Aerial view of County Farm Park, located in Ann Arbor south of Washtenaw Avenue, between Medford and Platt. The county parks & recreation commission has budgeted $250,000 in 2015 to put in a dog park on the west side of the park. (Photo by Victor Banta, included in the WCPARC Sept. 10, 2013 meeting packet.]

First, the commission gave final approval for a natural areas preservation program purchase: $390,005 to buy 13 acres from members of the Harwood family, located along Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township. The property is primarily high quality native woodland, nearly devoid of invasive species. In addition, it is proximate to the Pittsfield Preserve, owned and operated by Pittsfield Township, so existing trails can be extended, and there is a possibility of using a single parking lot for both sites.

Parks & rec commissioners also gave permission to spend up to $100,000 at the Meri Lou Murray Rec Center to replace the HVAC system’s pneumatic controls with digital controls. The project has been delayed because of a recent court ruling related to construction unity board (CUB) agreements.

The final major agenda item was approval of proposed budgets for 2014 and 2015 and projected budgets for 2016 and 2017. Bob Tetens, director of WCPARC, presented the budgets in the context of WCPARC’s millage history and developments since the mid-1970s, as well as budget strategies underlying all the proposals. The budget contains separate sections for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP) and for parks operations & development, because they are supported by separate millages. [.pdf of WCPARC budget document]

The 2013 operations & development budget of $13.79 million in expenditures drops to $10.417 million next year. The staff is proposing a budget of $13.574 million in expenditures for 2015. The projected budgets in 2016 and 2017 are $12.672 million and $10.009 million, respectively. Over the four years from 2014-2017, the operations & development budget – which does not include NAPP – will draw from its fund balance. At the end of 2012, the operations & development fund balance was $12.95 million. By the end of 2017, the fund balance is projected to drop to $2.8 million.

Expenditures for NAPP are projected to remain flat in the 2014-2015 budgets, at around $3.7 million annually, then drop to about $3.5 million in 2016 and 2017.

Commissioners discussed renewing the parks operating millage, which expires in 2016. It’s possible that staff will recommend putting a renewal on the November 2014 ballot. Other discussion focused on efforts to make WCPARC’s operations more self-sufficient, and whether personnel expenditures could be reduced.

The budget section on capital improvements generated discussion about dog parks. In 2015, a dog park is tentatively slated for the Medford Road side of the 141-acre County Farm Park, at a projected cost of $250,000. Some commissioners expressed concerns about WCPARC’s existing Swift Run dog park, which was developed in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor at the southwest corner of Platt and Ellsworth. Complaints focused on the lack of shade and water, but Tetens explained there are constraints about what can be done on that site, stemming from the dog park’s location on a former landfill.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. suggested that WCPARC should invest in the Swift Run dog park “or give it to Ann Arbor.” The city of Ann Arbor is currently exploring the possibility of adding another dog park that would be more centrally located. A public forum for that effort is set for Tuesday, Sept. 24 from 7-9 p.m. at the Traverwood library, 3333 Traverwood Drive.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

The county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) is funded by a 10-year countywide millage of 0.2409 mills, which brings in about $3 million annually. Voters renewed the millage most recently in 2010, through 2020. The program enables WCPARC to purchase land worth preserving because of its natural features, and to purchase development rights on agricultural land.

The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) advises the parks & rec commission on NAPP acquisitions. The Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee advises it on the purchase of development rights.

NAPP: Harwood Properties

There was just one NAPP item on the Sept. 10 agenda: final approval to purchase 13 acres on Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township from members of the Harwood family, for $390,005. Tom Freeman, retired deputy director of WCPARC who now serves as a consultant on NAPP activities, presented supporting material, which summarized the information he had presented to WCPARC at the Aug. 13, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view showing boundaries of four properties along Michigan Avenue in Pittsfield Township that have been considered for purchase by the county’s natural areas preservation program. Approval of purchasing the two Harwood properties was on WCPARC’s Sept. 10 agenda.

Freeman began by reminding commission members that a month earlier they had approved purchase of the Holley property, 3 acres north and east of the Harwood parcels and separated by a 2-acre parcel.  The adjacency of these parcels to the Pittsfield Preserve to the north increases their value. “Clearing of the Harwood properties would certainly have a serious, detrimental impact on the adjacent Pittsfield Preserve,” Freeman said, “both as a viable habitat and the quality of the viewshed.”

NATAC had recommended the property for purchase. Freeman showed a new slide of aerial and soils, which showed the amount of development around the site. In fact, he said, WCPARC’s purchase had been held up because the owners had received another offer, which eventually fell through for failure to meet contingencies.

Freeman reported completion of all due diligence: Bosserd Appraisal Services gave the two parcels a value of $390,005, about $30,093 per acre; Mannik and Smith Group’s phase I environmental site assessment found no evidence of recognized environmental concerns; and WCPARC obtained a boundary survey including legal description and a sealed survey drawing.

NAPP: Harwood Properties – Commission Discussion

Commission member Jan Anschuetz reminded her colleagues that the property has great historical value because of its owners over the years, the historical quality of the native woods, and Michigan Avenue’s role as an Indian trail. Plus, she said, it would be wonderful to have the WCPARC signs along busy Michigan Avenue.

Her positive comments were followed by objections from commission member Fred Veigel, who also serves on the Washtenaw County road commission. Veigel criticized the purchase price, saying “I can’t see paying $30,000 an acre for anything.”

Freeman reminded WCPARC that August’s purchase of the Holley property had cost $30,000 an acre.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the motion to purchase the Harwood properties for $390,005 passed 6-1, with Veigel voting against it.

NAPP: Update on DF Land Development

Freeman also gave commissioners an update about the purchase of two parcels in Superior Township, near WCPARC’s Goodrich Preserve. The land is owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. At its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting, WCPARC voted to buy the two properties – a 5-acre and 12-acre purchase.

WCPARC had agreed to pay a total of $322,000 for the parcels. On Sept. 10, Freeman reported that the Ann Arbor city council had agreed to contribute 10%, or $32,000, toward the purchase, reducing WCPARC’s cost to $290,000. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Greenbelt Grows Again."]

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget

Director Bob Tetens presented the 35-page budget document, which contained both summary and detailed information about WCPARC’s proposed 2014 and 2015 budgets, and the projected 2016 and 2017 budgets. [.pdf of WCPARC budget document] Earlier this year, the county board of commissioners directed the administration, including WCPARC, to develop a four-year budget, starting Jan. 1, 2014. In recent years, the county has worked on a two-year budget cycle.

WCPARC 2014-2017 budget chart.

“We are on a tight timeframe,” Tetens said. WCPARC needed to approve or modify the budget that night, so that it could be transmitted to the county board of commissioners by the end of the month. [For additional background on WCPARC’s budget and operations, see Chronicle coverage: "County Parks & Rec System Plans for Future."]

The budget contains separate sections for the natural areas preservation program (NAPP) and for parks operations & development, because they are supported by separate millages.

Parks has two separate millages – one for operations, another for acquisition and development. The parks operations millage is a 10-year, quarter-mill tax that was first approved in November 1978, and subsequently renewed in 1984, 1994, and 2004. The current millage expires on Dec. 1, 2016. Parks acquisition and development also has a 10-year  quarter-mill tax, first approved in November 1988, renewed in 1998 and 2008. It expires on Dec. 1, 2018.

NAPP’s 10-year quarter-mill tax was first approved in November 2000 and renewed in 2010. It expires on Dec. 1, 2020.

Before Tetens delved into the budget details, he presented the strategies that underpin all of WCPARC’s decisions, including budgetary elements. [For overall priorities set by the elected county board of commissioners, see Chronicle coverage: "Priorities Set for County Budget" and "County Board Sets Budget Meetings."]

The WCPARC strategies include:

• Continue to be conservative & sustainable; maintain operating reserve.
• Maintain current parks and facilities to existing high standards.
• Continue the planned development of the county parks system in an orderly, thoughtful, and sustainable manner, providing recreational opportunities to underserved areas or populations.
• Maintain commitment to ecological stewardship and restoration.
• Consider opportunities to diversify revenue-generating capabilities – to support future growth and operations.
• Consider partnerships wherever possible; seek opportunities to collaborate on local recreational efforts consistent with WCPARC’s mission.

The budget, Tetens continued, is tightly tied to the WCPARC’s master plan. [WCPARC staff are currently updating the plan, including a survey for the public to provide input.]

The 2013 operations & development budget of $13.79 million in expenditures drops to $10.417 million next year. The staff is proposing a budget of $13.574 million in expenditures for 2015. The projected budgets in 2016 and 2017 are $12.672 million and $10.009 million, respectively. Over the four years from 2014-2017, the operations & development budget – which does not include NAPP – will draw from its fund balance. At the end of 2012, the operations & development fund balance was $12.95 million. By the end of 2017, the fund balance is projected to drop to $2.8 million.

Expenditures for NAPP are projected to remain flat in the 2014-2015 budgets, at around $3.7 million annually, then drop to about $3.5 million in 2016 and 2017. For NAPP, the fund balance stood at $7.006 million at the end of 2012. That’s expected to drop to $6.923 million by the end of 2013. In 2014, the fund balance is projected to be $6.543 million, dropping slightly each year until a projected balance of $5.960 million in 2017.

Focusing on the 2014 and 2015 budgets, Tetens described the underlying assumptions: personnel costs will increase up to 1%, as will millage revenue. WCPARC plans to tap into its fund balances as needed in all three budgets – parks operations, parks development, and NAPP.

The budget presentation also included a look at revenues and expenses for each of WCPARC’s major facilities, as well as projected capital expenses for six years, through 2019. Total capital improvements and other funding commitments total $25.561 million for the period from 2013 through 2019.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion

Commission comments and questions concerned renewing the operating millage, which expires in 2016. Also discussed were efforts to make WCPARC’s operations more self-sufficient, and whether personnel expenditures could be reduced.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion – Millage

Fred Veigel reminded WCPARC members that “at some point, we need to think about whether the public will keep renewing millages. Everyone keeps asking for more money and the public will say no.”

Bob Marans agreed with Veigel’s point, saying “we have taken it for granted that we will get a renewal.”

Two of the elected county commissioners who serve on WCPARC – Dan Smith and Rolland Sizemore Jr. – weighed in on the issue. Smith urged WCPARC to make a decision soon about whether or not to put the millage renewal on the 2014 ballot. Sizemore agreed.

Tetens said it had been WCPARC’s habit to put its millage renewal on the ballot a couple of years in advance of expiration, to allow for better planning and a second chance, if the millage renewal fails on an initial vote. He said he would be recommending that WCPARC put a millage renewal on the November 2014 ballot.

Smith pointed out that many other entities may be putting millages on the ballot, and it would be to WCPARC’s advantage to be “first in line.”

Marans asked Tetens what he had planned in preparation for a possible renewal vote. Tetens responded that the parks & rec master plan is being updated, including plans for public input. Staff also are developing marketing and promotional materials. “We are planning a whole campaign,” Tetens said. “We’ll reactivate the Friends of County Parks. Our story will be about what we have done and what we will do.”

Marans asked Tetens to bring his plans to WCPARC so they could add their ideas, and Tetens suggested a retreat to allow for further discussion and input.

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion – Self-Sufficiency

The topic of making WCPARC more financially self-sufficient came up when Dan Smith asked whether WCPARC should have a “strategy of reducing our need for an operating millage by making our buildings more self-sufficient, such as – hypothetically – making an investment in geothermal at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center to reduce heating and cooling costs.”

Parks & recreation commissioners Patricia Scribner and Bob Marans, who is president of WCPARC. Scribner also serves as Pittsfield Township treasurer.

Tetens responded that the best area to attempt self-sufficiency is in the natural areas preservation program. If NAPP can build up a fund balance for stewardship, then there might not be the need to renew the NAPP millage in 2020, he said, or the millage request could be for a reduced amount.

As to everything else, Tetens indicated that it’s very hard to achieve self-sufficiency because most of the park facilities can’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. Many of the parks don’t have a gate – that is, the parks are not staffed and so entry fees can’t be collected.

Commissioner Jan Anschuetz objected to the concept of self-sufficiency, saying that WCPARC’s history is that “we want our parks to be priced to people of all economic levels can use them.” WCPARC tried to make the Pierce Lake golf course self sufficient so that it might even subsidize other operations, she noted, but that didn’t work. When people use WCPARC’s facilities, she said, “we’re keeping citizens healthy.”

Evan Pratt – who also serves as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner – noted that two-thirds of WCPARC’s costs are for personnel. If overall costs were to be reduced, staff cuts would be needed.

Tetens agreed the issue of self-sufficiency would be a good topic to discuss, but observed that “you have to have staff present to have a park facility that people will pay to enter.”

WCPARC 2014-2017 Budget: Commission Discussion – Dog Park

The section on capital improvements generated discussion about dog parks. In 2015, a dog park is tentatively slated for the Medford Road side of the 141-acre County Farm Park, at a projected cost of $250,000.

Commission members Jan Anschuetz and Rolland Sizemore Jr. both criticized WCPARC’s Swift Run dog park, which is run in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. They agreed it is heavily used, “even on a yucky day,” Anschuetz said. She noted that “people are there because there is nothing else. We owe it to our taxpayers to invest in a good dog park in a good location. There are great county dog parks out there, some including water. Dog parks are for people, not just dogs.”

Bob Tetens explained the strict limits that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality puts on Swift Run, because the dog park was built on top of a former city of Ann Arbor landfill. “We can’t pierce the surface, so we can’t put in benches or umbrellas,” he said.

Sizemore responded: “We need to put money into it or give it to Ann Arbor. It’s an embarrassment.”

Bob Marans wrapped up the discussion by noting that commissioners have had a chance to review the overall budget for the last two months, and had been given a good overview by Tetens.

Tetens said he would go over the material with the three absent members: Janis Bobrin, Nelson Meade, and Conan Smith.

Outcome: On a roll call vote, the budgets for 2014-2017 were approved unanimously.

Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center: Digital Control System

At its May 14, 2013 meeting, WCPARC authorized staff to move forward with a request for proposals (RFP) to replace the existing pneumatic control system in the Meri Lou Murray recreation center with a new digital control system. The rationale for getting the new controls was to get better temperature control in each space, reduce downtime when the pneumatic controls break, reduce staff time spent adjusting the pneumatics, and reduce energy consumption.

Coy Vaughn, WCPARC deputy director.

On Sept. 10, deputy director Coy Vaughn reported that there had been a breakdown of air conditioning in the building that week, due to a condenser failure. That’s an example of the need to improve the building’s HVAC systems, he said.

Ten firms responded to the RFP with competitive bids ranging from $96,500 to $178,000. WCPARC staff interviewed the two low bidders on Aug. 27, and determined that the preferred contractor was Metro Controls Inc. based in Clinton Township, which bid $96,500.

However, Vaughn reported, because of a recent ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit, the bid process must be redone. In an email to The Chronicle, WCPARC director Bob Tetens explained that the ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati had upheld state law prohibiting the requirement of construction unity board (CUB) agreements. [For background on the CUB legislation, see Chronicle coverage: "County Board Suspends CUB Agreement."]

MLM Recreation Center: Digital Control System – Commission Discussion

Commission member Dan Smith saw the dilemma: the air conditioning system was compromised, the weather was hot, and the process had to be redone. He suggested that WCPARC approve spending an amount not to exceed $100,000 so that staff could move ahead more quickly. There was agreement on that approach, which became a formal motion. Evan Pratt suggested a friendly amendment: adding “lowest qualified bidder,” which Smith accepted.

Fred Veigel wondered why WCPARC would use a vendor in Novi, rather than “local contractors who work and live here and pay taxes, even if they charge a few bucks more.” There was no response.

Jan Anschuetz asked for more information about the bidders, “perhaps who are the lowest five bidders, where they are, to help us make our decision.”

The discussion revealed that the county purchasing agent formerly supplied this information as a matter of routine, and that Tetens would provide it in the future.

Outcome: The motion to approve entering into a contract for replacing the pneumatic controls with digital controls at a cost of up to $100,000, with the lowest qualified bidder, was unanimously approved.

Financial Reports

Staff provide several different financial reports to WCPARC each month, focused on the past month’s expenses (the claims report), monthly and year-to-date reports on expenses and revenues in the form of fund balance reports, and a listing of major non-recurring expenses when they are significant.

The September meeting reviewed reports for August. There are separate reports on parks and facilities, and on the natural areas preservation program (NAPP), which includes preservation of agricultural lands. Each of these has its own, separate funding, although WCPARC administers all of these programs.

Financial Reports: Claims Report

Parks and facilities paid a total of $316,298 in August. Of that, $146,300 was for capital improvements, primarily at Rolling Hills and Independence Lake parks. [.pdf of claims report]

NAPP claims far exceeded that with $2,571,483, almost entirely the cost of completing purchases for the Jarsky, Holley, and DF Land properties. [For background on those deals, see Chronicle coverage of WCPARC's Aug. 13, 2013 meeting.] In an email to The Chronicle, Tom Freeman clarified the components of the NAPP claims in August:

• DF Land Development: 54-acre parcel – $2,048,270
• DF Land Development: 5 & 12-acre parcels – $325,532
• Holley Property: $84,817.83
• Jarskey Property: $57,839.77
• Cost of due diligence (appraisals, environmental site assessments, surveys, legal expenses, etc.): $51,664

Total claims paid by WCPARC in August 2013 were $2,887,781.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – Parks and Recreation

Parks & rec director Bob Tetens introduced this report by saying there has not been a lot of activity in the last month; revenue is down due to bad weather. On the other hand, the dip in revenue is matched by a dip in expenses, he said. The projected fund balance at the end of 2013 is $8,220,788. The fund balance started the year at $12,950,815. [.pdf of parks & rec fund balance statement]

As of Aug. 31, 2013, revenue totaled $8,550,664 – primarily from property taxes ($5,811,813) and fees and services ($2,685,995). Expenses year-to-date were $9,756,948. In addition, the parks budget includes an operating reserve of $6.7 million and ”partnership” funding commitments of $925,000.

