Baseball field #4 at Veterans Memorial Park will be among fields at three parks that will be renovated, if the Ann Arbor city council approves a recommendation of the park advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

PAC unanimously recommended awarding a nearly $1 million contract to RMD Holdings of Chesterfield, Michigan, for renovation of ballfields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. If approved by the city council, work would begin after the 2012 summer season. Ann Arbor Rec & Ed – a unit of the Ann Arbor Public Schools – plans to cancel its fall season in light of the project. Teams playing in Rec & Ed programs are the primary users of these fields.

Commissioners also got an update on the status of West Park renovations – specifically, how problems with an underground stormwater system are being addressed. City engineer Nick Hutchinson described plans for repairing the system, saying that legal issues are still being worked out, but the project will likely be completed by July of 2012. A public forum will be held on Feb. 13 at Slauson Middle School to update residents. At a similar meeting held in mid-January, residents raised concerns over whether the situation in West Park has caused flooding in nearby basements.

Also at PAC’s Jan. 24 meeting, commissioner Gwen Nystuen urged the group to consider taking action on the Allen Creek greenway, in light of remarks made by mayor John Hieftje at the city council’s Jan. 23 meeting regarding the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, reported that there’s been discussion about possibly applying for a state grant to help fund the greenway, but the timeline for applying this year is tight. He also suggested that an initial step would be to develop a master plan for the greenway, as recommended in the city’s parks, recreation and open space plan.

Near the beginning of the meeting, commissioner Sam Offen introduced the new executive director for the Leslie Science & Nature Center, Susan Westhoff, who spoke briefly to commissioners. Offen is a board member of the center, a nonprofit that’s located on city property.

Ballfield Renovations

The main action item on the Jan. 24 agenda was a resolution recommending a nearly $1 million contract to renovate softball and baseball fields at three city parks.

If approved by the city council, the $982,333 contract would be awarded to RMD Holdings of Chesterfield, Michigan. That amount includes a $893,030 base bid plus a 10% contingency of $89,303. It was the lowest of four bids received for the project, which will focus on the fenced ballparks at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. Originally, the city had intended to include fields at Allmendinger Park as well, but bids came in higher than expected, and that work was eliminated from the project.

The renovations have been in the works for more than two years. At PAC’s September 2010 meeting, commissioner David Barrett gave a report on the condition of the city’s ballparks after personally surveying them. [.pdf file of Barrett's ballpark report] According to a staff memo accompanying the Jan. 24 resolution, no major restoration work has been done on the fields in more than 10 years.

Staff from Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, a unit of the public school system, will work with city staff on this project – Rec & Ed programs are the primary users of these fields. Construction will likely begin in mid-August of 2012, with fields ready for use again in early spring of 2013. Rec & Ed plans to cancel its fall season to accommodate the project.

Funding will be drawn from three sources: (1) $250,000 from the approved FY 2012 parks maintenance and capital improvements millage budget; (2) $64,000 from an unobligated remaining fund balance in the expired park repair and restoration millage; and (3) $668,333 from the unobligated fund balance of the existing parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Deputy parks manager Jeff Straw and Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, briefed PAC on the proposal. Straw noted that in collecting feedback for the 2010 update to the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, the city heard loud and clear that people wanted better maintenance of the fields. The fields – used for baseball, softball and kickball – drew more than 5,000 players during the summer and fall seasons in 2011, Straw said.

Warba noted that when the city had a larger parks staff, renovations of the fields occurred every 10 years. Now, that’s no longer possible to do in-house, he said. Describing the current conditions of the fields, Warba said they are poorly graded, with poor drainage that results in water pooling in the infield, which limits play. The material used for the infield makes it dusty in the summer, and doesn’t allow water to drain quickly when it rains.

For the outfields, the playing surfaces are uneven, Warba said, the turf is in poor condition, and the warning tracks are filled with weeds. Fencing is deteriorating and damaged, and many of the backstops don’t have overhangs.

Upgrades will include regrading the infields, removing the infield lip, replacing the existing infield material with red clay, and installing drainage around the infield’s perimeter. Fencing will be replaced, automated irrigation systems will be installed, field turf will be restored, and concrete will be used for floors of the dugouts and bleacher pads.

Warba told commissioners that Stantec had drawn up designs for the project, and that the lowest “responsible” bid came from RMD Holdings, a company with prior experience doing this work.

Ballfield Renovations: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked whether other fields in the city’s parks system can be used to play on during the renovations. Warba said there are 24 other neighborhood fields available. The next phase of this project will be upgrading those as well, he said. Straw added that Rec & Ed decided to cancel its fall season in part because lighting would be a challenge – most of the other ballfields don’t have lights.

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, noted that no matter how the renovations are handled, it will be inconvenient. Rec & Ed staff felt this would be the best approach, he said. Rec & Ed director Sara Aeschbach told commissioners that players had been surveyed about their preferences, and the strong preference was to preserve the summer season. Using the neighborhood ballparks is too difficult in the fall, because it gets dark earlier. She said players are excited that the fields will be improved.

Gwen Nystuen asked about the material that would be used under the team benches. Will it be a pervious surface? Water drainage is important, she noted. Warba replied that the area will be designed with an angle to allow water to flow off the surface. Pervious materials weren’t considered, he said, though there’s still time to make changes.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor's parks and recreation manager.

Smith noted that the majority of players wear cleats, which would create problems for any pervious surface. He also pointed out that significant stormwater improvements will be made in that section of Veterans Memorial Park, as part of the Dexter-Ann Arbor street repair project.

Nystuen said that in general, whenever they can install pervious surfaces, it will make a difference in helping address stormwater runoff.

Christopher Taylor asked whether the ballpark renovations would coordinate in any way with the possible skatepark construction at Vets. Smith replied that it’s unlikely the skatepark construction will begin by August – it’s more likely that work on the project will start in the spring of 2013. In response to another query from Taylor, Smith indicated that construction equipment used to build the skatepark isn’t expected to damage the work done on the ballfields.

Mike Anglin said he assumed that the parks staff had coordinated this project with the road work being done along Dexter-Ann Arbor. Yes, Smith said. The stretch of Dexter-Ann Arbor along Veterans Memorial Park, east of Maple, will likely be closed from April through November. That’s another good reason for the fall season to be canceled, Smith said, adding that a lot of coordination will be needed.

Julie Grand observed that rates for using the fields at Fuller and Olson parks increased after those fields were renovated. Would rates also be increased at the ballfields after renovations?

Aeschbach said that Rec & Ed charges fees to cover the cost of prepping the fields for play, and those costs won’t change. It’s up to the city, she said, to set the actual rental rates for the fields. Many user groups no longer play on city fields because of the damaged conditions, she said, so demand isn’t high. Perhaps after the fields are renovated, the city can check to see if those groups will return and pay a higher rate.

Smith noted that this project is in line with the philosophy of taking care of and restoring what the city already owns. The ballfields are eyesores, he said, and not good for playing. In addition, Veterans Memorial Park is located at one of the major entry points into town – the corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads. The area needs attention, he said, and the city is undertaking a major effort to do that, in part to respond to feedback from users.

Outcome: Commissioner voted unanimously to recommend approval of the $982,333 contract with RMD Holdings for ballfield renovations at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

West Park Update

Commissioners had received an update on problems at West Park nearly a year ago, when Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city – spoke at PAC’s February 2011 meeting. At that time, Hupy had described the situation with the stormwater infrastructure there as a “catastrophic failure.”

PAC got a more detailed briefing at its Jan. 24 meeting. Parks planner Amy Kuras introduced Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer and one of the project managers in the city’s public services unit, who was on hand to give an update on the status of swirl concentrators at West Park. It was a shortened version of a similar presentation he’d given at a public forum on the topic earlier in January. Kuras reported that forum had been well-attended.

Nick Hutchinson, an engineer and project manager with the city of Ann Arbor, updated PAC on the status of infrastructure renovations at West Park.

Hutchinson began by giving a brief history of stormwater management in West Park. Originally, north and south branches of Allen Creek flowed over the surface through the land that’s now West Park. In the early 20th century, Washtenaw County built drains through the park to collect stormwater, and directed the flow of Allen Creek into underground pipes. There’s also a sanitary sewer main that runs underground through the park. Hutchinson showed a map that indicated the location of the floodway and floodplain running through the park, as well as the location of the sewer main and county drains.

Over the years, conditions worsened. Deteriorating recreational facilities and uncontrolled flooding in the park led to certain areas being underused.

In 2010, the city renovated West Park, including its bandshell, basketball courts and pathways. The project also included upgrades for stormwater management, Hutchinson said. [The total project, supported in part by federal stimulus funds, cost about $4 million.]

The stormwater portion of the project included installation of some water treatment units – swirl concentrators – on the west side of the park, in the north and south branches of the Allen Creek drain. The purpose was to divert some of the water from the stormwater system, treat it, and remove pollutants before reintroducing it into the system to flow eventually into the Huron River.

Another part of the stormwater management was to remove a nominal amount of water from the stormwater pipes by disconnecting the inlets from North Seventh Street and sending some of the water back to the surface, as it had flowed historically. Water was diverted to a series of bioswales that led to wetlands and ponds as it flowed east through the park.

When construction was being completed around November 2010, Hutchinson reported, a sinkhole appeared on the west side of the park near the drain’s north branch, where the swirl concentrators were located. “These are maybe some of the things that didn’t go quite right on the project,” he said, “that we are still trying to address now.”

The contractor investigated and discovered that the lid on a swirl concentrator had caved in. Cameras were sent down into the other units and it was discovered that all four units on the north branch were in some stage of failure.

This photo, part of the meeting packet for the Jan. 24 park advisory commission, shows the installation of a swirl concentrator at West Park in the summer of 2010.

Hutchinson explained how the swirl concentrators are supposed to work. Water is diverted from the main stormwater pipe through a device called a diversion manhole, containing a 3.5-foot “weir wall” that prevents the water from flowing directly into the main stormwater system. Instead, the diverted water flows into a large cylinder, where it swirls around in a vortex. The solids in the water are forced to the center of the unit, where the velocity of the swirling is slower and the solids settle down to the bottom. The water exits into a pipe on the other side of the unit and is reintroduced into the stormwater system.

During normal conditions or a light rain, most of the water is diverted. But in heavy rainfall, only a portion of the water is diverted – the rest flows over the weir wall and continues directly through the stormwater system, without passing through the swirl concentrators.

A total of eight swirl concentrators were installed – four on the north branch, and four on the south branch. Each unit cost about $66,000, including construction. They were initially installed in June of 2010.

In August of 2010, the four units in the south branch were taken offline because of concerns that the weir wall wasn’t operating correctly, Hutchinson said. The wall wasn’t allowing higher flows to pass through the system during heavy rains. Then in November of 2010, after the swirl concentrator collapsed on the north branch, all four of those units were also taken offline. The weir wall was removed from the diversion manhole, and a bulkhead was installed to block the pipe that led to the swirl concentrators. Since then, water has flowed directly through the stormwater pipes – none of it is diverted to the swirl concentrators. The stormwater system is functioning as it did prior to 2010, Hutchinson said.

In late 2010, the city hired Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM) to look into the situation. OHM began by doing a forensic investigation of the swirl concentrator failures, and determined that the lids of those units were too thin, causing the collapse. ”It was essentially a manufacturing flaw,” Hutchinson said.

OHM also reviewed the prior design of the diversion manholes and weir walls, and conducted some site-specific stormwater modeling to get an understanding of how stormwater behaves in the system. They used that information to present some ideas for improving the system, Hutchinson said. [In November 2010, city council authorized an additional $119,000 for OHM to complete these tasks. That brought total payment to OHM for the West Park project to $324,000. An August 2011 city staff memo indicated that the city expects to recover any additional costs due to the failures, either from the manufacturer or the firm that made the initial design, Beckett & Raeder Inc.]

With a failure of this magnitude there are legal issues, Hutchinson said, including disputes regarding who’s at fault – the contractor (Site Development Inc.) or the manufacturer (AquaShield Inc. and L.F. Manufacturing). He said he couldn’t discuss those issues, except to say that the parties seem to be getting very close to reaching a resolution. The legal issues shouldn’t hold up completion of the project, he said.

Next steps include refining the design of the diversion manholes and weir walls. In addition, residents have raised concerns about manhole covers being popped off during heavy rains, because of pressure from excess water in the system. So OHM is looking at redesigning the system to provide some relief options so that pressure will be eased during storms.

Another public meeting will be held on Feb. 13 at Slauson Middle School. At that meeting, city staff will review OHM’s draft design, and discuss the technical issues that led to the design, Hutchinson said.

In May and June of 2012, the manufacturer will make repairs on the units. Following that, the city will hire a contractor to make the changes that OHM proposes to the diversion manholes and weir walls. City staff hope to have that work completed by July of 2012, Hutchinson said.

West Park Update: Commission Discussion

John Lawter asked whether there are concerns that the shutdown of the swirl concentrators is affecting water detention capability, making it difficult to control floodwater. No, Hutchinson said – the purpose of the swirl concentrators isn’t water detention, but rather to improve the water quality as it flows through.

Are there problems in terms of how much water the units can handle? Lawter asked. If too much water is sent through the units, Hutchinson replied, the water will simply bypass the units and flow over the weir wall, going directly into the stormwater system. Capacity is not a concern. The redesign of the weirs and diversion manholes will ensure that the right amount of water gets in, he said.

Lawter raised the issue of basements flooding in that area, and wondered whether that problem is related to the situation at West Park. An improperly designed weir structure could cause back-ups upstream, Hutchinson said. Any design that’s installed in the future will be studied to ensure that it doesn’t cause any upstream disturbances, he added.

Sam Offen noted that this concern was raised by residents at the January public meeting on West Park. Offen agreed that the issue either needed to be resolved through the new design, or that information should be provided to residents to explain the situation.

Offen also asked how construction would affect the active areas of the park. The work will happen on the park’s west side, Hutchinson said. Access to the ballfield, bandshell and paths will be undisturbed. Kuras added that there are three entrances to the park off of Seventh Street. The north and south entrances will be closed, but the middle entrance will remain open.

Mike Anglin asked whether there was any data related to water flow through the system that was collected prior to the installation of the swirl concentrators. OHM collected flow data in the spring and summer of 2011, Hutchinson said, by putting monitoring devices in the stormwater pipes.

Anglin asked whether the city was making an effort to talk with residents whose basements have flooded. Hutchinson replied that the current project doesn’t entail working with residents. The project is specific to West Park infrastructure.

Kuras added that at the recent public forum on the West Park situation, some people brought up the issue of basement flooding. City staff knows that they need to address the broader issues related to the entire Allen Creek area upstream from West Park, she said.

Hutchinson noted that some neighborhoods – like Maple Ridge – experienced flooding in 2011. At that time, the pipes had been returned to their pre-2010 condition, he said, so the flooding they experienced wasn’t related to changes at West Park, he said.

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields

Commissioners received an update on conditions of the city’s Fuller Park and Olson Park athletic fields, which were renovated in 2009-2010. The first post-renovation scheduling of play occurred in 2011, from March through November.

From left: Jeff Straw, Ann Arbor deputy parks and recreation manager; Matt Warba, supervisor of field operations; and Jessica Black, parks and recreation customer service manager.

Jessica Black, parks and recreation customer service manager, described how the six Fuller Park fields were used during the spring, summer and fall playing seasons. [.pdf of Fuller fields layouts in 2011] She noted that the two fields at Olson Park are always used as full fields, but that some Fuller Park fields are split into half fields. There are also seasons when the fields are taken out of play and allowed to “rest.”

Black provided a breakdown of the types of users, noting that “soccer is definitely our No. 1 use.” Teams playing soccer accounted for 65% of the use of fields, 15% were lacrosse teams, and the remaining 20% was split between flag football and ultimate frisbee.

A total of 15 teams used the fields throughout 2011, including eight teams that returned from previous years and seven new teams. There were youth and adult teams, and University of Michigan club sports.

City staff had determined that 35 games per field per season was the maximum number of games that should be allowed, in order to maintain the condition of the fields, Black reported. For the three seasons in 2011, Olson and Fuller fields were used at about 79% capacity, she said. At the six Fuller fields, 679 games were played out of a possible 875. At Olson’s two fields, 175 games were played out of 210 possible games.

Jeff Straw, the city’s deputy manager of parks and recreation, briefed commissioners on revenues from the fields. Rates were set at $60 per hour for most of the full fields at Fuller and for the two Olson fields. Half-field rates at Fuller were $40 per hour. For field #6 at Fuller, the rental fee was $32 an hour for a full field, and $20 an hour for a half field. [Previously, rates ranged from $16 an hour to a high of $31.50 an hour, depending on a variety of factors, including residency (Ann Arbor residents were charged lower rates) and time of day (rates for prime time, between 4-8 p.m., were higher). PAC recommended rate increases at its January 2010 meeting.]

Based on the maximum number of games allowed, the six Fuller fields could have brought in a maximum of $70,280. But because the fields were not used at full capacity, Fuller fields recorded $54,608 in revenues during 2011. Of that, $5,400 was later refunded due to weather cancellations, Straw said.

For Olson’s two fields, $21,000 in revenue was collected, but $1,500 was refunded because of cancellations. Those two fields had the potential to bring in $25,200 in revenues, if played to capacity.

Factoring in refunds, the eight fields at Fuller and Olson had a total of $68,708 in revenues during 2011.

Total estimated expenses were $82,688. Major line items were administration and scheduling costs ($25,000), mowing ($18,368) and fertilizing/aerification/overseeding ($18,800).

Commenting on the financials, Matt Warba – the city’s supervisor of field operations – said he didn’t think it was anyone’s intent to make the fields self-sufficient. But it’s getting close, he added, and that’s encouraging.

Warba also noted that April and May of 2011 were especially rainy months – the city had to cancel play on 25 days out of a 45-day period because of rain. Warba also noted that the irrigation system at Olson failed during the summer, resulting in turf loss. That system has been repaired.

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked how 2012 expenses are expected to compare to 2011. Warba replied that costs generally are expected to remain static.

Sam Offen wondered how revenues compared to previous years. Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, said it would be difficult to compare since the rates were lower in the past, prior to the renovations. He hadn’t asked his staff to bring those figures.

Gwen Nystuen asked how long it would be before the city would need to invest in another major renovation of the fields. Warba replied that it would be possible to maintain the fields without major renovations. They’re taking a cautious approach, he said, by resting fields periodically so that they can be kept in good condition. The city staff has to balance demand for the fields against maintenance.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Nystuen noted that because the fields are fenced in, that keeps people off when it’s raining. That was the intent, Warba said. Olson fields aren’t fenced, however, and in some cases players have jumped the fences at Fuller, he said. One field had to be taken out of play for a month because of the damage caused when people played on a field that was supposed to be closed. Warba said the city will likely hire a temporary worker next season to patrol the fields – it would be cheaper than having to repair damage to a field if players jump the fence.

John Lawter asked whether the city is meeting the need for this kind of play, or could they do more? Smith noted that the fields are at 79% capacity, so there’s space available. However, there’s more demand than capacity for prime time slots – between 4-8 p.m. Black reported that the staff has set the maximum number of games at 35 per field per season. If the city were to add more games in order to accommodate more teams, that might not ultimately meet the teams’ needs, because the condition of the fields would deteriorate. “It’s a balancing act,” Black said.

Smith said the city wants to avoid having to make another major investment in renovating the fields. If demand is high, it’s possible to look at adding fields in other parks, he added, or possibly to acquire more land for that purpose.

Julie Grand asked if the city is doing outreach to groups that might have a lower impact on the fields – sports that don’t involve as much running and kicking as soccer, for example. Black said that at this point, there hasn’t been that kind of outreach.

Gwen Nystuen called the overall report encouraging.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway, Leslie Science Center

Every meeting includes opportunities for public commentary and communications from commissioners and staff. No one spoke during either of the slots for public commentary at the Jan. 24 meeting.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway

Gwen Nystuen brought up the issue of the Allen Creek Greenway. She noted that mayor John Hieftje had mentioned there might be action taken soon on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property, which has been identified as a potential part of a greenway. He’d made these comments at the Jan. 23 city council meeting. She wondered if there was any additional information about that.

[Hieftje had indicated that talks were continuing with the group that had been formed to look at the city-owned 415 W. Washington lot. The council passed a resolution giving direction for the effort at its Feb. 1, 2010 meeting, nearly two years ago. The resolution calls for the arts and greenway communities to lead fundraising and development of a vision for the parcel’s use. The site, across from the YMCA, is currently providing revenue to the city as a surface parking lot. It was previously the city’s maintenance yard. At the Jan. 23, 2012 council meeting, Hieftje said the group continues to meet – the biggest challenge remains the building. He said a report on the status of the project would be given at the end of February.]

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio member of PAC who also serves on city council, said he didn’t have any further information at all. Nystuen then reminded commissioners that the greenway is one of PAC’s priorities. The City Apartments project at First and Washington, by the developer Village Green, is moving ahead, she said. That residential development will include parking spaces, she added, which will free up the need for spaces at the city-owned First and William surface lot that’s located in a floodway. That lot could become part of a greenway, she observed.

Park commissioner Gwen Nystuen and city councilmember Mike Anglin, an ex-officio member of the commission.

The time has come for PAC to actively pursue the greenway, Nystuen said, adding that the city council passed a resolution recently in support of a greenway.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that a council resolution was passed on Aug. 4, 2011 expressing general support for the idea of a greenway. There have been conversations, he said, about applying for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, to turn the 415 W. Washington site into a park. The city staff is looking into that. The process would be similar to the way that the trust fund application for the skatepark had been handled, Smith explained. Staff would first come to PAC for a recommendation to apply. That recommendation would be forwarded to city council, which would need to approve the application.

Smith noted that one issue for the 415 W. Washington property is that it’s located in a historic district – the Old West Side. So in addition to PAC, the city would need a recommendation from the historic district commission too, he said.

Finally, Smith reminded commissioners that the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, which PAC approved, recommends that the first action should be development of a master plan to guide the creation of a greenway. That point bears consideration, he said.

Nystuen responded by asking what PAC could do to move this process along. This year her term on the commission ends, she said, and the greenway has been a priority for her for both of her terms on PAC. That’s why she feels some urgency about this issue, she added.

What PAC decides as a body is up to commissioners, Smith replied. They can give direction to develop a greenway master plan, or tell staff to move ahead on the grant application before a master plan is developed. Nystuen asked how other commissioners felt – should they put forward a resolution?

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember who’s a non-voting ex-officio member of PAC, noted that the city’s environmental commission – on which he also serves has previously served – sometimes deals with issues related to parks. Perhaps a subcommittee of the two commissions could be formed to discuss the greenway, he said. There’s federal funding available for water management, he said, which might be one aspect of the greenway. Anglin also noted that the arts community has been interested in that site – they should be included in the dialogue, too.

There are several interested parties, Smith said – parks, the county drain commissioner, the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, the railroad owners, the Arts Alliance and others. That’s why having a master plan would be useful.

Julie Grand asked about a timeline for the grant application. It’s due April 2, Smith said. That means it would be necessary to secure a PAC recommendation in February, and city council approval in March. It’s also unclear how the historic district commission would fit into this process.

No doubt there’s strong interest in the community, Smith said. But it’s uncertain how to manage the project at this point. He noted that a task force had been formed in 2007 to evaluate development of a greenway that might incorporate the 415 W. Washington site as well as city property at 721 N. Main and First & William. The group couldn’t come to a consensus for the best use of 415 W. Washington, he said, so no decision was made. It seems like a public dialogue is needed to figure out the best option, he said.

