the possibility that it could be acquired by the city and turned into a park – is unclear.

Remediation of the MichCon site was also a topic at the March 12, 2012 Ann Arbor city council work session, where the property’s potential future use was discussed. That presentation also included an update on a whitewater river feature that DTE Energy is paying for. The whitewater section to be built in the Huron River was originally part of the same project as the city’s Argo Dam bypass reconstruction. The bypass, which has been recently named the Argo Cascades, is nearly complete.

This article includes a summary of the council working session related to the MichCon cleanup, as well as a report on the master plan revisions committee meeting. Based on discussions at that committee meeting, it seems likely that a proposal will be forwarded to the full planning commission to add the HRIMP recommendation to the city’s master plan. Any changes to the master plan would also require city council approval.

Background: HRIMP Report

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) committee was established by the city’s environmental commission in March of 2006 to develop a plan for protecting and maintaining the portion of the Huron River that flows through the city of Ann Arbor. Beginning in early 2009, a series of public forums were held as the committee entered the final stages of its work. [See Chronicle coverage: "Not So Gently Down the Stream"]

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan produced by the committee contains 30 recommendations labeled “consensus recommendations,” with two others on which there was no consensus. [link to .pdf of full HRIMP report] The two non-consensus resolutions contradicted each other, with one calling for the removal of Argo Dam and the other calling for its preservation. Much of the public engagement focused exclusively on the dam-in/dam-out question.

Part of the context for that question was a problem with toe drains, identified by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, in the earthen embankment adjacent to the concrete and steel dam, which separates the headrace from the river. In May of 2009 the city’s environmental commission voted in support of dam removal, while the city’s park advisory commission voted for its preservation. [Chronicle coverage: "City Council To Weigh Mixed Advice on Dam"]

The dispute with the state related to Argo Dam was ultimately resolved when the city council approved a $1,168,170 project at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting to build a bypass that replaced the headrace and eliminated the portage previously required by canoeists and kayakers. Final work is being done on that bypass – including installation of a new pedestrian bridge – and it’s expected to be open later this spring.

There was no action on the “consensus” recommendations, however. A resolution to accept the HRIMP committee’s plan was first considered at the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, but postponed until Dec. 7. At the council’s Sunday caucus prior to that Dec. 7 meeting, the focus of discussion was on the difference between “approving” the plan and “accepting” it, with the option of “receiving” it also thrown into the mix. [Chronicle coverage: "Huron River Plan, Percent for Art Program also Discussed"]

After considerable deliberation and public commentary at the council’s Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council voted to remand the 30 consensus recommendations to the park advisory commission and the environmental commission, asking those groups to develop options for implementation. No further action has been taken.

Master Plan Revisions Committee & HRIMP

The planning commission’s master plan revisions (MPR) committee is charged with reviewing possible changes to the city’s master plan, which are in turn considered by the full commission and eventually require approval by city council. The current MPR committee members are Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt and Wendy Woods.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal had expressed a desire to revisit the recommendations of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) that related to planning issues, so planning staff scheduled that topic for the March 8 MPR meeting. In addition to Westphal, three other commissioners attended: Adenekan, Giannola and Pratt.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, began the meeting by very briefly reviewing the development of the HRIMP, noting that the city council didn’t adopt or even accept it. “Basically, they said thank you for your work,” she said. Most of the discussion in the community and by the council centered on the most controversial aspect, she said – whether to remove the Argo Dam. [The council never voted on that issue either. But by not taking action, councilmembers made the de facto decision to leave the dam in place for at least the foreseeable future.]

Aside from the dam, the other HRIMP recommendations are equally if not more important, Rampson said.

Westphal, who serves as the planning commission liaison to the environmental commission, said it seemed to be a natural fit with planning to have a discussion about the HRIMP’s land use recommendation. He noted that it’s a dynamic situation, given MichCon’s cleanup efforts along the river, but it’s an opportunity to open up discussion on those HRIMP recommendations that didn’t get much traction. The HRIMP committee spent a lot of time and thought on the project, he said, “and it seemed like something we should pick up.” Personally, he said, he’d love to see more people at the river.

MichCon Property Remediation

Much of the MPR committee discussion focused on the MichCon property that’s located north of Broadway Street, between the Huron River and the railroad tracks that run past the Amtrak station. MichCon is a subsidiary of DTE Energy – DTE also owns property on the opposite side of the river, south of Broadway, where it plans to build a new electricity substation. [An item related to the substation was discussed at the Feb. 28, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission. A site plan for the project will be on the planning commission's April 3 agenda.]

Diane Giannola asked about the status of a cleanup project at the MichCon site. Planning staff said they didn’t know details.

However, at a March 12, 2012 working session, the Ann Arbor city council was briefed about the future of the former coal gasification site. The cleanup and remediation operation is being handled by MichCon, and overseen by the state of Michigan’s Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

Craig Hupy, the city’s interim public services area administrator, introduced the presentation, telling councilmembers that its purpose was to give them a heads up before the mandatory public meetings start happening. MichCon would also be returning to the city council to get access to the sanitary sewers during the cleanup. MichCon will also need to coordinate with the city’s park operations staff, Hupy said.

The timeline for the project would see construction wrapping up in October of 2012:

• November 2011: pre-design studies report – submitted to MDEQ
• February 2012: response activities plan – submitted to MDEQ
• February 2012: construction permit application – submitted to MDEQ
• March 12, 2012: Ann Arbor city council work session – presentation
• March 20, 2012: parks advisory commission – presentation
• March 2012–July 2012: pre-construction activities and engineering
• April 11, 2012: MDEQ public meeting/public hearing
• June 2012: receive MDEQ plan approval and permit
• July 2012: contractor bid and selection
• August–October 2012: (2.5 months) construction

Presenting on behalf of MichCon was Shayne Wiesemann, a senior environmental engineer with DTE Energy.

MichCon Property Remediation: Background

Wiesemann told the council that MichCon had been working diligently with Michigan’s Dept. of Environmental Quality, as well as the Huron River Watershed Council and Ann Arbor city staff.

Aerial view of MichCon property. (Image links to dynamic Google map.)

Wiesemann thanked the city staff for their help over the last few years – they’d had weekly meetings or phone calls. He named city staffers Colin Smith (manager of parks and recreation), Sumedh Bahl (community services area administrator), Matt Naud (environmental coordinator), Craig Hupy (head of systems planning and interim public services area administrator) and Cresson Slotten (manager in systems planning).

Wiesemann ticked through a quick overview of the history of the site. It was developed as a coal gasification plant in 1900 by the Ann Arbor Gas Company, and the gas produced there was used by Ann Arbor residents for the next 50 years – for cooking, heating and lighting. As natural gas began to be supplied to the city in 1939 (which is a relatively cleaner fuel), use of manufactured gas diminished. By the late 1950s the gas manufacturing facility was decommissioned.

By then MichCon had become the owner of the facility, and in the early 1960s the MichCon service center was constructed. The property was used to dispatch crews to customers for another 50 years. MichCon merged with DTE Energy in 2001, becoming a subsidiary of the energy utility. In 2009, MichCon’s Broadway service center was deconstructed.

MichCon Property Remediation: Site Investigation

Wiesemann explained that residuals from the gas manufacturing process remained at the site. When the service center was demolished, MichCon investigated the site, he said. That site investigation is now completed.

Yellow areas are locations where soil is to be excavated and replaced with clean material. (Image links to .pdf of slide presentation with higher resolution images.)

He described how MichCon had excavated 1,680 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the western parcel and another 4,340 cubic yards from the eastern parcel. MichCon had installed a groundwater treatment system, and established routine groundwater monitoring and reporting. In total, Wiesemann told the council, MichCon has spent $2.6 million on the site investigation cleanup so far.

The investigation, Wiesemann continued, had provided a rich set of data with thousands of test results. The extent and nature of the environmental impacts at the site are now known, he said, and there’s no immediate risk to human health or the environment. There are still some structures on the site that are slated for removal, which have contamination. He showed the council a PowerPoint slide that indicated areas in yellow where structures and soil would be removed. One elongated area adjacent to the river is an area of impacted shallow soil and sediment – which will be excavated and replaced.

MichCon Property Remediation: Implementation

The success of the remediation plan, for which MichCon is now seeking approval from MDEQ, Wiesemann said, would lie in its implementation. He then sought to assure the council that impacts to Ann Arbor residents would be minimized. He told the council that MichCon has a lot of experience doing these kinds of remedial excavations – having completed dozens of them over the decades.

MichCon will use site controls like a security fence so that trespassers or children won’t wander onto the site. Surface water protection will be critical, he said, and a variety of tools will be used, including coffer dams, soft booms, and hard boom. Monitoring of the river water during the excavation would take place both upstream and downstream, he said. Odor-suppressing mist and foam would also be used, he said.

Wiesemann allowed that the impact of up to 20 trucks a day entering and leaving the site could be significant. Wheel washing would ensure that the trucks were not tracking sediment out of the site. MichCon would also plan to optimize the scheduling of truck traffic. In coordinating with the city, he said, MichCon had been advised, for example, that the Beakes and North Main area is not the best place to try to bring trucks through.

Wiesemann also pointed out the short-term economic gain due to the remediation activity and the long-term benefit of the environmental remediation. In addition to that, he reminded the council that MichCon will install and pay for the whitewater feature in the Huron River that was originally a part of the same project as the city’s planned Argo Dam bypass construction. The bypass, which has been named the Argo Cascades, is nearly complete.

MichCon Property Remediation: Whitewater Feature

Some councilmembers expressed concern about the impact of the excavation work on recreational users of the river. Wiesemann explained that the work would start on the upstream side and proceed downstream. By the time the work gets to the entry point from the Argo Cascades into the river, he said, it will be after Labor Day. After Labor Day, the Argo livery only offers weekend trips, which will coordinate well with MichCon’s weekday excavation activity. He allowed that it would not prevent someone from using their own canoe, instead of renting from the city’s livery. The fact that MichCon’s work will take place during the summer months, when the river will be relatively low, will also aid construction, he said.

Schematic showing the placement of the planned whitewater amenity in the Huron River, upstream from where the Argo Cascades enters into the river. (Image links to .pdf of slide presentation with higher resolution images.)

In connection with construction of the whitewater feature, councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned the placement of the feature that was indicated in the slide Wiesemann had shown, saying the rocks were not in the same place the council had previously been told they would be. It appeared that canoeists and kayakers who wanted to paddle through the planned whitewater amenity would need to navigate down the Cascades bypass, then paddle upstream through the whitewater and then reverse course, she said.

Wiesemann confirmed that was the planned implementation was as Briere described it. He indicated that this approach had been vetted with the city’s park and recreation staff. Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager, confirmed that understanding, telling the council that Cheryl Saam, manager of the canoe livery, had been consulted as well. The idea was to make sure that the swifter water was well away from the entry of the Cascades into the river – to ensure that novice paddlers did not encounter the whitewater. It would also mitigate against any congestion between user groups. [That is, experienced users looking to spend the day paddling up and down through the whitewater feature would not interfere with novice paddlers who would be descending the Cascades and continuing on a leisurely float down the Huron.]

MichCon Property Remediation: Future of the Site

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what the future of the parcel was after the remediation was complete. Wiesemann indicated it was not clear. MichCon recognized that there was a lot of potential on the site for redevelopment. Talks had just started to take place with interested stakeholders in the community. But at this point, he said, it would be premature to speculate on the end use. But he allowed that the MichCon leadership does see the parcel as “a catalyst for economic growth and public enjoyment within the community.”

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in with his hope that DTE Energy would collaborate with the Wolfpack, to add the parcel to the city’s park system. [The Wolfpack is a conservancy group associated with the National Wildlife Federation, co-founded by local attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman. (.pdf file of Wolfpack members)] Hieftje described how he could imagine tiered seating installed on the river bank opposite the whitewater feature so that people could come out and watch the kayakers navigate the rapids.

Hieftje confirmed with Wiesemann that even factoring in significant delays, the whitewater feature would be available for recreational users in the spring of 2013.

HRIMP and Land Use: Master Plan Revision?

At the March 8 master plan revisions committee meeting, Wendy Rampson – the city’s planning manager – noted that the Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan puts a priority on acquiring land along the Huron River. It indicates the goal of acquiring the entire MichCon parcel, Rampson said, but she’s not sure that’s realistic. The city’s Central Area Future Land Use map – part of the city’s master plan – shows the western portion of the site as parkland, and the eastern half for commercial/office use. Currently, the site is zoned M1 (industrial). Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff pointed out that much of the property lies within the floodway, which would limit development.

Rampson noted that there is only one HRIMP recommendation related to land use – the section on commercial development in the Broadway bridge/Argo area. From the HRIMP report:

Encourage limited development of a restaurant and/or other public-use facilities where the public congregates and can enjoy the river in the Broadway Bridge/Argo area, especially if it generates revenue for river planning and implementation.

Rampson asked whether the committee wanted to start working on a master plan amendment to incorporate this recommendation, or to propose something that makes the expectations for this recommendation clearer.

Evan Pratt, who had served on the HRIMP committee, said discussion on this topic among HRIMP committee members had centered mostly on the idea of having a restaurant in that area. He cited the example of Zingerman’s coffee and baked goods being sold at the cafe in Gallup Park – that’s an example of a business and park co-existing, he said. The idea was that it would be desirable if someone wanted to have a business that was related to the river area and that didn’t undermine the city’s canoe livery – like a bicycle rental business. So the zoning for that area shouldn’t allow large operations, but something more in keeping with drawing people to the river, Pratt explained.

Diane Giannola asked whether something like miniature golf would be appropriate. Is the idea to create an entertainment area, like a boardwalk?

Pratt replied that they don’t want anything like a San Antonio River Walk, but rather something for people to do that will open up the Huron River. Kirk Westphal added that a lot of ideas were discussed, including a paddle-up microbrewery, but a restaurant seemed to be the most common suggestion.

Rampson noted that while many people talk about a restaurant located right along the river, the topography would make that challenging. If the MichCon parcel becomes available, a building along the west end near the river isn’t possible, because the property is in the floodway. It would be possible to develop something on the east end of that property, she said, “but that doesn’t have the lovely views.”

Giannola noted that a raised structure could be built on the west portion of the property, but Rampson said that’s not what most people seem to envision – the preference is to be next to the river, not looking down on it. Westphal said there’s still a view of the river on the east end of the property, closer to the bridge. It’s not a wide-open vista, he said, but it’s nice.

Westphal wondered whether it would be possible to have a restaurant near the Argo livery, on land next to Argo Pond. Rampson said the HRIMP report wasn’t explicit about recommending anything in that area. Pratt weighed in that the spirit of the HRIMP committee discussions had focused on the Broadway area.

One issue with a restaurant near the Argo livery is that it’s located in a quiet residential area, Rampson noted. The lodge for the Society of Les Voyageurs is located there too. The question is whether introducing this type of new land use into that area is appropriate, she said.

A detail from the Central Area Future Land Use map, part of the land use section (Chapter 5) of the city's master plan. The large green and red section north of the railroad track and northwest of Broadway Street is the MichCon property. The property is zoned industrial, but the future land use indicates the western portion (green) for parks and open space, and the eastern portion (red) for commercial/office use. The Huron River runs to the north of the property. (Image links to .pdf of full Central Area Future Land Use map)

Rampson pointed out that for years, there have been efforts to revitalize the Lowertown area, east of the Broadway bridge. Perhaps a project on land near the bridge and the river could serve as a catalyst for development in Lowertown, she said. Rampson quipped that there’s a question about whether any land will be left after the University of Michigan finishes its projects in that area. [UM has been acquiring property along Wall Street, where its Kellogg Eye Center is located. The area is near the university's large medical complex.]