Financial Reports: Fund Balance – NAPP

The Jan. 1, 2013 fund balance for NAPP was $10,263,644. [.pdf of NAPP fund balance statement] Through Aug. 31, 2013, revenue was $3,184,873 and expenses were $3,076,995. Tetens pointed out that the August fund balance for NAPP does not yet reflect expenditures for closings that occurred in September. The projected fund balance for NAPP is $10,410,585 by the end of 2013.

There was no substantive discussion of the reports.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously voted to receive, accept, and file the financial reports.

Recreation Reports

These monthly reports include attendance at WCPARC facilities where attendance can be counted, with information about participation in measurable activities and revenue received at those facilities. The reports include the current year-to-date summary as well as similar information for the prior two years.

On Sept. 10, WCPARC director Bob Tetens introduced the August reports with an explanation about the impact of weather on attendance, especially in comparison to 2012, which was much hotter and drier than this year.

Recreation Reports: Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center

The Meri Lou Murray rec center is, Tetens highlighted, doing better financially this year than the prior two years. Year-to-date participation as of Aug. 31, 2013 was 220,042 and revenue was $800,166. In 2012, year-to-date participation was 217,352 and revenue was $750,034. In 2011, participation was 234,162 and revenue was $764,410. [.pdf of MLM rec center report]

Commission member Rolland Sizemore, Jr. asked whether attendance at MLMRC was affected by the existence of the rec center at Washtenaw Community College. No, Tetens responded: “We saw an impact only when it first opened.”

Recreation Reports: Pierce Lake Golf Course

Tetens recommended comparing Pierce Lake Golf Course’s use in 2013 to 2011 rather than 2012 because of the hotter weather in 2012, when the golf course opened two weeks earlier than normal. “The course looks better now than in the last seven or eight years,” he said. “We get lots of compliments.” [.pdf of Pierce Lake golf course report]

Through the end of August 2013, 13,240 people had paid greens fees totaling $287,432. In 2012, 15,862 people paid $328,973. In 2011, 13,100 people paid $269,139. Programming and retail operations brought in $83,028 in 2013; $92,301 in 2012; and $70,719 in 2011. Total revenue in 2013 was $453,151, compared to $510,179 in 2012 and $413,957 in 2011.

Recreation Reports: Rolling Hills Park and Water Park

There is an entrance fee and gate count for everyone who enters Rolling Hills Park. There is a separate fee, and gate count, for those who go on to enter the water park there. [.pdf of Rolling Hills report]

As members of WCPARC looked at the report on Rolling Hills, Jan Anschuetz reminded them: “Last year we had 10 days over 100 degrees. This year, we had a month of rain.”

In 2013, 29,234 people paid $230,683 to enter Rolling Hills Park. That compares to 32,862 people in 2012 and $256,938 in revenue. In 2011, 32,858 people paid $254,995.

The water park proved much more popular, but still showed declining attendance compared to previous years. In 2013, 92,117 people paid $697,321. That compares to 111,944 people and $760,764 in 2012, and 114,440 people and $751,811 in 2011. Total revenue for all operations at Rolling Hills was $1,171,715 in 2013, compared to $1,284,273 in 2012 and $1,258,579 in 2011.

In spite of these numbers, Tetens said, “the two busiest days ever at Rolling Hills were this year, and they were not on holidays.”

Recreation Reports: Independence Lake Park & Blue Heron Bay

Blue Heron Bay is a water-feature area separate from the rest of Independence Lake Park. Unlike Rolling Hills Water Park, Tetens described Blue Heron Bay as “not the type of facility where parents leave their kids all day.” [Blue Heron Bay’s water features appeal to younger children, who stay for shorter periods with their parents; Rolling Hills is more popular with older children.] [.pdf of Independence Lake report]

Because Blue Heron Bay opened in 2013, there are no comparisons to earlier years.

In 2013, 14,691 people paid $117,651 to use Independence Lake Park. That compares to 16,803 people and $131,463 in 2012; and 15,856 people and $125,345 in revenues during 2011. Attendance at Blue Heron Bay was 17,312, for $68,416 in revenue.

Total revenue for all of Independence Lake Park was, through August, $288,330 in 2013; $204,392 in 2012; and $195,895 in 2011.

Outcome: The recreation reports were received and accepted for filing unanimously.

Projects and Activities

Staff of WCPARC provide monthly updates to commissioners about ongoing improvements at facilities, and activities at parks and natural areas. Some of this information is provided in a written report that’s part of the board packet; more is provided with visuals and informal commentary during the meeting. This report summarizes the most significant items at the September 2013 meeting.

• Rolling Hills Family Camp Out: WCPARC director Bob Tetens reported that this event, held in August, had the best attendance ever this year. To include more people, it would have to move to a different location. Commission member Rolland Sizemore Jr. remarked that “kids don’t have camping experience anymore, but they can [get it] here.” He noted that he’d seen cars with Ohio and Pennsylvania license plates at the event. Tetens explained the event includes setting up tents, nature walks, games, arts, crafts, and stories and s’mores around a campfire. In the morning, Boy Scouts prepare a big pancake breakfast. 
  
• NACPRO award to Blue Heron Bay: This national award was in Class 1 and will be awarded at the National Association of County Park and Recreation Officials annual conference in October, in Houston.
• Ann Arbor skatepark: Construction has begun, and is “going fast,” Tetens reported, noting that it was a $400,000 grant from WCPARC that got the project off the ground. The skatepark will be located at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, a city of Ann Arbor park.
• Aerial photographs of WCPARC properties: Tetens showed several photos by Victor Banta. The photo of County Farm Park brought a discussion of the difficulty of mowing the sloped strip adjacent to Washtenaw Avenue, which several commissioners had noticed. Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, suggested that his staff could help with that next year, since the land is near a county drain.
• Programming and activities: Tetens showed slides of several public programs: a prairie walk at Independence Lake; a nature walk at Spike Preserve; a spider walk at the County Farm Park; a stream walk; day camps; a summer picnic at Willow Run with free fishing; the annual employee golf outing at Pierce Lake, which collected $245 and 113 pounds of food for Food Gatherers; and a United Way event in which staff “stuff the [school] bus” with school supplies.
• Henry Ford event: Tetens pitched an event to honor Henry Ford’s 150^th birthday (1863-2013): “Henry Ford: A Historical Perspective,” a talk by Mike Skinner on Sunday, Oct. 6 at 3 p.m. at Sharon Hills park.

Present: Jan Anschuetz, Robert Marans, Evan Pratt, Patricia Scribner, Dan Smith, Rolland Sizemore Jr., and Fred Veigel.

Absent: Janis Bobrin, Nelson Meade, and Conan Smith.

Staff: Director Robert Tetens, deputy director Coy Vaughn, and consultant Tom Freeman.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the county parks and recreation department’s office at 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Park planner Amy Kuras, left, talks with Stewart Gordon, an advocate for putting an ice-skating rink atop the Library Lane site. In the background are Andrew Walton, left, and Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf. Walton supervises the Huron Hills golf course. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners discussed a proposal to build an ice-skating rink atop a portion of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure. They took no action on the item, but were briefed on the proposal by two advocates of the effort: Alan Haber and Stewart Gordon. The two men also attended a subsequent March 26 meeting of a PAC downtown park subcommittee. This report includes a summary of that session as well.

River-related items on PAC’s March 19 agenda included a resolution to recommend awarding a $295,530 contract to Gerace Construction Co. for repair work and repainting at Argo and Geddes dams, as well as site improvements around Argo Dam. Brian Steglitz, an engineer with the city, told commissioners that the work is being done in response to the most recent inspection by state regulators.

Commissioners also recommended awarding a $512,180 contract for improvements at the Gallup Park canoe livery to Construction Solutions Inc., which will be funded in part by a $300,000 state grant. Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries, gave commissioners a presentation on those operations, in preparation for budget recommendations that PAC is expected to consider at its April 16 meeting.

As part of her report, Saam noted that the city plans to issue another request for proposals (RFP) to design a whitewater section along the Huron River, downstream from the Argo Dam near the Argo Cascades. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith reminded commissioners that the first attempt at this project wasn’t successful. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality did not approve the initial design, and would not issue the necessary permit for the project. The staff is working with the state to address MDEQ’s concerns, he said. Smith also reported that DTE Energy still intends to pay for the project, which is located adjacent to property that the utility company is cleaning up.

DTE representatives were on hand at the meeting because of a different project: To request an easement on city-owned land in Riverside Park, where utility poles are located. The easement is needed as part of an $8 million new electrical substation that DTE is building on land adjacent to the park. Commissioners unanimously recommended that the city council approve the easement.

In another presentation to set the stage for next month’s budget discussion, PAC heard from Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf, and Andrew Walton, recreational facility supervisor at Huron Hills. They reviewed the status of the city’s two golf courses – at Huron Hills and Leslie Park – and noted that both courses have seen significant revenue gains over the past five years.

The issue that drew the most public commentary during the meeting wasn’t on the March 19 agenda: a possible dog park on a knoll in West Park. Residents in that area aren’t happy about the prospect of barking dogs in their neighborhood.

West Park Dog Park

At PAC’s Feb. 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners discussed two potential locations for a new fenced-in dog park: about 2 acres in and near South Maple Park, on the city’s west side off of West Liberty; and a roughly 1-acre section of West Park, on a knoll in the south-central area. No action was taken, but the intent is for a PAC committee to continue evaluating these options with parks staff before making a formal recommendation to the full commission. The previously recommended site – at a different location within West Park, near the parking lot off Chapin Street – was ultimately not presented to the city council, following protests from the nearby New Hope Baptist Church.

Although there was no item on the March 19 agenda related to a possible dog park, the bulk of public commentary addressed that issue. Most of the speakers were residents of the neighborhood near West Park.

Tom Fricke, who lives on North Seventh, told commissioners he appreciated their efforts to provide dog runs for Ann Arbor residents who own dogs. He knew nothing had been decided yet, but he wanted to reiterate some of the objections to the possible use of the knoll in West Park, saying “I think it’s a very bad location for it.” It violates planning and design considerations that went into the recent park renovations, which were enormously successful, he said. It would turn over a general use area to a single use. A dog park would also introduce a range of other issues related to parking problems, noise, and sanitation and watershed concerns.

Tom Fricke was one of several residents who live near West Park and who oppose putting a dog park on a knoll in the park.

Fricke said he’s become better educated about dog parks than he ever wanted to, and has been reading a lot of material, including information from the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, from other supporters of dog parks, and from other cities with dog parks. No other dog park that he could find was located in the core of an existing park. The dog parks seemed to be tucked to the side or in designated areas that are entirely apart from other park uses. He also noted that enclosing a dog park on the knoll doesn’t seem to comply with best practices for dog parks. If it were to be graded, the location would probably get a C- or D. Fricke concluded by saying that a well-designed dog park would likely be much more than the $25,000 or $30,000 budget that’s anticipated for this project. He hoped PAC would add these issues to their considerations.

Judith Connett said she lives on North Seventh, but her home doesn’t abut the park. Some of the problems, like noise, might not affect her, she said, while other problems – like parking – might be an issue. She objected to the dog park as an owner of two Cockapoos. She was worried about how it would change the use of the park, and about “how it will affect my puppies’ life in a negative way.” Her dogs weigh 22 pounds, and in the past she took them a couple of times to Slauson. [The Slauson Middle School property was used by dog owners as an unofficial dog park for a period of time.] Her dogs had been “horrified” by the big dogs there, Connett said. There will be dog fights if you have dogs of all ages and sizes in the same area, she said. Connett added that she’d like to see another dog park in Ann Arbor, but it needs to be a location where there’s room to separate the dogs by temperament or size. It should also be in a place that’s more rural, she said, so houses aren’t impacted.

Another North Seventh resident, Walter Butzu, said he can’t see the knoll from his house but he hoped a dog park wouldn’t be located there, for all the reasons that had been stated. He had supported the location on Chapin Street, because that’s in the “business side of the park,” where other activities like basketball courts, a baseball field and community gardens are located. The area on the grassy knoll is unstructured, he said. To see more of the park designated for a single-purpose use, like a dog park, would be disconcerting to him. Like Fricke, Butzu said he’s also become more educated about dog parks over the past two weeks. His hope is that the city chooses a location where noise is the primary consideration. Homeowners should be able to enjoy their back yards, and he’d support the objection of any homeowner if that enjoyment is encroached upon. He hoped commissioners would take into account the distance from residences. Part of Bandemer Park or Veterans Memorial Park – especially on the southwest corner – would work, he said. On Seventh Street, people are already chased into their back yards to get away from the street noise, and a dog park would “pretty much eliminate that [option] for us,” he concluded.

Marcia Healey told commissioners that West Park is not acceptable for a dog park. She’s lived near West Park for 15 years, and her house overlooks the knoll. She said she understands how that area is used and its aesthetics, and a dog park would be an immense change. People use this very open space in imaginative and practical ways. You might see people practicing yoga or tai chi, or meditating in the early morning or evening – looking out over the eastern side of the park. The knoll lends itself to being serene or playful, she said. Children use the area to fly kites, families have picnics, teenagers hold hands, people spread out blankets and read. It’s a very special space, Healey said. The park has a pond, wetlands and wildlife, and is a benefit to urban dwellers. She’d like to see a dog park at a different location.

Jim Mazak noted that his property would back up to the proposed dog park, and he’s against putting it there. Other locations got higher ratings, he noted. Parking would be a problem, similar to the problems near the Ann Arbor YMCA, he said. A dog park would bring people from outside the area, in addition to people who are already coming to the park for the community gardens, band concerts or baseball. Noise is also a factor, he said, and Ann Arbor has a nuisance ordinance. He’s been to Swift Run dog park and heard the dogs barking even at a distance, so he wondered how that noise would be blocked from his home. “I’m not going to listen to dogs barking all day long.” He described the dog park at Olson Park as a “mud pit,” with runoff – including dog waste – running into the pond and into tributaries of the Huron River. Finally, Mazak noted that right now, the West Park knoll has multiple uses. If a dog park is there, it would take away his ability to use the area.

Tom Egel said he was against the West Park location for a dog park because of the reasons that other speakers had already stated. Parking would be a problem, and the back yards of the houses along Seventh Street – where he and other residents go for quiet – would be affected.

Bob Dascola said he was with Friends of West Park, and had been involved in the early stages of the park’s renovation. He worked during the summer of 2011 with a group that produced Shakespeare plays in the park’s band shell – Shakespeare West, put on by The Blackbird Theatre – and he was able to observe activity in the knoll. Before that, he’d had no idea how noisy it was in the park. People at Miller Manor, which overlooks the park, make noise that projects into the park, he noted. Dascola also said he’d been to Olson Park, and the dogs there are very noisy. He agreed that a dog park in West Park would be very disruptive.

Janet Osborn told commissioners that she lives on Liberty Street. It’s loud there, and she could only imagine how loud it would be on Seventh, because of the traffic. She wouldn’t want residents there to go into their back yards for peace and quiet, only to be confronted with barking dogs. She agreed with others who had spoken, and felt that the park’s aesthetics are better suited for individuals and families. She thought it would be great to have a dog park at a location like Veterans Memorial Park.

West Park Dog Park: Staff Response

During his manager’s report, Colin Smith noted that the parks staff will continue to work on the dog park issue. It was good to get the feedback from residents, and it shows how the location is a difficult thing to resolve, he said. There are a lot of competing needs, he observed, including the need for a more centrally located dog park downtown.

Downtown Parks

The issue of downtown parks came up at various points during the March 19 meeting. During public commentary, two people spoke about the need for urban parks, particularly atop the Library Lane parking structure. And representatives of a group that wants to put an ice-skating rink on that site were invited to give a presentation at the meeting, after having lobbied the commission for several months.

By way of additional background, a subcommittee of PAC was formed last year to develop recommendations on the need for downtown parks, following up on an informal request from the city council. The effort comes in the context of Connecting William Street, an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority project undertaken at the request of the council to help guide the future use of five city-owned downtown properties. Several park commissioners felt that the CWS “scenarios” didn’t include sufficient parkland or open space, and the DDA’s final recommendations ultimately stated that the park advisory commission should further examine the downtown’s needs in that regard.

The goal of the subcommittee is to draft recommendations that the full commission can consider and approve, which could be delivered to the city council in about six months. Members include Ingrid Ault, who is serving as the subcommittee chair, PAC chair Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, and Karen Levin. However, any park commissioner can participate.

This report includes a summary of the subcommittee’s most recent meeting, on March 26. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need” and “Committee Starts Downtown Park Research.”

Downtown Parks: Public Commentary

Two people spoke at PAC’s March 19 meeting on the subject of downtown parks.