Nystuen said she wanted to point out that the near-downtown area on the city’s west side has a shortage of green space. New residential developments will be bringing hundreds of young people downtown, so there will be an increased interest in recreational areas, she said. It makes sense to move forward with a greenway adjacent to downtown. Nystuen said it sounded like the best approach would be to put together a resolution for PAC’s February meeting.

Smith said he’s still waiting on direction regarding whether to apply for the grant. If he gets that direction, then of course the staff would bring a resolution to PAC, he said. Separately, PAC can do what it wants regarding the greenway – that’s not for him to say, Smith told commissioners.

Communications: Leslie Science & Nature Center

At the beginning of the Jan. 24 meeting, commissioner Sam Offen introduced the new executive director for the Leslie Science & Nature Center, Susan Westhoff. [Offen is a board member of the center.]

Sam Offen, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner, and Susan Westhoff, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center. Offen also serves on the center's board.

Offen said that Westhoff started about a month ago and is already doing an excellent job. He noted there had been a recent public meeting at the center to discuss a master plan for pedestrian access there. [The center was previously part of the city's parks system, but was spun off as a separate nonprofit in 2007. The city continues to own the center’s property and buildings.]

Westhoff spoke briefly to commissioners, noting that the center and the city had a long history. She said she’s been working in nonprofit administration for about 15 years. She grew up in Canton and graduated from the University of Michigan. Her first nonprofit experience was at the University Musical Society, and she said she’s glad to be back in Ann Arbor.

Westhoff said she’d be happy to share the plans for the pedestrian pathway improvements that are being developed. Among other things, it will make paths to the center’s raptor enclosures ADA compliant. She also noted that the center has many great public programs, and highlighted the Feb. 12 “Hoo’s Your Valentine?” event that features the center’s barn owl.

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, thanked Westhoff for coming and said she looked forward to collaborating.

Present: Doug Chapman, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, Sam Offen, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio), councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The city had been notified last month that these projects ranked in the top 12 out of 100 applications statewide for funding from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The skatepark application ranked 12th out of the 100 applications, based on a scoring system used to evaluate the grants. The Gallup Park application ranked 2nd. There was a cap of $300,000 per project.

At its March 15, 2011 meeting, the city’s park advisory commission had voted to recommend supporting the grant applications. The city council made a similar vote of support on March 21. Council’s resolution of support prioritized the skatepark project over the Gallup renovations – based on the opportunity to leverage $400,000 of matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission.

A press release issued late Wednesday morning from the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark indicated that the state grant allows the group to reach $800,000 in fundraising, and assures that construction of the skatepark will move forward. [.pdf of FAAS press release]

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, talks with PAC member Sam Offen before the start of Tuesday's meeting. Offen was the only commissioner to vote against support of a state grant application for the Ann Arbor skatepark. (Photos by the writer.)

The resolution for Gallup passed unanimously, but commissioner Sam Offen – without comment – cast a vote against the resolution for the skatepark grant.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, commissioner Gwen Nystuen suggested forming a committee to look more closely at the Fuller Road Station project – she felt that as stewards of the city’s parkland, PAC should take a more active role in examining the proposed parking structure, bus depot and possible train station. The project, a joint effort between the city and the University of Michigan, would be located on land that’s previously been designated as parkland, though it’s been leased to the university as a surface parking lot since the early 1990s. Nystuen did not put forward a formal resolution, and commissioners took no action on the idea.

The meeting included five presentations from various groups, including updates on the city’s two golf courses, the new Give 365 volunteer program, and a restoration project for a stretch of Malletts Creek near Huron Parkway. Commissioners also heard a proposal for a new Wednesday night farmers market, and got a mid-year financial report on the open space and parkland preservation millage.

Grant Applications for Skatepark, Gallup Livery

Two resolutions were added to the agenda at the start of Tuesday’s meeting, both recommending support for city’s grant applications to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund. The grants – for $300,000 each – would help fund the Ann Arbor skatepark and upgrades to the Gallup canoe livery and park.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, told commissioners that the city would include the resolutions as part of the application package.

[The issue of the city’s grant applications previously emerged during the March 9 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. At that meeting, Tom Freeman of the county’s parks & recreation department told greenbelt commissioners that the county would be applying for a DNR trust fund grant to help buy a parcel in Ann Arbor Township now owned by a subsidiary of Domino’s Farms. The parcel would become part of the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Greenbelt commissioners discussed voting on a letter of support for the county’s application, but were dissuaded by Ann Arbor city councilmember Carsten Hohnke, who felt it would dilute the city’s own chances for grant funds from the state – for the skatepark and the canoe livery. Ultimately, greenbelt commissioners voted to recommend that the city council consider sending a letter of support for the county’s application.]

At Tuesday’s PAC meeting, Gwen Nystuen said she approved of the resolutions, but wondered whether it hurt their chances to apply for two grants instead of one. Smith said they had reviewed the applications and grant awards from last year – out of 160 applications statewide, 117 had received funding, he said – a high success rate. What matters most is the quality and strength of the application, he said. In addition, the two projects they’re applying for are very different, and serve different user groups.

Smith said they need the funding for the skatepark in order to help reach the matching funds needed to secure a $400,000 matching grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. And the funds for Gallup are necessary for the work they need to do to improve safety and accessibility at the canoe livery, he said. They’re hoping to have improvements at Gallup completed by 2012, to prepare for increased activity following a significant upgrade at the Argo dam.

Tim Berla asked for a reminder of what work would be done at Gallup. [Park planner Amy Kuras had most recently provided an update at PAC's January 2011 meeting.] Smith reported that the work would include expanding the facility’s meeting room, improving the safety of the path approaching the livery, and giving people barrier-free access to the facility and dock area. They would also add wayfinding signs throughout the park.

Outcome: The resolution of support for Ann Arbor’s application for a state DNR trust fund grant to fund upgrades to the Gallup canoe livery and park was unanimously approved. A second resolution of support for the grant application to fund the Ann Arbor skatepark was also approved, with Sam Offen dissenting.

Fuller Road Station

During Tuesday’s meeting, Gwen Nystuen asked commissioners to consider forming a committee that would look more intently at the Fuller Road Station project. [Fuller Road Station is a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan effort to build a large parking structure and bus depot on the south side of Fuller Road, just east of East Medical Center Drive. City officials hope the initial $46 million phase will be followed by a later phase that would include a train station for commuter rail. The city-owned land, which is zoned public land but has been designated as parkland, is currently leased to the university for use as a surface parking lot.]

Nystuen said she’s been looking at this project for months, and is deeply concerned because it would mean a major change for the city’s parks. It’s an issue she’s raised repeatedly at previous PAC meetings for more than a year.

Nystuen described some of the property’s history, dating back to the time when it was a municipal golf course in the 1930s through 1968. Several transfers of ownership and changes in use have taken place over the years, she noted, and it’s time that PAC have a coordinated discussion about the current situation, given their role as stewards of the parks system.

Park commissioner Gwen Nystuen.

One of the big questions is what kind of protection does parkland have, Nystuen said. The city’s planning commission, in its discussions of Fuller Road Station, has identified several protections, she said, such as inclusion of a parcel in the Park and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, purchase of a parcel with parkland acquisition millage funds. One other way that planning commissioners feel parkland is protected is through oversight by PAC, Nystuen noted – so they are responsible.

The land where Fuller Road Station is to be located was assessed in 2004 by the University of Michigan for $4.25 million – Nystuen passed out a letter sent to the city in February 2004 by Gerald Alcock and Marcel Vidovic, who had appraised the property at that time. At that time, the university was looking at the land to potentially build housing there, she said.

Further, she was concerned that a complete environmental assessment hadn’t yet been conducted. As far as she knew, the firm JJR had done an assessment that was presented as a draft in June 2010. But a final assessment hadn’t been done, nor had a public hearing been held on the issue.

Nystuen also had concerns about how the county’s border-to-border trail would fit into the structure’s design. And there’s a roundabout being considered for the intersection of Fuller Road, Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive, she noted, where the border-to-border trail crosses. At its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting, the city council authorized a $460,139 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. to review previous studies of that intersection and propose a design for its reconfiguration.

A lot of questions remain about the project and its process, Nystuen said. PAC needs a committee so that they’ll be fully informed and can make a recommendation to city council.

Tim Berla asked parks manager Colin Smith what the timeline is for the project. Smith reminded commissioners that he’d given them an update at their February meeting, and nothing has changed since then. The city attorney’s office is still working on the Fuller Road Station operating agreement between the city and the University of Michigan.

Berla noted that some things related to the project weren’t under PAC’s purview. But the border-to-border trail is completely within their realm, he noted, adding that he’d like to see PAC consider a resolution at their next meeting to address that issue. They should go on record identifying that as a problem to be solved, he said. Overall, though, Berla said he supports the idea of a bus or train station.

Smith reminded commissioners that they had already passed a resolution related to Fuller Road Station last summer. His recollection was that PAC gave the project its overall support, but identified some areas of concern, including how the project would be financed and how the border-to-border trail would be incorporated. He suggested reviewing that resolution before taking additional action. [For details on that resolution, see Chronicle coverage of PAC's June 15, 2010 meeting: "Park Commission Asks for Transparency"]

Nystuen said she wasn’t opposed to alternative transportation. But the area where Fuller Road Station is proposed is in a location that the city has identified as a high priority for parkland acquisition – land along the Huron River. It’s a surface parking lot now, but it could be restored and become a beautiful park – it doesn’t have to be covered with cars, she said.

Sam Offen asked Smith to check with Fuller Road Station’s project manager, and perhaps ask him to return to PAC and provide an update. Smith reminded commissioners that they’d be dealing with the annual budget at their April meeting.

Julie Grand noted that the point of the resolution they passed last year was that they wanted to be kept in the loop about the project. This is a good reminder to city staff that PAC be kept informed.

Berla asked Smith whether they could see a copy of the operating agreement when it was drafted. Smith said he would get a copy for them to review.

Nystuen again expressed her interest in having two or three PAC members sit down with the city councilmembers who serve as ex-officio members of the commission – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). [Anglin did not attend Tuesday's meeting.] Taylor said that for his part, he believed things would come to the city council “in their ordinary course.” While getting information is good, he said, information can be “ripe and unripe.” Regarding the border-to-border trail, he agreed that they should ask what the plans are for that effort. He agreed with Berla that there are certain things within PAC’s ambit, like the border-to-border trail. As for the roundabout, analyses are being done that are “ongoing and professional,” he said.

Berla noted that in general roundabouts are fantastic, but it’s hard to envision how someone using the border-to-border trail and trying to cross there could do so easily, given the heavy traffic in that area.

Nystuen did not put forward a formal resolution for her proposal to form a committee, and the discussion came to a close without action.

Golf Courses Update

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners got an update about the city’s two golf courses – at Huron Hills and Leslie Park – from Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf, and Andrew Walton, golf course supervisor at Huron Hills. Kelly and Walton had previously given a detailed presentation at PAC’s Nov. 17, 2009 meeting.

Kelly began by giving brief descriptions of both courses. Huron Hills is a beautiful tract of land, he said, with vistas overlooking the Huron River valley. As a golf course with a shorter layout, it’s a tremendous asset to the entire area’s golfing community, he said, a much-needed course for introducing people of all ages and economic backgrounds to the game of golf. It’s especially important to provide opportunities for kids, to grow the game. In the winter, Huron Hills also provides one of the area’s best sledding hills, he noted.

Doug Kelly, right, the city of Ann Arbor's director of golf, and Andrew Walton, golf course supervisor at Huron Hills.

Leslie Park golf course is their pride and joy, Kelly said. It also sits on some of the prettiest land in the city, land that was previously the site of Dr. Eugene Leslie’s farm and orchard. Kelly noted that the golf course’s logo features the red barn that’s still on the property. “We’re very proud of that barn and we love it,” he said.

Leslie Park attracts golfers from around the region. Its layout is challenging, yet playable. Golf Digest magazine has rated it as the best municipal course in the state, he said.

Since the city’s re-commitment to its golf courses in 2008, Kelly said they’ve focused on the “5 Cs”: customer service, culture, course conditions, cleanliness, and community. These are the reasons why people keep returning to the courses, he said – they’re creating a place where people are comfortable and feel like they belong.

Kelly said they are caretakers of the land. He described how last year, Leslie Park was certified by the Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program, and Huron Hills is now going through that process. Certification requires that the course exceed requirements of environmental laws, protect water resources and enhance the maintenance of turf grass and open spaces. It’s harder to get than certification from the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses, Kelly said, which focuses on enhancing the habitat for wildlife. He expects Leslie Park golf course to achieve the Audobon certification later this year.

Kelly showed commissioners some slides of wildlife on the courses, including one of a wild/domestic hybrid turkey watching golfers on Leslie Park’s No. 1 green last summer. He noted that eight bluebird houses had been added throughout the course last year, and so far seven of those are inhabited. Staff is also working with school groups to build bat houses that can be placed on the courses.

Also related to the environment, golf staff work with the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program to do controlled burns in some parts of the courses – three of the four full-time golf employees are volunteer certified burn technicians, Kelly said. Scott Spooner, Leslie Park’s superintendent, is doing outreach with local schools as well, bringing student groups to the course for projects like water quality testing at Traver Creek, which runs through the property.

Walton, who supervises Huron Hills, focused his comments on that course, saying one of the main objectives there is to grow interest in the game of golf. It’s very affordable to play there, he said, and is a crucial course for introducing new golfers to the game. He described several programs aimed at that goal, including junior golf camps, a new parent/child instructional program and a new junior golf league. Adult programs also focus on beginners, he said.

Another goal is to use promotions and events to attract families, young people, seniors, and beginning golfers to the course, Walton said. One of the larger efforts in that regard is allowing juniors to play free on Sunday afternoons, when accompanied by a paying adult. Last season the city also started a program called “Wee Tees” – a set of shorter tees that are meant to make the game more playable and fun. The annual Herb Fowler memorial tournament has become a marquee event, Walton said, and monthly “nite lite” golf – when they illuminate the course after dusk – is becoming popular.

Walton also noted that adding power golf carts has made the course more accessible to seniors and the disabled – and even, frankly, to able-bodied people who just don’t want to walk, he said. Last year was the first full season that the carts were available, and they brought in about $46,000 in revenue.

Both courses also provide a source of revenue for the city’s parks & recreation scholarship fund, Walton said, contributing about $4,000 last year from player donations and tournament proceeds.

Walton compared Huron Hills to the other golf courses in the Ann Arbor region. Of the 12 local courses, seven are either private or provide limited access to the general public, he said, like the University of Michigan course. Three of the remaining five – including Leslie Park – are more difficult to play. That leaves Georgetown Country Club, which only has nine holes, and Huron Hills, which is an 18-hole course. “We are quite a unique facility in the Ann Arbor golf community,” he said.

Kelly returned to the podium for a brief financial overview. Golf rounds at Huron Hills are up 56% since 2007, from 13,913 in 2007 to 22,501 in 2010. At Leslie Park, rounds have increased during that period by 48% – from 21,857 to 31,998. This occurred at a time when average golf rounds were decreasing at the state and national levels, he said. Their goal is to grow rounds of golf played at Huron Hills to 25,000 and at Leslie Park to 35,000.

Revenues during the period from 2007 to 2010 have also increased at both courses. At Huron Hills, revenues grew from $242,677 to $310,602. Leslie Park revenues increased from $615,448 to $851,570. By FY 2013, revenues are projected to increase to $396,050 at Huron Hills and $929,044 at Leslie Park.

[Related to revenues, the city council recently voted to increase fees at both courses – the increases had been initially recommended by PAC at their February 2011 meeting.]

Revenues are trending in the right direction, Kelly concluded, and recognition for the courses is strong.

After the presentation, PAC chair Julie Grand thanked Kelly and Walton for their work. Commissioners had no other comments or questions.

[Neither Kelly nor Walton mentioned the request for proposals (RFP) that the city issued last year to solicit ideas for improving operations at Huron Hills. Two groups submitted proposals, but only Miles of Golf – a Pittsfield Township business – was chosen by a selection committee to move forward in the selection process. The business owners made a presentation at a Dec. 3 public meeting, but were informed later in the month that the city would not be pursuing their proposal.]

Malletts Creek Restoration

Janis Bobrin, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, attended Tuesday’s PAC meeting – along with Harry Sheehan, the county’s environmental manager, and Ron Cavallaro of the engineering firm Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment – to give an update on the county’s Malletts Creek restoration project.

Bobrin began by noting that the county and city have a strong history of partnering, including work on Olson Park, Mary Beth Doyle Park and West Park – a project that’s still underway. [PAC had received an update from city staff on problems with West Park renovations at its Feb. 15, 2011 meeting.]

Bobrin said they were attending the meeting to talk about the Malletts Creek restoration work, which affects the city’s Huron Parkway Nature Area.

From left: Washtenaw County environmental manager Harry Sheehan; Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin; and Ron Cavallaro of the engineering firm Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment. The three were on hand to give the Ann Arbor park advisory commission an update on a Malletts Creek restoration project.

Sheehan, who’s leading this project, stepped forward to give the remainder of the presentation. He said the county has been working for a decade with the city on improvements to Malletts Creek. The current work will take place along a 1.6-mile stretch of the creek’s stream bank, he said, near the area of Washtenaw Avenue and Huron Parkway. The project focuses on the stream bank’s erosion – he noted the stream is a natural channel and can’t handle the roughly 11 square miles of urban runoff that now flows into it.

Erosion washes downstream and impairs water quality and habitat, he said. Phosphorus from the runoff flows downstream to South Pond and ultimately the Huron River, affecting the city’s drinking water supply. The state’s Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has created a mandate to deal with phosphorus and sediment issues related to Malletts Creek creekshed, he said, and that’s what the project is addressing.

Sheehan described several techniques that will be employed to deal with these problems. Instead of vertical stream banks, they’ll rebuild banks that are staggered back from the creek in tiers to accommodate higher flows. They’ll first stabilize the bank’s base with rock, then revegetate the bank with native plants. Another technique is to create rock structures within the stream – called veins – that direct water flow away from the banks and turn the force of the flow toward the center of the stream.

The third technique is to build different levels of channels within the creekbed – a deeper channel in the bottom center of the creek, with shallower channels carved out at the sides to handle higher flows. Finally, the project will include work to repair and upgrade infrastructure, such as cracked drains.

Sheehan said workers on the project will access the area from spots on Huron Parkway and Chalmers Drive. In response to a question from Sam Offen, who lives in that area, Cavallaro said they didn’t anticipate any traffic issues related to the work.

Sheehan said they’d work with the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) crew to coordinate with the controlled burns that NAP conducts in the area. If there are any areas that are disturbed by the work, the county will revegetate the area with native plants.

The project’s budget is set at a maximum of $4.1 million for the 1.6 miles of creek, Sheehan said. Half of that will come through a federal grant and won’t need to be repaid – it’s in the form of loan forgiveness through the Clean Water Act. The other half will be financed through a state revolving loan program – a 20-year, low-interest loan at 2.5% interest that will be paid by assessing the Malletts Creek drainage district. The city of Ann Arbor accounts for 95% of that district, Sheehan said, and funding for the assessment will come from the city’s stormwater utility fund. [It's classified as an "at large" district, so rather than assessing individuals and businesses in the district, it's paid for by the city collectively.] There’s no impact to the parks budget.

Bobrin later clarified that the other 5% is paid for by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT), because the work benefits state roads. She noted that the project required a formal petition from the city, which city council passed in December 2010. Sheehen added that this project does not involve a rate hike to residents’ stormwater utility fees – it’s a project that was already budgeted, and included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP).

Sheehan said they’re more than halfway through the project’s design, and expect to finish that part by June. They’ll have a contract for the work to be approved by city council in August, with construction starting in September 2011 at the earliest, and running through next spring or early summer.

He said they’ve been in contact with homeowners’ associations in the area to alert them about the project, and also plan public meetings later in the year.

In response to a question from Gwen Nystuen, Sheehan said that Malletts Creek is a county drain, and the county’s office of water resources has regulatory responsibility to maintain its flow and improve water quality. The county has a 66-foot easement on either side of the channel, which has been in place since the 1920s.

Christopher Taylor asked if Sheehan could articulate the water quality benefit they expect to get from the project. It hasn’t been quantified yet, Sheehan replied. About 4,000 pounds of phosophorus load comes into the Huron River every year from Malletts Creek, he said, and the sediment load can be hundreds of times that amount. Those are the two things they’re trying to reduce, he said, and they’ll be calculating how best to do that as they complete the project’s cost/benefit analysis and set priorities about where to do the work.

In response to a question from Tim Berla, Sheehan said water quality monitoring is one way to measure the effectiveness of the project. He said he could provide a report on their work at Doyle Park, which included such measurements. However, they don’t currently have funding to conduct the same types of analyses on the Malletts Creek project, he said. Another way to evaluate the project is to look at how long the changes last – how stable are the stream banks in 10 or 15 years, for example.

Night Market Proposal

Molly Notarianni, the city’s market manager, gave a report to commissioners about plans for a night market pilot program. She had given a similar presentation last week at the city’s public market advisory commission meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "Idea for Night Market Floated"]

The proposal calls for a producers-only market from 4:30-8:30 p.m., operating as a separate entity from the existing Saturday and Wednesday daytime markets, which run from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. The night market would run for a shorter season, launching this year on July 1 – the start of the city’s fiscal year – and running through September or early October. There would be a separate application process for the night market, and there would not be a seniority system as there is for the other markets, which gives an advantage to long-time vendors.

The idea would be to give shoppers more options for shopping at the farmers market, to attract new shoppers to that area, to provide opportunities for more producers to sell their wares, and to increase activity at an underused space. Notarianni said she plans to assign stalls before market day – unlike the current system for the daytime markets, when stalls are assigned on the day of the market just before the market opens. That will provide some consistency for vendors, she said, and shoppers won’t have to hunt for their favorite vendors.

The Ann Arbor farmers market building. On most days, the market is empty and used primarily for parking.

There’s a lot of action in the local food movement, Notarianni said, and this is an easy way to capitalize on that interest at little cost.

Members of the public market advisory commission had been excited about the proposal, she said. The manager for Kerrytown Market & Shops, a complex of stores adjacent to the public market, had a similar reaction, she said. The shops there often stay open later if there are special events in the area – they might keep longer hours on Wednesdays because of increased traffic from the night market.

Sam Offen asked about the logistics of transitioning between the day and night markets. Notarianni said that although the Wednesday market is open until 3 p.m., in reality about 70% of the vendors leave before then. She didn’t think that many of the daytime vendors would stay for the night market – although they could certainly apply to do so. Since they come to the market at 5 a.m., it would make for a long day, she said.

The public market is part of the parks & rec budget. Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, said the additional revenues they expect to generate from stall fees will be reflected in the proposed budget for FY 2011, which PAC will review at their April meeting. Because it will be a change to a well-known, much cared for institution, he said he wanted to bring it to their attention. City staff have received feedback from shoppers that they want to have more options for buying fresh food at the market, and this is an attempt to provide that, he said.

Give 365 Volunteer Program

Gayle LaVictoire, volunteer outreach coordinator for Ann Arbor’s parks system, gave commissioners an update about her efforts since being hired in the newly created job last year.

On March 1, the city launched the Give 365 volunteer program, a new effort to foster a year-round culture of volunteerism for parks, LaVictoire said. They’re publicizing the program in a variety of ways, including posters and brochures at city facilities, through the Ann Arbor parks Facebook page, and by direct outreach to groups like Ann Arbor Rec & Ed and coaches for youth leagues, among others.

Gayle LaVictoire gave a presentation to commissioners about the park system's new volunteer outreach efforts.