Rampson asked commissioners how deep they wanted to explore these options. A mini-study would be one approach, she said, or staff could work with commissioners to develop a set of recommendations. She asked whether they were interested in looking at just the site near the Broadway bridge, or if they wanted to focus on a broader area.

Giannola expressed support for looking at the entire Broadway/Lowertown area, not just one site.

City planner Jeff Kahan noted that there are several master plan-related efforts in the works right now – including studies of the Washtenaw Avenue and South State corridors – and the staff needs to strategize about how to use its limited resources. People might wonder what’s triggering an effort related to the HRIMP recommendations now, he said.

Rampson replied that there’s interest in the MichCon property, and in what DTE’s plans are for the property after they finish remediation work there. They could either put it on the market or ask the city to make an offer, she said. So you could argue that it’s timely to look at future land use for that area.

Kahan wondered whether it would “muck up the works” to go through a master plan and possible rezoning process that ends up doubling the value of that MichCon property, especially since it’s not yet clear what the company plans to do. He also noted that transit-related plans are unfolding quickly, and there’s uncertainty about that too. [The Fuller Road Station, a proposed parking garage and transit center located in that general area, has been paused – see Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"]

Finally, Kahan said, if a drain is dug underneath the railroad, the floodplain lines could change yet again – that’s another factor that could have an impact on the area. [Earlier in the meeting, Rampson had mentioned that the city is issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to possibly build a drain underneath the railroad to relieve flooding. The project might include a pedestrian underpass.]

Pratt noted that the city has three plans, each recommending three different types of land use for the Broadway bridges and Argo Dam area: (1) the HRIMP, which recommends commercial development; (2) the property’s current zoning, for industrial use; and (3) the master plan’s future land use map, which shows a combination of parkland and commercial/office use. Each of those land uses reflect different levels of intensity, he observed.

Rampson said she doesn’t think anyone is talking about rezoning at this point. The master plan could simply be amended to indicate a preference for the type of use on that property. Then if the property changes hands and is sold to a private developer, there would be guidance if the developer proposed a project there that required rezoning – which would be likely, she said. It would be less of a problem if the property is acquired by the city, she said, and becomes zoned as public land.

The MichCon property has a high recreational value, Kahan said. It’s a critical piece of the puzzle for creating a pathway system of parkland along the river, and the city has acquisition funds available for parkland. It would be good to have a conversation with Ginny Trocchio about that, he said. [Trocchio is the Conservation Fund staff member who manages the city's greenbelt and park acquisitions program, under contract with the city.]

Kahan said it goes back to his earlier point – should the city take action that might have an impact on the property’s value, by potentially increasing an appraisal of the land?

For now, Rampson said, the simplest approach would be to insert the language of the HRIMP recommendation into the city’s master plan. That way, there would be guidance regarding future use of the property in that area.

The committee discussed where the language might be inserted – in the master plan’s Lowertown section, or the central area section. [link to .pdf of the master plan's chapter on land use] Kahan wondered whether the HRIMP should be added as a supporting document to the master plan, as part of this change. Rampson advised against that, noting that it might open the Argo Dam question. “I’m not sure you really want to go there,” she told commissioners.

Pratt said he recognized that revisiting HRIMP could be opening a can of worms. But at the least, he said, getting HRIMP’s land use language into the master plan, as it relates to commercial development near the Broadway bridge and Argo, will help safeguard the future of that area.

The committee’s discussion will be taken up by the full planning commission at an upcoming, to-be-determined meeting.

Present: Planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal. Also city planners Wendy Rampson and Jeff Kahan.

Dave Askins contributed to the reporting of this article. The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission and the Ann Arbor city council. 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.

Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, and Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city's greenbelt program, were among the speakers at a Feb. 9 sustainability forum.

Issues of land use and accessibility were the topic of a sustainability forum on Feb. 9, the second in a series that’s part of a broader city sustainability initiative. During the forum, city staff also unveiled a set of draft goals for Ann Arbor related to four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told the audience that the 15 draft goals were extracted from more than 200 that had been identified in existing city planning documents. The hope is to reach consensus on these sustainability goals, then present them to the city council as possible amendments to the city’s master plan.

Speakers at the Feb. 9 forum included Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning; Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager and member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board; Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff; Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city’s greenbelt program; and Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission.

A Q&A followed presentations by the speakers and covered a wide range of topics, including thoughts on the proposed Fuller Road Station. The following day, Feb. 10, the city and University of Michigan announced plans to halt the initial phase of that controversial project – a large parking structure near the UM medical campus.

The topics of the series of forums reflect four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The first forum, held in January, focused on resource management, including water, solid waste, the urban forest and natural areas.

All forums are held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and are being videotaped by AADL staff. The videos will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Draft Sustainability Goals

The Feb. 9 forum was moderated by Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager. She said it’s hoped that the city’s sustainability effort, and these forums in particular, will serve as a springboard for a community discussion and help set overarching sustainability goals.

Wendy Rampson, city of Ann Arbor planning manager, moderated the Feb. 9 forum.

The overall sustainability initiative started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project set out to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. The overall project also aimed to improve access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing & human services commission have been added to the conversation, Rampson said. Many of those members attended the Feb. 9 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and drew around 100 people.

Over the past year, city staff and a committee made of up members from several city advisory commissions have evaluated the city’s 27 existing planning documents and pulled out 226 goals from those plans that relate to sustainability. From there, they prioritized the goals and developed a small subset to present for discussion.

The draft goals are:

Climate & Energy

• Sustainable Energy: Improve access to and support use of renewable energy by all members of our community.
• Energy Conservation: Reduce energy consumption and eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions in our community.
• High Performance Buildings: Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community.

Community

• Engaged Community: Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.
• Diverse Housing: Provide high quality, safe, efficient, and affordable housing choices to meet the current and future needs of our community, particularly for low-income households.
• Safe Community: Minimize risk to public health and property from manmade and natural hazards.
• Active Living: Improve quality of life by providing diverse cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for all members of our community.
• Economic Vitality: Create a resilient economy that provides access to employment opportunities, supports a diverse range of economic activities, and attracts investment to our community.

Land Use

• Transportation Options: Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.
• Sustainable Systems: Plan for and manage constructed and natural infrastructure systems to meet the current and future needs of our community.
• Efficient Land Use: Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.

Resource Management

• Clean Air and Water: Eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems.
• Healthy Ecosystems: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Responsible Resource Use: Produce zero waste and optimize the use and reuse of resources in our community.
• Local Food: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our local agriculture and aquaculture resource.

Rampson described the proposed goals as “very, very drafty.” A public meeting to discuss the goals will be held on March 29. Feedback can also be sent to the city via email at sustainability@a2gov.org.

Sustainability & Land Use: Framing the Issue

Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – led off remarks from the panel at the Feb. 9 forum. He began by saying it was great to discuss these issues, and that there are very committed people in the city who are willing to take risks and do things in innovative ways. His task at the forum was to frame the discussion of land use and sustainability, and he planned to do it through the lens of one idea – interaction.

Joe Grengs, University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, speaking at a Feb. 9 forum on sustainability in the city of Ann Arbor.

The real estate adage of “location, location, location” is really just a way of saying that place matters, Grengs said. Where you’re situated has an impact on your ability to interact with people and places – at schools, stores, work, and places of worship. Each location ties you to a network of opportunities and constraints. For example, it determines your social network, to some extent. It determines your educational opportunities – a family living just across the border in one school district might be able to send their kids to a great school, while the family on the other side of the district border might be going to a school with a weaker reputation.

Location is very much rooted in factors like income and race, he noted, and it’s central to determining the degree to which people interact. Transportation and land use also have a lot to do with interaction. To illustrate, Grengs presented a scenario. It’s Saturday afternoon, and you have four errands to run. Your teenager needs to get to high school for theater rehearsal, while your youngest child must get to the park for soccer practice. You have to drop by the drugstore to pick up a prescription, and as you’re leaving, your partner asks you to stop at the party store to get some candy.

To do these errands, would you rather travel slow or fast? Grengs asked. Most people would answer fast, he said, but his answer is: It depends. He said he’d ask how much total time it takes to do the errands – that’s more important than your speed of travel. So if you’re traveling slower but the places you need to be are close to you, it will take less time to do the errands. Proximity is crucial, Grengs said.

Yet transportation policies and our government’s codes and standards emphasize mobility and speed, Grengs observed. If that’s your end goal, then the means of achieving that goal include things like capacity expansion – more roads, more lanes of traffic – and ease of parking. But there’s a better way, he contended.

What if the goal is accessibility, Grengs asked, measured by the amount of interactions you can accomplish within a given period? And this really is our goal, he noted. With some exceptions, you’re not getting in the car and traveling to a location just because you like to drive. You’re interested in reaching the destination.

So what tools can you use to achieve the goal of accessibility? Mobility is one way, Grengs said. Connectivity – including the use of technology, like the Internet – is another. A third way of achieving accessibility is proximity – and that’s what land use policies can address.

In looking at these methods of achieving accessibility, Grengs noted that there’s a tension between mobility and proximity. Mobility is important when destinations are spread out, like in a rural or suburban setting. People travel on freeways or other major roads at high speeds to get from place to place. In contrast, in a place like Manhattan everything is close together. You won’t be traveling fast, or far. But in terms of accessibility, proximity helps residents accomplish more even though they’re moving more slowly, Grengs said.

Grengs concluded his remarks by making two final points. When a community takes steps to increase mobility, it’s important to stop and ask: Is this hurting us in terms of proximity? An example is sprawl – when infrastructure like roads is built farther out, developers respond by building in those far-ranging locations, and it undermines the goal of accessibility.

The other question to ask is: How can a community achieve its goal of accessibility? It’s a two-part recipe, Grengs said: (1) by making accessible places, through transportation and land use policies; and (2) by encouraging people to live and work in accessible places. Usually, he said, a community needs high density to achieve those goals.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Wendy Rampson introduced Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, by noting that the DDA was originally formed to support parking and infrastructure projects. But its work has shifted over the years from mobility issues to an increasing focus on accessibility, Rampson said.

City of Ann Arbor transportation manager Eli Cooper and Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority executive director Susan Pollay.

Pollay began by noting that the downtown doesn’t exist in isolation. She briefly reviewed the history of DDAs, noting that 1972 state-enabling legislation allowed the creation of these authorities in order to support economic development. There are now about 300 DDAs in Michigan, she said. The Ann Arbor DDA was formed in 1982 and over the years has been known for its management of the city’s parking system. In 2003 the DDA’s development plan was amended and renewed by the city for 30 years, and sustainability was one of its eight key goals. The aim, Pollay said, is for the downtown to be ”the sustainable heart of a sustainable city.”

The DDA supports that goal with different approaches, Pollay said. Regarding land use, the organization acts as an advocate. The DDA supported land conservation millages that were put on the ballot – and ultimately approved by voters – for the county and the city, she said. The authority also supports zoning that encourages residential development in the downtown area, Pollay said.

She noted between 1990 and 2000, there was no population growth in the DDA district. But the 2010 census showed that the DDA district had gained 1,263 new residents  – a 30% increase since 2000 – for a total of 4,607 residents. That’s at a time when the city and state lost population, she said.

Transportation is another approach that the DDA uses to achieve sustainability, Pollay said. More than 60,000 people commute into Ann Arbor each day. The idea is to get people out of those vehicles and using other forms of transportation. The DDA has provided grants for increasing service along the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s #4 Route between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Grants are also supporting (1) the AATA express routes between Ann Arbor, Chelsea and Canton; (2) parking for AATA service to the airport, which is expected to launch in March; (3) an exploratory study for commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell; and (4) a feasibility study for a transit connector between Ann Arbor’s north and south sides.

Pollay also pointed to the DDA’s financial support of the getDowntown program, noting that there’s been a dramatic shift in the number of people who use alternative transportation, including public transit and bicycling. Since 2002, the DDA has funded 95% of the program’s go!pass, which provides free bus passes to more than 7,300 employees of downtown businesses. In 2011, more than 630,000 rides were taking using the go!pass, Pollay said – a 15% increase compared to 2010. [For a roundup of ridership data, including go!pass usage, see "Transit: Ridership Data Roundup"]

Other transportation-oriented initiatives that the DDA helps fund include bike parking and lockers, free parking for motorcycles and mopeds, a Night Ride service, the Zipcar car-sharing service, and grants to groups like the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. Pollay said that 33% of downtown employees who own cars choose not to drive them to work.

The DDA also supports efforts to make the downtown more walkable, Pollay said. In addition to major streetscape improvement projects, other efforts include creating topiaries and edible landscaping, window display contests, and trip hazard/sidewalk maintenance.

Pollay pointed to sustainability as a component of construction projects supported by the DDA. For example, the authority provided a grant to the city of Ann Arbor to cover LEED certification costs on the city’s new municipal building. And the new underground parking garage that the DDA is building along South Fifth Avenue will include elements like electric-car stations, energy-saving fixtures, reuse of excavation site materials, and 100% stormwater detention.

Energy-saving programs are another way that the DDA supports sustainability, Pollay said. The DDA provided a grant to install LED lights downtown, for example, and has funded about 120 energy audits for downtown businesses. The authority tries to highlight these efforts whenever possible, Pollay said, to let the public know how the city is working toward sustainability. She cited signs at the Fifth and William surface parking lot as an example, explaining how pervious pavement is used there to handle stormwater runoff.

Pollay concluded by noting that many of these projects are accomplished by partnering with other entities.

Sustainability and Transportation

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, spoke about the city’s efforts to encourage different modes of transportation. Nationwide, in 1960 about 60% of people used a private vehicle as their primary mode of transportation to work. That number increased to nearly 90% by 2000, he noted. But in Ann Arbor, only about 70% use a private vehicle to get to work – and that percentage has been relatively flat since the 1970s.

So Ann Arbor has found a way to bend the trends, Cooper said. What makes the city special, and what can be done to strengthen the aspects of transportation that are sustainable?

The number of people who walk to work in Ann Arbor is about four times the national average, Cooper said. Policies that relate to sidewalk maintenance and pedestrian crossings help make that a safer option, he said, noting that the city recently adjusted its ordinance on pedestrian crossings. The city realizes that walking is a very sustainable mode of transportation, he said.

Going up the transportation hierarchy is bicycling, Cooper said. The city and University of Michigan have had a bicycle coordinating committee dating back to the 1970s. This year, the number of bike lanes in the city will exceed 40 miles, he said, and 3.5% of residents use bikes to commute from work – up from 2.3% in 2000. Bicyclists are burning calories, not carbon, Cooper quipped, and that’s part of the sustainability equation.

While walking and bicycling satisfy shorter trips, Cooper said, public transit gets you anywhere you want to go. He said the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority provides a fantastic service in a sustainable way. [Cooper was recently appointed to the AATA board.] Some buses in the fleet use biodiesel fuel, he noted, and about 50% of the fleet are hybrid electric buses.

Cooper also discussed railroad service in Ann Arbor, noting that investments are being made at the state and federal level to improve the tracks between Chicago and Detroit – passing through Ann Arbor – to make service more reliable. Work on a commuter rail service between Ypsilanti and Detroit is also underway, he said, although no dates have yet been set for when that might start.

Despite all of this, automobiless are still the main mode of transportation, Cooper noted, even in Ann Arbor. Auto technology is becoming more sustainable, he said, so the challenge is how the city can encourage people to use those more sustainable types of vehicles. That might include putting in charging stations for electric vehicles, or expanding car-sharing programs, he said.

Land Preservation: Ann Arbor’s Greenbelt

Ginny Trocchio gave an overview of the city’s greenbelt program – she’s a staff member of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to manage the program. The greenbelt is funded through a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax that voters approved in 2003 for land preservation and acquisition. A portion of that millage is used for parks acquisition, Trocchio said, but her presentation would focus on the greenbelt, which protects land outside of the city from development.

Park advisory commissioners Sam Offen and Gwen Nystuen attended the sustainability forum as members of the audience.