Barbara Bach wondered: Where could she take her granddaughter, and what memory of Ann Arbor would her granddaughter have in the future? Will her granddaughter remember swan boats? A sprinkle pool? A funky favorite bench? Bach cited several other examples from memorable urban parks in other cities, and said her point is that Ann Arbor has no urban parks, and no city staff or elected body is making it a priority. “We have monster buildings, and a city hall that some can’t find,” she said, but there is no downtown public space that defines the character of Ann Arbor as a city of trees. There are real estate studies by the city and the Ann Arbor DDA, she noted, and the mayor often says there are plenty of parks. And there is a small group – with a huge mailing list – that’s been “battling mightily to be heard” about putting a park atop the Library Lane site. [She was referring to the Library Green Conservancy.]

Bach wanted the park commissioners to take the city council, DDA, planning commission and city staff to task on this issue, and to demand that an urban park become a priority. Where is the play space for all of us? Where are the setbacks? She wants to take her granddaughter to play, to rest, to see grass and a sculpture or anything that other cities have, along with new development. “I want her to remember something very special about her second city when she visits me,” Bach said. It’s great to have visitors to Ann Arbor’s restaurants and galleries, and it’s important to have people living and working downtown. All of these people need gathering places – a downtown urban park – to be developed and maintained. “Who knows?” she said. “With encouragement, we might even form a foundation to help maintain these special places that we will never regret having planned for.”

Janet Osborn also spoke about the topic of the “non-green space” at the Library Lane site. She recently moved back to Ann Arbor and was “absolutely shocked” by the number of new buildings in town. She couldn’t believe that yet another building was planned for the top of the Library Lane lot. [At this point there are no specific proposals for a building there, although the infrastructure was built to support a building.] Ann Arbor has long needed a place to gather for ordinary people – not university students – to meet their friends, Osborn said. She thinks the city can find a way to make that happen. “It doesn’t have to be a fancy place,” she said. It could be a very small area, with places to sit and meet friends. Osborn hoped the city would listen to its citizens, who overwhelmingly want a downtown park, she contended.

Downtown Parks: Skating Rink

The Library Lane site was the focus of a presentation at PAC’s March 19 meeting. Julie Grand – who chairs the commission – introduced the topic of a skating rink proposal atop Library Lane by saying that it had been raised several times during public commentary, but the commissioners hadn’t yet had the opportunity to discuss it amongst themselves. She had invited advocates for the project to make a presentation.

Alan Haber and Mary Hathaway attended PAC’s March 19 meeting. Haber addressed commissioners in support of an ice-skating rink atop the Library Lane parking structure.

The proposal is to build an ice-skating rink on part of the top of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure, which is now used as a surface parking lot. Commissioners have been lobbied about it during public commentary at several meetings, most recently on Feb. 26, 2013. At that meeting, Alan Haber – one of the organizers of the Library Green Conservancy – told commissioners that he hoped PAC could make a statement as a body or individually to the city council, urging them to give the rink a try for just two months.

Haber and Stewart Gordon spoke to commissioners on March 19, and provided a written proposal as well. The proposal again states the request for PAC support, as rink organizers seek $25,000 in matching funds from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of rink proposal]

Gordon told commissioners that he’s lived in Ann Arbor since 1962. Pointing to the presentations earlier in the meeting on the city’s golf courses and canoe liveries, he said it brings him great joy to live in a city that supports those recreational facilities. He wanted to tell commissioners about another project that could bring residents great joy – a downtown skating rink.

The city’s other skating rinks aren’t located downtown, he said, so they don’t draw people to the downtown. He’s seen the joy that urban skating rinks can bring, like the flagship rink at Rockefeller Center in New York. There are others in communities across the country, he noted, even as close as Dexter. People who’ve lived in Ann Arbor a long time remember skating rinks all over the city, he said. So what his group wants to do is bring back something that’s joyous, and that takes advantage of modern technology to make artificial ice-skating a possibility. He emphasized that it’s an experimental project – a two-month trial period, not a permanent installation. After the capital investment is made, the skating rink can be disassembled and located at various sites.

Gordon asked commissioners if and how they’d like to be involved in this project.

Haber reported that his group has already made a proposal to the DDA, which manages the Library Lane site as part of the city’s parking system. He described the goals of the DDA as attracting private interest in the downtown, removing surface parking lots as much as possible, and developing public activities on public land. So skating rink advocates are asking the DDA for matching funds, and will seek private investment for the rest of the estimated $50,000 cost. They’d also like a resolution from PAC and the city council supporting the project, and Haber hoped that PAC’s downtown park subcommittee will explore it further.

Haber said he’s talked with the DDA’s partnerships committee, and a number of questions were raised that would need to be worked out with the city attorney.

The written proposal provided to PAC includes a list of “local supporters and consultants,” including John Fingerle of Fingerle Lumber, Mark Hodesh of Downtown Home & Garden, Carol Lopez of Peaceable Kingdom, Elaine Selo of Selo/Shevel Gallery, and Craig Forsyth of the Ann Arbor Figure Skating Club, among others. Updated after initial publication: Forsyth has contacted The Chronicle and stated that although he met with Haber and Gordon, he is neither a supporter nor a consultant for the project. He has asked them to remove his name from their materials.

The plan calls for building a 32-foot by 72-foot temporary artificial ice rink on the northwest corner of the Library Lane lot, at an estimated cost of $50,000. An “in-kind” contribution of 15 parking spaces, which the rink would cover, is also requested from the DDA.

The downtown building of the Ann Arbor District Library is adjacent to the site, although the library has no ownership of the Library Lane parcel. At the AADL board’s March 18, 2013 meeting, Gordon spoke briefly during public commentary asking for the board’s support on this project. He provided a handout regarding the project that’s similar to the one presented to PAC. There was no discussion or response from library board members during the meeting.

Downtown Parks: Skating Rink – Commission Discussion

Ingrid Ault described it as an interesting project. She grew up in the Burns Park neighborhood, and was able to use the rink there. She said she had walked the Library Lane site, to try to understand what’s being proposed. It wasn’t clear to her what size they’re proposing. She was envisioning the entire parking lot area. Haber replied that he could also envision that, “but we’re not being quite so ambitious.” They’re looking at the 15 parking spaces on the northwest corner, although the details still need to be worked out about exactly where the rink’s surface would be.

Ingrid Ault of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Gordon added that different sizes are possible, but their estimates are based on a medium size – roughly 32-feet by 72-feet, adjacent to Earthen Jar restaurant and the sidewalk along South Fifth Avenue.

Ault said the size seemed small to her. She noted that there’s a circular “island” in the middle of the proposed rink, which takes additional space away from the actual skating surface. Haber replied that there are a variety of options, but they’re simply trying to figure out what’s feasible on a short-term basis. He noted that this idea began back in November of 2012, when he learned about the possibility of using artificial ice. Unfortunately it’s now past the time of colder weather, but he reported that artificial ice can be used year-round. “It’s a little counter-intuitive in one way, but in another way it could be very beautiful,” he said.

Gordon added that they didn’t want a rink that would be large enough to tempt hockey players. It’s really more about casual skating and families, he said. There are plenty of other places to play hockey.

Christopher Taylor – a city councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – asked whether any thought had been given to locating a skating rink on the parking lot next to Palio restaurant, at the northeast corner of Main and William. Given the activity there already from restaurants and retail shops, it might be interesting place to “be watched and watch others,” Taylor said. Haber indicated that he’s interested in having at least partial public use on all of the lots involved in the Connecting William Street study, including the lot next to Palio. However, he expressed skepticism that the DDA and the city council would be interested in giving up parking on that site.

Haber noted that Liberty Plaza – at Liberty and Division – has also been mentioned as a possible location for the skating rink, because that urban plaza needs more vibrancy. That location has challenges in terms of its configuration, he said.

But his focus is primarily on the Library Lane site, Haber said. Maybe things can happen elsewhere too – the hope is that public activities would proliferate, he said. Gordon added that there’s a synergy in being located next to the library. When you come to check out books with your kids, you can also go skating, he said.

Taylor was interested in hearing how AADL board members and staff felt about the ice rink. Gordon indicated that some individual board members are very supportive, but the board as a whole hasn’t weighed in. He said the impact on the library would be minimal – for example, an estimated average of two people per hour using the library restroom. Haber added that in general, the library is reluctant to get involved with the Library Lane site. Haber indicated that the library might be more responsive if questions came from PAC rather than from the rink advocates.

Tim Berla clarified that this project wouldn’t be a park in the traditional sense – for example, no city employees would be involved. It would be a two-month project, followed by what Gordon called a fairly complex assessment, including “social science metrics” and questionnaires. If it appears that it could be a long-term project, then decisions must be made about a long-term organization to handle staff, maintenance and other issues. Gordon characterized it as a long-term capital investment – the ice man manufacturer guarantees it for 10 years.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, asked if the organizers had spoken to other communities that used the artificial ice. Gordon replied that if you’re a high-level figure skater or hockey player, you’ll hate the surface – because it’s slow, and there’s not enough glide to go fast enough for jumps and tricks. If you’re a medium-level hockey player, you’d like it for working on your stick handling. Gordon noted that the artificial ice is used by Advantage Sports on West Stadium Boulevard. But if you’re a recreational skater, he said, “it’s lovely.”

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

Julie Grand asked about skates. Her understanding is that the artificial ice would require really sharp skates, which raised safety concerns for her. Both of her kids are skaters, and she said she knows what it’s like helping them get their skates on. Having potentially sharp objects in the public space is a concern.

Gordon replied that there are good models for dealing with that. One possibility would be to have lockers available at the library, he said. For the two-month trial period, however, it’s likely that people would bring their own skates. He said he’d love to have a day for people to dig out their old skates from attics and garages, and donate them for rental.

Haber said the DDA has asked for a two-year projection of this project, including expenses like staff and capital costs. One of those capital costs would be a skate-sharpening instrument, he said.

Berla asked about the process for making this happen – what would be the procedure, from the city’s perspective? Smith guessed that the city staff and DDA would need to negotiate what would happen, because the city owns the lot but it’s managed by the DDA. The council would need to pass a resolution directing it to happen, he said.

Smith continued, saying he appreciated the enthusiasm and effort that organizers have shown. His concern is that there aren’t a lot of examples of other communities using this type of artificial ice. He had asked the managers at the city’s ice rinks to talk to other communities that have tried this kind of project, and the feedback hasn’t been overwhelmingly positive, he said. A couple of recreation departments in other cities removed similar rinks after a year, because the rinks didn’t generate repeat customers. One person had described the experience of skating on the artificial ice as running up a sand dune. Smith said he’d hate to see a community group put energy and funding into a project that won’t work very well.

Gordon pointed to the rink at Advantage Sports, which has been in place for several years. He also volunteered to do additional research about the experiences of artificial ice rinks in other communities.

Smith then expressed concerns regarding maintenance. Often, the manufacturers of “synthetic amenities” will say that there’s no or low maintenance, he noted, but generally “that’s really never the case.” Other recreational departments that have used this kind of artificial ice say that it requires daily application of a spray to make the skating smoother. Gordon replied that there have been several iterations of this technology, and the most recent types of artificial ice don’t require daily spraying.

Ault again stated that the size of the rink concerns her: It’s really small. It would help to know the sizes of rinks in other communities, she said.

She also wondered if the DDA had indicated buy-in with the project. Would the DDA be willing to provide matching funds? Haber replied that he and other supporters are taking this “step by step.” The DDA’s basic view seems to be an interest in buildings, and they’re not eager to see public activity at that site, he said, because if “you let the people on, they’ll never want to get off.” But some of the DDA board members on the partnerships committee were quite interested, Haber added. The short-term nature of this proposal will be persuasive, he contended, but the DDA’s partnerships committee still wants some questions answered. “So I’m hopeful,” he concluded. It’s a big dream to think the DDA might embrace this project, but it’s within their mission to find better uses for that surface parking lot, he said.

Downtown Parks: March 26 Committee Meeting

Haber and Gordon also attended a March 26 meeting of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee, along with Will Hathaway and Mary Hathaway, who also support a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure. The meeting included the city’s park planner Amy Kuras and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner (far right), describes aspects of a map that shows public property within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district. She was attending a March 26 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission’s downtown park subcommittee, which was also attended by members of the Library Green Conservancy.

The subcommittee had previously met on Feb. 5, 2013, and had agreed as a first step to read background material from a variety of sources, including the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, elements of the city’s master plan, and reports by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

On March 26, the group discussed aspects of the PROS plan and CWS report that relate to downtown parks. Alan Jackson observed that the PROS plan is a very “interpretable” document. You could draw conclusions that are even diametrically opposed, he noted, so there’s a lot of latitude within the scope of that plan.

The PROS plan’s needs assessment identifies two actions directly related to downtown parks and urban plazas: (1) Discussion concerning downtown open space should continue as well as to plan for developer contributions and small pocket parks; and (2) Work with the Downtown Development Authority to plan for renovation and acquisition of downtown open space, including the development of the library lot [a reference to the top of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure].

Kuras, who is responsible for soliciting developer contributions to parks, reported that she’s exploring whether that’s the best approach for the city to take. She typically negotiates with developers, asking them to donate parkland or cash in lieu of land, which can then be used in the parks system. The intent is to maintain a certain ratio of parkland to residents, and to encourage the owners of new developments to help fund that goal. It’s been successful in other parts of the city, but is difficult to do downtown – in part because land is so much more expensive.

Smith noted that right now it’s voluntary, and developers can refuse to contribute. He reported that the developers of the 413 E. Huron project have agreed to contribute $125,000, although it’s unclear whether that project will move forward.

One possibility would be to require this kind of contribution, Smith said. To do that would require action by the city council. Smith also suggested that the city might consider using this funding source not just for park infrastructure or acquisition, but also for programming needs, to activate existing urban parks or plazas.

Smith stressed the importance of programming – saying it plays a role in making a park is successful or not. Traditionally, he said, parks and recreation employees are tied to a facility, like a skating rink or golf course. But the PROS plan discusses the possibility of having a parks employee devoted to programming across the system, not just at one particular facility. That might be a recommendation for the subcommittee to consider, he said.

Regarding the Connecting William Street project, several people observed that the CWS report recommends further exploration of the need for downtown parks and open space. [For more background on the status of Connecting William Street, see Chronicle coverage: "Connecting William To Be Resource Plan."] A few people expressed puzzlement about the CWS proposal for a mid-block cut-through – a possible pedestrian walkway between Main Street and State Street. Kuras said she was baffled by that particular recommendation, because most of the feedback that the city staff hears is about the need for more downtown open space, not a walking corridor.

Smith urged commissioners to look not only at the CWS sites as they prioritize, but also to factor in the Allen Creek greenway, and the city-owned sites at 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington.

The subcommittee spent a portion of the March 26 meeting looking at a map that Kuras had printed out, which highlighted publicly-owned land in the DDA district – including city land as well as the University of Michigan. They also talked about how to solicit specific input from groups like the downtown merchant associations, the Ann Arbor District Library, the university, residents and others. Their strategy at this point includes inviting representatives to future subcommittee meetings, developing an online survey and holding public forums.

Although the group had previously discussed the possibility of hiring the nonprofit Project for Public Spaces as an outside consultant, Smith reported that he had tried to contact that group but had not received a response.

Also attending the March 26 meeting was Matthew Altruda, who told commissioners that he does the booking for many music events in town, including the Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series that’s sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor and held at Liberty Plaza. At the end of the March 26 session, Altruda said he agreed with the group’s assessment that programming is important, and indicated that he’d be willing to help with that, if they wanted.

The subcommittee’s next meeting is set for Tuesday, April 9 from 5-6:30 p.m. in the second-floor city council workroom at city hall, 301 E. Huron. These meetings are open to the public and include the opportunity for public commentary.

DTE Easement at Riverside Park

On PAC’s March 18 agenda was a resolution to recommend approval of an easement between the city of Ann Arbor and DTE Energy – for land in Riverside Park where utility poles are located. [.pdf of easement agreement]

DTE Energy Buckler substation site plan. (Links to larger image)

The easement agreement is needed so that DTE can remove old utility poles and install new poles and overhead lines – generally in the same location as existing poles and lines at Riverside Park. The easement will also allow DTE to provide maintenance on those poles and lines. DTE requested the easement in relation to an $8 million new electrical substation that the energy firm is building on land adjacent to the park. The Buckler substation’s site plan was approved last year by the city’s planning commission on June 5, 2012. It did not require city council approval.

The overall project entails building the substation in the utility company’s Ann Arbor service center to provide a way to distribute an increase in electrical power to the downtown area due to increased demand for electricity. The project includes two 15.5-foot tall electrical transformers and related electrical equipment on raised concrete pads, and a new power delivery center (PDC) – a 630-square-foot, 12.5-foot tall steel structure. The source of power will be transmitted through underground sub-transmission cables in an existing manhole and conduit system.

The project needed a variance to the 15-foot conflicting land use buffer requirements along the east side property line, adjacent Riverside Park. DTE requested a variance that would allow the firm to plant 23 trees along the far western side of Riverside Park instead of on DTE property. PAC recommended approval of that variance at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. It was subsequently authorized by the zoning board of appeals on June 27, 2012.

In addition to planting trees in the buffer, DTE plans to remove 15 trees along Canal Street, which will be replaced by 50 trees in other parts of the park. As stipulated by city ordinance, DTE also will be required to pay the city a “tree canopy loss” fee. According to the city’s urban forestry website, which provides the technical definition and sample calculations, the current canopy loss rate is $186/inch for shade trees and $172/inch for ornamental trees. For this project, DTE will pay $23,800, which will be earmarked for future improvements to Riverside Park.

Construction on the substation will take place during the summer of 2013. The easement agreement requires approval by the city council.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, introduced the item, saying he’s always wanted to see a better buffer between the park and the power substation. The landscaping that DTE is putting in place will make the park look much better, he said. Regarding the easement, Smith said it wasn’t a significant departure from how things are currently handled with DTE’s utility poles in that area.