A page on the city’s website – a2gov.org/volunteer – provides more information, she said, and allows people to register online. They’re using the Volgistics database system to handle the logistics. It allows volunteers to sign up for exactly the type of activities they’re interested in, to search for volunteer activities on specific dates or at certain facilities, and to sign up for alerts for more general volunteer opportunities. The system also sends out automated reminders to volunteers prior to the times they’ve signed up for. LaVictoire said she’s a volunteer at the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which also uses the Volgistics database. From a user’s perspective, she said she could report that it’s easy to use.

LaVictoire noted that the last time she talked to PAC, she had outlined four programs she was planning to start. Since then, she’s added several others. They include the Friends of the Field ballfield adoption program; taking photos and writing for the farmer’s market or senior center newsletters; and helping with spring and summer “startups” at the city’s pools and canoe liveries. They’re also recruiting young people between the ages of 13-17 to join a Counselor in Training program at the city’s four day camps, she said. Other volunteer opportunities are listed on the Give 365 website.

LaVictoire noted that she was modeling a T-shirt that they gave to volunteers – she reported that her boss, parks manager Colin Smith, wanted one, but she told him that he’d have to sign up to volunteer first.

David Barrett asked whether the ballfield program could be expanded to soccer fields too. LaVictoire said that in the future, she hoped the program would grow. They’re working with the city’s Adopt-a-Park staff to coordinate those efforts.

Tim Berla wondered whether these volunteer programs could be expanded into the Ann Arbor Public Schools – the city uses some of the school district’s facilities for their programs, and vice versa. LaVictoire said they were starting small but hoped to expand – the possibilities are great, when you nurture a culture of volunteerism. Smith noted that he hoped the schools would partner with the city, but he added that because LaVictoire’s position is funded by millage proceeds, there are certain restrictions about how the money – and her time – can be spent.

Julie Grand asked how the Give 365 volunteer program was different from the Adopt-a-Park program. LaVictoire replied that there’s some overlap, but that her volunteer program focused on parks & recreation facilities and areas adjacent to those facilities – activities like trash pickup, weeding, painting and planting flowers. Adopt-a-Park focused primarily on parkland and open space.

In response to a question from Christopher Taylor, LaVictoire described how Give 365, Adopt-a-Park and the volunteer outreach for the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) coordinate their efforts. The Volgistics database manages all three volunteer programs, but there are categories that volunteers use to indicate their preferences. There are also ways that city staff can “tag” volunteer information to indicate that there might be overlap, she said – those tags aren’t visible to the volunteer, but help staff share information. “Your secret’s safe with us,” Taylor said.

He asked how many volunteers had registered so far, two weeks after the launch. One group and about 10 individuals had signed up, she said, and she’s encouraging existing volunteers to register as well.

Barrett asked what assurances volunteers had that their information wouldn’t be used for other city purposes. LaVictoire said there’s nothing to indicate that the information won’t be used for other things, but that the volunteers have control over what they sign up for. She also noted that if people don’t feel comfortable registering online, they can call city staff and give their information over the phone. The number for the volunteer office is 734-794-6230 ext. 42510.

Millage Update

Ginny Trocchio, a staff member of The Conservation Fund who works under contract with the city to manage the Ann Arbor greenbelt and parks acquisition programs, gave a report on expenses and income related to the open space and parkland preservation millage. The presentation looked at the first six months of the current fiscal year, from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2010. [.pdf file of mid-year financial report for open space and parkland preservation millage]

By way of background, Ann Arbor voters in 2003 passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax for land acquisition – called the open space and parkland preservation millage. On the summer tax bill, the line item appears as CITY PARK ACQ. Though not stipulated in the legal terms of the millage, the city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the city’s greenbelt program. PAC oversees parkland acquisitions, while the greenbelt advisory commission makes recommendations for the greenbelt program.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond so far in FY 2011 year has amounted to $815,288 – the first of two annual payments.

On Tuesday, Trocchio told commissioners that total gross revenues – including millage proceeds, grants and investment income – are just under $3.5 million. Millage proceeds are $2.175 million this year, down from $2.26 million in FY 2010. Investment income is also down – $88,148 compared to $492,576 the previous year. Trocchio said the year-end investment income number will likely be higher. Federal grants total $1.235 million this year – those are reimbursements for greenbelt purchases, she said.

Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember who also serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, asked Trocchio to explain why investment income is down. She said that the city’s treasurer, Matt Horning, would be able to provide a better explanation, but that part of the reason is that the millage’s fund balance has been spent down, so there’s less money to invest. [Horning had provided a detailed explanation of this issue at the greenbelt advisory commission's November 2010 meeting.]

The greenbelt has spent about $5.7 million on purchases – it’s been a busy year, Trocchio said – while nearly $1 million has been spent on parkland acquisitions. The two major parkland acquisitions were property owned by Elizabeth Kauffman and Wes Vivian, adjacent to South Pond, for $591,006; and a parcel next to Bluffs Nature Area purchased from the Elks for $369,160.

Administrative expenses as of Dec. 31 were $66,358, and included the contract with The Conservation Fund, IT costs, advertising and other items. Trocchio noted that administrative costs are capped by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues. Over the life of the millage, administrative costs are tracking well under that number. Starting in FY 2005, those percentages each year have trended as follows: FY05, 7.6%; FY06, 5.1%; FY07, 2.0%; FY08, 3.8%; FY09, 4.3%; FY10, 3.5%; and so far in FY11, 0.9%.

At year’s end, about $11.7 million remained in the fund balance, Trocchio said. The bond monies have been spent down – what remains are the funds that have accrued from the millage proceeds. After calculating the one-third/two-thirds split between parks and the greenbelt, that leaves a fund balance available for parks acquisitions of $4.36 million.

Sam Offen observed that it’s difficult to know whether these numbers are good or bad, in isolation. Was there a projection that had been done at the start of the millage, against which they could be compared in terms of anticipated revenues and expenses? Trocchio said she didn’t have that information, but that Kelli Martin, financial manager for the city’s community services unit, was working on that kind of projection going forward. They would provide that information to PAC in the future.

Communications: Parks Manager, Commissioners

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & rec manager, had several updates during Tuesday’s meeting, as did a couple of commissioners.

Smith reported that the city council had approved the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan at their March 7 meeting – that major project is completed. There are also two parks-related public meetings later this month. A meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23 from 7-8:30 p.m. to discuss the design of a new play area at Winewood Thaler Park. That meeting will be held at Veterans Memorial Ice Arena (in the lobby) at 2150 Jackson Road. Residents who can’t attend are invited to take an online survey. On Wednesday, March 30 from 7-8:30 p.m., a meeting will be held at the Northside Community Center, 815 Taylor St., to discuss improvements to Beckley Park. An online survey for that project is also available.

Smith said he’d recently met with the construction team for a project to build a bypass around Argo dam. [City council had approved the $1,168,170 bypass at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting. It will take the place of the current headrace, which is separated from the Huron River by an earthen embankment. The bypass will eliminate the portage currently required by canoeists. It would also allow the city to comply with a consent order it has with the state of Michigan that requires the city to address the repair of toe drains in the embankment.] The city submitted the paperwork required to secure a state permit on March 7, he said, and site plans are being developed. He hoped to have a schedule to share with the commission about the work within the next couple of weeks, adding that it will be a busy summer.

Finally, Smith gave a brief report in response to a previous request from commissioner Tim Berla to look at how the parks budget compares to the overall general fund. The issue had first been raised by Berla at PAC’s Nov. 16, 2010 meeting, but had emerged again at last month’s meeting, when Smith had reported back to PAC about a city council budget work session. From The Chronicle’s report of PAC’s Feb. 15 meeting:

Smith laid out for the commission the main points of the city council work session presentation:

• Ways that parks and recreation would be meeting its roughly 2.5% reduction target. [Energy savings in FY 2012 and increased revenues due to the construction of the Argo Dam bypass channel, in FY 2013]
• A question about whether to continue a $287,000 supplement to the parks and recreation budget, which began in FY 2008 amid controversy over the interpretation of an October 2006 city council resolution about the administration of the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage.
• Options for the future of Huron Hills golf course.

[For detailed coverage of the work session itself, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor 2012 Budget: Parks, Plans, People"]

With respect to the $287,000 parks supplement, Tim Berla recalled how the city’s chief financial officer had addressed PAC in 2007 in preparation for the FY 2008 budget planning and had explained how the parks budget does not increase at as high a rate as, for example the police department, which has a greater percentage of its costs due to personnel. He also recalled how part of the explanation for the apparent disparity in parks funding that year, compared to other parts of the budget, was related to the idea that a department can’t count savings for activities that had been discontinued.

In broad strokes, the controversy that resulted in the $287,000 parks supplement involved the language of the October 2006 resolution, which indicated that parks would be treated the same as other parts of the budget with respect to any increases or decreases.

On Tuesday, Smith reported that the parks budget had increased 9.9% between FY 2008 and FY 2009, from $6.67 million to $7.33 million. During the same period, the city’s general fund budget grew 10.7%, from $76.75 million to $84.97 million. The parks budget then decreased 4.6% in FY 2010 and 3.7% in FY 2011. By comparison, the general fund budget was cut by 4.7% and 3.9% in those years, he said.

Smith said the finance staff is tracking those figures – they even make the calculations from the floor on the night that city council approves the budget, he said, in case councilmembers make changes that might affect the percentages. It’s very much in line with the intent of the 2006 resolution, he said.

In commissioner communications, Sam Offen invited PAC members and the public to attend the annual Mayfly fundraiser at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. It will be held on May 21 from 6-8 p.m.

Julie Grand reported that she’d met with city staff and the consultants hired to develop a strategic plan for the Ann Arbor senior center. It was a productive meeting, she said, and they’re moving toward a vision of offering services for seniors beyond the physical building where the center is housed. They’ll share the plan with PAC at a future meeting, she said.

Public Commentary

Only one person spoke during public commentary. A.J. Dudas introduced himself as a volunteer steward for the Olson Dog Park, working with Tina Roselle, coordinator for the city’s Adopt-a-Park program. He said that in the future, he’d return to PAC to present to them some recommendations that residents would like to see at the dog park. He would be a liaison between residents and the commission, he said.

Present: David Barrett, Doug Chapman, Tim Berla, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Sam Offen, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: Tim Doyle, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio)

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

At the March 7, 2011 city council meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) was appointed as a hearing officer to consider appeals of recommendations to revoke liquor licenses. To Derezinski's right are Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

Also postponed – until the council’s first meeting in April – was a resolution that would outline a way for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to lead the process of transforming surface parking lots currently owned by the city of Ann Arbor to alternate uses.

The resolution, which articulates the so-called “parcel-by-parcel plan,” had already been postponed once before. In explaining the rationale for the postponement, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) cited the desire of the DDA to ensconce the parcel-by-parcel plan in a contractually binding agreement, which he said had not been previously indicated.

Not postponed was a vote on appointing a hearing officer for appeals of recommendations that liquor licenses not be renewed. The original resolution was to appoint the members of the council’s liquor license review committee to a hearing board, but it was amended at the table – to the surprise of some councilmembers – to allow for appointment of just one hearing officer: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Derezinski also serves on the liquor license review committee. Voting against the amendment, as well as the final appointment, were three councilmembers, including Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). Rapundalo chairs the council’s liquor license committee and has served on it since it became a permanent council committee in 2008, as well as before that, when it was an ad-hoc committee.

The council also approved the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan – an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, which is required by the state for certain grant applications. The deadline faced by the council to renew the five-year plan was April 1, 2011.

In other non-marijuana business, the council approved a “complete streets” policy, authorized a stormwater study in the Swift Run drain system, established a loan loss fund for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, and authorized the purchase of LED streetlight fixtures.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary and communications from its own members. A public hearing was held on the establishment of a Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority (CIA), during which Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber spoke. The Chronicle will cover the mayor’s comments as part of a future report on a CIA public meeting conducted by city planning staff.

Liquor License Non-Renewals

By way of background, the city has in the past faced certain legal hurdles to revoking liquor licenses when a licensed establishment has, in the view of city officials, become a problem. The lack of a due process for making recommendations to the state liquor control board to revoke a license was a barrier to the city to act on problem cases. For example, two years ago the city was faced with a situation where one licensed establishment, Studio 4, had accumulated 20 citations for liquor law violations over a seven-year period. From an Ann Arbor News report by Tom Gantert, published on March 9, 2009 [emphasis added]:

Police say they’ve been called to Studio 4 numerous times in the past two years for incidents ranging from brawls to underage drinking.

From 2001 to 2008, Studio 4 was cited for 20 liquor law violations that were forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.

“That is excessive,” said Ken Wozniak, a spokesman for the state liquor board.

The nightclub on South Fourth Avenue also is among a handful of businesses the city went after in 2006 for failure to pay property taxes. City Attorney Stephen Postema said Studio 4 didn’t pay its taxes for about five years, racking up a bill of $41,500, but eventually it was paid.

The City Council is in the process of changing its liquor ordinance, and council members say they want to add provisions that would allow them to revoke liquor licenses from problem bars, while still allowing the bar owners due process.

The current ordinance doesn’t have the language for due process, Council Member Stephen Rapundalo said. Wozniak said the state liquor commission couldn’t interfere with a city’s decision to pull liquor licenses.

The city’s mechanism to address the due-process issue grew out of a slightly different dilemma: What establishment  should receive the extra license that had been granted to the city to award at its discretion? On Feb. 20, 2007 the council had appointed an ad hoc committee to help determine which establishment should receive that license – its members were Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Bob Johnson (Ward 1) and Ron Suarez (Ward 1). [Johnson and Suarez no longer serve on the council.] The city council, amid some controversy, eventually awarded the license to the city itself, to be used at Leslie Park Golf Course.

The ad hoc committee had begun to address various issues related to liquor licenses that the council felt were important to continue to address, among them the question of how to deal with problem establishments. And on May 5, 2008, the ad hoc committee was established as a permanent committee of the council, with Suarez, Rapundalo and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) as members.

By May 18, 2009, the city council was ready to approve an overhaul to its liquor ordinance. The Chronicle’s report from that meeting gave the revision only a glancing mention. [On the same night, the council approved the city's budget for the year.] The key passage in the new ordinance, relevant to Monday night’s deliberations, is the following [emphasis added]:

Prior to filing an objection with the [State of Michigan's] liquor control commission to renew a liquor license, the City Council shall do the following:
(a) Serve written notice on the licensee, which shall include:
i. Notice of the proposed action and the reasons for the action.
ii. Date, time and location of hearing on the matter and a statement that at the hearing licensee may present evidence and arguments on its behalf, confront witnesses and may be represented by a licensed attorney.
(b) Hold a hearing no earlier than 10 days after service of the written notice on the licensee. The hearing may be conducted by Council as a whole or by a Hearing Officer or Hearing Board appointed by Council for such purposes. If a Hearing Officer or Board is appointed, it shall be the Officer/Board responsibility to make a recommendation to City Council for the Council final review and decision.
(c) City Council shall make a written resolution as to its findings and determination and mail same to licensee and the Liquor Control Commission.

The original resolution before the council would have appointed, as a general principle, all members of the city’s liquor license review committee to a hearing board to make recommendations to the city council on decisions not to renew liquor licenses. The current three-member committee consists of Rapundalo, Anglin and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

The need to appoint a hearing officer or board was prompted by a Feb. 25, 2011 meeting of the council’s liquor license review committee, when the members recommended non-renewal of annual licenses for some on-premise liquor-licensed businesses. According to the city clerk’s office, those establishments are The Arena and Studio Four for tax issues, and the Fifth Quarter for being a public nuisance. If taxes are paid, the hearings for The Arena and Studio Four will be canceled. Live at PJs had been on the list, but they have since paid.

At the Sunday night council caucus the evening before, attended by Anglin, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Anglin mentioned the liquor license item to his council colleagues. He did not indicate that the proposal would change the following night to one where the liquor license committee could decide to appoint one of its members to serve as a hearing officer, or that he and Derezinski had apparently decided – at a meeting of the liquor license review committee not attended by Rapundalo – that Deresinski would serve as the hearing officer.

Liquor License Hearing Board/Officer: Council Deliberations

Anglin and Derezinski introduced the background to the resolution. Derezinski said the council would need to take action in April, based on the state’s process.

After Anglin indicated that Derezinski would be appointed as the hearing officer, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned whether his characterization of the resolution had been accurate. After comments from mayor John Hieftje and Derezinski, it emerged that Anglin had intended to make an amendment to the resolution. Higgins got clarification that the intent of the amendment was for Derezinski to serve as the sole hearing officer for the appeals.

Higgins said she had a problem with just one person serving as the hearing officer. She’d served “way back when” on a review committee, and said that the city attorney’s office at the time had recommended that the full committee review it. They’d wound up having a two-day “mini-trial” and that all three members had listened to it. She stated she was not in favor of having just one person hear the appeal. Higgins said she hadn’t heard a compelling argument for it.

Anglin added that the committee meeting where the issue had been discussed had been attended by the city clerk, the police department and the treasurer’s office.

Rapundalo said he had not attended the last committee meeting, and that he was puzzled by the idea that the hearings would be adjudicated by just a single hearing officer. He suggested that the more minds that are present, the better it would be. He said he thought the system they had in place was pretty effective, and that it had taken care of the more routine violations. For the more flagrant violations, however, Rapundalo felt that it would best serve the appellant to have as many people listening as possible, so they could come to a consensus or at least a majority view. He said he would not support the amendment.

At Hieftje’s request, city clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified that the outcome of the hearing would be a recommendation to the city council, and that the city council would make a final recommendation.

Derezinski argued that having just a single hearing officer would prevent deadlocks. At the last meeting, Derezinski said, Rapundalo had not attended – what would happen if the two members who were present could not agree? Derezinski contended that in administrative law, having one single hearing officer is a very common pattern. He also said that it’s a matter of administrative efficiency to have just one officer. He reiterated Beaudry’s point that the ultimate decision would come before the whole city council. Derezinski argued for the minimum due process that is required.

Rapundalo indicated that he could appreciate the issue of possibly deadlocking, but said it was far worse to have just a single hearing officer. He also questioned the efficiency argument, pointing out that the hearing would be part of the regularly scheduled meeting of the liquor license review committee on Friday.

Outcome on the amendment: The council voted 7-4 to amend the resolution to provide for a single hearing officer. Dissenting were Rapundalo, Higgins, Briere and Kunselman.

In light of the successful amendment, Higgins wanted to know if the hearing officer would be reporting back to the liquor license review committee so that the recommendation to the city council came from the committee. Derezinski told Higgins that the recommendation to the council would be coming from him sitting as the hearing officer. Higgins said the idea that the recommendation would be coming from a single councilmember gave her “great pause.”

Anglin asked for clarification about whether the hearing officer’s recommendation would be final. City attorney Stephen Postema told Anglin that the recommendation from the hearing officer would still have to come to the council.

Higgins asked if Derezinski was going to be providing all the information to the city council on which he’d based his recommendation, stressing again that it would be just the recommendation by one person. She felt she’d need to review the information in greater detail than she would if the recommendation were coming from the entire committee. She told Derezinski that she’d want all that information to be provided, because he’d be having the final say on something.

Derezinski responded, “It’s a final recommendation, and I’ll take that under advisement.”

Outcome on the resolution: The council voted 8-3 to provide for a single hearing officer to hear appeals on recommendations for non-renewal. Dissenting were Rapundalo, Higgins, and Briere.

DDA-Led Development

Before the council was a resolution that would have authorized the city’s Downtown Development Authority to create a parcel-by-parcel plan for the development of downtown city-owned surface parking lots. [.pdf of the resolution with the parcel-by-parcel plan] The council had also considered but postponed a vote on the proposal at its Jan. 18, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, objections to the proposal included “resolved” clauses in the resolution that would (1) require placement of items on the city council’s agenda; and (2) under some circumstances require the city to reimburse the DDA for its expenses.

At its Jan. 5 board meeting, the Ann Arbor DDA board had approved a resolution urging passage of the council resolution, which had been circulated as early as the city council’s Dec. 20, 2010 meeting, when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had attached a copy of the the draft resolution to the council’s meeting agenda, and alerted his council colleagues to it at that meeting.

DDA-Led Development: Parking Contract Background

By way of background, the development process for downtown city-owned surface lots is one of two main issues on which the council has been negotiating with the DDA board since June 2010. The other issue is a revision to the current contract between the DDA and the city under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system.

Under the current contract – which runs from 2005 to 2015, with provisions for extending that term – the DDA owed the city a total of $10 million in “rent” of the public parking facilities for the 10-year period. The DDA fulfilled the $10 million obligation in the course of the first five years of the contract. Last year, the DDA unilaterally revised the contract to pay the city an additional $2 million. The “rent” payment is roughly two-thirds of the total amount of parking-related payments made annually by the DDA to the city. In the DDA’s FY 2012 budget, authorized last week by the DDA board, there is roughly $1 million allocated for payments to the city’s street repair fund and for the revenues derived from two surface parking lots not covered under the current parking contract.

During his communications time, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves on the council’s “mutually beneficial” committee, which is charged with negotiating with its DDA board “mutually beneficial” counterpart – stated that “We have met most recently this morning …” [Neither Taylor nor fellow committee member Margie Teal (Ward 4) attended the meeting; Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), the council's third committee member, arrived 40 minutes after the meeting's start. A meeting scheduled for a week prior had been canceled when councilmembers indicated they could not attend.]

At Monday’s council meeting, Taylor indicated that a draft of a new parking agreement had been received and reviewed. He described the discussions between the two committees as “frank” and “fruitful.” Taylor described how the two committees had been working towards an arrangement whereby the parking-related payments by the DDA to the city would be combined into a single sum, expressed as a percentage of the gross revenues to the parking system.

The percentage of gross that would reflect something close to what the DDA had been paying to the city over the last six years would be around 17.2%. In light of the immediate financial burden on the DDA that’s caused by its construction of the new underground parking structure, the city had proposed that the payment start off at around 16% for the first two years of the new contract, and then be increased to 17.5% after that. Taylor described that as the city taking a $300,000 “hit” over the first two years of the agreement. [The currently estimated gross parking revenues for the parking system are around $14 million.]

What was in the draft contract as the DDA’s counter proposal, Taylor said, was a payment of 14% for the first two years and 15% after that, which was an additional diminution of the payment to the city.

The 14-14-15 position on the DDA’s part and the 16-16-17.5 position on the city’s part had been fairly rigid for some time, Taylor reported. He said he was “daylighting” the circumstances in order that some flexibility be built into the budget planning that the city administrator would be doing in preparing a budget proposal in April. The council will vote on the budget in May.

[The status of the negotiations was reported by The Chronicle two months ago: "Parking Money for City Budget Still Unclear." Also previously reported by The Chronicle was city CFO Tom Crawford's stated strategy for handling a DDA payment that might fall short of the city's expectations – namely, to tap the city's general fund reserve. Crawford feels that the shortfall would not persist past the first two years of the contract: "Engaging the FY 2012 Budget."]

DDA-Led Development: Council Deliberations

In his opening remarks about the resolution, Taylor noted that the DDA appeared to be interested in creating a contractual, binding relationship – instead of working based on city council and DDA board resolutions – and in light of that he wanted to postpone the issue until the council’s first meeting in April. A draft of that contract has been provided to the council’s mutually beneficial committee.

The resolution before the council was not written to have contractual precision, said Taylor, and was not intended to place obligations on a party or give rights to another party. So he asked his colleagues to postpone the issue for four weeks, until the council’s first meeting in April. He said he was still in favor of the DDA performing the useful tasks as described in the resolution, but with the introduction of a contractual context, there needed to be additional time for consideration.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that during the council’s Jan. 18 meeting, she’d argued forcibly about the DDA taking the responsibility as outlined in the resolution. She said she didn’t see any revisions that had been made to the document to accommodate her recommendations. She wanted to see a revised document. Taylor assured Higgins that her concerns had been noted by the committee.