Most of the land preservation occurs through the purchase of conservation easements, she said. The property remains in private ownership, but there are restrictions on what can be done on the land, ensuring that the land isn’t developed and that its natural features are preserved. City staff go out to the properties once a year to monitor compliance.

Why is there a need for a greenbelt? Trocchio noted that in 2003, the real estate market and overall economy were quite different than today. Farmland and open space was being bought and converted into residential subdivisions, and there were concerns about the amount of sprawl that this area was seeing.

Since the millage was passed, Ann Arbor has protected over 3,500 acres within the greenbelt’s boundary, Trocchio reported. The city has also been able to leverage its investment on a one-to-one dollar match, by partnering with other entities. More recently, land prices have also worked in the program’s favor. When the greenbelt program was launched, land prices were about $16,000 per acre, Trocchio said. Now, that price has fallen closer to $4,000.

The city has also been able to secure more matching funds in recent years, both from federal sources as well as local partners like Washtenaw County, which has its own millage to protect open space and farmland. Some townships in the county – including the townships of Ann Arbor and Webster – also have land preservation millages, and have partnered with the greenbelt program.

Trocchio briefly reviewed the program’s finances, noting that the city had taken out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006 and is making payments with proceeds from the millage. In addition to debt service, expenses include greenbelt purchases. [For a detailed financial update on the greenbelt program, see Chronicle coverage of a September 2011 meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission.]

While there’s not the same kind of development pressure now, Trocchio cited food security as an issue, and noted that the city is building a sustainable perimeter of farmland. The program is also protecting land in the Huron River watershed, she noted, and protecting the region’s water supply. Other attributes of the greenbelt include preservation of scenic views, and in some cases support of educational and recreational opportunities – the Fox Science Preserve, a partnership with Washtenaw County, is an example of that, she said.

Ann Arbor Planning Policy

Two panelists addressed sustainability from the city’s planning perspective: Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff, and Evan Pratt, a member of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

From left: Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Jeff Kahan, Ann Arbor city planner.

Kahan told the audience that Ann Arbor has been pushing for sustainability before people even knew the word. He described five elements of the city’s sustainable land use: (1) natural systems preservation; (2) adaptive re-use; (3) land use efficiency; (4) mixed use development; and (5) pedestrian/transit-oriented development.

Protecting natural areas is one of the things the city does best, Kahan said. Ann Arbor was the first in Michigan to insert language into its city code to protect wetlands, landmark trees, woodlands and other natural areas, he said. And it was the second city in the nation to require on-site stormwater detention.

Adaptive re-use has been done in the city for decades, without thinking about it in terms of sustainability, Kahan said. Examples in town include the Gandy Dancer restaurant in a former train station, the Armory condo development at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street, Kerrytown Market and Shops, and Liberty Lofts.

Kahan then turned to land use efficiency, saying you couldn’t talk about it without mentioning the topic’s four-letter word, “which of course is ‘density.’” The city is preserving land in the greenbelt surrounding Ann Arbor, but the flip side of that is accommodating density in appropriate areas, he said, like the downtown and commercial corridors. Kahan also cited mixed-use developments – buildings that typically include a mix of retail shops and residential units – as being another land use approach that works downtown or in corridors like State Street or Washtenaw Avenue.

The city has also taken steps to encourage pedestrian- and transit-oriented development, Kahan said. He pointed to changes in the city code that have allowed buildings to be constructed closer to sidewalks, encouraging developers to put parking behind buildings rather than close to the street.

Evan Pratt discussed the role of the planning commission in land use and sustainability. He said a remark by Susan Pollay earlier in the forum had really resonated with him – that without partnerships, sustainability isn’t possible.

From left: Ann Arbor city planner Jeff Kahan and Ann Arbor city planning commissioner Evan Pratt.

Pratt said the process of reviewing goals in the city’s various planning documents has been interesting. There’s a lot of crossover, and some conflicting goals as well. He likes the idea of developing a matrix for scoring projects, so that a blended perspective could be used to evaluate projects.

It’s important to develop good policies that encourage the types of projects that the city wants to see, Pratt said – projects that encourage people to live downtown, for example, and that add to the city’s vibrancy. As an example, Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting. It was a “planned project,” he said, which meant that by offering up certain premiums, the developer could get permission to build a structure taller than what zoning would otherwise allow. In this case, those premiums included capturing 100% of the stormwater runoff on-site, putting solar panels on the roof to help heat water for the building, and getting LEED certification – something that’s written into a development agreement with the city.

Pratt concluded by saying there was one big “eureka” moment in looking through the 226 goals that had been culled from city plans. The words “region” or “county” appeared only three times. So Pratt said he wanted to leave the audience with one question: In what areas does Ann Arbor need to broaden its horizons?

Questions & Comments

During the last part of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Huron River

Question: Is anything being done to make the Huron River more of an attraction?

Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission noted that he’s also involved with the Huron River Watershed Council, a nonprofit that’s charged with protecting the river and its tributaries. [HRWC's website lists Pratt as chair of its board of directors.] Of all the city’s land use plans, he observed, none of them focus on the land adjacent to the river. The city’s Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) turned into an Argo Dam argument, he said, but there are some recommendations in the plan that apply to land use around the river. For example, a recommendation for commercial development in the Broadway bridges area states:

Encourage limited development of a restaurant and/or other public-use facilities where the public congregates and can enjoy the river in the Broadway Bridge/Argo area, especially if it generates revenue for river planning and implementation.

Pratt said the planning commission is interested in revisiting the HRIMP recommendations. He also pointed to the county’s Border-to-Border trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, and said a similar initiative is underway for the Huron River. Called RiverUp! and coordinated by the watershed council, the idea is to encourage communities to turn their face to the river, Pratt said. Among other things, there’s an economic benefit to doing that, he said. [For Chronicle coverage of the initiative, see: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Ginny Trocchio noted that one goal of the city’s greenbelt program is to protect land located in the Huron River watershed.

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff recalled that two decades ago, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan had identified a goal of developing a ring of parkland around Argo Pond. Much of the property at that time was owned by industrial firms, she said. Over the years, the city was able to acquire key parcels – including land that’s now Bandemer Park – and today that portion of the river has a trail system and more public access. It shows the value of planning documents and a vision in working toward a goal, Rampson said.

Questions & Comments: Urban Open Space

Question: What about the need for open space in downtown Ann Arbor? There’s been a debate about the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue, and whether the top of the underground parking structure being built there should be open space or a high-rise building. [The underground parking is being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] Research has shown the need for greenways and open space in urban areas, and how that kind of space generates economic development around it.

Noting that she lives near Dolph nature area on the city’s far west side, Susan Pollay of the DDA observed that the need for open space downtown is very different than in other parts of the city. Downtown open space poses different challenges and serves different purposes. Sculpture Plaza, at the corner of Fourth and Catherine, has been successful, she noted, while Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division doesn’t feel as good.

Eric Lipson, former Ann Arbor city planning commissioner, addressed the panel with a question about open space and its role in the downtown, in the context of the future use of the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion. In the background is Clark Charnetski, who addressed the panel expressing support for the Fuller Road Station.

Ingredients to Sculpture Plaza’s success include the fact that it’s small and manageable, Pollay said. It’s adjacent to retail stores, which helps animate the plaza – there’s usually activity there. Employees at the shops take ownership of the area, helping to clean it up. All of that is missing at Liberty Plaza, Pollay said. As the city looks at developing a greenway or deciding what goes atop the Library Lot, she indicated it will be important to learn from these other urban park experiences.

Urban areas also can serve multiple functions, Pollay noted. Main Street can be shut down for events like FestiFools. The surface parking lot next to Palio restaurant – at the corner of Main and William – is used for events like the annual car show and Taste of Ann Arbor. There are different needs and uses for open space, depending on the season, she said. Sidewalks are also important elements of urban open space, as are landscaped areas around parking lots. She noted that dogs, for example, need areas where owners can take them to do their business. The city can be smarter in thinking about the needs for downtown open space, Pollay concluded.

Jeff Kahan said the city’s planning staff is very interested in this issue. But you can’t simply apply suburban concepts – the notion that more is better – to the downtown, he said. Smaller, intimate spaces are more appropriate, like the farmers market, sidewalks, the Diag, or the bandshell at West Park. It’s important to remember that downtown users of open space aren’t likely looking for a large playground, he said. For one thing, not that many families with kids live downtown.

Eric Lipson, who had posed the original question, followed up by asking Pollay if she would support having a surface parking lot atop the underground parking structure that would also be used for community events. Absolutely, Pollay replied. She noted that the entry/exit ramps into the garage were specifically designed so that Library Lane – the small street running between Fifth and Division, just north of the downtown library – could be closed so that events could be held there. The point was to make cars secondary to that space, she said.

Lipson said everyone agrees that micro areas like Sculpture Plaza are needed. But there’s also a need for larger spaces, he said, like the Ingalls Mall area on the University of Michigan campus, where the Street Art Fair and Summer Festival‘s Top of the Park events are held. The Library Lot could serve the same purpose for the downtown, he said.

Wendy Rampson observed that the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan is a good place for this kind of suggestion to be included.

Questions & Comments: Fuller Road Station

Clark Charnetski – a member of the AATA’s local advisory council – referred to Evan Pratt’s description of a blended perspective, and said that Fuller Road Station is an example of that. Tradeoffs are involved, he said, and it’s important to look at two locations: The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street, and the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Although Fuller Road Station would use three acres for parking and a train station, Charnetski said, it would free up space where the current train station is located, which is near property owned by DTE that’s being cleaned up and could possibly become a park along the Huron River. So the tradeoff is in favor of relocating the train station to Fuller Road Station, Charnetski concluded – that’s something to keep in mind. [Charnetski's remarks were made the day before news broke that the city of Ann Arbor and University of Michigan were suspending plans for Fuller Road Station's initial phase – a large parking structure located near UM's medical complex. See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"]

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff noted that projects like Fuller Road Station and the Library Lot illustrate the difficult decisions that communities make on issues like density and transportation, and the appropriate locations for development. Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, said locating a train station next to a major employment site is fundamental in order to encourage walkability.

Rampson asked Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – to comment on techniques that communities might use to grapple with these tensions. Grengs said focus groups and other methods can be used to draw out ideas. But regarding the Fuller Road Station project in particular, Grengs said he had some concerns. He didn’t believe the university needed more parking, and said there are steps that could be taken to reallocate parking within UM’s current infrastructure.

The Fuller Road Station project undermines the city’s stated sustainability goals, Grengs said, because the mode of parking falls into a completely different category than walking, biking and rail transit. All of those latter modes work well in areas of high density, he said. But cars work against that – they are “big, hulking objects” that simply sit all day, he observed. So to have 1,000 cars parked at that location every day, at a place where there should be opportunities for interaction – places for retail or recreation, for example – “to me is a mistake and I’d urge the city to think about that,” he concluded. Grengs’ remarks were met with a smattering of applause from the audience.

Later during the Q&A, Rita Mitchell said she agreed with Grengs regarding Fuller Road Station, and she urged the city to consider adaptive re-use of the existing site of the Amtrak station instead.

Questions & Comments: Public Transit & Housing

Jeaninne Palms told panelists that she really appreciated these public discussions on sustainability issues. [Palms was one of the organizers of the Transition Ann Arbor initiative, which focused on some of these same issues.] The forums bring up perspectives that people don’t often think about, she noted. Palms cited Grengs’ comments about accessibility, and observed that that Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently increased the frequency of buses along Route #4, between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. She wondered what his thoughts were about making it more accessible for people who work in Ann Arbor to also live in Ann Arbor.

Jeaninne Palms addressed the panel with a question about transportation goals.

Grengs replied that Palms’ comment illustrates the point that addressing transportation goals can be done better by thinking about land use. Affordability is a barrier to living in Ann Arbor, he noted – it’s easier for low-income residents to live in Ypsilanti. So one way to solve the transportation problem is to create more affordable housing closer to jobs.

Evan Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that planning commission recommended for approval in January. [See Chronicle coverage: "618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support"] The apartment building will have a variety of unit sizes, he noted. [The proposal calls for 70 studio apartments, 70 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 7 duplex units with 1 bedroom each.] The plan also includes 121 spaces for on-site parking, Pratt said, which is far fewer than the total number of bedrooms.

He also noted that the development “unbundles” parking – that is, tenants aren’t given a parking space as part of their lease. Parking spaces must be rented separately. The city wants to encourage that, Pratt said. It’s not possible to stop people from choosing to have a car, he said, but it’s possible to ensure that a choice must be made – that it’s not automatic for parking to be provided.

Wendy Rampson observed that the issue involves the question of density. If it’s important to have more workforce housing, that means more housing units will be needed. One way to accomplish that is through accessory apartments, she said. But when the city discussed that possibility a decade ago, the community decided that wasn’t something it wanted. In places like California, Rampson said, communities have turned to accessory dwellings as one way to increase density.

[At the same meeting in January 2012 when the planning commission recommended approval of the 618 S. Main project, they also authorized a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, to allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. According to planning staff, it was only the second time a special exception use had been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s. The effort that Rampson mentioned would have changed the city's zoning to make it possible for non-family members to live in accessory apartments.]

Commenting at the end of the Q&A session, Rita Mitchell noted that a four-party agreement is now being discussed that could lead to a countywide transportation system. [Action on four-party agreement – between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has been postponed three times by the Ann Arbor city council, most recently at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting.] Mitchell suggested that AATA should improve its existing routes and make service truly excellent, saying it would be a draw for people and would provide environmental benefits as well.

Rampson noted that transit ridership has increased. The AATA recently started more frequent service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, she said, which is already showing increased ridership. Eli Cooper added that increased service requires increased resources. Part of the proposed countywide plan calls for enhancing services in the core population areas, as well as better connecting communities within the county, he said.

Questions & Comments: Noise

Question: Ann Arbor is surrounded by freeways. I live by M-14 and there’s nothing but noise. There should be some thought given to creating a buffer – berms, or trees – because noise has a big impact on quality of life.

Susan Pollay said she didn’t have an answer, but a comment. A few years ago, when M-14 was shut down for construction, it was incredibly quiet. It was remarkable not to have that freeway sound – she hadn’t previously been aware that it was such a constant background noise.

Eli Cooper noted that building noise barriers or berms is prohibitively expensive, and yields a limited effect. He agreed that noise affects the quality of life for residents. That’s why it’s important to encourage quieter modes of transportation, like walking, bicycling, or using hybrid buses.

Questions & Comments: Local vs. State Policy

Question: To what extent are people thinking about the future, with regard to resisting certain tendencies? For example, the University of Michigan isn’t accountable to the residents of Ann Arbor. The state is also doing things that residents don’t want – like allowing companies to shoot movies in the city. There’s nothing sustainable about that. The city should have its own policies.

Eli Cooper replied that in order to be successful, the city needs to align its policies with entities around it. Being sustainable within the city’s boundaries is one thing, he said, but it’s also important to consider sustainability in a broader context. And it’s important for the city to coordinate and work well with higher forms of government, like the county and the state.

Future Forums

Two more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor. 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!

"Please do not leave engines idling. Exhaust damages historic properties." A private property owner has placed this sign in a downtown Ann Arbor alley to discourage delivery drivers from leaving their trucks running. It's advisory only. If an ordinance were enacted by Ann Arbor's city council, the city would post signs alerting drivers to the local law. (Photos by the writer.)

The council got a more detailed briefing on Tuesday, when the city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, and two members of the city’s environmental commission addressed the council. The draft ordinance covers all engines, from heavy-duty trucks to passenger vehicles to generators. It would limit idling to 5 minutes in any given one-hour period. The draft ordinance includes a number of exceptions – for public safety vehicles and for cold weather, for example.