Paul Ganz, DTE’s manager of regional relations, showed park commissioners a map indicating new projects in Ann Arbor that added to the city’s energy needs.

Paul Ganz – DTE’s manager of regional relations in Washtenaw, Livingston and Ingham counties – told commissioners that the substation project is essential, and the easement is a critical piece of that $8 million investment. The project will bring nearly 30 megawatts of additional electrical capacity to the Ann Arbor area.

In order to minimize disruptions during the switchover phase, DTE needs to build a new overhead pole infrastructure, to allow for the safe transfer of the utility’s distribution lines, he said. The company will install a new set of poles, then take off the wires from the old poles and put the new distribution lines on the new poles. He noted that phone and cable companies, which also use the poles, will need to move their lines as well.

He highlighted DTE’s replacement of trees that will have to be removed, as well as the company’s payment to the forestry fund. He said he appreciated the “cooperative posture” of the city staff, as well as PAC’s previous recommendation of a variance to the conflicting land use buffer requirement.

Ganz concluded by calling it a “garden variety easement,” and he hoped commissioners would look on it favorably.

DTE Easement at Riverside Park: Commission Discussion

Tim Doyle clarified with Colin Smith that the 50 new trees would be planted throughout the park. Smith referred Doyle to a drawing – included in the meeting packet – that showed where those trees would be planted. [.pdf of planting map]

Doyle also asked about the purpose of the substation. Was it to generate more electricity for the community? No, Ganz replied. The substation doesn’t generate electricity – it distributes electricity. DTE needs to build new circuits to handle the electricity loads. Ganz showed commissioners a map that indicated new or proposed developments in the city, “and they all need new sources of electricity,” he said. [.pdf of project map]

Doyle then observed that the substation doesn’t encroach on the park itself, but he asked for clarification about the location of the utility poles. Smith explained that the utility poles are located on parkland – that’s why an easement from the city is required.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of granting the easement to DTE. It will next be considered by city council for approval.

Gallup Park Renovations

The March 19 agenda included a resolution recommending that the city council award a $512,180 contract for improvements at the Gallup Park canoe livery to Construction Solutions Inc. The project budget includes a 10% construction contingency, bringing the total cost to $563,398.

Schematic of the proposed Gallup Park canoe livery improvements.

Construction Solutions, based in Ann Arbor, was the lowest qualified bidder on the project. Other bids were submitted by Braun Construction Group ($534,600); Detroit Contracting Inc. ($554,620); The E&L Construction Group ($580,700); A.R. Brower Company ($607,160); and Terra Firma Landscape ($612,137).

In introducing the item, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the project has been two years in the making. He reminded commissioners that park planner Amy Kuras had briefed them on the project in the past. At its March 15, 2011 meeting, PAC had approved applying for a $300,000 grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund to help fund the project.

Kuras gave commissioners an overview of the improvements, which include barrier-free paths to the docks; barrier-free docks and fishing facilities; an expanded patio area to create barrier-free outdoor seating and to separate these areas from the pedestrian circulation; sliding glass doors from the meeting room; and redesign of the park entry to create a separation between the service drive and the pedestrian pathway.

The project will be funded in part through the $300,000 MDNR trust fund grant, with matching funds from the FY 2013 park maintenance and capital improvements millage. Smith noted that when the grant was awarded, it was the second-highest ranked application statewide. He credited Kuras for her work in making that happen.

As soon as approval is given by the city council, the project’s first phase will begin on the docks and livery area, with work continuing until Memorial Day in late May. Work will resume after the summer season on Labor Day, focusing on paths and the park entry reconfiguration. The entire project is expected to be finished by mid-November.

Gallup Park Renovations: Commission Discussion

Mike Anglin wondered if there would be a launch for kayaks, so that people wouldn’t tip over while getting into the boat. Kuras explained that a new ramp would allow the kayakers to actually come up out of the water, and grab a railing to help them out of the kayak.

Anglin asked if the renovated meeting space would be available to rent for events. Kuras replied that the space is rented out now, but the staff expect that rentals will increase after the renovations.

Anglin also wanted to know if local firms had been considered for this contract. Kuras noted that the city’s policy is to accept the lowest bid, unless there are reasons to reject it – like past bad performance. In this case, the lowest bid happened to be a local firm, she noted.

Graydon Krapohl wanted to know when the project will likely be completed. Kuras replied that the weather is the biggest factor, but if all goes well, the hope is to have the project finished by mid-November of 2013.

Christopher Taylor observed that a van turnaround area could also be used as a cut-through for pedestrians or bicyclists. He wondered if there will be design elements to discourage it. Kuras said pervious pavers will be used in that area, “so it’s not going to be the most comfortable surface to walk on.” The hope is that renovated walkways will be a more desirable option.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution recommending that Construction Solutions Inc. be awarded the contract for Gallup Park renovations. It was subsequently approved by the city council at its April 1, 2013 meeting.

Update on Argo, Gallup Canoe Liveries

Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries, gave commissioners a presentation on those operations. The briefing was in preparation of budget recommendations that PAC is expected to consider at its April 16 meeting. [.pdf of Saam's presentation]

For Gallup, Saam highlighted the stillwater paddles on the 2.5 mile Gallup Pond, the popular 5.7-mile river trip from Barton to Gallup, a coffee shop that sells Zingerman’s coffee and baked goods, and the meeting room that’s available for rental. She also reviewed the upcoming renovations, which had been featured in a presentation earlier in the meeting by park planner Amy Kuras.

Aerial view of Argo Pond and Argo Cascades – a series of nine pools that lead from the pond to the Huron River. The large site at the bottom of this image is the DTE property that the city hopes to acquire.

At Argo, the livery provides canoe, kayak and tube rentals on the 2-mile Argo Pond, a concession stand, and river trips – a 3.7-mile trip from Argo to Gallup, and a 7.1-mile trip Delhi to Argo. The most recent feature is the new Argo Cascades, a series of pools that allow kayakers to bypass Argo Dam and connect from Argo Pond to the Huron River. Saam noted that the Cascades won the 2012 Michigan Recreation & Park Association (MRPA) park design award, and was named a “Frontline Park” by the City Parks Alliance, a national advocacy group.

Saam noted that the city hopes to expand river recreational activities onto the DTE/Michcon site in the future. That site, which DTE is remediating, is on the opposite side of the Huron River, across from the Argo Cascades. For example, Saam said, because canoes can’t go through the Argo Cascades, one possibility would be to have another canoe livery on the DTE side of the river. “There are lots of opportunities that could come up with that site,” she said.

Both liveries offer River Camps, Saam said. Last year, 101 kids participated at Argo; 258 participated at Gallup.

Overall in 2012, 50,336 people rented boats during the year at both liveries – up from 35,834 in 2011. Saam attributed that increase primarily to the opening of Argo Cascades. A busy weekend day would bring about 900 customers, she reported. “It has been a big hit.” The Argo-to-Gallup river trip was the most popular, accounting for 67% of all river trips during the year.

As a percentage of river trips, the Barton-to-Gallup trip grew from 7.5% to 27% of all river trips in 2012.

Saam reported that projected revenues for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, are $619,626 compare to $569,589 the previous year. Projected expenses of $567,645 are also up, compared to $488,421 in the previous year. She noted that seasonal staff – about 50 employees – accounts for 44% of the budgeted expenses.

Looking ahead, the city plans to issue another request for proposals (RFP) to design a whitewater section along the Huron River, between the Argo Dam and the spot where the Argo Cascades enters into the river. Saam said that the staff believe it will provide a recreational amenity unlike any other in southeast Michigan – nothing too extensive, she added, probably just a surf wave and some eddy points. Most of the public would use the Cascades, which would exit downstream from the whitewater area.

Regarding the whitewater RFP, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the first attempt at this project wasn’t successful. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality did not approve the initial design, and would not issue the necessary permit for the project. The staff is working with the state to address MDEQ’s concerns, he said.

Update on Argo, Gallup Canoe Liveries: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla asked about the 27% of river trips that go from Barton Pond to Gallup Park – he wondered how people using canoes can get around the Argo Dam. Do they have to get out of their canoes? Yes, Saam replied, they have to walk the length of the Argo Cascades, and put in the canoe where the Cascades exit back into the Huron River. Canoes can’t go through the Cascades, but most people use kayaks, she said.

“Is there any chance we’re going to fix this?” Berla asked. Obviously the Cascades has been a successful amenity, he said. But when it was “sold” to PAC, he added, commissioners were told that canoes would also be able to use it. At one point, the idea had been that canoes could even paddle up the Cascades, he said.

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

Colin Smith acknowledged that the project had been difficult to complete as it was originally envisioned. He noted that even prior to the Argo Cascades project, there’d been a strong trend toward using kayaks rather than canoes. The city is exploring the possibility of partnering with DTE or in some way gaining access to a portion of the land currently owned by DTE that borders the Huron River downstream from the Argo Dam – where the whitewater feature would be located. Earlier this year, DTE issued a request for information (RFI), seeking possible partners to developer that site, which is located at 841 Broadway. [.pdf of DTE's RFI for the 841 Broadway site]

If the city gains access to that side of the river, Smith said, a supplemental canoe livery could be located there so that people wouldn’t need to carry canoes from the current livery past Argo Cascades. “We’re continuing to explore options – it’s not an easy solution,” he said.

Karen Levin asked about the whitewater project: Wasn’t the company that designed the Argo Cascades also hired to for the whitewater feature? She wondered if that same company would still be working on the whitewater.

Smith reviewed the project’s history, noting that when the project was originally proposed, the resolution that PAC recommended, and that the city council later approved, was primarily for the dam bypass – later named Argo Cascades – with the option of adding whitewater. [PAC's recommendation, approved on Oct. 19, 2010, was to build a bypass channel in the Argo Dam headrace for $988,170, and to add whitewater features for an additional $180,000. The $1,168,170 project was designed by Gary Lacy of Boulder, Colo., and built by TSP Environmental, a Livonia firm.]

Smith noted that the whitewater features weren’t required as part of an agreement with the state Dept. of Environmental Quality to address issues related to the dam. [In August of 2009, the state issued a dam safety order to the city, with several deadlines that the city needed to meet in addressing problems with the dam, as well as an order to immediately close the headrace. The city closed the headrace in November of 2009 but contested the order. Negotiations with the state resulted in a consent agreement that was signed in May of 2010. (.pdf file of consent agreement)]

Smith noted that DTE later committed to funding the construction of the whitewater section, because the company needed to do remediation on its side of the river, which needed to be coordinated with construction of the whitewater area. He said DTE is still planning to honor that commitment to pay for the whitewater feature.

The city will issue an RFP for the whitewater design, Smith said, and it may or may not be awarded to the designer who did Argo Cascades.

Mike Anglin thanked Cheryl Saam, noting that it all started years ago with “drainage disconnects.” [Anglin was likely referring to the state's concerns over the condition of toe drains on the Argo Dam embankment. The term "drainage disconnect" is typically used in reference to the city's footing drain disconnect program.] “We took the hard long way,” Anglin told Saam, “but got a great product.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Dam Repairs

In another river-related item, commissioners were asked to recommend awarding a $295,530 contract to Gerace Construction Co. for repair work and repainting at Argo and Geddes dams, as well as site improvements around Argo Dam.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reviewed some history on this project.

By way of background, the city council – at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting – had passed a resolution directing the city administrator to find a new funding source for the city’s recreational dams: Argo and Geddes. [The city's other dams, Barton and Superior, generate electricity and are not considered recreational.] At that time, maintenance and other needs for the dam were paid for out of the city’s water supply system fund. The resolution stated:

RESOLVED, That City Council direct the City Administrator to remove funding for repairs, maintenance and insurance for Argo and Geddes dams from the City’s Water Supply System Fund in the FY 2012 budget and thereafter.

In 2011 when the council passed its budget for FY 2012 – starting July 1, 2011 – the costs for Argo and Geddes dams were shifted to the parks operations budget. This move had been recommended by PAC, Smith noted.

The current contract is for work that’s done on a 15-20 year cycle, Smith said. Gerace, based in Midland, submitted the lowest of four qualified bids for this work. Other bidders were Anlaan Corp. ($354,050); E&L Construction ($457,989); and Spence Brothers ($797,000). According to a staff memo, the work entails “repair and repainting of gear housings, lift equipment, tainter gate structural steel, miscellaneous concrete repair, and minor site improvements. Site improvements include addition of rip rap and constructing a path to portage around Argo Dam.”

Brian Steglitz, an engineer with the city, was on hand to answer questions. He indicated that the work is being done in response to feedback from state regulators. The two dams are inspected every three years by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

The project will be funded from the city’s parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Dam Repairs: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla observed that since the dams aren’t generating electricity or providing drinking water, the appropriate way to fund them is out of the parks budget.

From left: Park commissioners Tim Berla and Graydon Krapohl.

Smith described the rationale for funding these dam repairs out of the parks and recreation budget. He noted that a lot of recreational opportunities offered by the parks system at Argo Pond are called “pond paddles.” People might prefer pond paddles, as opposed to going down the river, if they have young children, or if they just feel more comfortable on still water. There are also times when the water flow causes the staff to suspend river trips, but people can still enjoy canoeing or kayaking on the Argo Pond, between Barton and Argo dams. In fiscal year 2012, revenue generated from pond paddles, rowboat and paddleboat activities was about $175,000.

Smith likened it to the kind of investment that the city makes in other recreational facilities, like its ice-skating rinks.

Berla clarified with Brian Steglitz that the dams are not involved in flood mitigation. That’s right, Steglitz said. The dams at this point are purely recreational. Under the existing permits, they operate as “run of the river” dams. That is, for every drop of water that enters the pond, a drop needs to go over the dam to compensate.

Berla wondered how this project fits in with the overall cost of maintaining these dams. How much money is spent every year, and when will the city need to make this kind of expenditure again? Smith said the annual cost for operating each dam is about $18,000 to $20,000. That’s already budgeted, he said, separately from the repair project.

Steglitz said this kind of maintenance hasn’t been done on these dams in about 25 years, so it’s past due. Originally, the city had planned to do this work one dam at a time – one per year. But the staff decided to combine some of the less expensive, out-of-the-water work at Argo and Geddes this year. In a couple of years, another project is planned to address the gates on the dams, he said. That will be a more complicated project, and will involve shutting down the dams and de-watering one side in order to paint the gates. Smith reported that the gate repair in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for fiscal 2017, estimated to cost about $400,000.

After that second project is completed, Steglitz said, the two dams probably won’t require significant work for another 20 years.

Christopher Taylor asked if the costs were about equally divided between Geddes and Argo. Yes, Steglitz replied.

Taylor also asked for an explanation of the term “rip rap.” Steglitz described rip rap as “large aggregate” – typically rocks or concrete rubble – that’s used for erosion control. The intent is to hold back earth along the dam embankments. From an engineering standpoint, he said, the city needs to make sure it maintains the integrity of those embankments, as well as the integrity of the concrete dams.

Taylor asked where the new portage would be located. It will be constructed from the first pond of the Argo Cascades to the “tail” of Argo Dam, where people will be able to launch their canoes into the Huron River. Tim Doyle asked whether that’s the same location that the city plans to add a whitewater feature. Smith answered by noting that the city hasn’t yet received permits for the whitewater project, and that this new path isn’t a significant improvement. Doyle observed that it’s a temporary fix while the city waits on the whitewater project. Smith agreed with that assessment.

Doyle then asked whether these dams are regulated by the state. Steglitz replied that the dams are regulated by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, which inspects the dams every three years. Doyle asked if this repair work is the consequence of the state’s inspection. Yes, Steglitz said. The city is responsible for maintaining the structural integrity of those dams, he said, and this project is in response to that.

Doyle asked if dams, like bridges, have a life. Yes, Steglitz said. He noted that these dams have been rebuilt. Like any structure, you can do things to extend its life, he added, “and that’s what this project is all about.” By doing this kind of work, the city can extend the life of the dam by decades. There’s no reason to believe the dams would need to be replaced in the near future, he said.

Mike Anglin asked Steglitz to describe how Barton and Superior dams differ from Argo and Geddes. Steglitz explained that Barton and Superior dams are federally regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). They both generate power – about 1.5 megawatts of power combined, when operating at full capacity. There are more stringent regulatory requirements, with more frequent inspections. Barton also provides an impoundment for the city’s water supply. Those two dams are also more complex structures, he said, because they both generate hydropower. So they’re more costly to operate and maintain. The city’s general fund receives revenue from Barton and Superior dams, and the general fund also pays for the improvements and maintenance of those dams. Capital improvements are planned at both dams as well, and are in the city’s CIP, Steglitz said.

In response to a query from Doyle, Steglitz said that at one point, both Argo and Geddes also generated electricity. All of the dams were purchased from DTE in the early 1980s, he said, for “very little to no cost,” because major renovations were needed. At that point, the hydropower components at Argo and Geddes were abandoned, he said.

Taylor questioned a clause in PAC’s resolution, which stated: “Whereas, The coating on the gear housings and portions of the gates at both Argo and Geddes Dams has failed; …” The proximity of “failed” and “dams” caused him, as a lay person, to raise a “flashing light red alert.” He joked that Steglitz appeared calm, so Taylor asked him to elaborate on that wording.