Outcome: The council voted, with dissent by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the DDA board, to postpone their vote on the parcel-by-parcel DDA-led development plan until April 4, 2011.

Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) Plan

The council was asked to consider approval of the Park and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan for the city. The plan provides an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, and is updated every five years – this version of the planning document covers 2011 through 2015. The updated document is required by the state in order for the city to be eligible to apply for certain grants. The deadline faced by the city council for approving the plan, to make the city eligible for state grant applications, is April 1.

The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of the plan at its Feb. 15, 2011 meeting. The city’s planning commission also recommended approval at its Feb. 15, 2011 meeting. Several members of the public had weighed in on the plan at the meetings of those bodies as they considered the PROS plan. However, no one spoke at the formal public hearing before the city council on Monday night.

PROS Plan: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had concerns over the justification for the way that land value is calculated in the plan, in the context of parkland donations.

By way of background, the city has a strategy in place to encourage parkland donation to the city by developers when new residential developments are planned – the city’s policy is to allow developers to calculate density of their development as if the donation of parkland had not taken place. The strategy serves the goal of maintaining the city’s ratio of parkland acres to residents.

Because some sites are so small that a donation of part of the site to the city as parkland isn’t feasible, the city offers a payment-in-lieu-of-donation program. From the PROS plan:

The average over the past five years has been approximately $12,000 per acre for greenbelt purchases, and for in-City parkland has been $200,000 per acre. If combined, the average cost for parkland purchase is $55,000. This number is used to calculate contributions in lieu of land.

Smith noted that the inclusion of land costs outside the city lowered the cost rather dramatically. She asked what the rationale was for that. She said she was hesitant to be a stickler about it and force the plan to be reconsidered by the planning commission. [This would likely have had the result of causing the state's deadline of April 1 to be missed.] Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, told Smith this had not come up during the planning commission’s discussions. He stressed that the commission had discussed the plan thoroughly – at least an hour and a half.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park plannner who oversaw the PROS update, noted that there is another place in the plan where she intended to update it after submission to the state – related to precise, current census data, which is not yet available. So the formula for calculating the payment-in-lieu costs could also be updated.

Derezinski thanked Kuras for her hard work on leading the plan’s five-year revision.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what state grants the city was applying for. Kuras told him there were three: (1) Gallup canoe liveries; (2) a skatepark; (3) boat launches at Argo and Gallup.

Smith noted that the plan distinguishes plazas and smaller open spaces in the downtown area in the city’s inventory of parks – she was happy to see that included. Kuras noted that the issue had arisen in the Downtown Development Authority focus group – Smith serves on the DDA board. Kuras said that people downtown are not looking for soccer fields – for those who are looking for more suburban-style parks, there are some on the near periphery to downtown, Kuras concluded.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) weighed saying that he was 95% in favor of the plan but had some problems with it that would lead him to vote against it. He then read aloud a statement with objections, including issues with the proposed Fuller Road Station and public-private partnerships in the parks.

Mayor John Hieftje praised the work that had gone into developing the plan.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the PROS plan, over dissent from Anglin.

Complete Streets

Before the council was a resolution expressing its commitment to the concept of “complete streets” – the idea that streets should be constructed to accommodate a full range of users, from pedestrians, to bicyclists, to public transit vehicles, to privately owned automobiles.

The impetus for the city’s proclamation comes from the state of Michigan’s enactment in 2010 of Public Act 134 and 135, which amended the state’s planning enabling statute and the transportation funding law. The resolution is meant to make sure that Ann Arbor continues to qualify for state transportation funding.

In the resolution approved by the Ann Arbor city council, the city’s complete streets policy is described as including the city’s transportation master plan, the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, a city council resolution setting aside a percentage of Ann Arbor’s Act 51 funds for non-motorized transportation, and a policy that includes construction of non-motorized elements as part of each road construction project and requirements in the city’s public services standards.

At its March 1, 2011 meeting, the city’s planning commission briefly discussed the resolution that would be coming before the city council. Planning commissioner Erica Briggs had expressed some disappointment that the city wasn’t taking additional steps beyond what’s set by the state.

Complete Streets: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said that the state legislature had used Ann Arbor’s local policies as a model for its state act, but that Ann Arbor still needed to convey formally its commitment to complete streets.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution on complete streets.

Swift Run Stormwater Study

The council was asked to approve a $88,250 contract with J.F. New to conduct a study of the Swift Run drain system near the city’s composting facility. The study is prompted by a 2009 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) inspection. The inspection determined that a small pond near the northern compost pad required maintenance.

At that time, the MDNRE also requested improvements to the stormwater management system at the compost facility to reduce the impact of nutrient loading on the Swift Run drain. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for biota in the Swift Run drain.

The concept behind the study is to examine the various interconnected ponds and ditches as a unified system, so that the MDNRE’s concerns can be satisfied. J.F. New was selected from seven engineering firms that responded to the city’s request for proposals.

Swift Run Stormwater: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know why the project budget was $120,000 when the contract with J.F. New was only for $88,250. Craig Hupy, who heads the systems planning unit for the city, explained that city staff time would also be used for the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with J.F. New for a stormwater study.

PACE Loan Loss Fund

Before the council was a proposal to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the city’s planned Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The money for the fund comes from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Through its PACE program, which is still under development by the city, Ann Arbor will help property owners finance energy improvements through voluntary special assessments. By establishing a loan loss pool, the city can reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

PACE: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor would be moving faster than other communities on this kind of program and he would be happy to see it when it is in place.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the creation of the PACE loan loss fund.

LED Streetlights

The council acted on a resolution to purchase 500 LED cobra head streetlight fixtures from Lumecon for $315,968. The city owns roughly 1,800 streetlights citywide – 1,000 downtown and 800 elsewhere in the city. [In the city, DTE owns roughly 5,200 of the streetlights.] The city has embarked on a program to replace the streetlights it owns with LED fixtures, which consume less energy and require less frequent bulb changes, thereby saving on maintenance costs. The purchase of the 500 LED fixtures would allow the city to complete the LED conversion of city-owned lights.

LED Streetlights: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) got clarification that the purchase was being paid for by a grant – from the U. S. Department of Energy. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) got clarification that it’s just the heads, not the poles that will be replaced.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of LED streetlight fixtures.

Communications and Comment

There are multiple slots on every agenda for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Fire Department

In his communications, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who chairs the council’s labor committee – asked the city attorney to explore the legalities involved with a recent move by Allen Park, Mich. – that community had decided to send layoff notices to nearly its entire fire department.

In the city of Ann Arbor, the council had approved an expenditure to complete a fire protections services study at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting after discussing the possibility at its budget retreats and work sessions of transitioning the department to a combined full-time/paid-on-call type department.

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

During public commentary reserved time, Alan Haber addressed the council on the topic of the future use of the city-owned Library Lot – the space that will sit on top of the Fifth Avenue parking structure that’s now under construction. He told the council he he hoped they were convinced that Valiant’s proposal for a hotel/conference center was not a good idea. He said that if Vivienne Armentrout’s analysis had not convinced them, then Chuck Skelton’s report should have. He said that while mayor John Hieftje had called West Park Ann Arbor’s Central Park West, what Ann Arbor needs is a Central Park Central.

Later in the meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser noted that the Library Lot RFP review committee would be meeting the following day. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also made note of the meeting on the following day.

[At that March 8 meeting, the committee voted unanimously to recommend to the city council to proceed with a letter of intent with Valiant, the developer of a proposal recommended by The Roxbury Group, a consultant hired by the city to evaluate responses to the city's RFP. There is now a city council work session on the letter of intent scheduled for Monday, March 14, starting at 7 p.m. at the Community Television Network (CTN) studios on South Industrial.]

Comm/Comm: Roger Fraser’s Replacement

At the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje noted that Roger Fraser had previously announced his departure from the city to take a job with the state treasurer’s office. Hieftje said he wished Fraser the best. He said he’d met with mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins to discuss a transition process for moving ahead and that this recommendation would come before the council at its next meeting, on March 21.

Comm/Comm: Access to Basics

Thomas Partridge addressed the council twice during public commentary periods – at the beginning and the end of Monday’s meeting. He contended that the civil rights issues from the 1960s have still not been completely addressed and he called for greater access to affordable housing, transportation and education.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Sol Metz told the council he’d been working a long time against the genocide of the Palestinian people, which he said began in 1948. He allowed that here locally, it’s difficult to have an impact on the issue. However, he noted that the mayor and councilmembers often attend an annual fundraiser held by the Jewish Federation, which he said helps fund the continued genocide of the Palestinian people.

He also noted that he was a member of an organization that had been the subject of a city council resolution that had condemned that organization’s activities. [The group to which Metz was referring demonstrates every Saturday outside a local synagogue, holding signs that typically call for actions like divestment of U.S. funds from Israel.]

When members of his group had addressed the council, councilmembers did not listen, he said, but instead worked on their computers. On one occasion, a councilmember had turned their back on the speaker. [The councilmember Metz meant was Joan Lowenstein, who no longer serves on the council. She had swiveled her chair around during the public commentary.] His group had asked for the city’s human rights commission to pass a resolution, but subsequently, that commission had been reorganized, he said.

Metz concluded by inviting the mayor and the council to attend a presentation on March 29, at 7 p.m. at the Malletts Creek Library.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 21, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Evan Pratt, left, gets a handout from Jeff Kahan of the city's planning staff prior to the commission's Feb. 15 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier in the evening, the plan was also approved by the city’s park advisory commission. Both groups suggested minor revisions, and the document will next be forwarded to the city council for final approval in early March.

Updated every five years, the PROS plan is a comprehensive look at current assets and future needs. The current update spans 2011 through 2015. It’s a document required by the state to qualify for grant funding.

Discussion of the PROS plan was the main agenda item at Tuesday’s meeting, which lasted less than an hour. The commission also set a public hearing for its March 1 meeting, regarding a request by Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity to convert the church at 730 Tappan Ave. into a fraternity house.

During his communications, commission chair Eric Mahler reported that the city’s Library Lot review committee – the group that’s evaluating potential development atop the city-owned underground parking structure being built on South Fifth Avenue – will meet next on March 3. Tony Derezinski, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, highlighted two upcoming public forums regarding a Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority, set for Feb. 23 and March 2.

No one spoke during public commentary on Tuesday, but nine students from Skyline High School attended the meeting as part of a class assignment. 

PROS Plan Update

Planning commissioners have given input on the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan at several previous meetings. [See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Postpones Parks Plan" and "Planning Commission Weighs In on Parks"] A public hearing was held on the plan at the commission’s Feb. 8 meeting. On Tuesday, no one from the public spoke on the issue.

PROS Plan Update: Staff Report

Amy Kuras, the city’s parks planner who’s coordinated the current update, gave a brief report on revisions that had been made since the Feb. 8 meeting. Highlights include:

• In a chart providing census data related to parks acreage, information was added to reflect non-city parks and open space acreage, including land owned by the University of Michigan, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Public Schools.
• Greenview and Dicken Woods Nature Area were added as part of the inventory section.
• Information was added to compare Ann Arbor with national standards: “National standards exist, although there are wide variations in their application, for the ideal amount of park acreage per resident. The National Park and Recreation Association standard for park acreage is approximately 10 acres per 1000 people. Ann Arbor’s park system ratio is much higher, at over 18 acres per 1000 people, but this is based on Ann Arbor residents placing parks as an important value for the community. Having a neighborhood park within ¼ mile of every resident is a goal that is nearly achieved as this is considered a reasonable distance for pedestrian access, although there are a myriad of factors that influence that distance, including major streets that need to be crossed, other public open space, such as public schools with play areas, and amount of private green space available to residents.”
• Information was added about the distinctiveness of downtown parks and open space, and about factors used in planning for parks in urban areas.
• The map of the city’s greenbelt was updated to include properties acquired and preserved.
• Additions were made regarding the proposed Allen Creek Greenway: (1) mentioning that the desire for a greenway would include the floodway portions of city-owned properties at 415 W. Washington, 721 N. Main, and First & William; and (2) a master plan for the greenway should be developed with stakeholders, including the University of Michigan and Ann Arbor Railroad.
• Explanations for budget pie charts were added.

PROS Plan Update: Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg thanked Kuras for changing the chart with census data to include information about non-city parks and open space. However, she noted that the parks acreage-per-resident calculation hadn’t been altered to reflect that change. Factoring in the non-city parkland and open space would change that calculation dramatically, she said, especially for the city’s south sector. She also suggested that future PROS plans include a chart indicating how much of the city is within a quarter-mile of greenspace. [One of the city's goals is to have a neighborhood park available within a quarter-mile for all residents.] Such a chart would help them identify gaps.

Carlberg also had a question about the parks and recreation budget. The budget charts indicated that for fiscal year 2011, general fund revenues for parks and recreation were $2.41 million, but expenses were $3.64 million. How could this be, she asked, since expenses should equal revenues.

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, explained that unlike an enterprise fund, which is expected to cover its expenses with the revenues it generates, the parks and recreation operations are covered by the general fund. It’s not expected that revenues will cover expenses, he said. The roughly $1.2 million difference is a net cost to the general fund, he said. [The public market and the golf courses operate as enterprise funds, though they also tap general fund dollars.] Smith suggested adding a sentence of explanation to the budget section.

Carlberg indicated that it still wasn’t clear, and said they should both think about ways to better explain it.

Diane Giannola said she had concerns with two sentences in the section on the Allen Creek Greenway: “Since 2005, the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, a non-profit corporation, was established, to help with design and acquisition of the greenway. A report outlining a proposed route was completed by the Conservancy in 2008.”

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, and parks planner Amy Kuras, who led the effort to update the PROS plan.

The conservancy isn’t a city-sanctioned entity, she noted, nor has the city council approved the conservancy’s plan. The sentences read more like a marketing brochure for the group, she said, and it’s confusing, since the city also had a separate task force on the greenway. She asked that the sentences be deleted.

Erica Briggs said she understood Giannola’s point, but that it might be helpful to have information about the conservancy as an additional resource for people who are interested in the greenway. After more input from other commissioners, Kuras was directed to remove those sentences and include them as a footnote to the section.

Giannola also flagged another section, which referenced the city-owned Library Lot. [An underground parking structure is being built on the site at South Fifth Avenue, and the city is exploring what kind of development, if any, should be put on top of the structure. It is considering a project for a hotel and conference center that was proposed in response to a city-issued request for proposals (RFP).]

Giannola objected to a clause [indicated below in italics] in the needs assessment section, related to neighborhood parks and urban plazas: “Discussion concerning downtown open space should continue, especially as the underground parking structure at the library lot is constructed, as well as to plan for developer contributions and small pocket parks.” The clause is too political, she said, given the controversy surrounding development of the Library Lot. The PROS plan should be a neutral document, she said.

Evan Pratt agreed, saying they had previously discussed the desire not to attach specific projects to general policy statements.

As the discussion came to a close, Wendy Woods asked how copies of the PROS plan would be made available, after the plan is finalized. Kuras replied that they expect most people to access the document online, but that there will be some copies at city hall, for a fee. Woods clarified that the fee would simply cover the costs of printing – it would not be a revenue stream for parks and recreation.

Outcome: The planning commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. It will next be voted on by the Ann Arbor city council for final approval.

Communications, Updates

There were several updates and communications from staff and commissioners on Tuesday.

Communications, Updates: Budget, Washtenaw Avenue Corridor

Tony Derezinski, a planning commission who also represents Ward 2 on Ann Arbor’s city council, reported that the council had a work session the previous night on a “very dreary subject” – the FY 2012 budget. [The Feb. 14 work session focused specifically on police and fire services. Earlier budget work sessions have covered the 15th District Court and the community services unit, which includes planning and parks.] Derezinski said the process is daunting, given that they need to address a $2.4 million deficit. There will be cuts, he said, “unless miracles happen, and I don’t see one on the horizon right now.”

Derezinski also highlighted two upcoming public forums regarding a Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement authority, set for Feb. 23 and March 2. [The Feb. 23 event will be geared toward business owners and held at 7:30 a.m. at Paesano Restaurant, 3411 Washtenaw Ave. The March 2 meeting will be primarily for residents. That meeting begins at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road. There will also be a public hearing on the issue at the city council’s March 7 meeting.] He noted that all four jurisdictions that are spanned by Washtenaw Avenue – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township – have passed resolutions of intent to explore forming a corridor improvement authority (CIA), but added “that was the easy part.”

Communications, Updates: Planning Projects, Retreat

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, gave several updates. She noted that the staff’s work plan for the year has been updated – projects include the Washtenaw Avenue corridor project, South State Street corridor project, medical marijuana ordinances and the A2D2 design guidelines review process, among others. [.pdf file of FY2011 planning staff work plan]

Rampson also noted that they’d be scheduling a planning commission retreat soon – last year, that occurred in late March, she said, and March would likely be a good time for it again this year. [See Chronicle coverage of the March 30, 2010 retreat: "Ann Arbor Planning Priorities Take Shape"]

Communications, Updates: DDA, AATA

Rampson reported that she attended a partnerships committee meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority last week. The committee has been working on a proposal – called the parcel-by-parcel plan – to redevelop city-owned surface parking lots in the DDA district. [See Chronicle coverage: "DDA Embraces Concept of Development Plan"] The committee wanted to know more about how that might happen, Rampson said, and she characterized the discussion as a good one.

It sounds like the DDA is interested in exploring development for the area around the city-owned Library Lot underground parking structure, she said, which includes the surface parking lot at the former YMCA site and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center.

Derezinski had also attended the DDA partnerships meeting, and said it was “a lot more civil” than the previous one. He said there have been “directional” issues between the DDA and the city, which he added are being worked out.

[By way of background, the parcel-by-parcel plan was an outgrowth of discussions between the DDA and the city to renegotiate a parking agreement that governs the DDA's management of the city's parking system. At the council's Jan. 18, 2011 meeting, councilmembers deliberated on a resolution that would have articulated the DDA's role in redevelopment of the surface lots. They ultimately voted to postpone action on the resolution. Chronicle coverage: "DDA-City Deal Stalls"]

Regarding another DDA-city project, Eric Mahler reported that the city’s Library Lot review committee – the group that’s evaluating potential development atop the city-owned underground parking structure being built on South Fifth Avenue – will meet again on March 3. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, DDA executive director Susan Pollay said the meeting will be held at 9 a.m. in the fourth floor conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron St.]

Related to the AATA, Rampson briefed commissioners on the transit agency’s efforts to develop a countywide master plan. She had attended a Feb. 14 forum on the issue, which she said was well attended. [For more information about the master plan effort, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates"]

Communications, Updates: Citizen Participation

Erica Briggs reported that the commission’s citizen participation committee met last week. They’ve decided that their next step will be to survey people who’ve already been involved in giving input in some way, to get feedback on ways to improve the citizen participation process.

Present: Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Bonnie Bona

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, March 1 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Ray Fullerton, a board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, passes out a letter to planning commissioners that makes suggestions for revising the city's Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan. In the background is planning commissioner Kirk Westphal. (Photos by the writer.)

The postponement coordinated with a similar move made last month by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, which rescheduled its vote to its Feb. 15 meeting in order to allow for additional public input.

The PROS plan provides an inventory, needs assessment and action plan for the city’s parks system, and is updated every five years. The updated document is required by the state in order for the city to be eligible to apply for certain grants.

A public hearing on the PROS plan drew three board members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, a nonprofit dedicated to developing a park running through Ann Arbor from Stadium Boulevard to the Huron River, roughly following the course of the original Allen Creek. They advocated for stronger support of the greenway within the PROS plan.

PROS Plan Update

Updated every five years, the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan is a comprehensive look at current assets and future needs. The current update spans 2011 through 2015. It is reviewed by the park advisory commission (PAC) and the planning commission before being forwarded to city council for a final vote, then sent to the state.

The effort is being led by parks planner Amy Kuras. The planning commission has previously given Kuras feedback, most recently at its Jan. 11, 2011 working session. [The Chronicle's report on that working session provides a detailed look at the PROS plan draft.] Planning commissioners were originally scheduled to act on the PROS plan at their Feb. 1 meeting, which was canceled due to severe weather warnings. They pushed back the vote to Feb. 15, to coincide with the park advisory commission’s vote on that same day. PAC had pushed back action to allow time for additional public input.

Tuesday’s planning commission meeting included an update from Kuras on changes in the draft, a public hearing and more than an hour of commissioner questions and comments.

PROS Plan Update: Staff Report

Kuras began by summarizing changes that had been made to the draft PROS plan since she last met with planning commissioners. [.pdf file of changes to the draft]

Amy Kuras, the Ann Arbor parks planner, gave an update to the city's planning commission on the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, which is nearing completion.

She noted that the window for including public commentary had officially closed at the end of January, though additional feedback from public hearings and the parks and planning commissions could still be incorporated. In addition to input from the general public, the main feedback had been given by the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, the parks and planning commissions, and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), which advocated incorporation of more information about non-motorized transportation plans.

There had been a lot of feedback about the use of 2000 Census data – people thought the PROS plan should use the more recent 2010 data, she said, but it wasn’t yet available. As soon as it was provided, the plan would be updated with that information, she said.

Kuras gave a section-by-section report of changes that had been made to the draft. Here’s a sampling:

• Section I – Community Description: Information was added about the city’s updated transportation plan, including a description of issues with the railroad cutting off park access, and improvements to the Border-to-Border Trail along the front of Fuller Road, at the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station. A paragraph was added to explain that any proposed sale of parkland must be placed on the ballot for a vote by the general public, as required by city charter.  A sentence was added about the process of rezoning parkland parcels, noting that questions have been raised as to whether parkland is sufficiently protected and whether zoning should include more restrictive language for parks.
• Section II – Administrative Structure: Information was added about facilities that are owned by the city, but are run by private nonprofits – including the Leslie Science & Nature Center, and the Community Action Network, which manages the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers.
• Section III – Budget & Funding: Following the suggestion of planning commissioners at their January working session, Kuras said she moved the FY 2011 budget information from this section into an appendix, and included more information about general budget trends. More explanatory text was added to make the budget-related charts clearer, she said.
• Section IV – Inventory of the Park, Recreation and Open Space System: The parks maps will be replaced with maps that have easier-to-read text and legends.
• Section V – Land Use Planning & Acquisition: A map will be replaced with a larger one showing the location of properties protected by the greenbelt millage. An explanation was added to distinguish between criteria for acquiring greenbelt property and city parkland.
• Section VI – Planning Process for the PROS Plan: In the section that summarizes feedback from the planning commission, these sentences were added: “Staff should explore all opportunities to generate revenue, including public/private partnerships. A balanced view must include all possible risks inherent with acceptance of private funding.” In the section regarding the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), an explanation was added, noting that one of the plan’s consensus points was that certain types of limited commercial development should be encouraged along the Huron River, especially in the Argo/Broadway area.
• Section VII – Goals & Objectives: A goal was added to explore public/private partnerships, while considering their long-term effects. Several objectives were removed that did not specifically relate to parks and recreation.
• Section VIII – Infrastructure Needs Assessment: Several additions were made that related to the Allen Creek Greenway, including information related to the history of the proposed project and recommendations of the city’s Allen Creek Greenway Task Force.
• Section VIX – Action Plan: The capital projects criteria section was updated to align more closely with the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) rating system. Also, an explanation was added that these criteria have been tailored to park projects. And a sentence was added that states: “The Allen Creek Greenway is not listed under a specific year as the construction of new trails and park areas are contingent upon both land acquisition, master plan approval and an implementation plan.”

PROS Plan Update: Public Hearing

Four people spoke during the PROS plan public hearing, including three board members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy.