The goal of the ordinance is not to improve overall air quality in Ann Arbor, but rather to improve conditions in very specific localized contexts – school drop-off zones, for example. And the idea is not to create legislation that would then be aggressively enforced. Naud drew an analogy to the city’s ordinance regulating phosphorus-based fertilizers – no citations have ever been issued for ordinance violations, yet the city has achieved a measurable reduction in phosphorus loading in the Huron River since enactment of that ordinance.

Reaction from councilmembers was mixed. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) seemed more interested in exploring the possibility of changing drivers’ behavior through educational outreach than through enacting an ordinance.

Responding to the presentation and summarizing council commentary, mayor John Hieftje ventured that the council was interested in hearing about an educational program. He described that approach as a wiser course than talking about enforcement. Margie Teall (Ward 4), who until recently served as one of two city council representatives to the environmental commission, was more supportive of at least enacting an ordinance, in order to give the educational effort some “backbone.”

Any councilmember could choose to place the ordinance on a future meeting agenda. The council would then need to vote to give it initial approval, and a public hearing would be held, before a final council vote enacting a new ordinance.

Background on Development of Idling Ordinance

City environmental coordinator Matt Naud led off the presentation by saying that “many moons ago” the city’s environmental commission had made a recommendation to the city council that an ordinance should be developed to address unnecessary idling. The council had given city staff the direction to “go forth and do so.” Naud allowed that it had taken a little while, but the idling ordinance had been developed and was being provided back to the council for its consideration.

Mayor John Hieftje asked for clarification about the scope of the council directive – was it for all vehicles or just heavy trucks? [As expressed in the 2004 resolution, the directive with respect to the ordinance was restricted to heavy-duty trucks. The resolution also directs the identification of ways to reduce idling by other vehicles.] Sabra Briere (Ward 1) remarked that it had been in the works for nearly a decade – the environmental commission’s work pre-dated the 2004 city council resolution.

Naud described how in Ann Arbor, the focus on unnecessary idling had started with a number of complaints that had come to him and other staff – such complaints are received on a regular basis. Residents at the Armory – a condo building located kitty corner from city hall at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street – complained when buses delivering children to the nearby Hands-On Museum would park immediately adjacent to the Armory. In the summertime, the windows would be open in those apartments.

Naud ventured that other examples are well known in the community – from delivery trucks to parents dropping off kids at elementary schools – of vehicles idling when they don’t need to. To address that issue, Naud said, a draft ordinance has been developed.

The draft idling ordinance is included in a 2008 white paper that was developed by the environmental commission. [.pdf of 2008 idling white paper]

Draft Idling Ordinance

Naud summarized the draft ordinance by saying that it recommends covering all internal combustion engines – heavy-duty vehicles (large trucks), light-duty vehicles, passenger vehicles, and also small engines (for example, lawn mowers, or generators at construction sites). Generators at construction sites had also generated a lot of complaints, Naud said, when workers go off to lunch, and leave a construction site with a generator running.

The ordinance limits idling to 5 minutes in any 60-minute period, Naud said. Other communities that regulate idling have used 1 minute, 3, 5 or 10 minutes. That’s a policy choice the council can make, Naud said. A number of exemptions are provided – for public safety vehicles and cold temperatures, for example. [.pdf of draft idling ordinance]

Councilmembers were concerned about the enforcement of the ordinance. Given that one of the localized areas where unnecessary idling has been identified as a problem is school drop-off and pick-up zones, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if the city’s community standards officers could go onto school property to enforce the ordinance. From the city’s staff attorney on hand came the answer – as a general rule, yes.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) was concerned about the list of exceptions, and the list of city staff who are authorized to enforce the ordinance: “That scares the hell out of me!” Naud noted that in the list, the only applicable city staff are indicated where Chapter 71 is underlined. It’s not as long a list as it appears.

Other Idling Legislation

Naud noted that many communities have developed ordinances that address vehicle idling – as a tool to deal with unnecessary idling in their community. The list of communities from the 2008 white paper hasn’t been updated, he said, but he had an updated version, which he could pass around. [.pdf of American Transportation Research Institute list]

The Michigan legislature also has a bill in process that addresses idling, but it’s unclear where that’s going to go, Naud said. [.pdf of HIB 4899] [.pdf of SIB 0819]

Two members of the environmental commission – John Koupal and John German – then addressed the city council. Naud described them as having real expertise in air quality and air monitoring.

When Is Idling Necessary? Advances in Technology

John German described his background in the automotive field – with Chrysler, the Environmental Protection Agency and Honda. He ventured that he might be better known in Europe and China than he is here. For the last three years, he said, he’s worked for the International Council for Clean Transportation – he’s the council’s technology expert and works with government regulators worldwide.

Idling has come up recently as an issue, he said. It has not been an issue before because of the huge benefits that society gets from mobility. Because of those benefits, people have been willing to put up with impacts on safety, congestion, air pollution. There’s a tension between the benefits and the negative impacts, he said, and you always want to minimize the negative impacts. Idling, however, has nothing to do with mobility, he said. The situation being addressed in the ordinance is one where the vehicle is not moving. He stressed that the area of focus does not include when a car is in traffic, stopped with the engine running.

A lot of things have changed, German said. It used to be that vehicles were not all that easy to restart. Gasoline engines would start with a richer fuel mixture, and sometimes it would entail a fair amount of cranking where raw fuel goes to the engine. So it was previously the case that a certain amount of idling was better than shutting the engine off and restarting it. That same principle previously applied to the initial starting of an engine. In the “old days” if you started a cold engine and immediately drove off, you did damage to the engine.

When it comes to diesel engines, German continued, Detroit Diesel made a two-stroke engine for a while that was almost impossible to restart. So when you see diesel truck operators who never shut their engines off – even if it means idling for an hour or two – it’s really a legacy mindset from that one engine. Engines today are very different, he said. Computer controls and the sensors on them allow engines to restart almost instantly, burning no additional fuel. If you shut the engine off for 10-15 seconds you will actually save fuel, he said. The amount you consume during 10-15 seconds of idling is more fuel than it takes to restart the engine.

With respect to the perceived need to let an engine have an “initial idle” when it’s first started, German said that motor oils are better now, even than just 10 years ago. And engine tolerances and assembly are better. On a cold day and cold engine, you can start it up and drive off, with no impact on the durability of the engine. So there are a lot of legacy reasons for why people think they need to idle, but none of them are really valid anymore, he said.

The emission impacts of idling, German explained, include benzene for gasoline engines. If you have a cold engine, on initial start, you can get a fair amount of particulate emissions from a gasoline engine. You also have a certain amount of CO emissions. In general, in a gasoline engine that is properly operating, there’s not a lot of emissions at idle. But there are situations where it can be a problem, such as people waiting to drop off children at schools. Plus, he said, you save money by shutting the engine off.

Naud added to German’s remarks by saying that he’d always thought light-duty vehicles were as clean as they’d ever been. But the worst emissions for a regular passenger car come when it’s under 50 F and it’s idling after the initial start. It adds up to an enormous amount of emissions, Naud said. German noted that what’s really important with today’s vehicles is to get the mechanisms for complete, clean combustion of the fuel engaged quickly. And on a cold day, you do that much faster if you drive off, instead of letting the engine idle.

Health Impacts: Representing Breathers

John Koupal introduced himself as a member of the city’s environmental commission. He told the council that German was his boss for a while at the EPA. He’s also worked for Nissan – so he’s worked on the government and the industry side of things.

Koupal told the council he was not representing the EPA, but rather the “breathers of our community and also the parents of breathers.” His work has been on vehicle regulations, vehicle technology and vehicle control. He’s been looking at emission impacts and health impacts from vehicle emissions. Fundamentally, he said, it’s a health issue. There are a lot of benefits to reducing unnecessary idling. There’s a distinction between saying, “Don’t idle at a traffic light!” – which he said would be ridiculous – and “Don’t idle when you’re dropping your kids off at school or picking them up.”

You’re not only wasting fuel and increasing damage to the engine over time, but you’re putting harmful pollutants into the environment that are damaging to everyone’s lungs, but particularly to young lungs, Koupal said. There are a number of things that come out of tailpipes when vehicles are idling.

It’s easy to look at trucks and see the soot coming out and say, “That’s really bad, I don’t want to breathe that,” Koupal said. But passenger vehicles are also a major part of the problem through their contribution to air toxins. He described a study done by USA Today in December 2008, where they looked at air quality monitoring at 95 different schools. They found elevated levels of benzene, he said, which primarily comes from gasoline car exhaust.

Benzene is a carcinogen, Koupal said, regulated by the EPA. Benzene is being found near schools because you see a lot of cars stacked up dropping off and picking up kids. In addition to benzene, he said, carbon monoxide is generated by vehicles. By one estimate, he said, one minute of exposure to engine exhaust is the same carbon monoxide exposure as smoking three packs of cigarettes. When you don’t see soot coming out of the tailpipe, it’s easy to think, “Oh, cars are much cleaner, it can’t be that unhealthy!” But the stuff that’s being put into our lungs and our kids’ lungs is really a health issue, he said. And that’s what the ordinance is meant to address. He encouraged the councilmembers to read the section of the white paper describing the health impacts.

Impact of Passenger Vehicles

Koupal said that Naud had asked him to look at the impact of passenger vehicles. Some idling ordinances in other communities look at trucks only, he said. The whole analysis is in the white paper that was provided to councilmembers.

The estimate from the Washtenaw County Transportation Study (WATS) is that on an average day in Ann Arbor, there are 440,000 passenger vehicle trips. Koupal said they estimated about 2,000 bus trips and 22,000 heavy truck trips (based on heavy trucks accounting for 5% of all vehicle miles traveled).

Proportion of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, and buses – assuming 10% of vehicles idling for 10 minutes per trip. (Image links to .pdf of 2008 white paper.)

We don’t know how much they idle unnecessarily, Koupal said. But he called it a conservative estimate to assume that 10% of trips would include 10 minutes of unnecessary idling. In terms of the amount per day, it’s a not large contribution.

But it’s not a matter of overall ambient air quality, he said. The ordinance is meant to address the localized health impact – direct exposure at schools or for pedestrians downtown.

It’s also a matter of the relative contribution – close to half of overall pollution is attributable to passenger vehicles. Restricting focus to volatile organic compounds (e.g. benzene), passenger cars account for 2/3 of overall emissions. For carbon monoxide, cars account for around 90% of that gas. So it’s important to address passenger cars as well as trucks and buses, he said.

During council deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) questioned the assumption that 10% of trips including 10 minutes of unnecessary idling – which had been characterized as “conservative.” He said he wouldn’t imagine 10% of his trips include 10 minutes of unnecessary idling time.

Naud responded by saying it was an attempt get a rough idea. Naud felt there’s a lot of idling in winter in driveways, for example. Koupal noted that even if you cut the assumption in half, passenger cars still make a significant relative contribution to air toxins compared to heavy-duty trucks. The question that the 10%, 10-minute assumption tries to address is whether to regulate only heavy-duty engines, he said.

Localized Impact – Outreach to AAPS

At one point, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) summarized the goal of enacting an ordinance as not being about improving overall air quality – it’s more tactical. The idea is to focus on areas where large numbers of vehicles gather. Koupal responded by saying that he did not want to dismiss overall quality, but allowed that improving overall air quality is not the driver for the ordinance – most emissions come in non-idling contexts, he said.

The goal of the proposed idling ordinance is not to improve overall air quality. This map shows that July 1, 2011 was not a good day for air quality in the Ann Arbor area. (Image links to AirNow.gov, which provides an archive of air historical air quality maps, and includes animations depicting the changes in air quality through the day.)

An often-mentioned localized context targeted by the ordinance was school drop-off and pick-up zones. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Naud how much outreach had been done to the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

Naud reported that initially there’d been a lot of talks, but recently not a lot of conversation. The person he’d spoken with previously had been the district’s executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent. Naud characterized AAPS as supportive – the district had its own policy but found it difficult to enforce. The district had done some of its own research and didn’t think a 3-5 minute timeframe would be a problem. But Naud allowed that no official conversation had taken place in a few years.

Queried by email about the current status of the district’s attitude toward the issue, AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis wrote to The Chronicle that the district had not continued conversations internally since the initial dialogue took place. She indicated that it would likely be referred to the district’s transportation safety committee, chaired by Brad Mellor.

This is a view from south to north of an alley connecting the Klines lot with West Liberty Street. It's part of the Main Street historic district. A sign affixed to the east wall of the alley, about eight feet off the ground, is easily visible from the cab of a large delivery truck. The text of the sign asks drivers not to leave their engines idling – the exhaust damages historic properties. (Image links to larger resolution file.)

At the Jan. 17 working session, Briere pressed for more examples of the localized contexts the ordinance was meant to target – beyond people idling in driveways and school zones. Picking up on the mention during Koupal’s remarks of pedestrians in the downtown area, she asked if that is really an issue?

Naud responded by saying that it can be an issue downtown in loading and unloading zones. If an ordinance were to be enacted, Naud said, the city would need to buy signs. He has a rough estimate of how many zones there are. He noted that he knew of one case where someone had posted their own sign.

By way of additional background, the sign in question is located in an alley that connects West Liberty Street to the Klines Lot, on the downtown’s west side.

Does the sign work? Newcombe Clark, an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member, lives in an apartment overlooking the alley. He responded to an email query by saying the “sign works with more veteran drivers. Newer drivers or drivers not on their normal route tend to ignore it.”

Responding to a question from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Naud said that it would be very expensive to undertake studies of air quality in the micro-environments where the city is trying to improve conditions.

Education versus Enforcement, Enactment

Responding to questions from councilmembers, Naud said he assumed public education would be a part of the enactment of the ordinance. He alluded to the city’s ordinance regulating phosphorus fertilizer.

By way of background, a key section of the city’s ordinance reads:

6:404. – Regulation of the use and application of manufactured fertilizer containing phosphorus.
(1) Manufactured fertilizer that contains any amount of phosphorus or a compound containing phosphorus, such as phosphate, shall not be applied to general turf within the City, except under 1 or both of the following conditions:
a. Application of manufactured fertilizer to an area where general turf is being established from seed or sod, during the first growing season of the seed or sod.
b. Application of manufactured fertilizer that is exempt under section 6:405 of this chapter.

For a more detailed discussion of phosphorus loading on the Huron River, see “Environmental Indicators: Phosphorus.”

Naud explained that the city was not interested in creating ordinances that are difficult to enforce. However, an ordinance provides a tool, when education and signs don’t work. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that in connection with the city’s experience with the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance, outreach had been stressed before enforcement. But in connection with that ordinance, the council hadn’t really talked about the impact on the city’s budget – how the city would implement the ordinance, and educate people on the meaning of the ordinance.

In that context, Briere wondered what the impact would be on staff and budget line items. If the city enacts this ordinance and chooses to engage in an educational program, it might mean the city can’t do something else. So she wanted more information on the budget impact.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also wanted to know what the budget impact would be. Lumm expressed the view that education is fine, but enforcement is an entirely different matter. She wondered if an ordinance is an appropriate way to educate people. She asked how many fines had been issued for violations of the city’s phosphorus fertilizer ordinance – not a one, replied Naud.

Lumm ventured that the phosphorus example provided evidence that education is more helpful than penalizing people. Naud countered by saying literally millions of dollars had been spent on education about phosphorus fertilizers. Only when an ordinance was enacted, he said, were measurable reductions achieved in phosphorus loading on the Huron River. The ordinance got people paying attention and that changed the market. Ann Arbor is the only city in the country that has seen measurable reductions in phosphorus, Naud said.

For her part, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who has served on the city council for a decade, said she’d been listening to this discussion as long as she’s served on the council. To her, it’s an educational issue – drivers need to understand the improvements in engine technology that German had described.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) summed it up by saying that part of the educational effort is teaching people that the engine they have in their car now is not the one they grew up with. Higgins ventured that part of the educational impact would be to have “all those little people in your home [children]” chastise you. She said that if there were a child who’d learned in school that you should shut your car off, those children would be sitting in the back seat telling their parents: You should shut the car off!