The dams aren’t in danger of failure, Steglitz replied, but the coatings have failed. There are places where the coating is gone. Coatings aren’t just for aesthetic purposes, he noted, but rather to protect the structural steel from corroding. There are now signs of corrosion, he said. If that continues, at some point you just can’t repaint the steel – you’d need to replace it, which would be a lot more expensive. There are some components that will need to be replaced, he added, but not many. “We’re doing this at the right time.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved awarding the contract to Gerace for work on Argo and Geddes dams. The contract was subsequently won approval at the city council’s April 1, 2013 meeting.

Golf Courses Update

In another presentation to set the stage for next month’s budget discussion, PAC heard from Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf, and Andrew Walton, recreational facility supervisor at Huron Hills. They reviewed the status of the city’s two golf courses – at Huron Hills and Leslie Park.

From left: Andrew Walton, recreational facility supervisor at Huron Hills, and Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf.

Kelly told commissioners that his overview would be similar to one he made at PAC two years ago, at their March 15, 2011 meeting. He described attributes of both courses – Huron Hills has a shorter layout that’s good for the entire golfing community, for people of all ages, abilities and economic backgrounds. During the winter months, Huron Hills also provides one of the area’s best sledding hills, he said.

Leslie Park “is our jewel,” he said, attracting golfers from across southeast Michigan and beyond with its layout that is challenging, yet playable. Golf Digest magazine has rated it as the best municipal course in the state, he said. More recently, Leslie Park golf course has been “entrenched” in a $1.4 million major Traver Creek reconstruction project.

As background, in 2007, the city council and staff examined the golf courses closely, hired a consultant and made some decisions about the future of the courses. “It was decided that if we’re going to do this, we’re going to do this right,” Kelly said, so the city invested in infrastructure and staff.

As a result, he said, the number of golf rounds have increased at both courses. At Huron Hills, rounds have grown from 13,913 in 2007 to 23,842 rounds in the 2012 season. At Leslie Park, 21,857 rounds were played in 2007, compared to 32,628 in 2012. Those represent increases of 70% and 50%, respectively, and come during a period when rounds of golf in Michigan have been flat, Kelly said, and when rounds have fallen 2.4% nationwide.

Revenues have also increased during that period, Kelly reported. In fiscal 2007, Huron Hill reported revenues of $242,577. Those increased 55% to $375,068 in fiscal 2012. At Leslie Park, revenues grew from $623,942 in FY 2007 to $929,071 in FY 2012 – an increase of 49%.

Kelly noted that fees haven’t changed significantly since 2008. Rental revenues at Huron Hills increased from $5,000 in fiscal 2007 – when the course did not have rental carts – to $72,000 in fiscal 2012. Leslie Park’s golf cart rental revenues grew from $122,000 to $183,000, while concession revenues grew from $28,000 to $97,000, in large part because the clubhouse now has a liquor license. The idea wasn’t to make it a local pub, he said, but rather to make it more attractive for group outings and league golfers. Some of that is due to increased rounds, but Kelly attributed about $50,000 of that increase solely to the sale of alcohol.

Revenues from Ann Arbor golf courses FY 2007 through FY 2012.

Kelly also highlighted the priorities that he and other golf staff have emphasized in the last five years: exceptional customer service, excellent facilities, environmental stewardship, collaboration with the community, and an effort to grow the game of golf.

Leslie Park golf course has been certified by the Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program, which requires that the course exceed requirements of environmental laws, protect water resources and enhance the maintenance of turf grass and open spaces. The course also was designated as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary, part of a national program that focuses on enhancing the habitat for wildlife on golf courses. Huron Hills is currently working to get both of these certifications, he said.

Kelly noted that several years ago he came up with the idea for a Michigan “municipal golf trail,” to promote municipal courses throughout the state. It was launched last year by the Michigan Recreation and Park Association, with a goal of getting 500 people signed up. They exceeded that goal, with about 3,500 people participating.

Andrew Walton highlighted several efforts to grow the game of golf – because most of those types of programs are located at Huron Hills, which he supervises. Efforts include family nights on Sundays after 3 p.m, when children can golf free; “nite lite” golf events with glow-in-the-dark equipment; a $100 season pass for juniors; “wee tees” – a shorter 7-hole course for kids; golf lessons and other instruction programs; power carts; and leagues.

Huron Hills also received a $12,000 grant from the National Recreation and Parks Association to help pilot a national program called SNAG – Starting New at Golf – aimed at children 4-5 years old. The city was one of only 15 agencies nationwide to pilot this program. SNAG is now partnering with the Jack Nicklaus Learning Leagues, and Ann Arbor expects to be involved in that effort as well, Walton said.

Golf Courses Update: Commission Discussion

Julie Grand recalled serving on the golf task force several years ago, and said it’s amazing to see how the golf courses have changed over the past few years.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, praised the golf staff as well as the staff of the canoe liveries. He highlighted the role of seasonal staff, saying those employees are crucial to the success of the parks system.

Grand joked that she remembered a time when “a young Colin Smith” was also a seasonal employee in the parks. Smith replied: “I wouldn’t recognize that person.”

Mike Anglin said that if there’s a national parks and recreation month, he’d like to see Smith and other senior parks staff come forward to city council to be recognized for their work. The parks system has been supported by a millage for a long time, he noted, and the system just keeps getting better even though the economy has declined. That might be because people can’t afford to travel, so they stay and use the local parks, Anglin said. The city’s recreation facilities are packed, he noted, in large part due to the people on staff. Anglin concluded by saying he was on council when Smith was hired as parks and recreation manager, “and I’ve never regretted it.”

Communications: Recreation Advisory Commission

Tim Berla, a PAC member who’s the liaison to the city’s recreation advisory commission, reported that the Ann Arbor Public Schools are “strapped” in terms of their budget. It’s possible that all sports will become “pay to play,” so at the most recent RAC meeting there was a long discussion about the possibility of having a recreation millage, he said. It’s something they’ll continue to think about for the future, he added.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Bob Galardi, Missy Stults.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to 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 helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Tim Doyle and Graydon Krapohl at PAC’s Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. It was the first session for Krapohl since being appointed to replace John Lawter, whose term expired on Dec. 31. (Photos by the writer.)

In a 90-minute discussion at PAC’s January meeting, commissioners talked about how they’d like to approach this effort, which stemmed in part from a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. Momentum for PAC to weigh in has accelerated in light of recommendations recently delivered to the city council on the Connecting William Street project.

Several councilmembers have expressed concern that those recommendations – made by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on five city-owned sites – don’t include sufficient green space. PAC has already weighed in on that specific project, passing a resolution on Sept. 18 2012 that urged the council to seek additional evaluation on locations for a downtown park.

During public commentary, several residents – including supporters of the Library Green Conservancy – spoke in support of a substantial downtown park.

A PAC subcommittee plans to draft a plan for how to proceed, with the full commission continuing the discussion at their land acquisition committee meeting on Feb. 5. The process is expected to take 4-6 months.

Also at their Jan. 15 meeting, commissioners got an update on plans for locating a dog park at West Park, across from New Hope Baptist Church. PAC had recommended that location for a dog park, but – as The Chronicle previously reported – objections from church members have resulted in a decision to look for another location. The project had been slated for consideration by the city council on Jan. 22, but has been removed from the agenda.

PAC chair Julie Grand told her fellow commissioners that she was still committed to the concept of a centrally-located dog park, and that PAC and parks staff would pursue other options. A PAC subcommittee that had worked on identifying a new dog park location will be reconvened to bring forward another recommendation.

In other action, commissioners received a mid-year budget update. The parks system is doing better than planned, thanks to a combination of better-than-expected revenues and lower expenses. [.pdf of budget summary] The city’s fiscal year 2013 runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Downtown Parks & Open Space

At PAC’s Aug. 21 2012 meeting, mayor John Hieftje asked PAC to help prioritize action on downtown parks. He highlighted possible improvements at Liberty Plaza and a process for moving that work forward. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza staff memo] But he also listed several other city-owned properties that he’d like to see as part of a greenway – including the 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington sites – as well as the DTE/MichCon property that’s being cleaned up along the Huron River.

That same August meeting had included a briefing on the Connecting William Street effort. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been asked by city council to create a plan that will guide the future use of five city-owned properties. Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, sought feedback from PAC on three possible development scenarios that were being considered. When several commissioners expressed disappointment that the scenarios did not include more green space, Pollay urged PAC to give specific feedback about where they’d like to see more green space and how they envision it being used, in the context of other downtown parks.

PAC responded to the DDA request by passing a resolution on Sept. 18 2012. Commissioners didn’t advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommended that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation on locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to use a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the parks system. PAC also recommended that the council refrain from adopting plans for the five city-owned lots before resolving the question about open space in the Connecting William Street area. [.pdf of PAC's final Connecting William Street resolution]

At its Jan. 15 meeting, PAC picked up the topic again with a wide-ranging conversation aimed at laying out a process for eventually making recommendations to city council about a downtown park. The meeting came a day after a city council work session that included a presentation by the DDA with their final recommendations for Connecting William Street. Those recommendations call for a plaza on part of the Library Lane site. Other open space depicted in the final CWS plan includes mid-parcel space on the Kline lot, and mid-block connections that are to some extent hypothetical, because buildings currently exist where the connection would lead.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Public Commentary

Ethel Potts told commissioners that she had attended the Ann Arbor city council work session the previous night and had heard people say that there was no deficiency of park space in the downtown area. She indicated her belief that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan did, in fact, cite the need for parks and open space downtown. She asked PAC to clarify what is included when people talk about downtown parks. Do they include the University of Michigan Diag? The Allen Creek greenway? The DTE site along the Huron River? West Park? Potts wished that PAC would make it clear to the public and others that there is a deficiency of parks downtown, because the impression that people are getting is that the city has plenty of parks, she said.

Former Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Gwen Nystuen, left, talks with PAC chair Julie Grand before the start of the commission’s Jan. 15 meeting. Nystuen supports designating the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure as a park.

Jamie Pitts identified himself as chief technology officer of a startup firm that now operates in Detroit [rapt.fm], although he lives in Ann Arbor. People in the community want a downtown park, he said. While there are several small areas, there’s no substantial place for people to hang out or bring their families. He wanted to assure PAC that if the city proceeds in establishing a large downtown park, ”people in the community will help you.” He said commissioners could see from the efforts of the Library Green Conservancy that there’s a lot of support.

Pitts also pointed to the city’s goal of developing the downtown into a place where more people live and work. To do that, people need places where they can do things like walk their pet or teach their kid how to ride a bike. If the city doesn’t have a substantial downtown park, he said, people won’t move downtown. It’s possible to do something great, Pitts concluded.

Alan Haber noted that Ann Arbor has been his hometown since 1936 and his sense is that this is a family town. But what it lacks is a center, he said. Haber urged PAC to create a downtown park, saying that the only place that would work is the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. He noted that the proposal being developed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority calls for a building on that site, but that will take a long time to do. In the meantime, the top of the structure is being used for surface parking, which he called counterintuitive. Library Green had held a block party on the site last summer, Haber said, and many other events could be held there, too, to demonstrate the vitality of a downtown park. He argued that there could be a skating rink on the site for the rest of this winter, creating a “Saturday Evening Post cover right in our downtown.” By pursuing this vision, PAC would be doing a great service for the community, he said.

Judy Bonnzell-Wenzel told commissioners that she lives on Braeburn Circle, on the south side of Ann Arbor. Within 20 minutes she can get downtown – it’s the easiest way to get there, because buses go by every 15 minutes. She felt that people like her should be considered in discussions about a downtown park. She takes the bus to the downtown library several times a week, and would like to visit a park, too. A downtown park isn’t simply for people who live and work downtown.

George Gaston said he wanted to add his voice to the idea of more open space downtown. He pointed to the summer concerts given at Liberty Plaza, noting they are so popular that streets have to be blocked off to handle the crowds. [Gaston was referring to Sonic Lunch, a weekly lunchtime concert series sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor. The occasional street closings were planned, on weeks when it was anticipated that a particularly popular musician would draw larger crowds.]

Gaston also indicated that the UM property shouldn’t factor in to the city’s calculation of downtown parkland.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Julie Grand began the discussion by noting that it was not typical for the commission to have a conversation in this way – not specifically tied to an action item or update. But it’s an important and timely topic, she said, especially in the context of the Connecting William Street project and the Library Green’s efforts. She hoped PAC would eventually be able to identify a deliverable about what kind of advice to give to city council on open space in the downtown, and what process commissioners would use to develop its advice.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the information that PAC members had been given as reference material: (1) maps of the city-owned 415 W. Washington site and the 721 N. Main site; (2) a map of the block downtown that’s bounded by Liberty, Fourth, William and Fifth; (3) a map of the MichCon site near the Argo Cascades; (4) a list of criteria for prioritizing parks and recreation projects; (5) a more general matrix of scoring criteria for city projects; and (6) two pages from the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, describing criteria for parkland acquisitions.

Aerial view of downtown Ann Arbor from Ashley Street on the left (west) to Division on the right (east). Liberty and William are the east/west streets at the top and bottom of this image, respectively. Outlined in green are four surface lots that are part of the Connecting William Street project, plus Liberty Plaza and Kempf House in the northeast corner of this image, at Liberty and Division.

Grand wanted commissioners to include a broader context, and not to simply look at the downtown sites in isolation. She pointed out that the Allen Creek greenway fits into the discussion too, saying that several initiatives are coming together now that relate to parks and open space.

What followed was a wide-ranging, 90-minute discussion among commissioners. This report summarizes their comments and organizes the remarks thematically.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Survey & Inventory

Alan Jackson noted that he, Ingrid Ault and Bob Galardi have been looking at the issue of a downtown park or open space. [Jackson and Ault serve on PAC's downtown open space committee. Galardi, Grand and Missy Stults serve on a committee focused on the greenway.]

Jackson described the DDA’s Connecting William Street process as focusing on a development plan for the area – that project wasn’t tasked with finding out what people wanted in general. He said he wasn’t sure people wanted a park downtown, but that’s something PAC should explore. However, he didn’t think PAC should be locked into the timetable that the DDA was following. At the same time, it’s important to remember that city assets might be sold, so commissioners should weigh in before the city council makes a decision about that, he said. That is, PAC could make a recommendation about whether any of the parcels in the Connecting William Street area should be considered for a park.

Jackson noted that there’s a “breathtaking” amount of development happening, and when land gets developed, the opportunity for using that land as a park or open space disappears, at least in the short term.

Jackson acknowledged that some citizens had voiced a desire for a park downtown, but he didn’t know if that group was representative of the average resident’s opinion. So he felt that some sort of survey should be conducted, to gauge interest in a downtown park. A survey might focus on downtown residents, to see if they’d use a park and if so, what kind of park might they want. He characterized the Library Lane site as too small to support a playground, which is one thing that might be useful to have downtown.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Alan Jackson and Missy Stults.

Missy Stults also voiced a strong interest in finding out what the public desires – it wasn’t clear whether that’s been done in the past. Grand agreed, saying she’s a fan of multiple data sources, both qualitative and quantitative. In addition to a survey, she suggested public forums would be helpful. Grand felt that what’s known as the Calthorpe process – named after the consulting firm that helped the city overhaul its zoning – had been positive and well-received. Interactive sessions for the public had been held, and that’s something PAC might want to replicate. Grand said she’d like to take that kind of approach even before developing a survey, because at this point, it’s still unclear what questions should be asked.

Grand observed that one of the biggest criticisms of the DDA’s Connecting William Street process is that people weren’t asked about green space in the survey. She wanted to make sure that PAC wasn’t dictating the results by the questions that are asked.

Ingrid Ault suggested taking an inventory of parks that already exist in the downtown area. Although attention has been focused on Liberty Plaza, there are other downtown pocket parks, she noted. For example, the park at the northwest corner of Packard and Division [Hanover Square, across from Blimpy Burger] has green space, she said, and is about the same size as Sculpture Plaza in Kerrytown, at Fourth and Catherine.

Ault felt that before asking the public for input, PAC should look at what the parks system already has, how those areas are used, and whether it’s working. If the park or open space isn’t working for whatever reason, PAC should consider how that might be addressed.

Ault cautioned that terminology is also important. When people say “parks,” they might mean different things – an area with large trees, or a grassy place to play Frisbee. In the DDA’s presentations, Susan Pollay has been careful to use the phrase “open space” rather than park, Ault said, probably so that she doesn’t “pigeonhole” anyone’s thinking.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Geographic Scope

Tim Doyle advocated for narrowing the scope of PAC’s analysis as much as possible. With a more limited scope, the task is easier to tackle. Alan Jackson agreed, saying that if the scope was too broad, PAC would never get anything done. Tim Berla felt that the focus should not include 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington.

But Julie Grand thought that just focusing on the DDA district would be too limited. Bob Galardi suggested an alternative way of looking at scope: Is the site located within a 10-minute walk from downtown?

Christopher Taylor indicated that focusing on the Connecting William Street area was appropriate, given that there’s been a focus on that project. However, he felt it was important to consider other properties as well, in PAC’s analysis, to provide a broader context. Sites like 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington are relevant, he said.

Taylor said he felt like he understood what works in parks like West Park or Gallup Park. But those types of parks are a “different beast” than a downtown park, he said. Taylor indicated that he didn’t know how to fix Liberty Plaza – that’s a challenge, if the city decides another downtown park is needed. PAC and the public should keep in mind that they have an “experiential, informational deficiency,” he said, regarding what works downtown.

That may be true, Grand replied, but this town includes people who are experts and could be called on to share their knowledge and expertise. Their knowledge might be based on professional experience, she said, or from their experiences living elsewhere and seeing urban parks that work.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Budgetary Issues

Tim Doyle asked if there were any parameters, in terms of budget impacts. For example, a recommendation for a playground would have more impact on the budget than simply open space.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Bob Galardi and Tim Doyle.