Front row, from left: Joe O'Neal, Ray Fullerton, and Jonathan Bulkley, board members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. Back row: Gwen Nystuen, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner, and Rita Mitchell. All but Nystuen spoke during the planning commission's public hearing on the Parks and Recreation Open Space plan.

Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the conservancy’s board, told commissioners that if it is designed properly and if zoning changes are made carefully in conjunction with that design, then the greenway will provide a return to the city that will exceed its costs. It’s not an overnight project, he said – the earliest reference that they could find to it is in the 1981 PROS plan. But now is the time to act, and each passing day of inaction makes the project more difficult, he said. “It’s an opportune time to move forward, and it’s a time for action.”

Bulkley said the conservancy has held talks with officials from the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Railroad and potential donors. A solid backing in the updated PROS plan would provide a catalyst to these entities, he said. The major change to the plan requested by the conservancy is to give the greenway a separate subsection in Section VIII (Infrastructure Needs Assessment). The greenway is currently an item listed in the subsection on potential new recreational facilities and parks amenities.

Board member Ray Fullerton continued this thread, inviting commissioners to check out the conservancy’s website for more information, including a video with remarks from supporters. The greenway trail would be for a variety of users, including bicyclists, runners, and people with baby strollers. The idea is to make the three-mile stretch as lively as possible. The railroad is only running two trains a day, he said – the conservancy hopes to secure the railroad’s right-of-way for the greenway. He noted that they’ve looked at similar projects in 18 other cities, including Flint, Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids. The best greenway is in Seoul, South Korea – a project that Fullerton described as breathtaking. The conservancy hopes to take the lead in the greenway project, he concluded, much like a lead sled dog is needed on a team.

Joe O’Neal, who’s also a conservancy board member, began by apologizing to commissioners – “we don’t mean to be ganging up on you tonight.” They weren’t asking for money or land at this point, he said. But they do need the city’s support. One donor told them, “When the city’s behind you, I’m behind you, but not until.” O’Neal then reviewed three of the requests they were making for revisions to the PROS plan:

• Adding a bullet point in the parkland acquisition subsection of Section VIII (Infrastructure Needs Assessment): “Designate the floodway portions of city-owned First & William, 415 West Washington and 721 North Main as parkland.”
• Adding a bullet point in the neighborhood parks & urban plazas subsection of Section VIII (Infrastructure Needs Assessment): “Begin the process of developing a Master Plan for the Allen Creek Greenway showing potential alignment and its relationship with all neighborhoods along the route, the Downtown, the University of Michigan (more specifically, the Athletic Campus), the Huron River Greenway (Border to Border Trail), the Ann Arbor neighborhoods south of Stadium Boulevard, and the opportunities to the south through Pittsfield Township to Saline.”
• Labeling the Allen Creek Greenway on two of the maps.

O’Neal concluded by noting that the properties along the proposed greenway will never again be as available as they are now, given current market conditions.

Rita Mitchell raised concerns about information on a chart in Section I (Community Description), which included data on parkland acreage per 1,000 residents in different parts of the city. The lowest by far is in the central district, which includes downtown, at 3.7 acres per 1,000 residents. She noted that if there’s an effort to increase residential density in this area, there should be a commensurate effort to increase parkland there. Mitchell said she opposed the Fuller Road Station project – a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that’s proposed on city-owned land now designated as parkland – and supports the greenway. There’s a lot of community support for the greenway, she said.

PROS Plan Update: Commissioner Deliberations

Several commissioners thanked Kuras for her work, and praised her efforts over the past year in getting input for the PROS update. They also offered a wide range of comments and questions. For this report, their discussion is organized by topic.

PROS Deliberations: Density, Parkland Acreage

Bonnie Bona asked Kuras to discuss how they should be viewing the downtown area, with regard to density and parkland. Have other communities come up with formulas to calculate density? Perhaps quantity isn’t the best way to look at it, she offered.

There’s been a lot of dissent on this topic, Kuras said. Many people feel that downtown is a different animal regarding parks and open space, she said. People living downtown aren’t looking for soccer fields – people are recreating differently, and that recreation includes public as well as private areas, like sidewalk cafes. Creating plazas and other hardscape areas are more of a priority. Kuras also noted that there are several parks that are peripheral – but within walking distance – to the downtown, including West Park and Wheeler Park.

Bona said that assuming they accepted this description, there’s nothing in the PROS plan that would give guidance about this issue to the planning commission or residents. She suggested adding some description to articulate these characteristics of the downtown area.

Among other things, this chart of census data shows the amount of parkland acreage per 1,000 residents for different areas of the city. (Links to larger image)

Evan Pratt clarified that the calculations of acreage didn’t include land on the University of Michigan, the public school system or parkland owned by Washtenaw County. He noted that because of that, the statistics end up looking skewed – not all of the city’s open space and parkland is reflected in those calculations. Kuras noted that although the chart doesn’t reflect it, there are maps with that information indicated, and the non-city parkland is described in narrative form elsewhere in the plan.

Jean Carlberg observed that the chart is the kind of thing that will be used by people in the future to justify certain actions. For that reason, it would be helpful to include data on parkland and open space owned by the county, UM and others for each district, she said, because it greatly changes the picture. For example, she said she lives in the south sector, which has the second-lowest amount of city-owned park acreage per 1,000 residents. Yet there’s a lot of school-owned land that’s well-used in that area, she said. The 141-acre County Farm Park is also in that area, but it’s not factored into the chart because it’s owned by Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, not the city.

PROS Deliberations: Allen Creek Greenway

Bona noted that some of the requested revisions from the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy are very specific. They asked that specific city-owned properties – First & William, 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – be designated as parkland, for example, and requested that the city begin developing a master plan for the greenway that includes specific areas. She expressed concern that specifics for the greenway are being added to the PROS plan just because the project is getting a lot of attention, whereas that level of detail isn’t included for other projects. She felt the plan should be consistent, not reactive or based on the most current popular topic. The plan shouldn’t just plug in directives simply because someone asked for them.

Wendy Woods asked Kuras if she was changing the plan every time she got input – what’s the process for doing that? Some changes can actually have broad implications, Woods noted. Giving the greenway a separate section, for example, could have an impact on future funding.

Kuras replied that it’s an issue she has struggled with – do you give a project a special section, just because people are lobbying for it? It’s a question of fairness, she said. Regarding the greenway, Kuras noted that it’s already mentioned multiple times in the PROS plan. Because it’s in the plan in a significant way, it’s not clear that it needs a special section, she said.

From left: planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

Kirk Westphal said he echoed the concerns expressed by Bona and Woods, about singling out the greenway. Evan Pratt agreed that it didn’t need a separate section. He noted that the greenway’s history goes back even further than 1981, to at least the late 1960s and early 1970s. Greenway discussions began after a major flood in 1968, he said, when Ann Arbor’s west side in particular was hit hard. A greenway was one idea to address the flooding problem.

Diane Giannola said that creating a separate subsection for the greenway elevates it in importance – it isn’t clear that city council has decided that. She also suggested that reference to the greenway be removed from the section on existing parks and facilities – that section doesn’t include other proposed projects, she noted, like the skatepark.

PROS Deliberations: Budget Issues

Tony Derezinski, referring to the action plan, noted that some projects indicate they’ll be privately funded, like the skatepark. He wondered if there are any projects that might be funded in part through revenues, rather than the general fund – perhaps the canoe liveries could be funded this way? Kuras said that none of the major capital projects are funded through revenues. The exceptions would be projects in the two “enterprise” funds – for the public market, and the golf courses – that might be partially funded by revenues generated from their operations.

Derezinski followed up by asking if the staff considered raising fees. That’s a challenge, Kuras said. They re-evaluate fees each year, but are cautious about making them too high. Part of their mission as a public entity is to provide parks and recreation for all residents, regardless of their ability to pay, she noted.

Eric Mahler thanked Kuras for including projections for 2012-2013 as part of the budget information – even more projections and trends would be helpful, he added. Mahler noted that the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage expires in 2012. He assumed the budget projections are based on a continuation of the millage, but that needs to be clarified in the plan. Part of the section also mentions the guidelines that city council approved in 2006, prior to the millage vote. The implication is that those guidelines are still observed, he said, but that should be clarified too. References to FY 2007-08 should also be updated, he said.

These are the guidelines, as stated in the PROS plan draft:

Annual allocation for maintenance is to be between 60% and 80% and for capital improvements between 20% and 40%, with a total annual allocation being 100%.

Originally, the Natural Area Preservation Program budget received a minimum 3% annual increase to enhance the stewardship of increased acreage of natural park areas. As part of the FY2011 budget process, and as recognition that the revenue generated by the millage was decreasing, this guideline was amended to provide equality between all City units receiving funding from this millage.

If future reductions are necessary in the City’s general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning in the fiscal year of 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the Parks and Recreation System, after subtracting the revenue obtained from fees for parks and recreation, will be reduced no greater than the average percentage reduction, for each particular year, of the rest of the City general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, for each of the applicable six years of this millage.

If future increases occur in the City’s general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, during any of the six years of this millage, beginning in the fiscal year of 2007-2008, the general fund budget supporting the parks and recreation system, after subtracting the revenue obtained from fees for parks and recreation, will be increased at the same rate as the average percentage increase, for each particular year, of the rest of the City general fund budget, not including the budget for Safety Services, for each of the applicable six years of this millage.

The millage is not subject to a municipal service charge, but is subject to appropriate information technology and fleet charges.

PROS Deliberations: Misc. Comments

Park security: Westphal asked whether Kuras had information about the incidence of crime in various parks – do some parks have more crime than others? The downtown parks are more problematic, Kuras said, with higher incidence of drug use, panhandling and other crimes. Since the city’s park ranger program was dismantled several years ago, the parks staff have worked with police to monitor the parks, and identify which ones need more police presence. That’s difficult, she noted, since there have been cutbacks in the police force, too. Westphal suggested including some information about that – it could alert them to which parks are working well, and which ones might need help. They might then be able to address problems in part through other means, like zoning decisions, for example.

Collaborations: Derezinski said he was especially interested in efforts to collaborate with other entities. He wondered how much the city currently partnered with the Ann Arbor Public Schools Rec & Ed program, for example? Kuras said the city parks staff works with them closely. For one thing, Rec & Ed uses a lot of the city’s parks for its programs, but it hasn’t gone the other way – there’s hasn’t been much effort on the city’s part to use the schools’ property. She said she wasn’t personally involved in those collaborations, so she couldn’t talk about it in detail, but said she knew there was a lot of dialogue between the two entities.

Electronic vs. print versions: Erica Briggs said the graphs and other images in the plan’s electronic version were sometimes difficult to read. For example, sometimes the page breaks bump the legend for a chart into the next page, causing the reader to scroll back and forth. As more people use the electronic version rather than a printed copy, it’s worth considering how to make it more readable, she said. Perhaps displaying it in landscape mode, rather than vertically, would be helpful.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to postpone action on the PROS plan until their Feb. 15, 2011 meeting.

Misc. Communications, Updates

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, briefed commissioners on several items during the Feb. 8 meeting.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff.

Arbor Dog Daycare

At its Dec. 21, 2010 meeting, the planning commission approved a special exception use for Arbor Dog Daycare, a business located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower. Rampson reported that the staff had received a call last month from one of the neighbors, Tim Thieme, who was upset because he hadn’t been notified of the meeting. [The project had come before the planning commission multiple times, including an Oct. 19, 2010 meeting during which Thieme spoke against the special exception use.]

At the Oct. 19 meeting, Thieme had not signed up to be notified of future meetings on the issue, Rampson reported. However, he had subsequently emailed the planning staff asking to be notified, she said – they somehow didn’t see the email, and he hadn’t been notified of the December meeting. He was very upset, she said, and they apologized and offered him the opportunity to speak to the commission during public commentary.

He also sent an email to the staff, which was included in the Feb. 8 meeting packet. [.pdf of Tim Thieme email] It reads, in part:

I am very disappointed that I received no notification of this hearing as the City Code requires. Because there was no notification of the topic being discussed I question the legality of the decision. Perhaps you could try to give me an answer as to why the granting of the Special Exemption is legal before I consult my own attorneys for their help in obtaining an answer.

Commissioner Bonnie Bona asked Rampson to clarify what is required by city code. The code requires that the city notify neighbors of a public hearing, Rampson said. If it’s postponed for more than six months, they’re required to re-notify. However, if the project comes back within that six-month timeframe, there’s no obligation to do direct notification again, she said. They do alert the public in other ways, she said, including by publishing their agenda in the Washtenaw Legal News, through email alerts and by posting it on the city’s Legistar system. There are also sign-up forms at planning commission meetings.

Erica Briggs clarified that although it didn’t work in this instance, the public can still email or call the planning staff and asked to be notified about upcoming projects. That’s true, Rampson said – and they will work to avoid situations in the future like the one that occurred with Thieme.

Updates from Council: Medical Marijuana, Heritage Row, Design Guidelines

Rampson and Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also serves on city council representing Ward 2, gave several planning-related updates from the Feb. 7 city council meeting.

Derezinski said the council spent considerable time fine-tuning the medical marijuana licensing proposal, and worked through about three-quarters of the proposed amendments before voting to postpone additional action.

He also reported that council, on a 9-2 vote, agreed to waive a portion of development fees for the Heritage Row project. Though the original resolution – sponsored by Derezinski and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) – proposed eliminating the fees entirely, they compromised and will charge $2,000. Derezinski said they hope the residential project, proposed for a stretch along South Fifth Avenue, will move forward “in a fairly expeditious time period.”

Rampson added that the expedited process relates primarily to staff review – they will not abbreviate any of the public input pieces, she said. The developer would be required to hold a citizen participation meeting prior to filing a site plan, she said, and there would be public hearings at both planning commission and city council. She said the project could come before the planning commission in March, with council addressing it in April.

In other action, council approved the A2D2 design guidelines, Rampson reported. It will ultimately be a mandatory review, with voluntary compliance. The council resolution directs the planning commission to put in place a design review process, to be conducted prior to a project’s mandatory citizen participation meeting.

An interim design review committee was also appointed by council – Rampson said it’s expected that they’ll transition to become the official committee. Members are: Chet Hill (landscape architect); Mary Jukari (landscape architect); Dick Mitchell (architect); Tamara Burns (architect); Paul Fontaine (planner); William Kinley (developer); and Geoff Perkins (contractor).

The planning commission’s ordinance review committee will tackle the project first, Rampson said.

Derezinski noted that the council meeting included a tribute to Peter Pollack, a local landscape architect who died late last year. Pollack had served on the design guidelines task force, and was instrumental in that effort. Pollack’s widow, Eleanor Pollack, was on hand to accept the tribute, and received a standing ovation, Derezinski said.

Washtenaw Corridor Improvement Authority

Rampson told commissioners that two public forums have been scheduled regarding a possible Washtenaw Corridor Improvement Authority (CIA), for a stretch of Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The first one, on Feb. 23, will be geared toward business owners and held at 7:30 a.m. at Paesano Restaurant, 3411 Washtenaw Ave. The second meeting, on March 2, will be primarily for residents. That meeting begins at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road. There will also be a public hearing on the issue at the city council’s March 7 meeting.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Feb. 15  at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

An article from the May 19, 1936 Ann Arbor News about the city's parks system. Copies of some pages from this 1936 issue were hanging on the walls of the city hall conference room where the planning commission held its Jan. 11 working session, which focused on parks.

The commission will formally consider adopting the PROS plan at its Feb. 1 meeting, when there will also be a public hearing on the plan. It will then be forwarded to city council for final approval.

The plan – a document that in its current iteration is roughly 140 pages long – is required to be updated every five years in order for the city to be eligible for certain state grants. The proposed plan covers 2011 through 2015.

In addition to an inventory of the city’s parks system and assessment of current conditions, the PROS plan includes a listing of goals and objectives for the system, a needs assessment and an action plan. [The draft plan, a 5.1 MB .pdf file, can be downloaded from the city's website. It's also being sold at Dollar Bill Copying – $12.94 for a black-and-white copy, or $43.48 for color. In the following article, The Chronicle has included .pdf files of each of the nine sections separately.]

Commissioners spent about two hours giving Kuras feedback on the draft. Though they offered some revisions, the group praised Kuras for the breadth and depth of the effort – a process which has spanned more than a year.

Kuras began with an overview of how the plan was developed, a process that’s dictated by the state. One of the first steps was forming a steering committee, which included planning commissioner Erica Briggs and city planner Jeff Kahan, among others. They also designed an online survey – using that technology for the first time, rather than doing phone surveys as in the past. Kuras said while six years ago they struggled to get the minimum 600 responses they wanted from the phone survey, the online survey yielded 822 responses. Replies to open-ended questions in particular were given “with great depth, and a lot of passion,” she said.

The plan is shorter than in previous years, in part because the state eliminated some requirements, such as previously mandatory topographical maps, climate charts and other information.

Section I: Introduction and Community Description

Kuras said she beefed up the introduction, and included a review of what’s been accomplished from the previous PROS plan. The intro also summarizes changes between this plan and the last one, she said. For example, “Trails and Greenways” was eliminated as a separate chapter, and its content was incorporated into the section on infrastructure needs assessment.

In the “Community Description” section, Kuras said she eliminated the subjective language that was in the previous version. Issues that have developed over the past five years – like the Fuller Road Station – were also added. [.pdf of draft PROS intro and Section I]

Section I: Commissioner Feedback

Jean Carlberg observed that Ann Arbor is primarily a city of neighborhoods – houses with yards. It’s not Chicago, with large apartment buildings. For her, Carlberg said, that fact influences the necessity of increasing neighborhood parks and parks planning.

Evan Pratt picked up on that comment, saying that except for some areas of the city – like Ward 2 – most homes in Ann Arbor have small yards. That would seem to necessitate the need for parks, driving people to use parks more often.

Kuras noted that the staff does look at park density – that’s reflected in the PROS section on land use planning and acquisition, which mentions one of the criteria for city parks:

The current standard is provision of neighborhood parks within ¼ mile of each residence. Opportunities in areas considered to be deficient (in terms of parkland) are considered as the City attempts to meet access and availability standards.

It’s also mentioned in the needs-assessment section of the PROS plan:

Gaps in neighborhood park service (for residents that do not have a neighborhood park within one-quarter mile or where they need to cross a busy street) should be considered, taking schools in to consideration, including demographics (study done by PAC) when developments may include land dedication or when vacant parcels that are appropriate become available.

But she noted that they don’t differentiate between types of neighborhoods. That is, there aren’t different standards for neighborhoods with large yards compared to those with smaller residential lots.

Carlberg commented that a lot of the city’s small neighborhood parks aren’t well-used. Perhaps that’s because people don’t have enough recreational time, she speculated, or that they use their own yards.

Kirk Westphal noted that another way of measuring park density is acreage per resident. But the real question is where should the city locate its parks to get the most bang for their buck, he said. There’s also a question of quality – why are some parks more used than others?

Kuras pointed out that a lot of neighborhood parks have been acquired as the result of development, “so the process is somewhat opportunistic.” The PROS plan lays out the city’s formula for asking developers to donate parkland as part of a development project – it’s included in the section on land use planning and acquisition. [.pdf of draft PROS Section V on land use planning and acquisition] It’s worth discussing the merits of this approach, Kuras said.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, also noted that neighborhoods go through cycles, depending on who lives there. The same would be true for neighborhood parks, she said – some years, depending on the needs of residents, the parks might be more used than in other years.

Among other things, this chart of census data shows the number and acreage of Ann Arbor parks for different areas of the city. (Links to larger image)

Some commissioners questioned whether certain sections of Ann Arbor are underserved by parks, noting that the southern part of the city seems to have less park acreage, based on data in the “community description” section of PROS. But Kuras pointed out that in addition to the city’s 26.5-acre Southeast Area Park, there are other non-city open areas south of town, which aren’t counted in the analysis – the University of Michigan golf course, for example. Carlberg noted that there’s considerable preserved open space in nearby Pittsfield Township to the south, and that the large residential co-ops in that area include their own parks and playgrounds, which aren’t counted in the city’s tally of parks because they’re on private property.

It’s also true that some areas appear underserved by parks for specific reasons – Kuras cited the upscale neighborhood off of Devonshire. In fact, that area has a great deal of private open space because of its large lots. And property owners there have even told the city that they didn’t want a public park in their neighborhood, she said.

Evan Pratt noted that the PROS description of acreage of parks-per-resident doesn’t reflect University of Michigan property, or playgrounds and fields owned by the public schools. Kuras added that the PROS plan does include maps showing what’s owned by other entities, including Washtenaw County’s large County Farm Park at Washtenaw and Platt, and Pioneer Woods next to Pioneer High School.

Jeff Kahan also observed that the South State Street employment corridor runs to the south, making it more commercial than residential – another factor in the location of parks. This provided an opening for Westphal to make a joke about office parks.

Section II: Administrative Structure

Commissioners spent little time discussion this section outlining the parks & recreation administrative structure, with Jean Carlberg observing, “I’m sure it’s interesting to some people.” [.pdf of draft PROS Section II]

The section explains the organization and responsibilities of the city’s parks & recreation services unit, the field operations services unit, and the community education and recreation department of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, commonly known as Rec & Ed. It also describes the various advisory boards that address parks-related issues, and outlines the ways in which the parks system seeks public input.

The city’s administrative structure has changed dramatically since the previous PROS plan, Kuras said, and there have been growing pains. She noted that in the parks & recreation organizational chart, she is the only park planner for the city – when she was hired several years ago, she said, there were six.

Section III: Budget & Funding

Kuras reported that the section on budget and funding had changed dramatically since the previous PROS plan, with much of the information now being included in chart form. [.pdf of draft PROS Section III]

In addition to providing financial data, the section describes the budget process for the parks system, including a description of the seven city funds that are used for financial support. They are:

• Fund 10 (General Fund): Supports parks administration, along with numerous recreation facilities.
• Fund 24 (Land Acquisition Funds): These funds get revenues from the Open Space and Parkland Preservation Millage and are used to purchase new parkland.
• Fund 25 (Bandemer Park Fund): Designated for use specifically at Bandemer Park.
• Fund 33 (Gifts and Memorials Fund): Donations and developer contributions, and associated expenses.
• Fund 46 (Market Enterprise Fund): Enterprise fund for Farmers Market operations.
• Fund 47 (Golf Enterprise Fund): Enterprise fund for golf course operations.
• Fund 71 (Parks Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage): Millage revenues support capital projects, park planning functions, and volunteer outreach.

Section III: Commissioner Feedback

This PROS draft includes detailed financial data from FY 2011, which runs from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. Much of the discussion for this section revolved around whether to include that level of information at all, how to present the information most clearly, and whether to move it to an appendix.

Evan Pratt observed that the PROS plan covers a five-year period, but the financial data represents only one year. That might be sending mixed messages about the purpose of this report, he said – perhaps that level of detail should be eliminated.

Bonnie Bona suggested that including revenues and expenses from the past five years would be helpful in setting the context, more so than a one-year snapshot. Others noted that the FY 2011 data would be outdated after this year.

Eric Mahler proposed including a narrative about financial trends and projections – keeping the information about funding sources, but including the specific FY 2011 budget in an appendix. There appeared to be consensus on this approach.

Section IV: Inventory

The inventory section attempts to classify the city’s 157 parks and facilities, covering just over 2,000 acres. Six classifications are used: (1) neighborhood parks, (2) urban parks/plazas, (3) recreational facilities, (4) historic sites, (5) community-wide parks, and (6) natural areas. [.pdf of draft PROS Section IV]

In addition, this section inventories other parks-related properties held by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Public Schools, Washtenaw County, the state’s Dept. of Natural Resources, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority – as well as parks in neighboring townships and cities.