Toward the end of the session on the idling ordinance, mayor John Hieftje told Naud that the council appeared interested in education. He described education as a wiser course than talking about enforcement. Hieftje wondered if there might be grant programs that could fund educational efforts. Hiefjte said he felt that the council had advanced the conversation already.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) got the last word. She said the city is fortunate to have two experts, like German and Koupal. She pointed to the list of other communities that have ordinances, saying that education is a great thing to get people to reduce idling – school kids and drivers education could help. But she added that an ordinance is a great tool to give a backbone to the concept itself.

Sometimes you need a threat in the back of your mind, Teall said. To pass an ordinance would say that the city thinks it’s important. She drew a comparison to the city’s graffiti ordinance, which was not enforced immediately on enactment. The idea is to work towards compliance, not enforcement. But when the educational efforts are disregarded, there needs to be a way to bring people into line, she concluded.

Next Steps

Based on the council’s deliberations, some kind of funding proposal for the educational component of any ordinance would likely be needed to get the council’s support for enacting an ordinance. Any councilmember could choose to place the ordinance on a future council agenda.

The Chronicle relies in part on 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!

Matt Naud, Ann Arbor's environmental coordinator, moderated a panel discussion on resource management – the topic of the first in a series of four sustainability forums, all to be held at the Ann Arbor District Library. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the first of four public forums, and part of a broader sustainability initiative that started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project’s main goal is to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. Other goals include improving access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work has been guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: Park, planning, energy and environmental. Many of those members attended the Jan. 12 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The topics of the forums reflect four general themes that have been identified to shape the sustainability framework: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The Jan. 12 panel on resource management was moderated by Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator. Panelists included Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council (and a member of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission); Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program; Tom McMurtrie, Ann Arbor’s solid waste coordinator, who oversees the city’s recycling program; and Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, also participated by giving an overview of sustainability issues and challenges that local governments face. [The university has its own sustainability initiative, including broad goals announced by president Mary Sue Coleman last fall.]

The Jan. 12 forum also included opportunities for questions and comments from the audience. That commentary covered a wide range of topics, from concerns over Fuller Road Station and potential uses for the Library Lot, to suggestions for improving the city’s recycling and composting programs. Even the issue of Argo Dam was raised. The controversy over whether to remove the dam spiked in 2010, but abated after the city council didn’t vote on the question, thereby making a de facto decision to keep the dam in place.

Naud said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum had proven him wrong. The city is interested in hearing from residents, he said: What sustainability issues are important? How would people like to be engaged in these community discussions?

The forum was videotaped by AADL staff and will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Sustainability & Resource Management: Setting the Stage

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, began the panel presentation by saying that he’d been asked to talk about the big picture concepts related to these themes, and challenges that local governments face in dealing with them. He emphasized that the concept of sustainability encompasses more than just the environment, but that this first forum would focus on environmental issues.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, and a member of the Huron River Watershed Council executive committee.

Norton gave a brief overview of possible ways to think about attributes of a clean environment, related to topics that would be discussed by panelists. For air and water quality, it’s important that those resources are unpolluted, available in sufficient quantity, and that residents have adequate access. Viable ecosystems are one way to provide clean air and water, he said. Ecosystems provide filtering functions, and are a source of biodiversity – we suffer if we homogenize our environmental base, he said. Ecosystems also provide an aesthetic quality, making places pleasant to live.

Regarding responsible resource use, Norton pointed to the three Rs: Reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycling is good, he said, but reuse is better and reducing is the best approach to responsible resource use. It’s also important to think about the waste stream, and how waste can be used as input for new systems. Composting is one example of that.

Norton then outlined four challenges that local governments face when dealing with these issues. The first is factual uncertainty. The world is complex, and there is a great amount of scientific uncertainty. That gives people ammunition to argue against environmental protection, he said. There’s uncertainty over when a substance becomes pollution, for example. Carbon dioxide or arsenic are common elements – at what amounts do those elements become pollutants? Another uncertainty relates to resource depletion. The environment is a resilient receptor, Norton said – it can take a lot of shock to its system. But at what point does disruption and depletion of resources become too great? That uncertainty makes it difficult for government to act, he said.

Moral disagreements are another challenge for governments, Norton said. Is nature a form of sacred life, or just toilet paper on a stump? Should nature be preserved at the expense of jobs? And who gets to decide? Norton said he tells his students that if you have a collaborative planning process, you’ll encounter a plurality of values. That’s a challenge.

Capacity problems – both legal and financial – are also an issue, Norton said. Local governments are creatures of the state, he said, and can only do what the state enables them to do by law. A lot of local officials are reticent to undertake proactive environmental protection, but they have a lot more capacity to act than they think, he contended.

Regarding fiscal capacity, Norton noted that financial resources are highly strained, and there’s a sentiment that local governments can’t afford this “sustainability stuff.” But Norton argued that energy efficiency, for example, is often less expensive in the long term, though it usually requires a higher upfront investment. He encouraged officials to make decisions based on a longer timeframe.

The final challenge Norton cited is a category he called “unhappy propensities” – localism, parochialism and inertia. Localism is the attitude that “we get to decide,” he said. Parochialism is the belief that if something is happening outside of our borders, we don’t need to worry about it. That works if the problems are downstream, but not so much if it’s an upstream problem headed our way.

Then there’s the challenge of inertia: We’ve always done it this way, so why change? Norton noted that sustainability is a different way of looking at things, and that means change. Ann Arbor is stepping out in front of other communities, Norton said, and is pushing these boundaries. He encouraged a broader perspective, looking at decisions as they fit into a bigger system.

Water Resources: Protecting the Huron River

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, began by describing the history of HRWC. The nonprofit was founded in 1965 by 17 communities along the Huron River who were concerned about protecting this water resource. They knew they couldn’t just look at it from the perspective of where the river flowed through their individual jurisdictions.

Sometimes people overlook the value of the watershed, Rubin said. In addition to providing drinking water, the river also is an asset for recreation, property values, wildlife habitat and stormwater control. The watershed – including the Huron River and its tributaries – is arguably the region’s largest natural feature.

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The Huron River is the only river in southeast Michigan that’s a state-designated “natural river.” The designation affords the river special protections, she said, related to development and vegetation. The watershed also is protected by strong local and regional regulations and partnerships, Rubin said, citing the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority as one example.

The watershed offers a wealth of recreational and fishing opportunities, Rubin said, and provides a habitat to threatened and endangered wildlife, including the northern madtom, the snuffbox mussel, the prairie fringed orchid, the least shrew, and the massasauga rattlesnake.

But although the Huron River is the cleanest urban river in Michigan, she said, there are also problems. Many sections are classified as “impaired,” based on the inability to meet certain uses, like swimming or fishing, as laid out in the federal Clean Water Act. Two major problems are excess levels of phosphorus and E. coli – a problem that’s especially common in urban areas, Rubin said. Sources for E. coli include animal and human feces, which can be discharged into the river from wastewater or sewer overflow during storms.

Other problems causing the impaired classification relate to sediment, erratic flows, low dissolved oxygen, mercury and PCBs.

Rubin outlined several broader threats to the area’s water resources. The region, sandwiched between the urban areas of Detroit and Lansing, has lost many of its natural areas, she said. Ann Arbor itself has become more urbanized, which has contributed to the loss of habitat, as well as to pollution, warmer temperatures and erratic flows.

Hydrologic changes are another threat. The river has 97 documented dams, Rubin said, and this changes flow patterns tremendously. It leads to the loss of wetlands, causes sedimentation, and alters the way that the ecosystem functions.

Rubin also identified “non-point” source pollution as a threat to the watershed. As rain falls onto roofs, into gutters, and onto roads, it collects pollutants that eventually flow into the river. That’s the No. 1 cause of water pollution in the U.S., she said.

A variety of tools are used to address these issues, Rubin said, including watershed-wide partnerships, data that’s collected and analyzed, advocacy and education. Due to efforts by the watershed council and the University of Michigan, the Huron is one of the best studied rivers in Michigan, she said.

The watershed council pushes people to do more to protect the river, Rubin said. Staff and volunteers work on water-quality monitoring, for example, as well as an adopt-a-stream program, which includes data collection and experiential learning.

There’s value in having “eyes on the river,” Rubin concluded. Among other things, it enables the long-term tracking of trends, and provides a scientific basis to advocate for local and state protection policies.

Following Rubin’s presentation, Matt Naud asked the audience a trivia question: How many cities use the Huron River for their drinking water? Just one – Ann Arbor, he said. That’s why the city cares about its upstream partners.

Solid Waste: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, began by saying that recycling is one of the most effective things that people can do to reduce their carbon footprint. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified Ann Arbor as one of the nation’s top recycling communities, he said. So how did the city get to this point?

From left: Kerry Gray, Ann Arbor's urban forest & natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program; and Tom McMurtrie, solid waste coordinator.

In the 1970s, the city brought curbside recycling to every home in the city, McMurtrie said. Back then, recycling required more work – residents had to separate green glass from brown glass, cardboard from newspapers. It reminded him of a favorite New Yorker cartoon: “Recycling in Hell.”

In 1991 the city introduced two-stream recycling. And every multi-family building was added, which doubled participation. The city built a sorting facility at the location of the current drop-off site.

Then in 2010, McMurtrie said, the city moved to another level of recycling: single stream. New plastics were added to the list of recyclables, and new carts with radio-frequency tags were deployed, which allowed single-family homes to record their recycling and be eligible for a rewards program.

In mid-2010, a $3.5 million overhaul was completed to the city’s materials recovery facility – known as the MRF (pronounced “murf”)– at 4150 Platt Road. Overall tonnages of recyclables have tripled, he said, with materials coming from as far away as Toledo and Lansing. Four new hybrid recycling trucks were purchased, which use less fuel.  Four more hybrid trucks will likely be added in 2012, he said.

McMurtrie also pointed to the concepts of “reduce” and “reuse.” His suggestions included shopping for fresh food at the farmers market, where less packaging is used, and using reusable bags whenever possible. About two years ago, the city also added the option of including food waste in its composting program, he noted. Every pound of food or yard waste that’s composted greatly reduces the burden on landfills, he said.

Showing images extracted from a core boring taken at the closed Ann Arbor landfill, McMurtrie noted that most materials in the landfill haven’t decomposed.

McMurtrie concluded by saying that the city is working on an update of its five-year solid waste plan, and he encouraged residents to participate by giving their input. The first meeting will be held on Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 from 4-6 p.m. in the 4th floor conference room in Larcom City Hall, 301 E. Huron. The meeting is open to the public.

Urban Forest Management

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator, said that until recently, the city didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of its urban forest resources. In 2009, city staff finished an updated tree inventory, cataloging location and maintenance needs, among other things. The city has 42,776 street trees, 6,923 park trees (in mowed areas), and 7,269 potential street planting locations, she said.

Maintenance needs were also inventoried, with 1,642 trees identified as priority removals and 3,424 trees that needed priority pruning. An additional 43,271 trees needed routine pruning, and 1,362 stumps needed to be removed.

In 2010, the city completed an evaluation of its urban tree canopy, Gray reported. The canopy covers nearly 33% of the city. Of that, 46% is located in residential areas, 23.7% is in the city-owned right-of-way, and 22% is in recreational areas, such as parks. Compared to other cities, Ann Arbor’s tree canopy is average, she said.

Chart of tree diversity in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Gray addressed the issue of tree diversity, and said the city discourages the planting of maple trees, which account for 37% of the public tree population. ”Plant something other than a maple – that’s my take-away message,” she said.

Ann Arbor’s urban forest is a tremendous asset, Gray said. Public trees provide an estimated annual $2.8 million in benefits related to energy, property values, stormwater control, air quality and other benefits.

But in the past, there hasn’t been a management plan for the urban forest, unlike the city’s other assets, Gray said. So in 2010, city staff began developing an asset management plan, with the goal of maintaining the urban forest and maximizing its benefits. The city is doing a lot of public engagement related to this plan, she said – more information is online at a2.gov/urbanforestry.

Matt Naud added a coda to Gray’s presentation, noting that the city lost about 10,000 city street trees that were attacked by the emerald ash borer several years ago. The city spent over $2 million just to remove the trees, he said, and that doesn’t count what it cost residents for tree removal on private property. That’s why tree diversity is important – you don’t know what’s coming next, he said.

Natural Area Preservation

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP) began his comments by showing a slide of the Furstenberg Nature Area – it’s the image he sees when he closes his eyes to think about the topic of sustainability, because it integrates the built environment with the native landscape.

NAP straddles the line between providing services for people, he said, and empowering them to preserve natural features in the city’s parkland and on their own property. He read NAP’s mission statement: “To protect and restore Ann Arbor’s natural areas and foster an environmental ethic among its citizens.”

Ann Arbor resident David Diephuis, center, talks with urban forester Kerry Gray, left, and Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program.

A lot of sustainability practices are based on history, Tallant said, specifically what occurred prior to European settlement. He quoted from the 1836 land survey notes of John M. Gordon, who described the land between Ann Arbor and Dixboro: “Oaks of the circumference of 9-15 feet abound in the forests… White Oak and Burr Oak at intervals of 30-40 feet with an undergrowth 5-6’ high which has the appearance of being annually burnt down as I am informed it is.”

The history of the land is really important when thinking about how to move into the future, Tallant said. He showed a slide of the types of vegetation on land in the Ann Arbor area prior to settlement, and noted that much of the area had been covered by a mixed-oak or oak-hickory forests, with wetlands along the river. It wasn’t a monoculture, he noted, but rather a mixed environment, depending on topography, hydrology, soil type and other factors.

NAP facilitates restoration work in all of the city parks and natural areas, Tallant said. Their work includes conducting controlled burns, taking detailed inventories of the plants and animals within the city, and knowing what’s occurring in the landscape. They also do invasive species control, he said – when you see someone walking along with an orange-colored bag full of garlic mustard, they’re restoring the land so that its biodiversity isn’t diminished. That work helps create a resilient ecosystem, he said.

Outreach, Education

Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission, said he hoped that the previous speakers had given the audience an idea of the extraordinary things that Ann Arbor is doing related to sustainability. Residents should be very proud, he said.

Graham explained that the original “Ann’s arbor” was a grove of large burr oak trees – the “children” of those early oaks are obvious in the area near St. Andrew’s Church, he said, north of city hall. Underneath those oaks were roughly 300 species of plants that the native Indians burned every year.

Just a few decades ago, there were no regulations related to landmark trees, Graham noted. Controversies in the 1970s and ’80s, when development resulted in the removal of many of those trees, led to changes in Chapter 62 of the city code – what’s known as the natural features ordinance, Graham said. Ann Arbor stepped up courageously, he said, and added a natural features standard that must be met in order to gain site plan approval for any development.

What are natural features? Graham asked. His list includes woodlands, native forest fragments, some wetlands, waterways, and floodplains. Related to native forest fragments, Graham said there’s an idea hatching to develop a stewardship program, similar to the city’s natural area preservation program. The new program would look at native forest fragments in all parts of the city, including the University of Michigan and private land – the fabric of natural features knits itself across the city, he said. The plan would be to do outreach and education, so that property owners would know what’s in their back yards.

The children of trees that existed in the 1820s won’t last without help, Graham said. “Come join us in this endeavor.”

Questions & Comments

During the last portion of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Recycling

Question: Why doesn’t the city’s recycling program accept No. 3 plastics or biodegradable materials?

Tom McMurtrie noted that No. 3 plastics – made from polyvinyl chloride – are a significant contaminant if mixed with other plastics. The city needed to be responsible, he said, and fortunately there aren’t a lot of No. 3 products in the waste stream.