Colin Smith replied that it was a hard question to answer. That’s why 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington and the MichCon site need to be part of the conversation. The reality is that the city will likely do something with 721 N. Main that will include the parks system, he said, and that will impact the parks and recreation budget. And maintenance costs can vary wildly, depending on the scale of the project and what it entails. For example, he said he’s been asked to calculate the cost of maintaining urban hardscape, compared to areas that would need mowing.

Any recommendation from PAC will need to factor in costs, Smith said, as well as potential funding sources. Can the city find partners, for example, or should it be funded in the traditional way? He noted that it’s worth considering whether a project might be eligible for grant funding. Right now, he said, there’s grant funding available for projects that connect communities – like the Border-to-Border Trail. If grant funds are secured, that can offset the initial capital costs, at least.

Tim Berla reported that he’d received an email from someone who described a meeting where Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, made a Connecting William Street presentation. She had apparently avoided using the word “park,” he said, and she had indicated that there were not sufficient millage funds to support a park. He wondered if that was, in fact, a limitation.

Smith said that the parks millage can’t be used to fund anything that’s not designated as a park – it couldn’t fund streetscape improvements, for example. In general, the millage raises only a finite amount of revenues. If those revenues are spent in one way, that dilutes other possible uses, he said – unless other funding sources can be identified.

Bob Galardi clarified with Smith that the only way to raise revenues would be if residents voted to increase the parks millage rate, or if the city partnered with other organizations that provided funding. Smith added a third option: Generating revenues through special events or other fee-based uses of the parks.

Berla asked about estimates for operating costs of a downtown park. Smith replied that it would depend on several factors – things like the park’s size, how many trash cans are in the park, or the number of linear feet of pathways. There would be economies of scale, he said, given that any park would be handled in the context of the overall parks system.

Alan Jackson noted that First Martin, which has taken on responsibility for some of the upkeep of Liberty Plaza, has indicated that it’s a costly endeavor. [First Martin owns the building that's adjacent to Liberty Plaza.] He said PAC needs to be mindful so that any new park doesn’t end up with the same problems.

Doyle wondered whether a downtown park would be costlier than elsewhere, because of the potential for more people to use it. It depends, Smith replied. In some cases, the costs could be lower because more “eyes on the park” would help prevent things like graffiti.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Next Steps

Colin Smith reported that he had attended a city council working session the previous night, when councilmembers had heard a presentation on the Connecting William Street project. It had been a long meeting with a fairly robust conversation, he said. One thing he’d taken away from the session was that councilmembers will be looking to PAC for reactions and input regarding what many councilmembers view as a lack of green space and open space in the Connecting William Street recommendations.

Smith said it would be helpful to establish a timeline for action by PAC, and he floated the possibility of using the more informal monthly meetings of PAC’s land acquisition committee – on which all commissioners serve – to continue the discussion.

Grand queried the two councilmembers who serve on PAC – Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor. What were their thoughts about a desirable timeline, from the council’s perspective? Anglin indicated that the council wanted to take its time in deciding what to do. Taylor suggested 4-6 months as a reasonable time in which to deliver PAC’s recommendations to the council.

Karen Levin suggested gathering information about downtown parks in cities that are comparable in size to Ann Arbor.

Commissioners, led by Tim Doyle, crafted a draft statement of purpose and scope: To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, like 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the city council.

Ingrid Ault suggested that PAC’s downtown open space committee should work with parks staff to come up with a plan to approach this project. Levin expressed interest in joining that committee, which also includes Alan Jackson.

Commissioners also reached consensus to continue the conversation at their next LAC meeting, on Tuesday, Feb. 5 at 4 p.m. Meetings are open to the public, and typically held in the second-floor council workroom in city hall, 301 E. Huron. Grand indicated that the downtown open space committee should meet before then, to give some direction to the full commission.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Downtown Parks & Open Space: Follow-up Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Alan Haber spoke again to say that he applauded PAC’s efforts. But he also wanted to express some frustration. Commissioners had mentioned the desire to draw on community expertise, he noted. PAC has already received a report from the Library Green Conservancy, yet commissioners seem to be starting from scratch, he said. [.pdf of Library Green report] There’s been a process going on by citizens, and he felt that PAC should ask Library Green representatives to make a formal report at an upcoming meeting. Commissioners should see the Library Green’s slideshow and look at the survey that’s been done. He said the members of Library Green feel like they’ve been put off, and it frustrated him.

Colin Smith responded, reminding Haber that PAC was just starting this conversation, and that there are several new members on the commission. As they move ahead, PAC and parks staff will want to include all sorts of people, but right now the commission is trying to determine its focus. He asked that Haber and others allow that to happen.

Dog Park Update

At PAC’s Dec. 18 2012 meeting, commissioners had unanimously voted to recommend selecting a site within West Park as the location for a new fenced-in dog park. The site was roughly a quarter-acre in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off Chapin Street. The decision had come after about 18 months of reviewing possible locations for a dog park that was more centrally located to the city.

Several members of the New Hope Baptist Church had spoken during public commentary at the December PAC meeting, objecting to problems with noise, smell and safety. The African American church is located directly across the street from the proposed dog park location. In response to New Hope concerns, PAC amended its original resolution to specify that parks staff and PAC would meet with church members to discuss a possibly temporary dog park at that location, and to review the status of the dog park a year after it’s in place, with particular attention to noise levels.

Two church leaders also spoke to Ann Arbor city council on the issue at the council’s Jan. 7, 2012 meeting. Tom Miree, a trustee with the church, had told councilmembers that the congregation wants to maintain the dignity of the worship services.

On Jan. 15, city’s parks and recreation manager Colin Smith updated PAC on the situation. Smith, PAC chair Julie Grand, and former PAC member John Lawter – who had led the dog park effort – had met with about a half dozen church leaders on Jan. 11. At that meeting, it emerged that the church concerns were more deeply rooted, and reflected cultural differences about what it means to have a dog park so close to their place of worship.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor, an ex officio member of the park advisory commission, and PAC member Karen Levin.

Smith told commissioners that based on that Jan. 11 discussion, staff had recommended the withdrawal of the dog park item from the council’s Jan. 22 agenda and had relayed that recommendation to city administrator Steve Powers.

In previous conversations, church leaders and congregants had identified issues that the parks staff felt could be addressed and fixed, Smith said. But it became clear during the Jan. 11 discussion that there were cultural issues at stake, and those were not issues that could be resolved.

Grand said that if a dog park were to be located across from the temple where her family worships, that wouldn’t be viewed as offensive to their religious practices. But for members of the New Hope Baptist Church, emerging from worship to face a dog park would be offensive – Grand said that when she realized this was the cause of their concerns, her perspective on the situation changed dramatically.

She noted that the church isn’t opposed to locating the dog park elsewhere within West Park, so those possibilities will be explored. “I’m not giving up on having a dog park downtown,” Grand said. But it’s important for the first one that’s more centrally located to be “wildly successful,” she added. If it fails, that would make it harder to add more dog parks in the future.

Missy Stults said she was very disheartened by the news. She wondered what the process would be to reevaluate possible locations.

Smith indicated that parks staff and PAC still have the goal of establishing a new dog park in an area that’s more central to the city’s core. Possibilities include other areas in West Park, or the 721 N. Main site that’s currently being evaluated as part of the city’s North Main Huron River corridor project. The issue could also be part of PAC’s broader discussion about downtown parks, Smith said.

He echoed Grand’s concerns about the social context of the dog park in relation to the church, and said he felt that moving ahead on the Chapin Street site would doom it to failure.

Ingrid Ault asked what the next steps would be. Smith replied that the committee previously led by Lawter should reconvene, working with park planner Amy Kuras to look at other locations. When an alternative site is identified, there will need to be additional public engagement, he said. Ault and Karen Levin are members of that committee. Ault suggested that new PAC members might consider joining the effort.

Grand stressed that PAC can rely on work that’s previously been done, and that they wouldn’t be starting from “square one.”

Members of the church had not yet been informed of the decision, Smith said – he had wanted to talk about it with PAC first.

Mid-Year Budget Update

Commissioners reviewed a mid-year budget report during their Jan. 15 meeting. Introducing the agenda item, Tim Doyle – chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee – described the report as having no surprises, and said the parks staff have done an excellent job in estimating revenues and managing expenses. The parks system is doing better than planned, he said, thanks to a combination of better-than-expected revenues and lower expenses. [.pdf of budget summary and .pdf of detailed parks general fund budget. A range of other budget reports can be downloaded from the city's Legistar system] The city’s fiscal year 2013 runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

Doyle highlighted several aspects of the report. Revenues are higher than budgeted for facilities rental (places like Cobblestone Farm), and the Argo Cascades has been “a roaring success – pardon the pun,” he said. For example, the city had budgeted $93,500 in kayak rentals from the Argo livery for the entire fiscal year. But year-to-date revenues have already reached $135,809. [Year-to-date rentals in fiscal 2012 had been $45,578 – a lower amount affected by the construction of Argo Cascades taking place during that period.]

Doyle noted that the additional rentals at Argo haven’t diminished rentals elsewhere. At the Gallup Park livery, kayak rentals were budgeted for $71,000 for the entire fiscal year, but have already reached $89,738 in revenues for the first six months alone.

The overall budget forecast shows the parks system with a net increase of $66,500 over the budgeted amount. This figure includes an estimated $982,936 transfer from the city’s general fund to support parks and recreation.

The three enterprise funds – for the farmers market, and city’s two golf courses at Leslie Park and Huron Hills – also show a net increase in the budget forecast. Doyle noted that the better-than-budgeted performance is due to controlled expenses. Revenues for the golf courses are less than expected by about $30,000, but staff costs were cut as well to offset that decrease in revenues.

Not including enterprise funds, parks and recreation revenues are forecast to reach $2.52 million, or $48,500 higher than budgeted for the year. Expenses are forecast at $3.5 million, or $18,000 lower than budgeted.

Mid-Year Budget Update: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla asked for clarification about the change in status for the golf enterprise funds. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that the change will take effect at the start of the next fiscal year, on July 1, 2013.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council – at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting – voted to move the accounting for the city golf courses back into the general fund. The council’s support of moving the golf fund back into the general fund was based in part on the idea that the golf courses should be evaluated on the same basis as other recreational facilities. As an enterprise fund, the courses were expected to eventually be self-supporting, without requiring additional support from the city’s general fund. However, the courses have been operating at a loss. [More details of council deliberations and additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "City Council Acts on Public Art, Golf Budget."]

Missy Stults asked how the overall budget forecast compares to previous years. Smith noted that revenues are higher than they’ve been in the last 5-6 years. The growth has resulted through increased usage of the parks system, he said – not because there have been significant fee increases. Meanwhile, he said, expenses are in line with what they’ve been historically.

Outcome: This was an item of information, and no vote was required.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Julie Grand, Missy Stults and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to 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 helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Several members of the church had spoken at PAC’s December 2012 meeting, objecting to problems with noise, smell and safety. The African American church is located directly across the street from the proposed dog park location. At that meeting, PAC voted to recommend that city council approve a dog park in that location. However, in response to New Hope concerns, PAC amended its original resolution to specify that parks staff and PAC would meet with church members to discuss a possibly temporary dog park at that location, and to review the status of the dog park a year after it’s in place, with particular attention to noise levels.

Subsequently, city parks staff, PAC chair Julie Grand, and former PAC member John Lawter – who had led the dog park effort – met with about a half dozen church leaders on Jan. 11. At that meeting, it emerged that the church concerns were more deeply rooted, and reflected cultural differences about what it means to have a dog park so close to their place of worship. At the Jan. 15 PAC meeting, Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that based on that Jan. 11 discussion, staff had recommended the withdrawal of the dog park item from the council’s agenda and relayed that recommendation to city administrator Steve Powers.

Members of the church – some of whom had attended the Jan. 7 city council meeting to oppose the dog park – had not yet been informed of the decision, Smith said. Grand told her fellow commissioners that she was still committed to the concept of a centrally-located dog park, and that PAC and parks staff would pursue other options. A PAC subcommittee that had worked on identifying a new dog park location will be reconvened to bring forward another recommendation.

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

This apple on a councilmember’s desk could reflect the fact that part of the meeting was devoted to core priorities. (Photo by the writer.)

Councilmembers established a concern about the possible financial risks associated with the project, and a desire that public input be solicited on the ultimate decision for a site. But the vote was unanimous to accept the grant, which includes an obligation to provide roughly $480,000 in matching funds. That match is expected to be provided by Wind Products Inc., a company located in Brooklyn, New York.

At a meeting of the city’s energy commission held the following night, commissioners expressed their dissatisfaction that the proposal had not been brought to that body for review.

Some of the council’s deliberations on the wind turbines included the question of whether the effort was consistent with the council’s priorities for the next two years – ones that were formally adopted at the Jan. 7 meeting. The priorities, which had been identified in a Dec. 10 planning session, included the basic areas of: fiscal responsibility, public safety, infrastructure, economic development and affordable housing.

The council had three parks-related voting items on its agenda, neither of which prompted extended deliberations. One was approval of a design for the new skatepark in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, which is expected to start construction in the spring and be completed in the fall. A second voting item was the approval of another contract with the Conservation Fund, which helps manage operations for the city’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs.

A third parks-related voting item was authorization of a contract to replace roofs on two buildings at Cobblestone Farm.

Another agenda item – related to parks, but not requiring a vote – was a presentation from the council-appointed task force that’s been asked to make recommendations for a future vision of the North Main Street corridor, extending to the Huron River, including the MichCon property. They focused their presentation on the 721 N. Main property, for which the council had authorized two grant applications at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. The group has a summer 2013 deadline to make recommendations for the whole area.

Also on the topic of parks, the council heard from representatives of New Hope Baptist Church during public commentary, regarding a planned new dog park. Members of the congregation oppose the location of the dog park inside West Park, because it’s immediately adjacent to the church on Chapin Street. Also during public commentary, the council again heard calls for the top of the Library Lane parking garage to be designated as a park.

Some other items on the agenda could be grouped under land use and planning. The council gave approval to changes to the site plan for Packard Square, a proposed redevelopment of the former Georgetown Mall. The council had postponed the item from its Dec. 3, 2012 agenda.

And the council gave initial approval to a zoning request in connection with the proposed Summit Townhomes project site, just east of Stone School Road. The land was recently annexed into the city from Pittsfield Township.

Also as a result of council action, Ann Arbor residents could have some additional flexibility for parking cars on their front lawns – beyond just the occasions of University of Michigan football games.

In other business, the council approved the appointment of Carrie Leahy to the board of the local development finance authority (LDFA). The LDFA is a tax-increment finance (TIF)-funded entity that comprises the geographic area of the city of Ann Arbor’s downtown development authority, as well as the city of Ypsilanti’s DDA.

Other public commentary heard at the meeting included remarks opposing continued investment in companies that provide military hardware to Israel.

One hour immediately preceding the regular meeting was a special session of the council. Its agenda consisted only of a closed session, to discuss labor negotiations – which is an allowable topic for a closed session under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

Wind Turbine Grant

The council was asked to consider acceptance of a nearly $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy that will fund part of the construction of two wind turbines. The turbines are intended to generate electricity for the Ann Arbor Public Schools. The project requires construction in or near the city of Ann Arbor sometime in the next year and a half.

The city is obligated to provide an additional $484,390 in matching funds on the $951,500 grant – which it expects to achieve through partnership with a third-party developer, who was not named in the council’s resolution. However, city staff responded to councilmember questions before the meeting by indicating it was Wind Products Inc., out of Brooklyn, N.Y. that is expected to make the investment.

The city’s plan is to make a $18,590 contribution of in-kind staff time, not paying any cash.

The plan is to locate the wind turbines on AAPS property, and that the third-party developer will construct the turbines. The developer would then provide AAPS with a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) – which would give the AAPS some guaranteed minimum of power at less than the current market rate. The recipient of any renewable energy credits (RECs) from the installation would be the city of Ann Arbor.

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle describing the possibility that the site of the installation could be Pioneer High School, with the height of the turbines approximating that of two cell towers already located on the property. Margolis indicated that before any decision is made to locate wind turbines on the school’s property, the school district would solicit comments from residents who live near the site. The city council deliberations indicated little enthusiasm for locating the turbines near residential neighborhoods or very near a school building.

In the state of Michigan, Ann Arbor has poor to marginal potential for wind energy generation, compared with areas in the rest of the state – according to data maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy. However, the goal of the Ann Arbor project is focused on the educational benefit – as the schools integrate the project into their curricula and the public would have its awareness raised regarding renewable energy.

Wind Turbine Grant: Public Comment

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Kai Petainen told the council that he was speaking only on his own behalf. He thanked them for their vote on the skatepark. But he told councilmembers that the wind turbine grant didn’t make sense to him, saying it doesn’t take much to see we don’t have much wind in this area. He ventured that the money would be better spent hiring him to teach children about geography, and where wind resources are distributed. He told the council that the VA hospital has a windmill on its roof that he has occasion to observe with some frequency, and he contended that it never moves.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kermit Schlansker told the council he was unaware that windmills were on the agenda. He told the council they should take money if they can get it, but added that they should divert it for something else. Windmills are not new, he said, and there’s nothing spectacular about them, and there isn’t that much wind in this area, he said.