The inventory also includes an extensive listing of grants received over the years – dating back to 1973 – to fund the development and operations of the city’s parks.

There was little discussion of this section by commissioners.

Section V: Land Use Planning & Acquisition

This section provides a detailed look at the history of Ann Arbor’s parks and open space acquisition, starting in 1988. [.pdf of draft PROS Section V]

It also outlines the process and criteria for acquiring parkland, as well as various methods that can be used for acquisition. The section also discusses the city’s greenbelt program.

Section V: Commissioner Feedback

Most of the discussion focused on the issue of donations by developers. From the PROS draft:

During the City’s review of residential development plans – a final plat of a subdivision, a planned unit development, or a site condominium – each developer is asked to dedicate land for parks and recreation purposes to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the development in question. These donations are not mandatory in the absence of state enabling legislation but rather are a discretionary contribution by the petitioners.

The 1981 PROS Plan established a rationale for dedication of land in new residential developments based on the ratio of households in the City to acres of neighborhood-scale parkland. The ratio then was 4.9 acres of neighborhood parkland for every 408 households or 1,000 new residents or .012 acres of neighborhood park per household. This amount of new parkland was felt to be the minimum amount to maintain the existing level of service for neighborhood parks. With each subsequent update of the PROS Plan, the formula for neighborhood parkland was adjusted to reflect changes in demographic and land acquisition patterns. The current formula was updated based on 2000 Census data and an average of current land values.

In December 1985, City Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that allowed developers to donate land for parks and still receive the dwelling unit density that would be allowed before the dedication in terms of gross lot area. This amendment effectively reduced the cost of parkland dedication to developers. Large-acreage developments could accommodate an on-site park and still achieve a density of dwelling units as though the park did not exist. The parkland is counted as part of the open space required by the Zoning Ordinance.

The amendment has made negotiating for parkland much easier as a part of larger developments. Smaller developments of under 15 acres have less flexibility in site layout and often have difficulty providing an adequate park site while still building the maximum permitted number of dwelling units. There have been some instances where the dedication of land or cash in lieu of land has been inadequate, but generally the new developments are provided parkland through this process.

Wendy Rampson noted that the section doesn’t indicate how the city makes a judgement about when it will accept cash in lieu of parkland. That might be useful to clarify, she said. Kuras indicated that the cash-in-lieu option is usually accepted when there’s no land available – especially for downtown developments, where land is scarce and more expensive.

Kuras gave an example of 601 S. Forest, a residential development being built in the South University area. She said she’ll likely use the developer’s cash donation for parks to improve the alleyway near the building, perhaps with trees and public art. Though the funds aren’t going directly to parks, they’ll still be used for purposes that serve the public interest, she said, adding that perhaps they should make that approach more explicit in the PROS plan.

There’s also an option to get credit for private open space and recreation in a development. Rampson said the planning commission will be seeing an example of this soon, when Avalon Housing’s 1500 Pauline project comes before the city’s planning commission for site plan approval. The project, a low-income residential development, is on the agenda for the commission’s Jan. 20 meeting.

Kirk Westphal asked whether indoor space is within the city’s purview for these decisions. Kuras said the key is accessibility – a rooftop park on an apartment complex would provide recreation space for residents, but not the general public. In that case, it might get credit under the provision for private open space and recreation.

Section VI: Planning Process

The section outlining the planning process for the PROS plan includes a description of the steering committee, efforts to gain input from the city’s staff and general public, and results of an online survey, which garnered 822 responses. Also included are responses from three public meetings held specifically to get input on the plan. [.pdf of draft PROS Section VI]

Section VI: Commissioner Feedback

The section also summarized input from related task forces and reports, including the Huron River Impoundment and Management Plan, known as HRIMP. Kirk Westphal, who served on that task force, noted that the summary didn’t include mention a consensus from the HRIMP task force that recommended commercial development along the river.

Evan Pratt clarified that the concensus was for “limited” commercial development. They intended it to be something more like a place to get a drink along the river, he said, “not a Target.” He added that the Huron River Watershed Council is developing a “water trail” plan that would include a similar recommendation, and Dexter officials are also focused on that kind of limited development for the stretch of Huron River that passes through that village. He suggested adding the recommendation to the PROS plan section on goals as well.

Section VII: Goals & Objectives

Kuras indicated that this section hasn’t changed significantly from the previous PROS plan. The one major change was the addition of the Huron River Impoundment and Management Plan (HRIMP) recommendations. [.pdf of draft PROS Section VII]

The section was organized into eight major goals, with more detailed objectives provided for each goal:

1. Provide an efficient recreation and open space system, where all the components will complement each other in providing a broad spectrum of services while minimizing duplication, where necessary.
2. Achieve and maintain a balanced parks, recreation and open space system, accessible to all of the community.
3. Assure a firm financial basis for the park, recreation and open space system.
4. Assure adequate and suitable provisions of land and facilities to meet present and future parks, recreation and open space needs in terms of maintenance and development.
5. Foster the quality of life in Ann Arbor by paying particular attention to the park, recreation and open space system as a visual and functional resource.
6. Assure citizens a voice in the decision-making process of the park, recreation and open space system, including acquisition, planning and development.
7. Develop recreation programs, services and facilities after assessing changing trends and community needs.
8. [This goal was taken from the HRIMP report.] A healthy Huron River ecosystem that provides a diverse set of ecosystem services. “We envision a swimmable, fishable and boatable river, including both free-flowing and impounded segments, which is celebrated as Ann Arbor’s most important natural feature and contributes to the vibrancy of life in the City. The river and its publicly owned shoreline and riparian areas create a blue and green corridor across the City that contains restored natural areas and adequate and well-sited public trails and access. Ample drinking water, effective wastewater removal and a full range of high quality passive and active recreation and education opportunities are provided to the citizens of Ann Arbor. Ongoing public engagement in the river’s management leads to greater stewardship and reduced conflict among users.”

Section VII: Commissioner Feedback

Jean Carlberg noted that there’s one mention of an objective related to low-income residents, but there’s no indication of what action has been taken. It would be nice to see an accounting on this, she said.

The PROS objective to which Carlberg referred is this:

i. Address the recreation and service needs and interests of disadvantaged persons and residents of public housing sites and cooperatives. Also, improve access to parks and recreation services for low-income residents City-wide.

Kuras said that one huge improvement for low-income residents is that the city has contracted with the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN) to manage community centers in two low-income neighborhoods: the Bryant Community Center and Northside Community Center.

Kirk Westphal brought up Liberty Plaza, an urban park at the corner of Division and Liberty that he described as his “bugaboo.” [The park is consistently mentioned as a problem for the city, in part because it's underutilized and a hangout for panhandlers. The issue also had been raised when Kuras spoke to commissioners about the PROS plan at a June 2010 working session.] He noted that in the needs assessment section, the Downtown Development Authority had mentioned the importance of having “eyes and ears” in the urban parks:

Planning for urban parks must take into consideration urban issues, including homelessness, panhandling, drinking, etc. All parks need to have “eyes and ears.” Open space alone does not mean a successful open park, and size and location are extremely important in the planning of a downtown open space.

But Westphal pointed out that it’s not mentioned as a goal or objective. Kuras responded by saying that the parks & recreation unit doesn’t have the staff to do programming. It’s an issue they’re aware of, she said, and they’re trying to encourage others to do more programming in locations like the West Park bandshell, for example. She said in the past they’ve tried similar things at Liberty Plaza – asking food vendors like Pilar’s to set up there during lunch hours, for example. Some programming is done there by local businesses, like the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch, which features weekly musical performances during the summer months.

Commissioners discussed how this might be added to the section on goals and objectives, perhaps in the context of public/private partnerships. Rampson noted that Sculpture Plaza – at the southeast corner of Fourth and Catherine – became a success when businesses in that area started to embrace it. It would help Liberty Plaza if Ann Arbor SPARK would vacate the lower level of the building adjacent to the plaza, she said. SPARK, an economic development agency, uses the space for offices – a more active use, like a restaurant or retail business, might help bring life to the plaza, said Rampson.

Section VIII: Needs Assessment

In this section, city staff and the general public were surveyed to develop a detailed list of needs for existing parks and facilities, as well as for future acquisitions and projects. [.pdf of draft PROS Section VIII]

Kuras noted that five years ago, a dog park was highlighted as a major need, based on public input. Though a centralized dog park is still identified as a need, this year it was a skatepark that drew the most interest, though she added that those responses seemed to be at least in part due to an organized effort by skatepark advocates to distribute the survey to supporters.

Other needs identified for new projects include the Allen Creek greenway, and several other trails and greenway connections throughout the city.

Commissioners had little comment on this section.

Section IX: Action Plan

The final section of the PROS plan focuses on a general action plan for the parks system, including staff projects, volunteer projects and capital improvements. [.pdf of draft PROS Section IX]

Kuras said she tried to align the proposed PROS plan more closely with the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). [The planning commission approved the 2012-2017 CIP at their Jan. 4, 2011 meeting. It is being forwarded to city council for final approval.]

A detailed list of projects is included in the previous section on needs assessment – the action plan outlines how the parks staff prioritizes those projects.

Section IX: Commissioner Feedback

The draft PROS plan includes fiscal year and estimated cost of projects in the CIP plan. Kuras said it makes her a little nervous to include this, however, since it raises the expectation that the projects will occur in those years and at those costs. Bonnie Bona suggested stripping out the specific years and dollar amounts, and to simply include a list of the projects that are being considered.

When no other questions or suggestions were forthcoming from commissioners, Kuras thanked them for their time and feedback.

Chris Mile, right, co-founder and president of Miles of Golf, discusses the firm's proposal for Huron Hills golf course with Doug Kelly, left, the city of Ann Arbor's director of golf, and Andrew Walton, the Huron Hills golf supervisor. (Photos by the writer.)

During the 90-minute meeting, president Chris Mile and other partners with the Pittsfield Township business gave a presentation and answered questions from a seven-member selection committee. Members of the public were allowed to submit questions, which city staff said will be answered and posted online within the next couple of weeks.

Much of the presentation covered the same material found in the Miles of Golf initial response to the city’s request for proposals (RFP), as well a separate financial report. [.pdf file of Miles of Golf RFP response] [.pdf file of Miles of Golf financial proposal] The business has proposed operating the 18-hole, 116-acre course essentially unchanged for three to five years. Then, it plans to build a new facility on what is now the front seven holes – land east of Huron Parkway – with a driving range, teaching center and golf shop. It would relocate its current operations, which are located off of Carpenter Road, south of Packard, and convert the remainder of Huron Hills into a 9-hole course. They’re also hoping to partner with Project Grow or Food Gatherers, to put in a community garden on land they don’t plan to use for golf.

To fund construction, the proposal calls for the city to issue a $3 million bond, which Miles of Golf would pay off over 20 years. The business proposes to pay additional funds to the city during that time, totaling about $1 million. Miles of Golf also estimates that the city would save about $5 million over the 20 years, since it would no longer be paying to operate the course – an estimated $250,000 per year.

During their presentation, Miles of Golf partners addressed concerns that have been raised in the community. They stressed that the project would not put up perimeter fencing or pole lights, and that the land would remain accessible for winter activities, like sledding. Nor do they plan to build a banquet center – though they do hope to eventually sell food and beverages on the site, including alcohol. Currently, Huron Hills does not have a liquor license, though the other city course, Leslie Park, does.

Miles of Golf submitted one of only two proposals that were made in response to the city’s RFP, which was issued in September. The selection committee rejected the second proposal, which had been submitted by a group called Ann Arbor Golf. It called for operating Huron Hills as a public, 18-hole golf course via a new nonprofit entity, the Herb Fowler Foundation of Huron Hills. [.pdf of nonprofit proposal]

In an email to The Chronicle, Paul Bancel – one of the leaders of Ann Arbor Golf – said they’d been told by city staff that their proposal was rejected because they hadn’t provided an adequate plan for staffing the golf course, hadn’t identified the roles of the key individuals in their organization and didn’t include any bank references. The group was disappointed the committee did not choose to interview their group, Bancel wrote – they were not asked any questions, nor were they asked to provide any clarifications about their proposal.

Not addressed during Friday’s meeting was a letter sent to the city last month by attorney Susan Morrison, on behalf of a group called Ann Arbor for Parkland Preservation. The letter urged the city to reject the Miles of Golf proposal, saying that it does not comply with city zoning ordinances and the RFP requirements, among other things. [.pdf of letter]

Miles of Golf Presentation

Chris Mile, co-founder and president of Miles of Golf, began by introducing others from the business: Co-founder Doug Davis, who is vice president of golf range operations; Brandon Anderson, golf shop manager; and Dave Kendall, founder of the Kendall Academy, which is part of the Miles of Golf operation.

Mile said they see three options for the city: 1) continue operating Huron Hills as an 18-hole course, subsidized by the city, 2) remake it into a different golf experience, as Miles of Golf is proposing, or 3) remake it into a non-golf use. He said that in speaking with city staff, it seemed clear that this last option would require capital investments that would make it unfeasible at this time. These three options were also outlined in an email that Miles of Golf sent to customers prior to Friday’s meeting, asking for support of their proposal. [.pdf file of email]

As a distance runner, Mile said he spends a lot of time in Ann Arbor’s parks. He notices two things about Huron Hills. One is that the area is stunningly beautiful. But the second thing is that “it’s sort of dead – it has a dead feeling to it.” Their proposal aims to keep the beauty, but bring vitality to Huron Hills, Mile said. He likened it to the transformation he’d observed at the Argo Pond livery. A few years ago, you had the feeling that nothing was happening there, he said. But after the city invested in a new building and landscaping, now it’s vibrant with lots of activity. “That’s what I’d like to see happen at Huron Hills,” he said.

Miles of Golf Presentation: Business Background, Overview

Miles of Golf is a local business, Mile noted, so members of the selection committee and others can talk to people in the community about how they operate. They started the business in 1995, taking over operations of Pat’s Par-3, which had been on that site at Carpenter south of Packard since the 1950s. Why consider moving now? Pittsfield Township – where the business is located – is redoing its master plan, he said, and considers that area important in rejuvenating the Carpenter/Packard corridor. Although there’s nothing imminent planned and they have a lease through 2033, Mile said they can see the writing on the wall.

Members of the public in Ann Arbor city council chambers, attending the Dec. 3 Miles of Golf interview for the Huron Hills golf course. In the front row, from the right, are Dave Kendall of the Kendall Academy and Chris Mile, president of Miles of Golf.

Mile described the business, saying it has three parts: 1) a facility for driving and short game practice, such as putting; 2) a teaching academy – the largest in the state, he said; and 3) a golf shop. Mile said they really like the idea of adding a golf course to the mix, and they believe their other operations will make the course more successful.

Mile told the committee that the 34 people in the business are all “golf nuts.” “We’re so into golf – if you’re not a golfer, you’d probably roll your eyes.” There are eight instructors, 14 employees in the golf shop, nine at the practice facility, and three in administration. He said they aren’t high-pressure sales people – their goal is to make people better golfers. If they do that, he said, business success will follow.

Their core values are to treat people fairly, honestly and respectfully, Mile said, and they expect to be treated in the same way. “We will do what we say we will do – you can count on us.” The owner of the property they lease would report that they always pay their rent on time, Mile said.

Mile addressed what he called a misconception – that the city would simply hand over the keys for Huron Hills to Miles of Golf, in exchange for payments. “We know that’s not what’s going to happen,” he said. They understand that the city will set standards and retain control over things such as financial reporting and operating hours.

There are also issues that can be stipulated in the partnership agreement, like prohibiting perimeter fencing. There’s no reason for perimeter fencing, he said, and they don’t want it. The same goes for pole lighting and domes, he said.

Even if the city wasn’t entering into a partnership agreement, there are ways to control what’s built on the site, Mile noted. Local governments have control over building in their jurisdictions, to ensure that the buidings are appropriate to the site, he said. That would be true for their project as well.

Mile also noted that this project wasn’t unusual – nationwide, about 100 other municiple golf courses are exploring public/private partnerships to manage the public courses.

Miles of Golf Presentation: Kendall Academy

Mile introduced Dave Kendall, noting that he grew up in Jackson and has been very involved in the Michigan PGA (Professional Golfers’ Association) – he just finished up a two-year term as president of that organization. Kendall has won both the Michigan Senior Open and the Michigan Senior PGA championship.

Kendall came to the podium, and described how he started the academy when he was the only instructor. He’s now been in business 14 years, and offers a wide range of programs, from beginners to advanced. The instructors don’t tell people what to do, he said – the approach is to help people understand their current golf game, figure out where they want to be, then look at what steps they need to take to achieve their goals. The idea is to give people a better understanding about golf, he said.

Kendall characterized golf as a family game. His father put a club in his hand when he was a boy – his father is now 87, and they still play together. That’s one of the great things about golf, Kendall said – you can play it forever.

The academy also offers women’s programs and fitness programs, Kendall said, and there are a lot of programs that would work well at Huron Hills, such as family golf, drop-off programs for kids, or a “first tee” program for youth to teach golf and life skills.

Because of the convenience of having a course as part of the same facility, they could better customize their instruction, Kendall said. The course isn’t lengthy or intimidating – it’s a great place to learn to love the game, or for senior citizens who get pushed out of the game because of the difficulty of some courses. The academy also has a synergy with other parts of Miles of Golf, Kendall said. That includes the golf shop, which he likened to a candy store for golfers.

Kendall closed by saying that they built the business on relationships, by becoming a resource and advocate for golfers – that’s what brings people back. He promised that they’d always do their best to be a source of pride for the community.

Miles of Golf Presentation: Golf Course and Facilities

Doug Davis spoke next. Mile had introduced him by noting that he attended Ypsilanti High School and had then gone to the University of Michigan, where he became captain of the UM golf team. Davis is enthusiastic about junior golf, Mile said – both of Davis’ daughters also played on the UM golf team.

Doug Davis, co-founder of Miles of Golf, talks with Julie Grand, chair of Ann Arbor's park advisory commission and a member of the selection committee for the Huron Hills golf course RFP.

Davis began his part of the presentation by saying that they had researched the original golf course designed in 1922 by Thomas Bendelow – they had wanted to respect that design, he said. They looked at historic photos, and discovered that the original course doesn’t exist today. None of the original 9 holes or the property is still in use, he said.

Davis then described the three phases of the Miles of Golf proposed transition. Phase I would be to operate the current 18-hole course, with no physical changes to the property. They understand the physical beauty of the land, he said, adding that the vistas are phenomenal. They would undertake some improvements – most significantly, they’d cut down the 25-foot wall of buckthorn and other scrub brush along the railroad tracks to the north of the property, which now blocks the view of the Huron River. They’d also try to mask the lime-green maintenance building using landscaping, and possibly transferring some trees that are now near the 7th hole.

In Phase II, which would be about three to five years out, Miles of Golf would move its operations to Huron Hills. They’d construct a tee line and building on the site, with the driving range facing east onto what’s now the front seven holes of the current course. There’s no need for pole lighting, Davis said – there’s ample natural light during the summer for the business. The site would also include an area for golfers to practice their short game – putting, chipping, sand trap playing, and pitching.

They wouldn’t need the current No. 6 green on the east end of the property, Davis said, and they’ve approached Project Grow and Food Gatherers to see if those local nonprofits are interested in using the land for community gardens.

A schematic of the Miles of Golf proposal for Huron Hills golf course, Phase II. The long orange bar represents the tee line for the proposed driving range, facing east. The road at the bottom of the image is Huron River Drive. (Links to larger image)

Another idea they’re considering for this phase is to build a three-hole practice site for the public. It would be especially good for families – Davis said that golf’s governing bodies haven’t done a great job at growing the sport.

The final phase would include tearing down the existing maintenance building and clubhouse. The proposal calls for adding a new maintenance building and clubhouse.

Regarding the city’s current staff at Huron Hills, Davis said they’d be glad to talk to employees to see if there’s interest in coming “under the Miles of Golf umbrella.” The city employs two full-time workers at the course.

Mile returned to the podium, saying that he was speaking on behalf of Casey Baker, vice president of golf shop operations. Baker is 33 years old, a graduate of Pioneer High School who was mentored by Herb Fowler, Mile said. Baker is one of the top five amateur golfers in Michigan, Mile noted. Though some of the other partners are older, Mile said the proposed 20-year agreement is well within the span of Baker’s career.

Mile started to describe the golf shop, which Baker runs, when loud construction noise from work adjacent to council chambers disrupted the presentation – city hall is being renovated, in conjunction with construction of the new municipal center. Mile attempted to continue, but an audience member asked that someone try to stop the noise, as the presentation was impossible to hear at that point. Abigail Elias of the city attorney’s office, who attended the meeting, left the room, and within five minutes the noise had stopped.

Mile continued by describing the 11,000-square-foot building they hope to construct – larger than their current facility, which is about 9,000 square feet. The building would house the golf shop as well as teaching studios that would open onto the driving range – there’s demand for that, Mile said. He characterized the size of the structure as “not a monstrosity,” noting that there are homes in the area that have a larger footprint.

They’d like to do something with food and beverage, Mile said, but it’s not yet clear what that might be. They left that open in the proposal, he said, but it’s something that could be developed in the future. Mile said they’d like to see community gardens on about seven acres of land that won’t be used for the driving range.

He also addressed concerns about whether Huron Hills would be open for winter activities, like sledding. There’s no reason why that can’t continue, Mile said, and it’s something that could be stated explicitly in a partnership agreement.

Miles of Golf Presentation: Financial

Mile then walked the committee through the proposed financials. [.pdf file of Miles of Golf financial proposal]

In the first phase, Miles of Golf would invest about $40,000 in landscaping and upgrading the golf cart paths. If annual golf revenues exceed $575,000, the city would get 10% of anything over that amount. [Revenue from Huron Hills during the last fiscal year was just over $300,000.]

During the second phase, starting in three to five years, Miles of Golf would build its driving range and golf shop at Huron Hills, and relocate its operations there. They estimate this would cost $3.25 million, Mile said. Miles of Golf would pay $250,000 of that amount, with the city covering the rest. Mile said they assumed the city would issue a bond for the project – Miles of Golf would make the bond payments in their entirety, he said, plus an additional percentage above that amount.

The proposal presents several scenarios, based on different interest rates. For example, at a 3% rate over 20 years, Miles of Golf would pay the city 5% in years 1-5, 6% in years 6-10, 7% in years 11-15 and 8% in years 16-20. The proposal indicates that if interest rates are above 7%, the financial viability of the project is questionable, and they would have be reconsider it.

To further illustrate the financial return to the city, Mile said that with a 4% interest rate on the bond, over the 20-year payoff period the city would receive about $1.2 million more from Miles of Golf than the original $3 million from the bond.

Mile also made a comparison to illustrate the difference between operating Huron Hills as an 18-hole course, and taking out the bond for the Miles of Golf project. Over a 20-year period, assuming that the city subsidizes golf operations at Huron Hills by $250,000 annually, the city would be paying $5 million to continue current operations, he said. They would save that amount through this partnership. In addition, the city could receive roughly $1 million in payments from Miles of Golf, above the amount to repay the bond. The net result is $6 million in savings and revenue for the city, he said – and the city owns the building.

From the city’s perspective, the $3 million bond is the big question, Mile said – the city will need to ask if it’s worth the risk. “There’s a $6 million reason why you’d want to take that risk,” he said.

In wrapping up, Mile said that when Dave Kendall teaches golf, he identifies the weakest part of your game, then works to make it the strongest. In life, it’s powerful to take the same approach, Mile said. Huron Hills is a gorgeous chunk of land that’s the weakest link in the parks system. If you take that weakest link and make it a gem, imagine what that would do. “I think our proposal can do that,” he said, and at the same time provide $6 million to invest in other city parks.