As for biodegradables, McMurtrie said that’s been a challenging issue. On the surface, it looks like a good idea, he said. However, research shows that biodegradable products break down into very small particulates that aren’t necessarily good for the environment. Most of the particulates are petroleum-based, he said, and end up staying in the environment in that form. The other issue is that if those particulates end up in the recycling stream, they act as contaminants.

Question: Are there plans to eventually accept post-consumer food waste? And how much contamination ends up in the compost stream?

McMurtrie fielded this question too, inviting the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update. This issue of post-consumer food waste will be explored, although there are some repercussions around that issue, he said. Regarding contamination in the compost stream, that hasn’t been a problem, McMurtrie said. The city switched to a private operator about a year ago, and it’s worked out well, he said. [At its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved contracting with WeCare Organics to operate the city's composting facility.]

Question: If reducing waste is really the goal, how will incentives be built into the program to achieve that goal? There are incentives to recycle, but how can the city encourage reduction?

McMurtrie called this a great question, and said that a simplistic approach might be to use a graduated fee system for trash collection – to charge more for large trash containers, and less for smaller ones. The city is already doing that to some extent, he said. Households that use 96-gallon trash containers pay a fee each year – $38 – while there’s no fee for 64-gallon or 32-gallon containers. Perhaps the city could incentivize more in that area.

Jeanine Palms asked city staff about whether there are plans to give incentives to residents for reducing their waste, not simply for recycling it.

Jeanine Palms, who had asked the original question, wondered if there was any way to charge for the actual amount of waste that a household produced. McMurtrie replied that it’s an option, but that city council has been hesitant to take that approach. It risks becoming a kind of regressive tax on low-income people with large families, he said.

Dick Norton weighed in, saying that the answer depends on what you want to reduce. Palms’ question and McMurtrie’s answer had focused on trash, he said, but there are other things that people consume, like energy, water and land. Urban planners try to design cities to create greater density and transportation systems so that people can live more compactly. The ways that cities are built out impacts how much people consume, he said.

Norton also pointed to research on the impact of monetizing behavior. One study looked at a daycare center, which started charging parents who showed up late to pick up their kids. The intent was to create a disincentive for people, and to eliminate the late pick-ups. But instead, more people started showing up late, Norton said. When a monetary amount was attached to that behavior, people decided it was worth the amount charged. So incentives can result in perverse outcomes, he noted.

We have to start changing our cultural expectations, Norton continued. We have to stop thinking about living the big life, then throwing it away later. And that’s a tougher nut to crack, he said.

Chris Graham pointed to another thing that could be reduced: Turf grass. The amount of energy, pollutants, time and effort that’s spent on maintaining lawns in the city is counterproductive when trying to achieve sustainability, he said.

Laura Rubin addressed the question from the perspective of water resources. She noted that the city has a graduated water rate structure, so that heavier users pay more. The Huron River Watershed Council have been holding focus groups on the issue of water conservation. Because water is plentiful in the Great Lakes region, the issue of saving water isn’t always compelling. It’s better to tie the issue to energy conservation, she said.

When people talk about reasons why they might want to save water, the knee-jerk answer is to save money, Rubin noted. But when asked, no one in the focus groups could report what their water bill is, she said. Rubin concluded by noting that while our culture seems to be driven by money and economics, other motivations are often at play.

Matt Naud pointed out that information on water consumption per household is available on the city’s website. Residents can get a lot of data about their water usage by typing in their address and water bill account number, he said.

Comment: Portland, Oregon, has mandated that residents compost their food waste – that’s a direction that Ann Arbor should be headed. Currently, compost pick-up in Ann Arbor runs from April through December. I still eat fruits and vegetables in the winter – compost pick-up should be year-round.

Matt Naud encouraged the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update, saying that this type of feedback is exactly the kind of thing the city needs to hear.

Question: I live in an apartment in order to be environmentally sound. When will food compost pick-up be available for multiple family dwellings? I now take my food scraps to friends who live outside the city and raise chickens. So there’s no lack of motivation.

Matt Naud again suggested that this kind of feedback would be useful for the city’s solid waste plan update. Tom McMurtrie said that most multi-family buildings can get compost carts. Requests can be made by calling 99-GREEN.

Questions & Comment: Air Quality – Fuller Road Station

Question: The proposed Fuller Road Station will be a parking structure with almost 1,000 spaces that will bring 1,000 cars into an area near Fuller Pool and Fuller Park. It seems like this will affect the air quality along the Fuller Road corridor and the Huron River. It’s already a heavily used traffic corridor with a lot of emissions, and it seems like Fuller Road Station would really change the quality of air.

Matt Naud said he wasn’t sure if a formal air-quality study has been completed for the Fuller Road Station project. He offered to contact Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and find out what’s being done or what the plan is.

Questions & Comment: Water Quality – Argo Dam

Comment: I was really surprised to see the number of dams along the Huron River. Fred Pearce wrote a book called “When the Rivers Run Dry.” He has almost nothing good to say about dams.

Laura Rubin noted that there are 97 documented dams along the Huron River – until recently there were 98, but one was removed in Dexter. Beyond that, there are at least 50 other dams that the Huron River Watershed Council has discovered while taking inventory for a new dam management tool it’s developing. A lot of the dams are connected to aging infrastructure, she noted – used at former wastewater treatment plants, or to generate electricity. Some dams have been retired from their original uses. Some are just piles of rubble.

Dams are very detrimental from an environmental point of view, Rubin said, but socially they can be very successful. They can have recreational value. For the Huron River, flood control isn’t a problem, so dams aren’t generally needed for that purpose, she said. A lot of river systems and social systems have been engineered, she noted, and it’s hard to change that mentality.

Dick Norton said the issue highlights the fact that “green” and “nature” don’t have the same meaning for everyone. Norton, who’s on the executive committee of the Huron River Watershed Council, noted that the council was involved in discussions about whether to remove Argo Dam, and it had been painful. [The watershed council advocated for dam removal.] A lot of people who would typically be on the same side of an environmental issue were on different sides of the Argo Dam issue, because they valued natural resources in different ways, he said. The debate was emblematic of issues that society struggles with, he added. Norton said he sympathizes with local officials, who get hammered by people on various sides of an issue.

Questions & Comment: Public Outreach

Comment: I’ve been a townie since 1967 – and have been to a lot of the concerts that are in the posters hanging around the room. [The concert posters were part of a retrospective organized by the Ann Arbor District Library called "Freeing John Sinclair."] Outreach needs to go much further.

My neighborhood is concerned about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume, and about property values. Very few of my neighbors are paying attention to other issues that were mentioned tonight. They don’t want taxes to go up, or property values to do down, and they don’t want to pay more for a trash cart. They need to understand sustainability issues in ways that make sense to them. I’d like to see more outreach.

Matt Naud acknowledged that outreach is a challenge. Funding for this kind of effort is one issue – many people who work on sustainability issues are funded by grants, and “that’s not sustainable,” he said.

Questions & Comment: Land Use, Natural Areas – Library Lot

Question: Will the city have a public conversation about the future use for the top of the new underground parking structure – the Library Lot? A lot of people would like to see a park or green space there. Is the city going to ask for ideas from the public?

Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city councilmember.

Matt Naud asked city councilmember Sabra Briere – the only elected city official who attended the forum – to comment.

Briere noted that early last fall, at the city council’s direction, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority began to explore alternate uses of  the five city-owned parcels in downtown Ann Arbor. Those parcels include the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue north of William; the former YMCA lot north of William between Fourth and Fifth avenues; the Palio lot at the northeast corner of Main and William; the Kline lot on Ashley north of William; and the bottom floor of the parking structure at Fourth and William.

This is a plan that hasn’t been developed yet, so no one can say what will happen, she said, but part of the plan will be to solicit public input. In the near term, she said, the Library Lot will be a surface parking lot, with trees planted. That’s not the long-term plan, she said. However, Briere added, no one knows how long the near-term will last.

Dick Norton commented that there’s a need to see how to make urban environments more green, but it’s also important to worry about maintaining farmland outside of the city. Development should go into already developed cities – it’s important to think about how to accommodate more people in urban areas so that large tracts of farmland and forest can be preserved outside of cities. It’s a difficult trade-off, he noted, especially because different jurisdictions are involved, and different perspectives. Residents of the city don’t want it to change and grow bigger, while farmers don’t want to be told that they can’t sell their land for development – in many cases, that’s their retirement plan.

But if the city wants to reduce energy and preserve farmland, turning the Library Lot into open space probably isn’t the best use for it. The site should probably be put to a more urban use, Norton said. It’s something to think about.

Matt Naud noted that at one of the future sustainability sessions, the city’s greenbelt program will likely be included. [Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council is a member of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, which oversees the greenbelt program. The program, funded by a 30-year millage, preserves farmland and open space outside of the city by acquiring property development rights.]

Comment: Some years ago, we dug out the grass on our lawn extension and replanted it with native plants – and we were ticketed by the city. The city needs to straighten out that disconnect.

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural areas preservation program applauded the planting of native plants in the easement. Some residents are putting in rain gardens or bioswales, which is great, he said. But the key point, he said, relates to public safety. If the plantings obstruct the view – of pedestrians using a crosswalk, for example – that’s a problem. That’s why the city enforces height restrictions on plants in the easement, he said. The thing to remember is “the right plant for the right place.” [The height restriction limits vegetation to an average height of 36 inches above the road surface.]

Questions & Comments: Future Forums

Question: It was interesting to hear about what the city is doing, but this forum didn’t match my expectations. I thought you’d have more opportunities for asking questions and engaging in dialogue. As I decide whether to attend future sessions, I wonder if the format will be the same?

This is an experiment, Matt Naud said. The first forum was intended to give people a taste of what the city is doing toward sustainability in different areas – city staff are never quite sure how much information is getting out, he said. The question is whether to hold longer sessions, to give the public more time to ask questions and give commentary, or to hold smaller focus sessions that take a deeper dive into these issues.

Naud said the city staff would like to hear what kind of format would be most effective – feedback forms were provided at the forum. Basically, if people want a certain kind of meeting and will attend it, the city will hold it, he said.

Naud said he’s held public meetings about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane issue and only a dozen people would come. It’s hard to know what issues will draw a turnout. He said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum has proven him wrong, he said. The city wants to know how people prefer to give feedback, and how this discussion should move forward, Naud said.

Future Forums

Three more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• Feb. 9, 2012: Land Use and Access – including transportation designs, infrastructure, land uses, built environment, and public spaces.
• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor. 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!

From left: Greenbelt advisory commissioners Catherine Riseng and Liz Rother. (Photo by the writer.)

The greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) voted unanimously to recommend Brines for the appointment, which would fill the one open position, an at-large seat. Brines owns Brines Farm in Dexter but lives in Ann Arbor’s Fifth Ward – which GAC member Carsten Hohnke represents on city council. Hohnke, who did not attend Wednesday’s meeting, will likely be the councilmember to put forward Brines’ nomination to council.

Brines also works for the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE), as does GAC vice chair Catherine Riseng. At Wednesday’s meeting, Riseng told commissioners that she’s been appointed to an advisory committee for the county’s natural areas preservation program, and hopes to serve as a liaison between the two groups.

In other action, the commission voted to write a letter of support for continued funding of a federal program for farmland preservation. As Congress hammers out the 2012 farm bill, funds for the program could be at risk. The city received nearly $2.8 million in federal dollars for greenbelt properties during the last fiscal year.

At Wednesday’s meeting the commission also discussed forming a committee to develop a communications plan for the greenbelt program. The intent is to get the word out about the program’s achievements in a consistent, coordinated way.

One of the program’s ongoing efforts at communication is coming up later this month. On Saturday, Oct. 22, a two-hour bus tour will highlight some of the farmland and other properties that are being preserved by the greenbelt program. The tour runs from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. and starts from the Ann Arbor farmers market. Boxed lunches are included in the $15 fee.

Recommendation to Appoint Brines

Two former commissioners – Jennifer Santi Hall and Gil Omenn – were term-limited earlier this year and left the advisory group at the end of June. Liz Rother was appointed by the city council in June to replace Hall, but Omenn’s at-large position remains unfilled.

Shannon Brines has previously expressed interest in the appointment, and had attended GAC’s August meeting. On Wednesday, the commission discussed recommending him formally for appointment by the city council. For most city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council.

Brines is an Ann Arbor resident and owner of Brines Farm in Dexter – located outside of the city’s greenbelt boundary. He is active in the local food movement, as a board member for Slow Food Huron Valley, and a steering committee member for the annual HomeGrown Festival and Local Food Summit. In a cover letter applying for the GAC appointment, Brines said he’s also assisting with a farming business incubator project in Ann Arbor Township called the Tilian Farm Development Center. Brines serves on its steering committee.

Brines is also a lecturer at the University of Michigan and manager of the environmental spatial analysis (ESA) lab at UM’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. Since 2007 he has served on the city’s public market advisory commission, which handles issues related to the farmers market. His current term on that commission ends in 2014.

During a brief discussion of Brines’ appointment, Peter Allen praised UM’s recent efforts to use more locally-produced food at its campus dining halls, and noted that Brines is part of the local food network. Dan Ezekiel added that there were several promising announcements recently about UM’s sustainability efforts. [UM president Mary Sue Coleman announced a range of new sustainability goals for the Ann Arbor campus last month.] It puts the university more in step with the city, he said, noting that’s not always the case.

Mike Garfield asked if the commission typically makes recommendations for appointments. No, Ezekiel said, but in this case, Carsten Hohnke specifically asked for it.

Hohnke – a city councilmember representing Ward 5, where Brines lives – also serves on GAC. It’s likely that Hohnke will put forward the nomination for Brines at an upcoming council meeting. Hohnke did not attend Wednesday’s GAC meeting.

Ginny Trocchio, support staff for the greenbelt program, noted that more seats will be opening next year on the commission, so it’s good to continue to look for possible candidates.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend that city council appoint Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Greenbelt Communications Committee

At the commission’s Sept. 14 meeting, Ginny Trocchio had presented an annual report on the greenbelt program for fiscal 2011, which ended June 30. In discussing the report, Carsten Hohnke had asked about the program’s communications strategy, and indicated that he’d like to identify goals for communicating to the public about the greenbelt program and its successes.

On Wednesday, Trocchio reported that she discussed with GAC’s executive committee – chair Dan Ezekiel and vice chair Catherine Rising – the idea of creating a communications committee to develop a plan for those goals. Committee members could work with the city’s communications staff to design branding for the greenbelt, and a logo. Another possibility is to create an impact report about the greenbelt, to distribute to residents. She passed out some examples of brochures and reports that other land preservation groups have developed.

Ezekiel said that this first effort would be important, because it could serve as a template that would just be tweaked in future years. The program is moving from an acquisition mode to a maintenance and publicity mode, he said, so communications will be increasingly important.

Liz Rother, GAC’s newest commissioner, volunteered to on the committee. Other commissioners indicated that they’d think about it.

Support for Federal Funding

The greenbelt program has been successful in tapping matching funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. In fiscal 2011, the greenbelt program, which is funded through a 30-year millage, also received nearly $2.8 million in FRPP funding. Those funds are used to offset costs of the purchase of development rights (PDR) – the primary mechanism that the greenbelt program uses to preserve farmland and open space. To date, the greenbelt has protected more than 3,200 acres.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Ginny Trocchio reported that as part of negotiations in Congress over the 2012 federal farm bill, FRPP funding might be at risk. The Michigan Dept. of Agriculture is asking land preservation programs in the state to submit statements of support for the FRPP. Trocchio said she’s working with local landowners to get letters from individuals who are part of the greenbelt, but she hoped that GAC could also submit a letter.

FRPP funds have helped the greenbelt program achieve its goals, Trocchio said, by leveraging local dollars for federal funds. Without that federal support, Ann Arbor wouldn’t have been able to preserve as much land as it has, she said.