A better way to spend the money, he said, would be to invest it in an “energy farm” – which relates to food, energy, jobs for unskilled labor, factory jobs, a place to house the homeless and for recreation. He advocated for putting up an apartment building that was supported by using geothermal heat, solar, wind and biomass energy.

Wind Turbine Grant: Council Deliberations

Brian Steglitz, a utilities engineer with the city, was asked to the podium to answer questions.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that 18 months didn’t seem like a lot of time to complete the project, and the amount of staff time – with an estimated in-kind value of about $18,000 – didn’t seem like sufficient resources to complete the job.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as she arrived at the Jan. 7 meeting.

Steglitz explained that half the staff time is reimbursed by the grant, so the amount of staff time would actually be $36,000. He also noted that a fair amount of effort would come from non-city staff. He allowed that the timeline is aggressive but said it’s “doable.” In the scheduling of the activities that have to be completed, there are many items contingent on some previous thing occurring. For example, the environmental assessment could have an outcome that could delay the process. Preliminary conversations have been held about a possible location, he said, adding that he could not yet share details.

Lumm asked Steglitz to describe the risks to the city: What happens if costs exceed projections? He explained that under the U.S. Department of Energy process, spending isn’t authorized until certain milestones are met. As an example, he said, it’s not possible to do design work on the turbines right now. If the project doesn’t meet a milestone, then the project stops, he explained. Steglitz did not see any risk except the staff time – that is, the city could put forth $18,000 worth of staff time and not have finished wind turbines. If the project is unsuccessful, then the city would have to summarize its experience in a report, he said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know how big the turbines would be. Steglitz explained that they hadn’t been designed or studied yet, but estimated that they’d be about 100-150 feet tall – the height of a typical cell tower. Responding to Kailasapathy, he indicated that a turbine could be located on AAPS property.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) expressed some confusion – about whether there’d been an RFP (request for proposals) process and how Wind Products was selected. Steglitz indicated that the city had gone out initially a year ago and had made a partnership with the University of Michigan. Originally, the university was going to provide matching funds because they were interested in doing research – but that had not worked out. So the city had looked at other financing partners. The proposal from Wind Products calls for the company to construct the turbines on the city’s behalf, and then the company would own the turbines. The city would lease the turbines for a certain period of time and pay the company for the power during that period. Wind Products was the only company that had come to the table to meet the grant requirements and the financial commitment to build the turbines.

Petersen asked Steglitz if he didn’t consider that a risk – that Wind Products would not match the DOE grant matching requirement on the city’s behalf. Steglitz explained that the city had a letter of intent with Wind Products – but it’s not a contract. It states that if the city accepts the grant, then the city and Wind Products will work together to develop the power purchase agreement – the contract. The council would eventually need to authorize that contract, he said. Petersen indicated that she thought the power purchase agreement was supposed to be between AAPS and Wind Products. Steglitz responded that the parties to that agreement had yet to been determined.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked what the advantage to AAPS and to the city was: Why is the city working hard to accept this grant? Steglitz said that AAPS has been trying to do some kind of wind project for a long time. A planned project at Skyline High School never came to fruition, he said. There is some financial benefit, he said, because AAPS would pay less than current market rates for the electricity that’s generated. The school district is interested in being the “face of renewable energy,” he said, and wants to incorporate the turbines into the educational program. One of the benefits to the city is that it helps meet its goals for renewable energy.

Briere noted that Ann Arbor is not a really good location to locate wind turbines, because the steady 13-14 mph winds you need don’t blow here. Why are we doing this here? she asked. Steglitz observed that the project goes back many years, and he was not involved with the grant application. He ventured that the application was likely submitted by former city energy coordinator Dave Konkle. Steglitz said the project didn’t indicate that the city thinks it has a great wind resource. It’s more about education. It’ll be a monument to renewable energy, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje drew a comparison to a previous grant the city had received from the DOE for solar energy – which had been awarded even though DOE was aware that Ann Arbor is not the sunniest spot.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he felt Skyline High School would be a great location. He was concerned about the siting of the facility without much community engagement. He ventured that there would not be a direct feed from the wind turbine to a school building, but Steglitz indicated that might be possible – but he would not speak on DTE’s behalf.

Steglitz described challenges associated with various sites, including zoning and municipal airport flight lines. Kunselman got additional confirmation that any contracts associated with the project would come back before the council for approval.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about the size of the turbine blades. Steglitz indicated that they’d be on the order of a 30-foot radius – so 60-feet long. She expressed concern about noise. She also wondered what would happen if a blade flew off. She indicated she had some mixed feelings about it.

Lumm echoed Higgins’ sentiments about the importance of working with the community on site selection – that should be Job 1, she said. She noted that the solar array installation undertaken by UM recently involved zero community input. And the university had made zero effort to reach out to city staff, she contended, so many people were surprised when the panels appear. She said she gets angry any time she drives past it. She expressed a desire to “test the waters” on the issue of siting before going down the path of accepting the grant.

Hieftje described vibration and danger issues associated with wind turbines as minimal. He allowed that one particular wind turbine installation – at California’s Altamont Pass – was a danger to birds.

On the topic of siting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) joked that if the idea was to consider a site where a lot of air gets pushed around, he wondered if Steglitz had considered city council chambers?

Higgins questioned whether there was clear support from the AAPS board for the project, and drew out from Steglitz that he’d been working with AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent. Higgins ventured that to complete the project in 18 months, they’d need to move with “lightning speed.” Steglitz indicated he was optimistic.

Lumm said this sounded to her like a familiar path. [She was alluding to a grant the city had received from the Federal Rail Administration that required local matching funds that the city thought it had already provided – which turned out not to be the case.] She questioned whether the city should try to do everything, or instead try to prioritize. In the year she’s served on council since being elected most recently, Lumm said, it seemed like the council had spent a lot of time on transportation and the environment, not the priorities the council had discussed at a recent planning session. She looked forward to shifting her focus to those priorities.

Petersen stated, “I’m a fan of wind.” [It's unclear if the pun was intended.] She also said the city needs to focus on alternative energy in the future. As Lumm had pointed out, environmental concerns were not in the council’s top five priorities, Petersen said. She liked the educational components, but was not sure if the AAPS board was supportive. She was also worried about the short time frame.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) did not share Petersen’s concerns and said she was pretty excited about the project. The short time frame means we don’t need to wait, she said, adding: “The time is now; the time is yesterday.”

Responding to remarks by Lumm and Petersen on priorities, Briere noted that infrastructure was one of the identified priorities – which include transportation. Briere’s comment responded specifically to Lumm’s contention that the council’s focus on transportation wasn’t consistent with the five priority areas. Briere pointed out that the council had made a big effort to define infrastructure so that it included transportation. In any case, the priorities are aspirational goals for the next two years, not for the current budget cycle. She said it would be a shame to decide they don’t want to do it.

Left to right: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman said he would support the project, reasoning that it’s important that they move forward on something that had been started years ago. He felt like the city would hand off the siting question to the AAPS board.

Warpehoski agreed with Kunselman, saying that he was excited when he saw it on the agenda – because it meets several goals of the city. Among those goals were financial and educational goals. The best way to assure we waste staff time is to back out now, he said, adding that the finish line is in sight. Higgins said she’d support the project but wanted AAPS to have a community-involvement element to its site-selection process.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said the project struck him as typical of the large, forward-thinking projects that the city staff brought forward – where the city’s risk is minimized. Taylor said the fact that he didn’t understand where the turbines will be or what the community conversation will be didn’t strike him as important. The time to evaluate that is for the future, he said. If the school district’s process is lacking, the council would hear about it. And the council would have the chance to “pull the plug” at a later time.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve acceptance of the DOE grant for wind turbines.

Wind Turbine Grant: Postlude

On the following evening, on Jan 8, 2013, the city’s energy commission met and was briefed about the wind turbine project. Based on CTN coverage, which is available through Community Television Network (CTN) Video on Demand, commissioners had a negative reaction to not being included in the review process for the project. [CTN coverage begins at roughly the 0:57 minute mark]

Wayne Appleyard, who chairs the commission, stated: “Some of us wonder what we’re here for if we’re not consulted on these things.” He also pointed to the stated purpose of the commission in support of his contention that the city should have taken advantage of the technical expertise of commission members: “To oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.”

By way of explanation for the omission, environmental coordinator Matt Naud, who gave the briefing, explained that the project had languished for a time, and that there’d been a staff transition – as former program manager for the Ann Arbor energy office, Andrew Brix, had left the city. But Naud allowed: “We did not keep you up to date as much as we should have.”

Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the energy commission, seemed to discount the significance of the council’s action, expressing some skepticism that the project would even be built: “I’ll believe it when I see it.” The item’s appearance on the council’s Jan. 7 agenda was facilitated by Hieftje’s sponsorship of it. It had missed the deadline by which staff could add an item to the agenda – but a member of the council can add an item at any time.

Commissioner Cliff Williams asked some pointed questions about the RFP process that had eventually led to an exclusive letter of intent with Wind Products Inc. He was aware of some companies that had submitted bids, but that were not aware of the change in scope of the project that resulted in the selection of Wind Products, which had not bid in response to the initial RFP.

Council Priorities

On the council’s agenda was an item that called for the adoption of a consultant’s report on a Dec. 10, 2012 council planning session. Part of the report outlines priorities for the next two years identified by the council at that session, including: fiscal responsibility, public safety, infrastructure, economic development and affordable housing. [.pdf of Julia Novak's report on the Dec. 10 session]

For more detailed coverage of the problem and success statements that the council associates with each of the priority areas, see Chronicle coverage: “Council Focus: Budget, Safety, Infrastructure.” And for coverage of statements of councilmember sentiments in response to one of the planning session assignments – a 3-5 minute statement on “What I believe” – see “What They Believe: Ann Arbor City Council.”

Council deliberations consisted of remarks from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who called the session productive. She thanked the city staff for their efforts. The time was well spent in team-building and identifying key areas of focus for the next two fiscal years, Lumm said. She reviewed the five priority areas. She supported those five areas, which she felt were aligned with the community’s priorities as well, and looked forward to acting on them in the next few months. [The council will be adopting the fiscal year 2014 city budget in May, for the 12-month period beginning on July 1, 2013.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the planning session report.

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design

The council was asked to consider the final design of a new Ann Arbor skatepark, to be located in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The city’s park advisory commission had unanimously recommended approval of the proposed design at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

The conceptual design by Wally Hollyday for the Ann Arbor skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park.

Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with a goal of completing the project by the fall.

The park was designed by Wally Hollyday. In July of 2012, the Ann Arbor city council had authorized a $89,560 contract with his firm, Wally Hollyday Skateparks, for the design and construction oversight of the skatepark. City council action on the skatepark at that location dates back to a Dec. 1, 2008 approval of a memorandum of intent. [.pdf of memorandum of intent]

The roughly $1 million project – including an anticipated $100,000 endowment for ongoing maintenance – will be financed through a combination of funds. Those include private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – as well as a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary.

The design includes a wide variety of skateboarding features – including bowls and pools; banked, Hubba and cantilevered ledges; and slappy curbs. Landscaped areas and rain gardens are located throughout the park, which will also serve as stormwater management elements. The design includes a small stage, which could be used for skateboarding demonstrations as well as other community performances. Organizers also hope to incorporate concrete “skateable artwork” on the site.

Two residents who live near Veterans Memorial Park spoke against the location during public commentary at PAC’s Dec. 12 meeting, saying they hadn’t been informed before the site was selected. They also referred to a petition of about 20 other residents who opposed the location, including the owners of Knight’s Restaurant, which is located across from the proposed skatepark. They were concerned about noise, maintenance, safety and other issues that they felt hadn’t been adequately addressed.

Later in that PAC meeting Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reviewed the history of the project starting in 2007, including a listing of forums with neighbors, which he described as well-attended, and public hearings at PAC and city council. He later showed The Chronicle a receipt for a mailing sent to neighbors in 2008, notifying them about the proposal in its very early stages.

Trevor Staples, chair of the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, also spoke to PAC and noted that the group would be holding a retreat later this winter to discuss their future mission, indicating that they’d be involved in ongoing support for the skatepark. Part of the MOI with the city stipulates that 10% of fundraising for the skatepark is being set aside for future maintenance.

At the council’s Jan. 7 meeting, no one spoke against the project.

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Council Deliberations

Although the skatepark design was on the consent agenda, it was pulled out for separate consideration by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor sits as a council representative (ex officio non-voting) to the park advisory commission, and he reported that PAC had enthusiastically recommended the skatepark design. He said he looks forward to its implementation.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) expressed his thanks to the Friend of the Ann Arbor Skatepark for their hard work. He acknowledged that there have been recent concerns expressed about the location. Although it’s been a long-term process, he allowed that not everybody “got the memo.” He lives near the space, and characterized it as currently not well used. He thought it would be a great amenity and looked forward to seeing it in his neighborhood.

Trevor Staples perused the council’s Jan. 7 agenda before the meeting started. He’s chair of the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, and a teacher at Burns Park Elementary School.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that it had been a long time coming, and called it a community effort. He noted that it had involved kids, who had come to the meetings. He said the city’s youth had stepped up and shown what’s important to them. He was happy to be there for the vote.

After some lighthearted back-and-forth between Kunselman and mayor John Hieftje about age and skateboarding, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in. She said it was very nice to see the resolution come forward. She asked some clarificational questions about some of the elements in the design – highlighting a “multi-event area.”

Trevor Staples responded to Higgins, saying that from the beginning, the skatepark has been conceived as a community gathering space. The multi-event area could be used for award presentations, or a judges’ stand for competitions, or music. He noted that the area Higgins was asking about is designed to be “completely skateable.”

Higgins expressed some concern about the adequacy of the parking at Veterans Memorial Park – if a skateboarding competition were to be held there at the same time as softball games were going on. Sumedh Bahl , the city’s community services area administrator, indicated that he could not give a precise analysis on that. Staples indicated that parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and park planner Amy Kuras had looked at the parking situation.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the skatepark design.

Conservation Fund Contract

The council was asked to approve a $156,230 contract with The Conservation Fund to manage operations for the city’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs. The programs are funded by a 30-year 0.5 mill open space and parkland preservation tax that voters approved in 2003. The contract is for a one-year period, with the option for two one-year renewals.

The city had issued a request for proposals (RFP) in early November, with a Nov. 28 deadline for responses. [.pdf of management RFP] Only one proposal had been received – from The Conservation Fund.

The Conservation Fund has held that contract since the greenbelt program launched. The current three-year contract ends on Jan. 15, 2013. The nonprofit is headquartered in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ginny Trocchio is the nonprofit’s Ann Arbor staff member.

The current contract was approved by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 21, 2009. It authorized $119,565 in 2010, with two one-year renewal options for $113,661 in 2011 and $106,797 in 2012. The Conservation Fund also was the only bidder for that RFP.

Council deliberations on the issue were limited to a brief remark from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who is now the city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission. Previously, the council representative had been Carsten Hohnke, who left the council in November 2012, having chosen not to seek re-election.

Taylor noted that he’d only attended one meeting of GAC so far, but said that GAC supports the contract with The Conservation Fund.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve The Conservation Fund contract.

New Roofs for Cobblestone Farm

The council was asked to approve a $109,500 contract with Renaissance Restorations Inc. – to allow replacement of roofs at Cobblestone Farm. Roofs on the event barn and on the Tincknor-Campbell House will be replaced. The bid from Renaissance was the lowest of three received for the work. The contract includes a 10% contingency, bringing the total to $120,450.

The project will be funded with proceeds from the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

According to a staff memo, the Tincknor-Campbell House is a cobblestone farmhouse that was built in 1844. Its existing wood shingle roof was installed in 1977 and is in serious disrepair. The proposal calls for the new roof to be made of cedar shakes, with flashing done in copper.

The event barn, built in the late 1980s, is rented out for weddings, parties, business conferences, and other events. Its existing roof is over 30 years old and is also in poor condition. Because the building is not historically significant, the proposal calls replacing the roof with a recycled plastic shingle that resembles cedar, but that is less costly and more durable.

The alternative material was approved by the city planning staff who provide support to the city’s historic district commission. The Cobblestone Farm Association has also reviewed the proposal and agreed with the recommendations. The park advisory commission voted to recommend the contract at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

Outcome: Without substantive deliberations, the council voted unanimously to approve the contracts for replacement of roofs at Cobblestone Farm.

721 N. Main Presentation

Two members of the North Main and Huron River Corridor task force – David Santacroce and Darren McKinnon – gave a presentation to the council summarizing the group’s work to date.

A map showing recommendations for the city-owned property at 721 N. Main St.

The group had been tasked with developing recommendations for a future vision of the North Main Street corridor, extending to the Huron River, including the MichCon property.

They focused their presentation on the 721 N. Main property, for which the council had authorized two grant applications at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The group has a summer 2013 deadline to make recommendations for the whole area. But the council had given the task force an end-of-the-year deadline for a recommendation on the 721 N. Main property – because of grant deadlines. One of the grant applications was due at the end of 2o12, while the other is due at the end of March 2013.

Recommendations were divided into the floodway portion and the non-floodway portion of the site. For the floodway portion, there was not a lot to decide – because a city council resolution from Aug. 15, 2005 calls for the floodway area of the 721 N. Main site to be included within a planned Allen Creek Greenway.

The task force is now recommending that the roughly 2.5 acre floodway portion be developed to include non-motorized paths to connect from Felch Street to North Main and West Summit streets.