“If you decide you want to do this,” Mile concluded, “we’ll be a very good partner for the city.”

Selection Committee Questions

The Q&A portion of Friday’s meeting lasted about 30 minutes, and most questions focused on the financial aspect of the proposal. For this report, questions and answers are organized by topic.

The selection committee includes Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager; Julie Grand, chair of the park advisory commission; Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf; Ward 2 city councilmember Stephen Rapundalo; former city councilmember Mike Reid; Ed Walsh, a real estate developer and member of the city’s golf advisory task force; and Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator.

Selection Committee Questions: Revenues

Stephen Rapundalo began questioning by noting that Miles of Golf forecast an increase in revenues in the first few years of operation. He wondered how those revenue increases would be achieved – by increasing rates, increasing the number of rounds played, or in some other way?

Chris Mile explained that for the first two years – 2011 and 2012 – the forecast assumed they’d see the same revenue growth that Huron Hills has experienced over the past year: 15% each year, on the 18-hole course. [That projection would put revenues at $392,228 in 2011 and $454,354 in 2012.] In 2013 and 2014, they dropped that forecast growth to 4%. In 2015 – the first year with only a 9-hole course – projected revenues show a 33% drop to $345,722, but are projected to grow 4% in each of the subsequent years.

Golf lessons are the only revenue source that’s not projected to drop off when the course is converted from 18 to 9 holes. Revenue from lessons offered by the city brought in $21,942 in fiscal 2010, and are projected to grow to $32,913 in 2011 and $41,141 in 2012, with slower but steady growth forecast in each of the subsequent years.

Mile said they were most concerned about the period prior to moving their entire operations out to Huron Hills, but that they felt comfortable with their estimates. He noted that they also plan to cut employment costs and other expenses associated with the city operation. Mile said that when they convert from 18 to 9 holes, their profitability doesn’t get alarmingly worse, because expenses – such as maintenance – decrease as well.

Mike Reid, a member of the selection committee for the Huron Hills golf course proposal, is founder of Exchange Capital Management, an investment advisory firm.

Julie Grand noted that one of the city’s goals is to keep golf affordable. How much will it cost to golf on the 9-hole course, she asked, and will the cost of golf instruction align with what the city now charges?

The cost of playing on the course will be dictated by market conditions, Mile said, and Huron Hills is charging market rates. It won’t stay that price forever, he added, because market conditions will change. Regarding golf lessons, he said the private lessons offered through the Kendall Academy will be the same as what’s offered now. He noted that Dave Kendall provides a community-based instruction program for Pittsfield Township, though he wasn’t sure exactly what would be offered at Huron Hills. Whatever they offer, it would need to be responsive to community needs, he said, or it wouldn’t work.

Colin Smith clarified that the 10% revenue sharing would only come from revenues generated by the golf course, not from the other operations on site, like the driving range, lessons or concessions. He also observed that in their financial projections, Miles of Golf isn’t forecasting that they’ll reach the level of revenues that would activate the 10% revenue-sharing.

Selection Committee Questions: Bond

Ed Walsh, a Ward 2 resident, said that as someone who lives near the course, he has a high level of interest in maintaining it as a golf operation. One thing that jumped out at him, he said, was the high level of uncertainty in making financial projections three to five years out. If bond rates exceed a certain level – and that’s a possibility, he noted – would Miles of Golf be prepared to scrap the idea of moving over their entire operations, and be willing instead to simply operate the 18-hole golf course?

Mile said that if interest rates spike and make it unreasonable for the city to issue the bond for construction, they’d have to evaluate how the golf course is doing on its own. If it’s not doing well, “we’d have to sit down and talk,” he said. But if it’s performing well, they could continue operations and see how things go. Much of their financial forecast is based on their current operations at Miles of Golf, Mile said. The uncertainty is the golf course. They know what their costs are now, and what it will cost to move, and they feel they can afford it, Mile said. “But if interest rates go crazy, there’s going to be a problem.”

Mike Reid asked how the bond payments flowed into the financial projections. Mile responded that the payments are included in the G&A (general and administrative) line item – they aren’t broken out separately.

Reid then asked if G&A expenses specific to the Huron Hills course were separated from the overall G&A. Mile said they were co-mingled. He said he understood Reid’s conerns – Miles of Golf has been operating for 15 years, and they know how the driving range, pro shop and academy perform. What’s not predictable is the golf course, he added, but they can absorb some of those expenses if they know that they’ll have a home for their business for the next 20 years.

Selection Committee Questions: Alcohol

Reid asked Mile to expand on the need for food and beverage at the course, especially the addition of alcohol. Mile noted that the RFP speaks to that, but he clarified that his business partners don’t have any experience in food and beverage operations.

Doug Kelly, the city's director of golf operations.

Doug Kelly asked whether serving alcohol was essential. Mile responded, saying that everyone they’ve talked with in researching this project has considered the ability to serve alcohol as a key ingredient. That’s why it’s included in their proposal, he said.

Kelly also asked a question that he said was intended to dispel rumors: Was Miles of Golf planning to open a banquet center on the site? No, Mile said.

Rapundalo noted that Huron Hills is different from Leslie Park, the city’s other golf course – which has a liquor license. Huron Hills is more family- and community-oriented, and attracts more junior golfers. How does having a liquor license there align with the goal of keeping Huron Hills as this kind of community resource?

Mile said that Leslie Park also has children there, as do a lot of facilities that serve alcohol. The people managing it need to be responsible, he said. The RFP asked about food and beverage concessions, Mile said, so they included it. But details would have to be ironed out in a partnership agreement, he added.

[The RFP asked respondents to include responses to a series of topics. This section relates to food and beverage: "Financial Return to the City. The proposal must demonstrate a financial benefit to the City taking into consideration golf operations, pro-shop operations, food and drink concessions, sale of merchandise, instructional programs, and off-season recreational activities." .pdf file of full RFP]

Selection Committee Questions: Building

Walsh wondered whether an 11,000-square-feet building would be large enough to accommodate everything that Miles of Golf wants to offer. Doug Davis said they inherited their current building, and have tried to make it work. The new building would be designed for customer convenience.

Walsh also noted that in hearing from residents, there are two primary concerns: 1) the size of the building, and 2) the city’s financial commitment. Given that construction is likely three to five years in the future, how has the business addressed potential inflation of costs – what happens if the proposed $3 million construction budget is too low? Would Miles of Golf cover the overages, or would the city pick up that cost?

Davis said that they ran their projections by Bill Wheeler, Ann Arbor’s former director of public services who now works on a contract basis for the city, including as project manager for the new municipal building. Their projections included a 10% buffer for expenses, and Davis said Wheeler was ok with those calculations. Davis added that Miles of Golf has done its own construction in the past, so they are familiar with how these projects work. Still, he said he couldn’t say what would happen in three to five years. Mile added that it could end up costing more than projected.

Selection Committee Questions: Environmental Factors

Walsh pointed out that a creek runs through the middle of the golf course, in the section that would be converted into a driving range. How would the proposed changes affect that creek?

Davis said the creek is at about the 175-yard range, and it’s one of the most beautiful sections of the property. They have no plans to change it, though they might add some kind of barrier to help keep golf balls out of it. Golfers want to practice on land that emulates where they’ll actually be playing, Davis said, and the lay of the land in that part of the course is ideal – there’s no need to change the topography, or to change that tributary in any way.

Colin Smith brought up a related issue later, asking how much construction would be needed on the land to create the driving range. He noted that there were several older trees on the property, and that driving ranges are typically level. Davis said the only area they’d want to level is the tee, which runs north/south on the property. Their plan saves the trees, he noted – there’s one cluster of a half-dozen crabapple trees that they might want to move, but that’s not critical, he said. Trees add character to the range, and customers like that, Davis said.

Kelly asked about the $50,000 detention pond that’s mentioned in the proposal. Davis said the pond is required to handle runoff from the parking lot – it’s required by the city any time impervious surface is added to a site.

Rapundalo noted that they’d probably need to conduct an environmental study on the site, but he didn’t see anything in the budget for that expense. Would the city pay for it? Davis didn’t respond directly to that question, but said the business was very “green-friendly” and planned to stay that way. Doing an environmental study isn’t something they’d run from, he said.

Next Steps

Just after 11 a.m., Sumedh Bahl, who chaired the session, brought the meeting to a close. Colin Smith told the group that questions submitted by members of the public during the meeting would be posted online, along with answers, sometime in the next couple of weeks.

At the November meeting of the park advisory commission, PAC chair Julie Grand had outlined steps in the process. Now that the interview has taken place, the selection committee will make a recommendation to the city’s golf advisory task force, which in turn will make a recommendation to PAC. PAC could hold a public hearing, likely in December or January, and make its own recommendation to council. The city council would have the final decision about whether to accept the proposal. If council took that step, it would authorize city staff to negotiate a partnership agreement with Miles of Golf, formalizing the proposal.

Doug Davis of Miles of Golf, left, and Doug Hellman of KemperSports were two of about a dozen people who attended Monday's pre-bid meeting for the Huron Hills Golf Course RFP. (Photo by the writer.)

Anyone who plans to submit a response to the RFP was required to attend the meeting, which lasted 30 minutes and was followed by a field trip to tour the course. Among those attending were Doug Davis and Chris Mile of Miles of Golf, Doug Hellman of KemperSports, Joe Spatafore of Royal Oak Golf Management, and William Arlinghaus of Greenscape.

Also attending were several citizens who have publicly opposed the RFP process, including Ted Annis, Nancy Kaplan, Myra Larson and Paul Bancel. Some are involved in the citizens group Ann Arbor for Parkland Preservation (A2P2).

The meeting, led by city parks manager Colin Smith, was a chance for potential bidders to ask questions or request additional information. The deadline to submit proposals is Oct. 29. [.pdf file of Huron Hills RFP]

Overview of RFP Process

Smith began by apologizing for a mix-up in the meeting time – two websites had posted two different start times, and some people had been waiting an hour. He also explained why the room might have felt stuffy – last Friday, HVAC for the entire city hall building had been turned off as part of an ongoing renovation of the structure, and there won’t be any air-conditioning or heating for at least three weeks.

Smith then reviewed some points in the process, and said that until Oct. 8 he’d accept questions or requests for information by email. His replies would be sent out to everyone who signed in at the pre-bid meeting, Smith said, so that everyone would receive the same information.

After the Oct. 29 deadline, responses will be reviewed by a selection committee, which Smith has previously said will consist of city staff, and representatives from the city’s golf task force, park advisory commission and city council. Interviews would begin in mid-November. If the selection committee makes a recommendation, it will then be reviewed by the golf task force and park advisory commission. Final approval would rest with city council.

Smith also reviewed some of the general information and scope of the RFP. [For an extensive report on the RFP, as well as public commentary about the project, see The Chronicle's report of the park advisory commission's Aug. 17, 2010 meeting: "Public Turns Out to Support Huron Hills Golf"]

The 18-hole, 116-acre golf course is located on the city’s east side and is split by Huron Parkway, with seven holes on the north and 11 holes to the south. Designed in 1922 by the golf architect Thomas Bendelow, Huron Hills is a 5,071-yard, par 67 course with a slope rating of 107, according to the RFP. The city’s ownership dates back to 1949, when the University of Michigan deeded the lower nine holes of Huron Hills Golf Club to the city – plus $10,000 – in exchange for Felch Park. The city bought an adjacent 57.5 acres in 1951.

The city is asking for proposals that “maximize the recreational golf opportunities” at Huron Hills. The RFP states that the city will retain ownership of the property and buildings, as well as any improvements that might be made. Beyond that, they are looking for proposals that follow four general principals:

• A commitment to growing the game of golf.
• Conduciveness to entry level golfers.
• Accessibility and affordability of recreational golf opportunities, especially for children and seniors.
• To better serve the Ann Arbor golf community.

Questions from Potential RFP Responders

This article reports the questions organized thematically.

Questions: Finance

Doug Hellman of KemperSports asked the most questions during the 30-minute meeting, and led off by requesting financial data about the golf course’s performance. Smith clarified that as an enterprise fund, the revenues and expenses are reported separately – that is, they aren’t wrapped into a larger departmental budget. [Enterprise funds are operations that are expected to be self-sustaining.] He agreed to provide financial data for the past five or six years, as well as information about the number of rounds played.

Some of that financial information is available in the RFP:

Huron Hills Golf Course

             FY2007     FY2008     FY2009

Starts       13,913     15,558     21,229
Net loss  ($145,845) ($195,514) ($276,164)

-

Smith had also given an update on the financial performance of Huron Hills at the Sept. 21, 2010 meeting of the park advisory commission, which resulted in some discussion among commissioners. From The Chronicle’s coverage of that meeting:

The golf enterprise fund includes operations at Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses. In total, the fund reported revenues of $1.122 million for the year, with $1.645 million in expenses – for a $523,529 total loss. Huron Hills revenue of $304,541 was 19% higher than expected, while expenses were lower than budgeted by nearly 8%.

At Leslie Park, revenue of $817,638 was 1.5% higher than budgeted. Expenses of $1.067 million were on par with budget.

Commissioner Tim Berla asked how many rounds of golf were played last year, and was told about 30,000 rounds at Leslie and 20,000 rounds at Huron Hills. Berla then calculated, based on the roughly $500,000 loss, that the city is paying about a $10 subsidy for each round of golf. He noted that this was his perspective and that others look at it differently, but he found it troubling. It seems out of balance to subsidize something that only a small percentage of residents use, he said. It might be the case that more people play soccer, Berla said, but the city pays perhaps 10 times as much for its golf courses than it does for its soccer fields. “I just wanted to note that, that’s all.”

Smith pointed out that the subsidy came from the general fund, not out of the parks and recreation budget – though he conceded that if the city council decided to change the accounting for golf, it would significantly impact the parks and recreation budget. But regardless on your perspective about a subsidy to golf, Smith said, both courses as budgeted were doing a fantastic job in an overall market that saw declining revenues and rounds played statewide.

Berla asked Smith to remind them of where the courses stood in terms of the long-range plan that had been laid out by a consultant hired to assess the city’s golf operations. FY 2010 was the second year in a six-year forecast, Smith said. For that year, the forecast had anticipated a $519,000 loss for the courses. So they’re on track with the forecast, he said, adding that the courses were never expected to eliminate their losses completely over that six-year period.

Gwen Nystuen recalled that PAC had recommended Huron Hills not be an enterprise fund. Smith confirmed that of the two courses, Leslie was more likely to be self-sustaining. Nystuen pointed out that the rest of the parks weren’t self-sustaining, and the city is willing to subsidize them. Do they calculate how much it costs someone to walk across a park? she asked. The city shouldn’t put something into an enterprise fund if the operation can’t support itself. Smith replied that the golf courses “will be part of very robust discussions come budget time.”

PAC chair Julie Grand, who serves on the city’s golf advisory task force, noted that the strategy right now for Huron Hills is to make rounds affordable so that they can draw in seniors and youth, by making play more accessible. And David Barrett pointed out that Leslie now has a liquor license – he asked if revenues from alcohol sales were “baked into” the total revenues for Leslie. Smith replied that total revenues did include alcohol sales, which were about $40,000 out of $79,000 in concession sales at Leslie during the year. Barrett asked if the liquor license had been a plus for Leslie, and Smith said that it was, especially for bringing in more leagues, outings and traveling golf groups.

At Monday’s pre-bid meeting, Paul Bancel asked for information on the municipal service charge that the golf course pays, including a breakdown of what the charge entails. Smith clarified for others that the municipal service charge is a charge that all non-general fund entities in the city pay – it covers the cost that the city incurs to provide services for the enterprise funds, he said, including administrative overhead. For Huron Hills, it’s about $87,000 annually.

Ted Annis said it was his understanding that Huron Hills would break even if the municipal service charge weren’t a factor. Smith said that wasn’t true – it would still lose money. Responding to another query, Smith said Leslie Park Golf Course – also owned by the city – wasn’t making money either. Why then was Huron Hills singled out for this RFP? That was based on direction given by the city council, Smith said.

Later in the meeting, Hellman requested financials for Leslie Park Golf Course as well.

Questions: Ownership

Bancel asked a series of questions related to ownership of facilities on the golf course. Smith clarified that the city would own the land and the facilities. [A list of assumptions provided in the RFP includes a statement that the city "remains the owner of the Huron Hills property, its buildings and appurtenances."]

As a hypothetical, Bancel described a scenario in which a contractor spends $2 million to build a facility on the property – how does the city contemplate assuming ownership? How would the city handle a transfer of ownership? Smith said it would depend on the proposal – that’s something that would have to be negotiated.

Hellman confirmed with Smith that the maximum term of the agreement is 20 years.

Questions: Labor

In response to a question about whether the city uses volunteers for the course, Smith said that there are some volunteers and neighborhood activists who do things like maintain flower beds, but the ranger service is done by a seasonal paid worker.

Later in the meeting he clarified that there are living wage requirements, which are outlined in the RFP. [For background on the city's living wage ordinance, see Chronicle coverage: "Living Wage: In-Sourcing City Temps"]

Bancel asked what the union situation was, and Smith said there are two workers at Huron Hills: The course supervisor, Andrew Walton, is a member of the Teamster’s union, while the course superintendent, Mark Wanshon, is a member of AFSCME. Asked whether the city anticipated that those workers would remain unionized, Smith said the RFP speaks to that. From the RFP:

4. Management and Oversight. The proposal must provide a detailed business plan that recognizes the City’s role in oversight of City land, and identifies how the existing two full-time employees may be incorporated.

Hellman asked that they be provided with a staffing chart showing the employees’ hourly rate, as well as resumes or background information for the current staff. [Walton attended Monday's meeting, but did not participate in the discussion.]

Questions: Relationship with Leslie Park Golf Course

Bill Newcomb, a member of the city’s golf task force, asked whether the city could reject a proposal that included Leslie Park Golf Course. Smith replied that as long as it met all the requirements of the RFP, it wouldn’t be rejected just because it incorporated both courses.

Hellman asked whether the two golf courses shared resources, such as equipment or personnel. No, Smith replied, the only thing that’s shared are the golf passes, which can be used at either course.

Questions: Liquor License

Smith clarified that Huron Hills doesn’t have a liquor license. When asked why Leslie Park Golf Course had one but Huron Hills does not, Smith said the consultant had recommended having one at Leslie. He said it would be possible to pursue obtaining a liquor license at Huron Hills as well. Someone asked if there was one available, and Smith said he wasn’t aware of one.

Hellman later asked about a reference to alcohol in the section outlining uses of the premises and property. From the RFP:

No alcohol will be served on the Premises at Contractor-sponsored events or private rental events, or otherwise consumed on the Premises, without the written approval of the Community Services Area Administrator. Section 3.2 of Chapter 39 of the City Code authorizes the City Administrator to issue permits to allow the consumption of wine and beer in areas which consumption would otherwise be prohibited. The City Administrator hereby delegates to the Community Services Area Administrator the authority to issue such permits for the moderate consumption of wine and/or beer on the Premises. When so approved in writing, moderate consumption of alcohol (wine and beer only) may be permitted. All other use of alcoholic beverages on the Premises is prohibited.

Who was the community services area administrator, he asked, and does this refer to a liquor license? Smith clarified that the community services area administrator is his boss, Sumedh Bahl. The section was referring to a permit that could be obtained for special events, not a regular liquor license. He again stated that it would be possible to pursue getting a liquor license for Huron Hills, if one were to become available.

Questions: Misc.

Hellman asked what prompted this RFP – what are the city’s goals? “That is a long answer, over many years, perhaps,” Smith replied. He summarized by saying that entities in an enterprise fund are supposed to be self-supporting, and that’s not been the case for a long time with the golf courses. The city brought in a consultant in 2007 – James Keegan, managing principal of Golf Convergence – to analyze the courses and make recommendations. [More detailed background is provided in The Chronicle's report of the Aug. 17, 2010 meeting of the park advisory commission. See also coverage of PAC's Nov. 19, 2009 meeting, which included an update on golf operations by Doug Kelly, the city's director of golf.]

Huron Hills has improved since then, Smith said, but it’s still operating at a loss. During the most recent budget cycle, everything was on the table, and the city council gave direction to the staff to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for a possible public/private partnership at Huron Hills. As for the city’s goals, Smith said they wanted it to remain a course that’s accessible to the public, while providing financial relief to the city.

Hellman asked whether the city was committed to moving forward with outsourcing or a public/private partnership. When Smith hesitated, Hellman quipped, “Well, it is the city council!” Smith said that the city was “certainly interested enough to issue the RFP.” Acceptance would depend on the nature of the proposal, and the outcome of review by the selection committee, golf task force, park advisory commission and city council, he said.

Ted Annis confirmed that the city attorney has signed off on the RFP. Annis also submitted a list of nine questions that he asked Smith to answer. Smith requested that the questions be emailed to him, so that he could send the questions and his responses to everyone who attended the pre-bid meeting. The questions are:

1. Tasks I and II call for a study and recommendations but the bids are being evaluated on a financial basis. [Task I requires a "thorough assessment of current operations" at the golf course. Task II is a proposal of services and financial plan.] How can the bids be evaluated before the completions of Tasks I and II?
2. City staff recommended to Council on 25 January 2010 that a driving range was the City’s best choice. Why isn’t a driving range mentioned in the RFP? If the Respondent proposes a driving range, is that the City’s preference and will it receive a higher score than say, miniature golf or a conference center?
3. The RFP says that the City will own the new facilities. How does this work with bank financing if the buildings are mortgaged to the Contractor?
4. Will the City indemnify and defend the Respondent (Contractor) in the event of a lawsuit alleging an illegal transaction between the City and the Respondent?
5. Will the City indemnify and defend the Respondent (Contractor) in the event of a lawsuit alleging damages in the form of decreased property values as a result of the transaction between the City and the Respondent?
6. There are government organizations (other than Ann Arbor’s PAC with its access to Greenbelt millage funds) that acquire natural lands for long-term preservation. An example is Natural Washtenaw and its Natural Area Preservation Program (NAPP). Is there a problem, legal or otherwise, if NAPP were to bid on these development rights for Huron Hills?
7. What is the zoning?
8. What are the development issues surrounding natural features protection, wetland preservation, and 100-year flood plain?
9. Prior to 25 January 2010, the City received proposals with plans and financial data from one and likely two private businesses regarding the privatization of the current City-operated golf operation on the Huron Hills parkland. Who at the City, City Council, and PAC have seen these plans and data? Who at the City, City Council, and PAC are in possession of these plans and data? What notes were taken from these plans and data?

The meeting concluded and Smith gave directions to the course, for a mandatory tour. He offered to schedule other tours until Oct. 8, for people who couldn’t go that day. As the meeting was breaking up, some people noted that anyone trying to enter into a partnership with the city would likely face opposition. If that hadn’t been apparent previously, it would have been clear on the trip to the golf course, where signs protesting the development of Huron Hills are in several front yards along East Huron River Drive, near the course.

These signs for the Ann Arbor for Parkland Preservation group are in front of several houses along Huron River Drive. (Photo by Judy McGovern.)

Sam Offen of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission hands off his ballot to Christopher Taylor, the Ward 3 councilmember who's an ex-officio representative on PAC. Per its bylaws, the commission elected officers by secret ballot, though only one person was nominated for each position. (They seemed to appreciate the irony.) Offen was re-elected chair of PAC's budget committee. (Photos by the writer.)

A financial report for the most recent fiscal year, which ended June 30, included news that Ann Arbor’s two golf courses performed better than expected – though one commissioner calculated that the city still paid a $10 subsidy for each round of golf played during the year.