If commissioners agreed, Trocchio said she’d draft a letter for review by GAC’s chair or vice chair before submitting it.

Mike Garfield asked if there seemed to be an immediate threat to FRPP funding. Trocchio replied that everything is on the table. Dan Ezekiel felt the threat was imminent. The so-called “super committee” of Congress that’s working on a proposal to address the budget deficit hasn’t released much information about potential cuts, he noted. “I think when they strike, they’re going to strike fast,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve writing a letter of support for the FRPP program.

Misc. Communications

There were several updates from commissioners and staff during Wednesday’s meeting.

Misc. Communications: Greenbelt Boundary Changes

Dan Ezekiel reported that he and Ginny Trocchio had attended a recent Lodi Township board meeting, where township trustees approved a resolution encouraging Ann Arbor city council to expand the greenbelt boundaries. The city council is expected to vote on those changes at its second meeting in November.

GAC had voted to recommend the changes at its Sept. 14 meeting. If approved by the council, the greenbelt boundaries would expand in Lodi and Salem townships. The recommendation also calls for allowing the city to acquire development rights on property adjacent to (but outside of) the greenbelt boundary, if it’s under the same ownership as an inside-the-boundary property that’s being considered for the program.

Ezekiel indicated that Salem Township’s board will also be weighing in with a recommendation to approve the boundary changes.

Trocchio noted that the the changes would require votes by council at two consecutive meetings, but there would still be time to solicit applications from landowners in the newly added areas before February 2012. That’s the deadline to apply for matching funds from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, which helps offset the cost of the city’s greenbelt acquisitions.

Misc. Communications: Riseng on NATAC

Catherine Rising informed her colleagues that she’s been appointed to Washtenaw County’s natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC). The county board of commissioners approved her appointment at their Oct. 5 meeting.

NATAC advises the county parks & recreation commission regarding its natural areas preservation program. Like the city’s greenbelt program, NAPP is funded by a millage and works to preserve natural areas and farmland throughout the county.

Riseng – an aquatic ecologist researcher at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment – said she hopes to serve as a liaison between the two advisory groups.

Misc. Communications: Meeting Times

As they had at last month’s meeting, commissioners again discussed possible new dates for their monthly meetings, which now fall on the second Wednesday of each month at 4:30 p.m. For Dan Ezekiel and Catherine Rising – the commission’s chair and vice chair – the current time requires them to leave faculty meetings related to their jobs.

After additional discussion of possible alternative dates, Ezekiel suggested deferring the decision. He noted that two current commissioners – Carsten Hohnke and Laura Rubin – weren’t there to weigh in. Nor was the potential new commissioner, Shannon Brines.

Closed Session

Commissioners spent the last 40 minutes of their meeting in closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. They did not take any additional action when they emerged from closed session.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Carsten Hohnke, Laura Rubin.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 9 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. 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.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, which has a contract with the city to manage the greenbelt program. She's showing the greenbelt advisory commission a map of proposed boundary changes. (Photos by the writer.)

The recommendation also calls for allowing the city to acquire development rights on property adjacent to (but outside of) the greenbelt boundary, if it’s under the same ownership as an inside-the-boundary property that’s being considered for the program.

The recommended “bump-outs” in Lodi and Salem townships – in the southwest and northeast corners of the greenbelt, respectively – reflect increased support for the program from those townships. The Salem Township board, for example, recently voted to earmark $200,000 annually for land preservation.

A separate resolution was voted down, with support only from the commission’s chair, Dan Ezekiel. It would have recommended that the council consider properties adjacent to the greenbelt for acquisition, and create a one-mile buffer surrounding the current boundary. Properties within that buffer would have been considered for acquisition with greenbelt funds, but with stricter selection criteria.

Several commissioners were reluctant to increase the boundaries with a mile-wide buffer zone, citing concerns that land in that area is too far from Ann Arbor, and noting that opportunities for land preservation are still available within the existing greenbelt boundaries.

In other business, the commission got a review of the greenbelt program’s finances and activities for the 2011 fiscal year. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for parks. During the year, the greenbelt program spent $8.3 million on 12 deals – by far the most transactions since the greenbelt’s inception.

Those 12 deals protect 1,472 acres of farmland from future development. In total, more than 3,200 acres are now part of the greenbelt. To put that into perspective, Ezekiel noted that those 3,200 acres are roughly equivalent to 80 parks the size of Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor.

Three more greenbelt acquisitions were recommended by commissioners at the end of their meeting. The properties were identified only by application number  – the location of the properties and their owners aren’t revealed until the resolutions are voted on by the city council.

Greenbelt Boundary Changes

The greenbelt advisory commission has been looking at possible expansion of boundaries for about a year. At their Nov. 10, 2010 meeting, commissioners voted to form a subcommittee – chaired by Dan Ezekiel – to explore the issue. At the time, a main reason to consider expansion was a opportunity to protect important parcels of land that fall just outside of the existing greenbelt boundary. [.pdf map of existing greenbelt district]

By way of background, in August 2007 the Ann Arbor city council expanded the greenbelt’s boundaries for the first time since the open space and parkland preservation millage was approved by voters in 2003. A summary of the ordinance for that expansion reads as follows:

Ordinance No. 26-07 amends Section 3:62(13) of Chapter 42, Open Space and Parkland Preservation of the City Code enlarging the boundaries of the Greenbelt District one mile to the west in both Webster and Scio Townships, one mile to the south in Pittsfield Township and one mile to the east in Superior Township and incorporates a new map of the boundaries, as revised, as part of Chapter 42.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Ezekiel – who now chairs the commission – introduced the topic by saying it had been kicked around for a while, and he hoped they could reach some closure. He reviewed some history of the program, including the 2007 boundary change. He noted that two people instrumental in drawing the original greenbelt boundaries – Mike Garfield, who still serves on the commission, and former city councilmember Bob Johnson – had also been part of that 2007 boundary committee.

In considering these new boundary changes, Ezekiel said, the focus should be on what would make the best possible greenbelt, and how the city can give taxpayers the kind of program they thought they were voting for back in 2003.

Map of the Ann Arbor greenbelt. The solid green line indicates the current boundary. The dotted green lines in the lower left (Lodi Township) and upper right (Salem Township) indicate proposed "bump outs." The black line indicates a one-mile buffer zone, which was rejected by the greenbelt advisory commission. (Links to larger image.)

Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staff member who helps administer the greenbelt program, brought out a large map that showed the existing boundary and proposed changes. The committee suggested that the advisory commission consider two separate resolutions.

The first resolution would expand the boundaries in Salem Township and Lodi Township to “square” off the greenbelt boundaries. The Salem Township boundary would be extended 1 mile to the east so the eastern greenbelt boundary would align with Superior Township to the south. The Lodi Township boundary would be extended 1 mile to the west and 1 mile to the south so the boundaries would align with the borders of Scio Township to the north and Pittsfield Township to the east.

That same resolution recommended allowing the program to acquire property that’s outside the greenbelt but adjacent to the boundary, if it is under the same ownership as an inside-the-boundary property that’s being considered for the program. This change addresses the situation of a property owner holding land on both sides of a road – one parcel within the greenbelt boundary, the other outside of it.

The formal resolution, read aloud by Catherine Riseng, states:

To recommend to City Council to expand the Greenbelt boundaries in Lodi Township and Salem Township to be consistent with the adjacent townships’ Greenbelt boundaries. In addition, to recommend to City Council to amend the Chapter 42 Ordinance to allow properties adjacent to the Greenbelt boundary, that are under the same ownership as property located immediately adjacent within the Greenbelt boundary to be considered for acquisition.

Riseng noted that now, unlike in the past, officials in Lodi and Salem townships are supportive of the greenbelt. Salem Township has committed $200,000 annually from the township’s landfill revenue for the next five years for land preservation. There are some wonderful properties in those townships, she noted, and the land is still reasonably close to the city.

Ezekiel described the second part of the resolution, which addresses the issue of adjacency, as “a technical patch on a problem that we found.” A situation had arisen in which a landowner wanted his entire farm protected, but two parcels were separated by a road – one side was within the greenbelt, the other wasn’t. So the city was constrained from acquiring development rights on the entire farm, even though the landowner was willing.

Peter Allen asked why there were two resolutions. Ezekiel said the resolutions were presented in a hierarchy of “no-brainerness” – the first one proposed changes that the committee felt were easier to swallow.

Carsten Hohnke said the logic behind the initial resolution was strong. While some people might say there’s still plenty of land to be preserved within the existing boundary, he could see the point about a hierarchy – the logic of this first resolution is easy to understand.

Ezekiel noted that because of boundary changes in 2007, the greenbelt was able to acquire development rights to the Nixon farm in Webster Township, which had been targeted for development as a mobile home park. It’s one of the most significant acquisitions the program has made, he said. Another example is the Meyer Preserve in Superior Township, which before 2007 had fallen outside of the greenbelt boundary.

Hohnke countered that it will always be true that opportunities will exist outside the boundary, regardless of where they draw the line. That said, he acknowledged that the Nixon farm anchored one of the greenbelt’s largest successes – establishing a 1,000-acre block of protected land in Webster Township.

Riseng said that Hohnke was right, but she noted that the current proposed changes are also being driven by the opportunity for additional financial support from partnering with the townships. That’s in addition to the fact that there are some beautiful properties in Lodi and Salem townships that fall outside of the existing boundary, she added.

Ezekiel reported that earlier this month, several commissioners – himself, Riseng, Liz Rother and Tom Bloomer – had taken a drive with Trocchio to the bump-out in Lodi Township, and walked through some of the properties there that might be considered for the greenbelt. They were only about five miles from the Meijer store on Ann Arbor-Saline Road, he noted – it’s still close to the city, even though it felt like they were far out in the country. He said his rule of thumb is that the property should be within an easy hour bike ride of the city. Voters wanted to preserve land that was relatively close to Ann Arbor, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the first resolution, bumping out the greenbelt boundaries in Lodi and Salem townships, and addressing the issue of adjacent properties. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Riseng then read the second resolution, noting that there would likely be some concerns about it:

To recommend to City Council to amend the Chapter 42 Ordinance to allow properties adjacent to the Greenbelt boundary to be considered for acquisition, and to recommend to City Council to amend Chapter 42 Ordinance to create a 1 mile buffer surrounding the Greenbelt boundary to allow properties that meet stricter criteria located within the buffer to be considered for acquisition.

Riseng said that there were properties within the proposed buffer that the Huron River Watershed Council had identified as high-priority bioreserves for the Huron River.

Peter Allen asked what might qualify as “stricter criteria.” Riseng replied that the committee didn’t believe they should be the ones to set the criteria, but that examples might include a requirement for higher financial contributions from the landowner, or a stipulation that buffer properties that have a higher value in some way, like a bioreserve.

Allen noted that on the plus side, this kind of expansion could allow the program to acquire land that was less expensive, because it was located farther from Ann Arbor. On the other hand, it could dilute attention to the core greenbelt area.

Bloomer said he didn’t think the distance they were talking about would make much difference in land value. ”We’re still well within the development pressure area,” he said. When asked by Allen if the farmland was better quality in the proposed buffer zone, Bloomer replied that he didn’t know if it was better – there was just more of it.

Dan Ezekiel, chair of the greenbelt advisory commission. He is also a science teacher at Forsythe Middle School.

Trocchio said she hadn’t observed a substantial price difference in the proposed buffer area. A bigger factor is whether the land is located within the Ann Arbor Public Schools district – that tends to increase value.

Hohnke said that for the changes proposed in this second resolution, he didn’t think the benefits outweighed the costs. There was a lot of clarity in the first proposal, he said. There are partners in Lodi and Salem townships who are willing to participate, and it fixes the parcel-cut-in-half problem.

But this second set of changes would set up a second tier of scoring criteria, Hohnke said, and that becomes harder to communicate. It starts diluting the program’s efforts, he added, especially now that there are additional areas in Lodi and Salem that have rich opportunities. He said he was not inclined to support this resolution.

Bloomer said he agreed with Hohnke’s assessment.

Allen asked whether it would be possible to return to this proposal in the future, if they didn’t recommend it now. It’s possible, Ezekiel said, but he wasn’t sure how enthusiastic the city council would be if the commission “came back to the well” for a third time.

Riseng asked Trocchio whether there’s a lot of opportunity for land preservation within the existing greenbelt boundaries. “Absolutely,” Trocchio replied, especially with the inclusion of Lodi and Salem townships.

Outcome: On a 1-5 vote, the resolution – recommending a buffer zone and allowing the program to consider properties adjacent to the greenbelt for acquisition – failed, with support only from Dan Ezekiel. Mike Garfield and Laura Rubin were absent.

At the end of the meeting during his communications to commissioners, Ezekiel reported that a message had been received from Lodi Township’s treasurer, indicating that the township board had talked about the boundary change at their meeting earlier this month. The consensus was that township officials are not opposed the the change, he said. The township had “jumped the gun” a bit, Ezekiel said, noting the changes still need to be approved by the city council. But he reported that he had responded to the message by saying he hoped the township would actually support the greenbelt program, not simply “not oppose” it.

Ezekiel said he planned to contact officials in Lodi and Salem, to report on the commission’s recommendation. He hopes to secure letters of support from the townships by the time the resolution is on the council’s agenda.

Greenbelt Program Finances

A member of the city’s finance staff typically comes to the commission’s meeting once a year to give an annual financial report on the greenbelt program. On Wednesday, Kelli Martin, financial manager for the city’s community services unit, reviewed the program’s unaudited financials for FY 2011, from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. The 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for parks. Martin’s presentation covered the overall millage-funded budget, while highlighting parts that related to the greenbelt. [.pdf file of complete finance report]

Revenues from the millage were $2.164 million in fiscal 2011, down slightly from $2.262 million the previous year. [Two-thirds of the millage proceeds fund the greenbelt program, with the remaining third allotted to parks. The parks funding is overseen by the city's park advisory commission.]

In addition, the greenbelt program brought in nearly $2.8 million in federal grants during the year – the highest amount it has ever received. Those grants are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. Investment income was $233,614 for the year, down from $492,576 in FY 2010.

In total, $5.185 million in revenues came in for the combined greenbelt and parks acquisitions programs in FY 2011.

On the expense side, items included $1.2 million in debt service on the $20 million bond that the city issued in FY 2006. Those bond proceeds have now been spent, Martin noted.

The major expenses for the greenbelt program – $8.3 million during the year – related to land preservation projects. Martin noted that over the life of the greenbelt program to date, $24.288 million has been spent directly on land preservation projects.

In FY 2011, $120,338 was paid to The Conservation Fund, which manages the greenbelt and park acquisition programs. Total administrative costs – including items like information technology (IT) and bond insurance – were $161,195. Administrative expenses accounted for 1.5% of the $10.672 million in total expenditures.

The fund balance stands at $10.3 million, down from $15.79 million a year ago. Of that, the greenbelt program’s share is $6.06 million, Martin said. An endowment to fund future maintenance and enforcement of greenbelt deals stands at $442,274.

Greenbelt Program Finances: Commissioner Comments, Questions

Peter Allen asked for more detail about the investment income. Martin reported that the lower amount in FY 2011 reflects a lower fund balance – there was less money to invest, she said. She offered to ask Matt Horning, the city’s treasurer, to attend a future meeting with more detail about the city’s investment strategy, if commissioners were interested.

Allen also asked for background on the FRPP grants. Ginny Trocchio, a Conservation Fund staff member who oversees the greenbelt program, reported that the grants helped fund the purchase of development rights for several properties. Those include the Braun, Gould, Whitney, Honke and Maulbetsch properties. It was by far the greenbelt program’s busiest year, she said.

Commissioner Tom Bloomer, who also owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township.