Recommendations for the non-floodway portion of the site include:

•  That, consistent with its charge, the NMVT investigate potential uses for the non-floodway portion of the site, beginning with the existing masonry buildings outside of the floodway for potential reuse. And that, in order to do so, Council shall provide City staff with sufficient resources to conduct a structural and environmental assessment of the buildings and a market analysis of the portion of the parcel outside of the floodway and provide those findings to the NMVT no later than April 30, 2013. Based on these findings and other considerations, the NMVT will provide Council with final recommendations for the future use of the non-floodway portions of the parcel with the NMVT’s final recommendations to Council which are due no later than July 31, 2013.
• The NMVT’s initial findings with respect to the non-floodway portion of the parcel are as follows:
  (i) If the buildings are determined to be salvageable, the City should promptly pursue building renovation and occupation. Prior to any public use of the site, efforts should be made to minimize the potential for nuisance activities around the buildings;
  (ii) If any future development occurs on this portion of the site, such development should remain consistent with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood and surrounding zoning districts;
  (iii) That it is essential that development of non-floodway open space coincide with efforts to activate the floodway improvements. Such efforts should consider unique and unmet needs near downtown (e.g., a dog park/community garden/flex space/sustainability demonstration/ trailhead parking).

Santacroce indicated that some resources would be required to help determine the value of the property and whether the buildings are salvageable. For general market considerations, he’d had a conversation with Todd Poole, a land use economist who’d done work recently for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. And because Poole wouldn’t be starting from scratch, it would cost perhaps only $5,000 to “tweak” the work he had already done.

For the physical assessment of the property and the buildings, Santacroce estimated it would take about $30,000 to do the necessary analysis.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed a lack of enthusiasm for salvaging the buildings and ventured that instead of hiring Poole, perhaps some local real estate professionals could be engaged, who might be willing to do the work pro bono.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Packard Square

The council was asked to approve changes to the site plan of the Packard Square project, an effort to redevelop the former Georgetown Mall. The site plan – given original council approval on May 2, 2011 – calls for demolition of the existing buildings, and construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 23,858 square feet of retail, up to 230 apartment units, and structured parking.

The changes include altering the facade of the building by reducing the number of balconies by one-third, replacing some brick with Hardi-board siding, changing windows, and changing the color of the siding. The council originally postponed the matter a month ago, on Dec. 3, 2012.

Part of the council’s reluctance to give its approval in December was based on aesthetic dissatisfaction with the changes as reflected in the revised renderings. The renderings showing the changes were not given the same amount of attention to detail as the original drawings – with respect to shading to show depth, for example – which left some councilmembers to conclude that the development looked “flat” and dormitory-like. Councilmembers at the Dec. 3 meeting also gave the new color scheme an unfavorable review.

Responding to the specific request of the council to provide drawings on which they could make “apples-to-apples” comparisons, the developer of the project submitted 3D sketches for the Jan. 7 meeting. [.jpg with original color-scheme for Packard Square] [.jpg with revised color-scheme for Packard Square]

The changes to the building that the council was asked to approve were motivated by a change to the upper level residential portion of the Packard Road facade. It was moved 10 feet to the east to make it line up with the front stairwells. That also increased the footprint of the building by 4,720 square feet.

Packard Square: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) led things off by asking that the developer Craig Schubiner come to the podium. She wanted to know if the new elevations were in the council’s packet. She asked for a description of changes that had been made since December, in response to the commentary at that council meeting.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) gets a closer look at rendering for Packard Square.

Schubiner explained that they’d had the elevations rendered in the new colors and the old colors in the same way. He said that on the sides, it breaks up what are really long facades on the north and south. The retail “frame” would accentuate the stores in front, he said.

All the windows are six-foot windows, he noted, and there are nine-foot ceilings. If you look at the floor plans that are currently being reviewed by the city for approval, he said, the windows take up most of the wall space in every living and every bedroom. He concluded that these are the largest windows of any non-downtown, garden-style apartment complex ever built in Ann Arbor.

The retail windows had been made bigger and the corner was embellished, he said. He contrasted the new rendering with the original colors. They were a little bit more “washed-out.” The new colors would better break up the long facades, he said. But he noted that colors are, at a certain point, a matter of opinion.

Teall left her seat and examined the drawings up close.

Schubiner noted that the basic building design and footprint had not changed.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Packard Square site plan changes.

Summit Townhomes Zoning

The council was asked to give initial approval of a request to zone a 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, as R3 (townhouse dwelling district). The property was recently annexed into the city from Pittsfield Township.

The city’s planning commission had voted to recommend the zoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The R3 zoning would be consistent with the intended development of the site – to be called Summit Townhomes – for which the city’s planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

Summit Townhomes Zoning: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for confirmation that what was before the council for its consideration was simply the zoning. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Lumm that was right.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d vote for it at first reading, but he’d heard some concerns about the type of progress and development that it represents. So he wanted to alert his colleagues to the potential that this could be an issue to be discussed when the council is asked for its final approval.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who represents the city council on planning commission, reported that she’d been concerned about how children will get to school in a way that won’t require them to walk down Ellsworth. They live too close for busing, but it’s awkward if there’s no internal sidewalks, she said. But she reported her understanding that the developer has committed to achieving the goal of a walkable route to school.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give the zoning initial approval. It will need a second approval after a public hearing to be enacted.

Front-Yard Event Parking

On the council’s agenda was the second and final approval of revisions to the parking ordinance that might allow more flexibility for residents to park cars in their front yards.

The change in local law allows the city council to establish “special event dates” for temporary front open space parking. The ordinance had already allowed people to use their front yards for parking for University of Michigan football games. The ordinance change includes a provision explicitly to include “scrimmages,” which will accommodate the UM’s annual intra-squad spring football game.

The ordinance change was motivated in part by the possibility that University of Michigan football stadium events might in the future not necessarily be restricted to football games. For example, a National Hockey League game, between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs, had been scheduled for Jan. 1, 2013 at Michigan Stadium. But it had been cancelled last year due to labor disputes between the NHL and its players’ association.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the change at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting. The council had given initial approval to the change at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

Front Yard Event Parking: Public Hearing

One person spoke at the required public hearing on the ordinance change – Thomas Partridge. He asked that the ordinance be withdrawn and a different one substituted that would provide for greater monetary and city council policy support for the use of existing parking lots on the outskirts of town that aren’t utilized – an allusion to AATA park-and-ride lots. We don’t need more front-yard parking in residential neighborhoods near the football stadium, he contended.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the front area parking ordinance change.

LDFA Board Appointment

The council was asked to consider the appointment of Carrie Leahy as one of six Ann Arbor representatives to the 9-member local development finance authority (LDFA) board. She replaces Theresa Carroll, whose term expired six months ago, on June 30, 2012.

The LDFA is a tax-increment finance (TIF)-funded entity that comprises the geographic area of the city of Ann Arbor’s downtown development authority, as well as the city of Ypsilanti’s DDA. The LDFA is separate and distinct from the nonprofit Ann Arbor SPARK, which operates a business accelerator under contract with the LDFA. [The Chronicle is able to offer only occasional coverage of the LDFA. From June 2012: "SmartZone Group OKs SPARK Contract."]

Leahy is an attorney with Bodman who specializes in “general corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions, compliance with securities regulations, and issues involving venture capital funding.”

Other Ann Arbor representatives on the LDFA board include Richard Beedon and former city councilmember Stephen Rapundalo. Christopher Taylor is another one of the six Ann Arbor representatives, filling the slot that goes to a member of the city council. Based on the city of Ann Arbor’s Legistar online record system, former Ann Arbor representative Lisa Kurek’s term also expired on June 30, 2012. Leahy’s appointment leaves Ann Arbor two representatives short.

The city of Ypsilanti is currently represented by Vince Chmielewski and Phil Tepley. The term for the third Ypsilanti appointment, Mark Maynard, expired on June 30, 2012, according Legistar.

The council deliberations consisted of a remark from Taylor, who joked that no board could have too many lawyers who graduated in 1997 and specialize in corporate and intellectual property law. [Taylor himself shares the description he gave of Leahy.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm Leahy’s appointment to the LDFA board.

T-Mobile Antenna

The council considered a resolution to approve a contract with T-Mobile Central LLC – as the successor in interest to Omnipoint Holdings Inc. The city had a previous agreement with Omnipoint, to place antennas on the Plymouth Road water tower. T-Mobile wanted to amend the license agreement to allow additional equipment on the site. The city will also get a bit more revenue, increasing the annual license fee amount by $1,200 to $39,686. That escalates each year by 4%. Under the previous arrangement, the fee escalated 20% every five years.

Council deliberations were relatively brief. But Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted confirmation that the additional equipment would not change the appearance of the water tower. And Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted confirmation that the revenue from such contracts went to pay the cost of the Justice Center construction bonds. City administrator Steve Powers said that he thought Kunselman was right, but would follow up and confirm that.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with T-Mobile.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots 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: Dog Park in West Park

Two members of New Hope Baptist Church addressed the council on a topic that had been discussed at a meeting of the park advisory commission late last year, on Dec. 18, 2012.

Left to right: Rodrick Green, pastor of New Hope Baptist Church, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

During the public commentary at the conclusion of the special session of the council – which was held before the regular council meeting – Rodrick Green introduced himself as the pastor of the New Hope Baptist Church. He noted that the dog park was not a topic on the council’s agenda, but he wanted to voice on behalf of the entire congregation their unanimous opposition to the proposed dog park. The park is supposed to be located off of Chapin Street, in the area of West Park directly across from the church. Among the concerns the congregation had were issues of safety, noise and odor. They did not think it’s a proper location for a dog park, Green said.

During public commentary at the start of the regular session, Tom Miree, a trustee with New Hope Baptist Church, told councilmembers that he wanted to give them an update on the dog park in West Park. He told them that before the holidays, members of the congregation had met with the city’s park advisory commission, and gave testimony about why the site within West Park that had been selected for the dog park wouldn’t be a good spot. He reported that commissioners had listened politely, but then passed a resolution that said, “Let’s try this for a year to see how it works out.” Miree noted that the dog park site is right across the street from the church. He described the entire area of West Park as about 24 acres, but noted that only about 0.2 acres was designated for the dog park. He described it as a small area on a parcel where a house previously stood.

Miree ventured that anyone who’s done planning work knows you need conflicting land use buffers between properties. He said everyone recognizes that having amenities is a good thing. But he wanted the city to consider the impact a dog park would have on the neighborhood – especially on young children and the ministry in the area. He also asked that they consider the worship service that’s held there, saying that the congregation wants to maintain the dignity of the worship services.

Comm/Comm: Connecting William Street

By way of background, the city council will be holding a work session on Jan. 14 to hear recommendations from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on future redevelopment of five city-owned sites currently used for parking. The project, which eventually was named Connecting William Street (CWS), began with an April 4, 2011 city council resolution that directed the DDA to engage seek “robust public input” from experts, stakeholders and residents to develop a plan for those parcels.

Jamie Pitts introduced himself as the chief technology officer of a local startup [rapt.fm]. The company is located in Detroit now, but he lives here in Ann Arbor, he said. He wanted to talk about the DDA’s Connecting William Street as it relates to open space. In the space next to the Ann Arbor District Library on South Fifth Avenue, the recommended plan depicts a very large building. He said he couldn’t help but notice how small the green space was that’s allocated on the parcel. There’s an opportunity to do something great, he said, so the council would be forfeiting a huge opportunity by not allocating a greater amount of area on that parcel for green space.

He encouraged councilmembers to envision the people who live downtown. If they want more people to live downtown, they need to think about amenities. People who live in urban centers need a backyard, he said. So he called for the creation of a backyard for future downtown residents.

Alan Haber commented on the CWS recommendations that the Ann Arbor DDA would be presenting to the council on Jan. 14. In many ways, Haber said, it’s an excellent report. But he felt that the DDA understood “development” as only buildings and economic development. Other kinds of development, Haber said, include human development and community development. The DDA is only seeing the economic development perspective, he said. The council needs to see the part of the equation that involves community benefit and growing a space on which something can be created together.

Haber characterized the previous Sunday night caucus discussion as making clear to him that he and a lot of others had been barking up the wrong tree. That approach had been since people wanted a park, they should approach the “parks people” [the park advisory commission]. He wanted the council to hear a citizens report, because the DDA translates everything into money terms, Haber concluded.

During communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) relayed a request from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who was absent from the meeting. He asked to include in the council’s Jan. 14 work session on CWS an opportunity to hear from citizens on their open spaces ideas.

Comm/Comm: Public Art Committee

During her communications time at the conclusion of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the city council committee created to review the public art ordinance had held a second meeting.

Councilmembers are sometimes asked by students to sign their agendas to prove attendance. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) turned the act into a kind of performance art.

As the committee moves forward, she said, the members want to hear from the public art community, but also want to think about the best way to reach the public.

The goal is to work with the city staff to create a topic on the city’s A2 Open City Hall. [For detailed Chronicle coverage of that committee meeting, see "Council to Seek Feedback on Public Art Program."]

The committee’s next meeting is set for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 14.

Comm/Comm: Environmental Commission

During her communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that a resolution to appoint Christopher Graham to serve on the city of Ann Arbor’s environmental commission would be on the council’s next meeting agenda.

Graham was initially appointed in 2006 and has served two three-year terms on the commission.

Graham is also a member of the executive committee of the Michigan Environmental Council.

Comm/Comm: Recall Snyder, Hieftje

During public commentary, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, and a recent candidate for the state senate and house. He stated that he was there to advance the cause of the most vulnerable. He called on the council and the public to prioritize affordable housing and countywide transportation, and to recognize that we are one community, whether we like it or not. He called for less attention on stormwater drains, and more on getting sufficient affordable housing. He called on the council to end homeless this month. He concluded by saying that mayor John Hieftje and Gov. Rick Snyder should be recalled.

Comm/Comm: Divestment from Israel

Addressing the council on the topic of divestment from Israel and Palestinian rights were Blaine Coleman and Mozhgan Savabieasfahani.

By way of background, for several years a group of people has regularly demonstrated near the Beth Israel Congregation in Ann Arbor with various anti-Israel signs. Critics of the action have described the regular demonstrations as religious harassment. Coleman has in the past stood with the group. In that context, his opening remarks can be understood as a way of responding to that criticism – by appealing to protests that have happened in the contexts of other religious institutions.

Coleman began by noting that Ann Arbor has a long history of protest against racist oppression at churches and synagogues. He showed the council a copy of the front page of a Michigan Daily from Aug. 20, 1970 that read: “Church Takeover Backs Demands for Reparations.” Another article from the Ann Arbor News, with the headline “Octogenarian Joins Fight Against Poverty,” described a sit-in at the First Presbyterian Church. [The article, from Nov. 29, 1970 also describes a court-ordered injunction against the group for disrupting church services.] Coleman described the point of the sit-ins as insisting that the country and the city keep its promises to black America.

Today, Coleman ventured, “unless you’re a racist, you will keep your promise to the Palestinian people, too. The Palestinian people are still being murdered and robbed and starved by Israel,” he said. It was human rights violations like those, Coleman said, that had led councilmember Chuck Warpehoski’s organization, the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ), to publicly resolve itself to work for divestment – from all companies that sell arms to Israel.

Coleman called on Warpehoski to “keep that promise” as a city councilmember. Coleman went on to describe Israel’s actions as a “starvation siege.” And he noted that the ICPJ “brags” about its fight against hunger. Coleman ventured that “unless [Warpehoski] wants to look like a racist and liar, he will keep that promise” to work to divest the city from companies selling arms to Israel.

Coleman noted that Israel was an ally of apartheid South Africa and he characterized Israel as the “last apartheid state on earth.” Federal aid that goes to Israel should instead be spent on rebuilding cities like Detroit, Coleman concluded.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani said she was very hopeful that the city can do more work on human rights and to promote children’s health – particularly the health of children in Gaza. She said she was hopeful because seven of the 11 councilmembers are women, and women, she ventured, are more sensitive to issues involving children’s health.

In addition, she said, Warpehoski has in the past stood for the human rights of Palestinians and against providing military aid to Israel. His election to the council elevated Warpehoski to another level, she said. She wanted to convince the council that it’s past time to stop the “genocide of the Palestinian people.” She criticized continued U.S. aid to Israel, which she called a “racist state.” She wanted to see the city council speak up against the acts that have been committed by Israel and that would lead to a change in policy – and money would be kept in the U.S. That money could be used to clean up neighborhoods, and get the homeless off the streets of Ann Arbor. She concluded her remarks with “Boycott Israel!”

Typically councilmembers do not respond directly to public comment, but occasionally they do. Warpehoski indicated that the public comment from Coleman reminded the council that there are “right ways and wrong ways, productive ways and unproductive ways” to promote respect understanding and coexistence. Eight or nine years ago, he said, the council had passed a resolution saying that democracy and the freedoms it engenders cannot exist without “civil discourse.” [This was a 2004 resolution that condemned the regular demonstrations near the Beth Israel Congregation.] He also pointed to council resolutions in 2008, 2010 and 2011 encouraging people to honor Religious Freedom – on Jan. 16.

One group in town that is “doing it right,” Warpehoski said, is the Interfaith Roundtable of Washtenaw County, led by George Lambrides.

In Ann Arbor, Warpehoski said, we like to assume we’ve got everything all worked out, but when a Muslim woman driving home from her job at the university hospital had a gun pulled on her and was told to “go home,” that indicates that there’s work yet to be done. Another example he gave was the idea of putting a swastika over the Star of David, or circulating literature saying that Jewish religious observances turn boys and girls into “monsters.”

Present: Jane Lumm, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Mike Anglin.

Next regular city council meeting: Jan. 22, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!