Later in the meeting, Colin Smith – the city’s park and recreation manager – reported that an RFP for the Huron Hills Golf Course has been issued, with a pre-bid meeting to be held on Monday, Sept. 27. Several members of the public turned up at last month’s PAC meeting to argue against the RFP, which is soliciting ideas for a possible private/public partnership at the course. No one spoke during public commentary on Tuesday.

Another RFP – this one for reconstruction of the Argo Dam headrace – has yielded two responses that are being reviewed. A recommendation will likely be brought to PAC next month, Smith reported. If approved, it would change the shape of the embankment.

And an RFP for the Ann Arbor Senior Center has nearly reached the end of the selection process. On Tuesday, commissioners unanimously voted to recommend hiring Hooker/De Jong, a Muskegon consulting firm, to develop a strategic plan for the center, at a cost of $34,570. It now goes to the city council for approval.

A council directive issued last year – asking PAC to prioritize 30 recommendations made in the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) – was raised during Tuesday’s meeting by Julie Grand, the commission’s chair. She noted that the year-end deadline for completing this task was fast approaching, and they needed to carve out some time to address it. Commissioner Tim Berla said he’d like to see the council form a river stewardship committee – that’s one of the HRIMP recommendations.

The commission also heard a report from David Barrett, a PAC member who’s been assessing the conditions of the city’s ball fields. “With a few exceptions, most are in need of help,” he told his PAC colleagues.

Financial Reports: Open Space Millage, Fiscal Year Update

Commissioners heard two financial reports during Tuesday’s meeting, for 1) the open space and parkland preservation millage, and 2) the city’s overall parks and recreation budget. Both reports covered 2010 fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.

FY2010: Open Space and Parkland Preservation Millage

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund gave a presentation on financial statements for the open space and parkland preservation millage for the fiscal year. Trocchio serves as support staff for the millage-funded greenbelt and park acquisition programs. [A similar presentation was made at the greenbelt advisory commission's Sept. 8 meeting.]

Revenues coming from the 30-year millage, which Ann Arbor voters passed in 2003, were slightly higher in FY 2010 – $2.262 million, compared to $2.232 million in FY 2009. Two-thirds of the millage proceeds fund the greenbelt program, with the remaining third – $793,000 in FY 2010 – allotted to parks.

In FY 2006, the city took out a $20 million bond that’s being paid back with revenue from the millage. The fund balance from the bond stands at $15.427 million, down from $17.1 million in FY 2009. Millage revenue exceeds the amount needed to make debt service payments on the bond – the surplus is accruing in a separate account. Of the $15.427 million fund balance, $12.475 million is the accrual of funds from the millage and $2.952 million is the remainder of the bond monies.

The $15.427 million fund balance is divided between parks and the greenbelt in the same one-third/two-thirds allocation. The fund balance available for parks is $4.77 million.

On the expense side, during FY10 $281,020 in millage funds were spent on park projects. The city bought the Patrician Homes property at the southwest corner of Miller and Chapin, adjacent to West Park. A house on the property will be torn down, with the intent of giving West Park greater visibility and access from that side. Later in the meeting, Smith said that the city would soon be soliciting bids to demolish the house, which he expects to happen later this year.

In addition, Dr. Lev Linkner donated land along Huron Parkway, between Packard and Washtenaw, that connects Redbud Nature Area and Scheffler Park. The parcel is roughly a third of an acre, and crosses Malletts Creek.

After Trocchio’s presentation, PAC chair Julie Grand told Trocchio that she shouldn’t be offended that there weren’t questions – it reflected the clarity of her report, Grand said.

FY 2010: Parks and Recreation General Fund

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, gave an update on year-end finances for FY 2010, which ended June 30. He began by saying that the recreation managers did a great job of managing revenues and expenses for the year. [.pdf file of financial summary spreadsheet] The report did not show comparative data to previous years.

Smith first reviewed 12 parks and recreation line items in the general fund budget. Only three areas had been budgeted to show a surplus, and they achieved that result: Veteran’s fitness center ($3,059), Argo livery ($19,376) and Gallup livery ($59,779). The Argo livery surplus was lower than budgeted by $36,620, while Gallup’s surplus was $42,566 higher than budgeted – Smith attributed that to a staff allocation issue, with more time than anticipated spent on Argo by facility supervisor Cheryl Saam, and less of her time spent on Gallup than had been budgeted.

Revenues were higher than budgeted in four of the 12 line items. Facility rental revenues were up nearly 13% compared to budget, because of an increased interest in renting Cobblestone Park, the farmers market and other facilities, Smith said. Also outperforming the budget was the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which brought in $65,767 in revenues – about $10,000 more than expected. Revenues at Veteran’s Pool and for the administration line item – which includes revenues from leasing parking lots to the University of Michigan – were up slightly more than expected too.

Revenues were down significantly at Buhr Rink, Smith noted, because the facility didn’t open until January due to renovations there. The rink brought in $76,491 in revenues, 39% less than what was expected. However, expenses of $106,151 were also lower – 37% less than budgeted.

Overall, parks and recreation general fund line items brought in $2.109 million in revenue, with total expenses of $3.288 million – for a loss of $1.179 million during the 12-month period.

FY 2010: Parks and Recreation Enterprise Funds

The two enterprise funds for parks and recreation – the farmers market and golf – were reported  separately. Enterprise funds are operations that are expected to be self-sustaining. The farmers market brought in $161,262 in revenues, with $155,993 in expenses for the year – resulting in a $5,269 surplus.

Colin Smith, manager of Ann Arbor parks and recreation.

The golf enterprise fund includes operations at Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses. In total, the fund reported revenues of $1.122 million for the year, with $1.645 million in expenses – for a $523,529 total loss. Huron Hills revenue of $304,541 was 19% higher than expected, while expenses were lower than budgeted by nearly 8%.

At Leslie Park, revenue of $817,638 was 1.5% higher than budgeted. Expenses of $1.067 million were on par with budget.

Commissioner Tim Berla asked how many rounds of golf were played last year, and was told about 30,000 rounds at Leslie and 20,000 rounds at Huron Hills. Berla then calculated, based on the roughly $500,000 loss, that the city is paying about a $10 subsidy for each round of golf. He noted that this was his perspective and that others look at it differently, but he found it troubling. It seems out of balance to subsidize something that only a small percentage of residents use, he said. It might be the case that more people play soccer, Berla said, but the city pays perhaps 10 times as much for its golf courses than it does for its soccer fields. “I just wanted to note that, that’s all.”

Smith pointed out that the subsidy came from the general fund, not out of the parks and recreation budget – though he conceded that if the city council decided to change the accounting for golf, it would significantly impact the parks and recreation budget. But regardless on your perspective about a subsidy to golf, Smith said, both courses as budgeted were doing a fantastic job in an overall market that saw declining revenues and rounds played statewide.

Berla asked Smith to remind them of where the courses stood in terms of the long-range plan that had been laid out by a consultant hired to assess the city’s golf operations. FY 2010 was the second year in a six-year forecast, Smith said. For that year, the forecast had anticipated a $519,000 loss for the courses. So they’re on track with the forecast, he said, adding that the courses were never expected to eliminate their losses completely over that six-year period.

Gwen Nystuen recalled that PAC had recommended Huron Hills not be an enterprise fund. Smith confirmed that of the two courses, Leslie was more likely to be self-sustaining. Nystuen pointed out that the rest of the parks weren’t self-sustaining, and the city is willing to subsidize them. Do they calculate how much it costs someone to walk across a park? she asked. The city shouldn’t put something into an enterprise fund if the operation can’t support itself. Smith replied that the golf courses “will be part of very robust discussions come budget time.”

PAC chair Julie Grand, who serves on the city’s golf advisory task force, noted that the strategy right now for Huron Hills is to make rounds affordable so that they can draw in seniors and youth, by making play more accessible. And David Barrett pointed out that Leslie now has a liquor license – he asked if revenues from alcohol sales were “baked into” the total revenues for Leslie. Smith replied that total revenues did include alcohol sales, which were about $40,000 out of $79,000 in concession sales at Leslie during the year. Barrett asked if the liquor license had been a plus for Leslie, and Smith said that it was, especially for bringing in more leagues, outings and traveling golf groups.

As an overall comment about the budget report, Sam Offen – who chairs PAC’s budget committee – complimented Smith and the parks staff. Not only did they do a good job in sticking to their budget, he said, but they also produced a report that could actually be understood, “which wasn’t the case five or six years ago.”

Consultant for Senior Center Strategic Plan

During the previous budget cycle, the city administrator initially proposed closing the Ann Arbor Senior Center, which operates out of a building in Burns Park. It was part of a broader effort to cut expenses from the budget – at the time, the center’s operating deficit was about $150,000.

But the community rallied, and the city formed a task force to identify ways to raise revenues and cut costs. Among a raft of recommendations made – which ultimately convinced the city council to keep the senior center open – was the suggestion to develop a long-term strategic plan. The city received a $16,949 grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation to help pay for a consultant to develop the plan, and earlier this year a request for proposals (RFP) was issued to solicit proposals. [For an update on other recommendations, see Chronicle coverage: "Shoring Up the Ann Arbor Senior Center"]

At Tuesday’s PAC meeting, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – told commissioners that three consultants responded to the RFP. [The three firms were Schumaker & Co. of Ann Arbor, Hooker/De Jong and The Woods Consulting Group of Muskegon, and The Kittle Group of Auburn Hills.] Two were determined by a review committee to be viable, but both were too expensive. After asking the consultants to resubmit, the committee – which included PAC chair Julie Grand – selected Hooker/De Jong for a total cost of $34,570.

In addition to the community foundation grant, Smith said the cost will be covered with $10,000 from the city’s community services administration general fund, and $7,621 from the parks and recreation services administration general fund.

Smith said Hooker/De Jong was selected because of their experience working with senior groups, their enthusiasm for the project, and their proposed approach. Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation, reported that the consultants will begin by assessing current conditions, doing market research and talking to stakeholder groups. They’ll look at national trends and at what similar centers are doing in other communities. They’ll explore possible partnerships, rebranding, use of the center’s website and possible changes to programs and services offered at the center.

One of the challenges is the center’s building, Smith said, and because Hooper/De Jong also provides architectural services, they’ll be in a better position to make recommendations on possible changes to the buildling. Commissioner Gwen Nystuen noted that the space was originally a shared facility for theater and dance, as well as seniors – that, in part, explains its “strange” shape, she said.

If approved by council, the consultants are expected to start their work in November, with a strategic plan developed by February or March. With that timeframe, the plan’s recommendations can be considered as part of the FY 2012 budget process, Straw said.

Nystuen asked about the nearby Eberbach building, at corner of South Forrest and Wells. Smith said it’s owned by the city but being used by Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, which is part of the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Sara Aeschbach, director of Rec & Ed, was in the audience and told commissioners that under an agreement with the city, it’s leased for $1 a year. AAPS covers expenses associated with the building, and sets aside roughly $10,000 each year for future capital needs.

Outcome: PAC unanimously approved a recommendation to select Hooker/De Jong as the consultant to develop a strategic plan for the Ann Arbor Senior Center. The proposal will be forwarded to city council for its approval.

Report on Ball Field Conditions

Commissioner David Barrett gave an update on his work to assess the city’s ballparks, and thanked commissioner Tim Berla, parks manager Colin Smith and Matt Warba, supervisor of field operations, for their help. It was a simple process, Barrett said – he just went to each field and walked around it. There are 28 fields at Ann Arbor public schools, and 26 owned by the city. “I may have missed a couple, but not many.”

Barrett also went to surrounding communities to look at the condition of their ballparks. For each field, he recorded his general impressions, as well as the conditions of the infields, outfields and backstops.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Barrett read a 1.5 page memo he prepared about the condition of the fields. [.pdf file of Barrett's ballpark report] An excerpt:

From the general to the specific, the larger canvas of their state is that many fields appear to be worn down and dog eared. Some simply need some work around the edges; others need fundamental renovation. Some fields need dirt and a refashioning of the drainage from the fields so that every rainstorm does not stop play for days; others need new backstops. Some need the outfields to be fertilized so the grass in the outfield grows evenly versus in clumps; others simply need more frequent mowing. Some need decent rubbers on the mound so the pitchers have something decent to push off of when they throw the ball; others have infields that are so hard that sliding would be inadvisable if not dangerous.

The interrelationship between the City, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and Rec & Ed is a complex tapestry that was woven together organically over the years when monies were more plentiful – but as the budgetary stresses touched all of these organizations, there was a need to clarify the exact maintenance responsibilities of each. Recently, these responsibilities have been formalized in an agreement between all parties. Whether this has helped or hindered the maintenance of the existing fields remains to be seen. That said, this on-going dialogue should aid in figuring out how to best use limited resources.

Barrett – best known outside of Ann Arbor as a songwriter, whose repertoire includes “One Shining Moment” – told his fellow commissioners that he approached this project through the eyes of a nine-year-old who used the fields. It was heartening to him that the city staff recognized the need for improvement. Ann Arbor can do better, he said.

David Barrett is spearheading an effort to improve the conditions of the city's ball fields.

The fields are well-used, and some have been in place for 30-40 years. Smith reported that in the 2009 fall season, there were nearly 14,000 participants playing baseball, softball or kickball on the fields. In the summer of 2010, that number reached nearly 40,000. The fields are maintained by the city and public schools, Smith said, and this is just the start of a conversation about how to do a better job of that.

Warba praised Barrett for his approach – not placing blame, but trying to do something positive. It was similar to Barrett’s work on the city’s soccer fields, which led to major renovations of the fields at Fuller and Olson parks. It’s not lost on the staff that maintenance has been deferred, Warba said, but they are working with limited resources. Both Warba and Smith said it made sense to add the city-owned ballparks to the capital improvements plan (CIP) – funds might be available there to upgrade the facilities.

Barrett said there were other possibilities too, like recruiting neighborhood or civic groups to adopt a field – the new volunteer outreach coordinator for parks and recreation might help with that, he said. As an example, Barrett said the field at Forsythe Middle School was in bad shape when he visited there a year ago. But recently, he’s been by there and seen an improvement, though he’s not sure who’s taking care of it. “Someone adopted this field,” he said, “and the difference was night and day.”

HRIMP Recommendations To Be Reviewed Again

Saying she almost hated to bring up the topic, PAC chair Julie Grand reminded commissioners that last year, the city council had directed PAC to take another look at the 30 recommendations made in the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP). By the end of the year, PAC needs to report back to council with a list of the recommendations that are financially feasible to implement, she said.

By way of background, the 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 engagements were held as the committee entered the final stages of its work. [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. 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 Department 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 resolution to accept the committee’s plan was first considered at the council’s Nov. 16 meeting, but postponed until Dec. 7.

At that Dec. 7 meeting, the city council held an extensive discussion about the plan, including a somewhat tortuous debate about whether the council would “accept” it or “receive” it. Ultimately, council voted to remand the plan back to the environmental commission and PAC.

At Tuesday’s PAC meeting, Colin Smith read the directive given by council:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council directs the Park Advisory Commission and Environmental Commission to evaluate the 30 consensus recommendations, and to present options for implementation to City Council for those that can be acted upon at little or no cost; and

RESOLVED, That the Park Advisory Commission and the Environmental Commission complete their recommendations and report back to Council within one year.

When he read the phrase “at little or no cost,” commissioners laughed.

Grand said she hoped they could schedule a working session on the topic in October or November. A regular PAC meeting didn’t seem the best forum to take a first stab at the task, she said.

Gwen Nystuen asked whether this involved the dam in/dam out decision. Grand replied that although council never voted on that, it appears that the decision has been made to leave the dam in. PAC’s task is to look at the 30 consensus recommendations that didn’t address the dam in/dam out issue.

Tim Berla noted that PAC had voted on a resolution to recommend keeping the dam in, but that they’d dropped the ball on the other 30 recommendations. He said he wanted them to craft a resolution calling for council to create another commission that would regulate all things related to the river: noise; rules regarding motorboats; relationships between rowers, canoeists, kayakers, fishermen and others who used the river; and plant management, among other things. It’s like the sheriff’s out of town, he said, and no one’s in charge to enforce the rules.

Smith pointed out that one of the 30 recommendations calls for creation of a river stewardship committee. But they weren’t going to go over the specific recommendations at this meeting, he said.

Berla said he wanted to make sure the public had the opportunity to get involved before PAC took action regarding the HRIMP recommendations. So if PAC plans to vote on it at their Nov. 16 meeting, he wanted to get something out to the public before then. Sam Offen suggested that they talk about it at their October land acquisition committee meeting, of which all commissioners are members. Then they could draft a resolution for the Oct. 19 PAC meeting.

Grand observed that some of the issues are quite complex, and that they might need more time. In response to an email from The Chronicle on Wednesday, Grand said they hadn’t yet decided when to discuss the recommendations.

Julie Grand was re-elected chair of PAC at Tuesday's meeting.

Election of PAC Officers

The commission quickly dispatched its annual election of officers – none of the three positions were contested, and each officer was re-elected.

Julie Grand was re-elected as PAC chair, a role she has held since Scott Rosencrans left the commission when his term ended at the end of April. John Lawton was re-elected vice chair, and Sam Offen was re-elected as chair of PAC’s budget committee.

According to PAC bylaws, the elections are held by secret ballot – on Tuesday, those took the form of yellow slips of paper distributed by Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

There was no suspense as he counted the ballots – everyone was re-elected unanimously.

Report from Parks and Recreation Manager

Colin Smith relayed several updates to commissioners at Tuesday’s meeting, including a few that prompted discussion.

Argo Dam Reconstruction

The city received two responses last week to its request for proposals (RFP) to reconstruct the headrace at Argo Dam. They received three bids for repairing the toe drains. [Details of the RFP were presented at PAC's July 20, 2010 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: "Two Dam Options for Argo"] A committee that includes PAC commissioner David Barrett will be reviewing the proposals, Smith said. If there are any they’d like to pursue, they’ll hold interviews in early October, then bring a committee recommendation to PAC’s Oct. 19 meeting.

Also related to Argo Dam, Smith reported that a contractor had started removing dead and dying trees along the dam’s embankment. It’s part of a consent agreement that the city reached with the state in May, laying out steps that the city must take to address some of long-outstanding issues with the dam. The path along the embankment is closed every Monday through Thursday while the work is completed. About 100 trees are being removed, and the work is expected to be finished later this month.

Tim Berla asked whether PAC would receive a recommendation at its next meeting on the Argo Dam proposals, and whether they’d be asked to vote on the recommendation at the same meeting. Yes, Smith said. Berla said his understanding was that the selected proposal would likely change the shape of the dam. Smith confirmed that it would – one of the requirements listed in the RFP was removal of the portage, which would change the shape of the embankment.

Berla asked whether information about the embankment would be made public before the meeting, so that the public would be informed. The information will be available, Smith said.

Sam Offen asked whether a public hearing could be held, given that it’s unclear how controversial the proposals might be. Smith said they were working under a tight timeline because of the consent agreement with the state. That means PAC needs to make a recommendation at its October meeting, he said.

David Barrett agreed – his understanding is that the state is driving this compressed timeline. “There’s no shell game here – we simply have a gun to our head to get it done, or bad things happen.”

Berla suggested putting out a press release about the proposal at least a week before the meeting, so that people could email staff and commissioners if they wanted to “rant or rave,” and that they’d know to come to the meeting for public commentary. Smith said that the city put out a press release to notify the public about the previous PAC presentation on Argo Dam, and they might do that again.

Huron Hills Golf Course RFP

The request for proposals (RFP) for Huron Hills Golf Course has been issued, Smith told commissioners, and there’s a pre-bid meeting for potential responders on Monday, Sept. 27 at 2 p.m. [For background on the Huron Hills RFP, see Chronicle coverage: "Public Turns Out to Support Huron Hills Golf"]

Responses are due Oct. 29, followed by committee review and interviews in November. If the review committee finds a response worth recommending, they’ll send it to the golf advisory task force, then PAC, Smith said. Any proposal would have to obtain city council approval before being implemented.

Fuller Road Station

As an FYI, Smith passed out a copy of the planning staff report for the Fuller Road Station site plan, and noted that the city’s planning commission would be reviewing and voting on the project later that night. [At its meeting – which included three hours of staff presentations, a public hearing and commissioner deliberations – the planning commission voted to approve the project, with two of the nine commissioners dissenting. The joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan project calls for building a five-level, 977-space parking structure on city-owned property that’s designated as parkland. The site would include a 44-space parking lot and bicycle parking. The city hopes eventually to build a train station at that location as well, but that isn’t part of the current site plan.]

Smith noted that in their report, the planning staff strongly recommends that a shared use path for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Fuller bridge be incorporated to the project’s design. This was a recommendation that PAC commissioners had discussed at previous meetings.

Sam Offen said that when mayor John Hieftje had attended PAC’s May 18, 2010 meeting, he had mentioned that the city was still negotiating an agreement with UM over use of the structure. What was the status of that – does it accompany the site plan?

Smith replied that work is still being done on the agreement, and that the administration is aware that PAC would like to see it before it goes to city council for approval. From The Chronicle’s report of that May 2010 meeting:

Heiftje’s presentation had not been on the agenda, but the commission was set to discuss a resolution that called for city council to stop the project, or at the least negotiate better terms with its partner, the University of Michigan. Several commissioners have expressed concerns about the project, which would be on city-owned property designated as parkland. Under proposed terms – which Hieftje said are not finalized – the city would receive less revenue from UM for parking than it currently gets from the surface lots it leases to the university on Fuller Road. Those revenues support the city’s parks operations.

On Tuesday, Offen said it would be useful to see the agreement before negotiations were finalized with UM – otherwise, there wouldn’t be opportunity for real input.

Berla mentioned that he’d read a comment online from someone who said there would be a 75-year lease agreement with the university. He wondered what kind of ongoing obligation the city would have to UM. Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember who’s an ex-officio member of PAC, said that he hadn’t seen a draft of the agreement and didn’t know its terms, but it was his understanding that the land and facility would always be owned by the city. The university would certainly have contractual rights under a use agreement, but Taylor didn’t know the length of the agreement being contemplated.

Given that some community members believe a long-term lease is a defacto sale of land, Berla said he hoped the city would make it clear how long the use agreement would be in effect.

Volunteer Outreach Coordinator

Gayle LaVictoire has been hired for the newly created position of volunteer outreach coordinator for parks and recreation, Smith reported. It was an internal hire – she previously served as facilities supervisor for Buhr pool and ice rink. Smith described her as energetic, enthusiastic and forward-thinking – the kind of qualities they were looking for in that position. She’ll be working with Jason Frenzel, volunteer and outreach coordinator for the city’s natural areas program. Smith said she’ll be coming to introduce herself at a future PAC meeting.

Bandemer Park and Punk Week

Smith said that Berla had requested a report on the incident during Punk Week at Bandemer Park, which runs along the Huron River north of town. A resident near the park had called police about people who were swimming naked, engaging in “lewd acts” and letting their dogs run off leash. An officer responded, and was surrounded by the group. Another resident called police after hearing someone in the group threaten to set a dog on the officer. A second officer responded and they went after the main instigators, Smith said. Park rules were being broken and the police responded appropriately, he said. Seven people were arrested for disorderly conduct, Smith said.

Berla said it was obvious that police needed to respond. If people had dispersed, he posited, then it likely wouldn’t have escalated into arrests. Smith said that was a fair assumption.

Punk Week has been part of Ann Arbor’s summer culture for more than a decade, occurring in the third week of August and including events like shopping cart races and zombie walks.

Present: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Julie Grand, John Lawter, Karen Levin, Sam Offen, Gwen Nystuen, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio), councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: Doug Chapman, Tim Doyle.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 19 begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]