Commenting on the visual presentation, Allen suggested showing the data in chart format, so that it would be easier for people to see the trend lines. Specifically, he suggested charting the major revenue and expense trends, which he noted would show clearly how much activity is handled with relatively low administrative costs.

Carsten Hohnke, who also represents Ward 5 on city council, said one operations metric that might be useful to the public would be to identify the cost per protected acre. That information would reflect that the greenbelt program is taking advantage of the relatively lower property values to buy development rights, he noted.

Tom Bloomer asked for an explanation of how the endowment amount is calculated for each property. Trocchio said there’s a formula that’s used to project future expenses that might be incurred. Those might include legal expenses and costs for monitoring compliance with the land deals.

Hohnke noted that the city hasn’t had to incur any legal expenses so far, but there has been several years of monitoring. He wondered if there’d been any useful data that could be used to refine or validate the estimated monitoring costs. Trocchio indicated that the staff could revisit those calculations.

Dan Ezekiel observed that literature about land conservancies stresses the importance of setting aside funds for monitoring compliance and protecting conservation easements. Setting up an endowment for that purpose is one of the most important things a land preservation program can do, he said, and it’s a point of pride that Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program has done that since its inception.

Greenbelt Annual Report

Ginny Trocchio presented an activity report for fiscal year 2011, which ended June 30. [.pdf of draft activity report for FY 2011]

The greenbelt program completed 12 transactions during the year, protecting 1,472 acres of farmland, Trocchio reported. Deals included nearly 680 acres of farmland along Whitmore Lake Road, which serves as a gateway into Ann Arbor.

Examples of FY 2011 greenbelt deals include:

• $1 million for the 146-acre Whitney farm in Webster Township, plus a $23,867 endowment.
• $2.5 million for the 286-acre Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, plus a $25,000 endowment.
• $438,936 for the 51-acre Gould property, also in Ann Arbor Township, plus a $24,000 endowment.
• $683,459 for the 96-acre Honke property in Northfield Township, plus a $23,867 endowment.
• $734,067 for the 128-acre Maulbetsch property in Northfield Township, plus a $23,867 endowment.

Since the greenbelt program began, 3,214 acres have been preserved, Trocchio said.

Trocchio also reviewed the program’s goals for the past year, noting that most were exceeded:

• Goal: Apply for grant funds on two properties. Result: One grant was applied for, but a second application was withdrawn by the property owner.
• Goal: Close on four properties. Result: The city closed on 12 properties.
• Goal: Complete a 1,000-acre block of preserved land in Webster Township. Result: 1,200 acres are now protected there by the greenbelt program.
• Goal: Complete the first greenbelt bus tour. Result: A bus tour was held in July 2010. Additional tours will be organized for the current fiscal year.
• Goal: Obtain at least 20% matching funds on all transactions. Result: This was achieved. The overall average was 52% matching funds for completed transactions.

Three goals are identified for the current fiscal year: (1) Apply for grant funds on two properties; (2) close on three properties; and (3) obtain at least 20% matching funds on all transactions.

In noting the lower goal of closing on three properties, Trocchio said she didn’t think they could keep up with the pace of this year’s acquisitions.

Greenbelt Annual Report: Commissioner Discussion

Carsten Hohnke asked Trocchio to review the program’s communications strategy. He said he didn’t see any goals about this for the current year, and wondered what the staff planned to do, other than the bus tour and general media coverage.

Trocchio said she could certainly add communications goals to the list. She noted that she and Dan Ezekiel, the commission’s chair, had an information booth in the Homegrown Festival earlier this month. She also had a display about Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program at a conference hosted by the Heart of the Lakes Center for Land Conservation Policy earlier this year. More of that kind of outreach is planned, she said.

Commissioner Catherine Riseng, an aquatic ecologist and researcher at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment.

In reviewing the year’s overall activities, Ezekiel said it was a banner year for the program, and the excellence of the staff has really shined through. Ann Arbor taxpayers have protected 3,200 acres, he noted. To put it in perspective, he said, it’s the equivalent of 80 parks the size of Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor, or about 5 square miles. “And we’re nowhere near finished,” he said.

It’s a credit to Ann Arbor voters and taxpayers that they’re willing to tax themselves in order to preserve land near the periphery of the city, he said. No one anticipated the crash in land values and the lull in development because of the economy, and the program has been able to take advantage of that.

Ezekiel observed that the greenbelt program is under the radar – if the program does its job, nothing changes, because the land is preserved as it is. The program’s charge is to protect some of the best land in the area forever. If and when development pressure returns, that’s when people will notice what’s been done, he said. Many years from now, he added, people will be happy with what the city has been able to do during this time.

Peter Allen observed that they haven’t created a greenbelt as much as they’ve protected the foodshed. He wondered how many farms were represented in the 3,200 protected acres. Ezekiel said that of the 27 total properties, 24 of them are farms and three are open space. Allen then queried Tom Bloomer – who also owns Bur Oaks Farm in Webster Township, which is part of the greenbelt program – to comment on the economic value of goods produced on these farms.

Bloomer was hesitant to speculate, saying the answer would be complicated. He did venture that in general, the economic value of farming is consistently underestimated.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to accept the activity report for fiscal 2011.

Greenbelt Acquisitions

At the end of their meeting, commissioners entered into a closed session to discuss potential land acquisitions.

Land acquisition is one of the few exceptions under the Open Meetings Act that allow for discussion out of public view. When they emerged after about 40 minutes in closed session, commissioners voted on three resolutions.

Properties are identified only by application number at this stage. The location of the properties and their owners aren’t revealed until the resolutions are voted on by the city council.

• Recommending approval of the purchase of development rights for the parcel in application 2011-04, if at least 20% matching funds are received.
• Recommending approval of the purchase of development rights for the parcel in application 2011-01, if at least 20% matching funds are received.
• Recommending that the city partner with the nonprofit Legacy Land Conservancy on the purchase of development rights for the parcel in application 2005-24, and contribute up to $15,000 dollars toward that purchase.

Outcome: In separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved resolutions for all three greenbelt acquisitions. The recommendations will be considered by the city council for approval.

Misc. Communications

There were several opportunities for updates from commissioners and staff.

Misc. Communications: New Meeting Time?

Dan Ezekiel told commissioners that he hoped they could alter their meeting time in order to accommodate a potential new commissioner. [Shannon Brines, who attended last month's greenbelt advisory commission, is expected to be nominated for the position vacated this summer by Gil Omenn, who was term limited. For most city commissions, members are nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. However, greenbelt commissioners are both nominated and confirmed by the city council.]

Commissioners will complete a survey about possible meeting times. Any changes wouldn’t take effect until 2012. Currently, the commission meets on the second Wednesday of each month at 4:30 p.m. Other commissioners indicated that the current meeting time is difficult for them, too.

Misc. Communications: Executive Committee

Ezekiel expressed interest in expanding the commission’s executive committee. Now, it consists of the chair (Ezekiel), vice chair (Catherine Riseng), city council representative (Carsten Hohnke) and staff (Ginny Trocchio). Ezekiel noted that in the coming years there will be considerable turnover on the commission, as members are term limited.

Bringing another member into the executive committee would help future leadership get up to speed, Ezekiel said, and help keep the group’s institutional memory strong. He said it was an open invitation to commissioners, and that they should contact Trocchio if they’re interested.

Misc. Communications: Bus Tour

Trocchio reported that she’d like to schedule another greenbelt bus tour sometime this fall. She’s looking at Saturdays when there’s not a University of Michigan home football game: Oct. 8, 15 or Nov. 5. The tour would last about two hours and include stops to see land that’s been protected by the greenbelt program.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke, Catherine Riseng, Liz Rother. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Mike Garfield, Laura Rubin.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 12 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. 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.

Ann Arbor park planner Amy Kuras, right, shows maps of Riverside Park to neighbors who came to an information meeting on Tuesday evening at the nearby Island Park. Sitting next to her is Eliana Moya-Raggio, a resident of Wall Street. The smaller map is an overlay showing how a lot of the park, which is located next to the Huron River, is in a floodplain. (Photos by the writer.)

Park planner Amy Kuras described the park’s entrance off of Wall Street as “falling apart,” and talked through some of the proposed changes of the project. The two main changes involve relocating a parking lot and repaving Canal Street, a narrow lane that runs parallel to the park and leads to the back of the University of Michigan’s new Kellogg Eye Center building.

The project is one of many slated for fiscal year 2012 and outlined in the recently updated Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan.

Residents generally expressed support for the project, and gave suggestions for improvements. During the hour-long discussion they also raised other concerns not directly tied to the park, including increased traffic along Wall Street, additional parking lots planned by UM, and noise from delivery trucks traveling along Canal Street to Kellogg Eye Center. Similar concerns had been raised by some of these residents nearly three years ago, at a December 2008 meeting with university officials regarding planned parking along Wall Street.

Tuesday’s conversation also touched on topics that affect the surrounding area, including the need for better connections to the Border-to-Border trail system, and the status of changes planned at the Argo headrace. The city had expected to receive a state permit earlier in the day so that work could begin on the headrace, but Kuras reported that by late afternoon, it still hadn’t arrived. [Responding to a follow-up email from The Chronicle, parks & rec manager Colin Smith reported that the permit has now been received, and work on the headrace will begin on Thursday, Aug. 25. For details of that work, see Chronicle coverage: "Action on Argo Headrace, Trails Near Fuller" ]

The Riverside changes are among several slated for the city’s current fiscal year, paid for out of the parks millage and outlined in the PROS plan. Another forum is planned for Tuesday, Aug. 30 at Cobblestone Farm to talk about proposed improvements at Buhr Park.

Riverside Park: Proposed Changes

Riverside is one of the city’s oldest parks, acquired in the early 1900s and located in the Lower Town district, fronting a section of the Huron River. It includes a playground area, softball diamond and a field used by several rugby teams.

Map showing Riverside Park. (Links to Google Map)

Nearly all of the 15-acre park is located in the river’s floodplain, and flooding is frequent. Eliana Moya-Raggio, who lives next to the park at the Riverside Park Place condominiums, reported that it’s been worse over the past two years because of heavier-than-usual rains.

In particular, the gravel parking lot near the park’s entrance is often covered with water, Kuras noted. On Tuesday evening, large puddles were still visible from recent rains.

The PROs plan listed the Riverside parking lot as an infrastructure need, and parks staff included it in the action plan for fiscal year 2012, which began July 1, 2011. The plan called for: (1) repaving the path and drive entry to create a separation between the path and road; (2) paving the parking lot; and (3) creating a rain garden.

However, rather than keeping the lot where it’s currently located, Kuras suggested moving it to slightly higher ground at the opposite end of Canal Street, on the west side of the softball diamond. That would likely mean a rain garden wouldn’t be necessary. Feedback from residents indicated support for that move, and a preference for making the new lot parallel to Canal Street – rather than an elongated lot jutting into the park. [.pdf of map showing proposed changes]

Kuras noted that the existing lot is used by UM employees, and she’s exploring the possibility of negotiating for the university to lease the new lot during the day. Currently, there’s no lease arrangement for the Riverside parking lot, though UM does lease other lots from the city – most notably a surface lot at Fuller Road, where the proposed Fuller Road Station parking structure is planned.

Stephanie Munz recommended keeping a few spaces at the location of the current lot, for fly fishermen who use that nearby portion of the Huron River. It would be less of a walk for them, she noted. Kuras said another option would be to put a couple of spots along Canal Street.

In addition to moving and paving the parking lot, other proposed changes at the park include:

• Removing and/or relocating the lights at the current parking lot.
• Moving the park’s sign to the opposite (east) side of the entry drive, for better visibility.
• Adding curbs along the entrance and possibly extending the curbs along Canal Street. There are no curbs now on Canal or the entrance.
• Requesting that trees at the entrance be trimmed. Residents have planted a garden on the west side of the entrance, but overgrown trees and bushes have prevented it from getting sufficient light.

Kuras added the caveat that the amount of work will depend on costs and available funding. She said there’s a $175,000 budget for Riverside improvements, funded by city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage. Canal Street repaving will be paid for by the city’s street millage.

A redbud grove at Riverside Park. The plaque in the foreground notes that the grove was planted in memory of World War I veterans from Ann Arbor, paid for by the Elizabeth R. Dean Fund and other contributions. On the left is a path running through the park next to the Huron River.

Other Issues: Argo, Trails

At Tuesday’s meeting, several questions were raised that were unrelated to the Riverside improvement project. In response to one question, Kuras clarified that a temporary canoe launch at the park will be removed as soon as work on the Argo headrace is completed, likely by the 2012 season.

Currently, because of a state-mandated reconstruction of the headrace, there’s no access between the city’s Argo canoe livery and the downstream section of the Huron River. A temporary launch at Riverside allows canoeists to put in to the river below Argo dam. The Argo livery is available for canoeing and kayaking on Argo Pond and upstream. [The park advisory commission was updated on the Argo headrace work at their Aug. 16 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "Action on Argo Headrace, Trails Near Fuller" ]

At one point in the meeting, Kuras expressed dismay that whenever she had visited Riverside Park, she rarely saw it being used by people other than teams that played on the fields. Residents assured her that the park was well-used by walkers, joggers and bicyclists. UM employees also use it during the day on breaks and during their lunch hours, Kuras was told. And many people are just passing through the park, on their way to other destinations.

That final observation led to a discussion about how the Riverside Park path fits in to a broader trail network throughout the city’s park system.

By way of background, access to Riverside Park is addressed in the city’s master plan, in a section on the Lower Town district:

Access to Riverside Park: Riverside Park was acquired by the City of Ann Arbor in the late 1920’s. Public pedestrian and bicycle access points to Riverside Park should be provided from at least the following places: a) the future pedestrian bridge over the Huron River near Broadway Bridge connecting to Broadway Park [that pedestrian bridge is now completed], b) from the Huron River Trail under Broadway Bridge, c) through the Detroit Edison site where Canal Street turns toward Wall Street, d) from the University District at two access points, and e) from the Huron River Trail near Wall Street. Access points should be clearly identified, well landscaped, properly lighted, and designed to encourage pedestrian access to the Riverside Park. Canoe/kayak access should be provided along the Huron River near the Detroit Edison Building to encourage marine access to Lower Town.

Kuras pointed out that when Maiden Lane bridge was built, the design included room for future trails to go under the bridge. It has never been fully developed, however, and the walkway is overgrown with plants and is a hangout for the homeless, she said.

The entire intersection at Maiden Lane, Fuller Road and East Medical Center drive is a “conundrum,” Kuras said, and parks staff are exploring ways to improve the area for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Tim Mortimer said he hoped to see a pedestrian bridge over the Huron River at the east side of Riverside Park, similar to the one at Broadway. When he noted that in the past there was a bridge crossing the river at Wall Street, Stephanie Munz pulled out her iPhone and produced a picture of it – there’s a photo of the old Wall Street bridge hanging at the Potbelly sandwich shop in downtown Ann Arbor, and she’d taken a picture of that photo.

Other Projects: Buhr Park

Changes are also in the works at Buhr Park, and a public input meeting for that project will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 30 at 7 p.m. at the Cobblestone Farm barn, 2751 Packard Road. A needs assessment listed in the PROS plan calls for several changes to Buhr Park, including:

• Provide inter-connecting pathway system to provide pedestrian access from the surrounding neighborhoods.
• Light the tennis courts.
• Construct new picnic pavilion with added picnic opportunities.
• Provide new wayfinding signage.
• Continue implementation of the goals and elements as identified in the Buhr Park stormwater management plan.
• Renovate entry road and parking lots.

For fiscal year 2012, a total of $250,000 is earmarked for the Buhr Park entry drive and pool/arena parking lot, and the Riverside Park entry drive and parking lot. [.pdf of FY 2011-2015 parks project list from the updated PROS plan]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs, including the Ann Arbor parks. 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!