Ingrid Ault, who was elected chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission on Sept. 17, shakes hands with Alonzo Young of Camp Take Notice. (Photos by the writer.)

The waiver, which would require approval by the city council before taking effect, follows action by the council this summer to waive all park rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, also based on a PAC recommendation. The goal of that waiver is to spur more activity in that urban park, at the southwest corner of Liberty and Divisions streets.

The issue of fee waivers arose earlier this year when city staff considered charging a rental fee to the church that hosted Pizza in the Park, a weekly homelessness outreach ministry. Members of Camp Take Notice, a group that advocates for the homeless, has been urging the city to apply a broad fee waiver throughout the entire park system for entities that provide humanitarian aid. The recommendation approved on Sept. 17 is a compromise worked out with city staff and Camp Take Notice representatives.

Discussion among commissioners focused on how the waiver would be handled. Parks & recreation manager Colin Smith stressed that all park rules would still apply, and that applicants would need to go through the standard permitting process in order to receive a waiver.

During their Sept. 17 meeting, commissioners also discussed the issue of releasing raw data to the public, in the context of two recent surveys – on dog parks and downtown parks. Tim Berla and others advocated for making the survey results available in a form that could be used by the public for analysis. [The data from both of those surveys had been available in a .pdf format, and can now be downloaded from the city's website as Excel files.] Other commissioners pushed for the city to develop a policy regarding the release of data – a standardized approach that would be approved by the city council.

The Sept. 17 meeting also included PAC’s annual election of officers. Commissioners unanimously selected Ingrid Ault as chair and Graydon Krapohl as vice chair. Bob Galardi was re-elected chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. There were no other nominations. Current PAC chair Julie Grand is term limited and will be cycling off the commission in October.

Park Fee Waiver for Charities

On PAC’s Sept. 17 agenda was a recommendation to waive fees for any charity that distributes “goods for basic human needs” in Ann Arbor parks. It was brought forward by Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC.

Christopher Taylor, a Ward 3 Ann Arbor city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of the park advisory commission.

The recommendation comes two months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting. That fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. Liberty Plaza is an urban park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Divisions streets in downtown Ann Arbor.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver applies to all activities – social, cultural, and recreational – with the goal of increasing the use of that urban park.

However, members of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homelessness community, have lobbied for a written commitment that the city would allow humanitarian efforts to take place on public land generally, not just at Liberty Plaza. They’ve objected to the focus by the council and the park advisory commission on general activities – as opposed to the protection of humanitarian aid efforts.

The proposal considered by PAC on Sept. 17 would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language] It would be a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean up obligations.

Several supporters of Camp Take Notice attended the Sept. 17 meeting, but did not address the commission before the vote.

In introducing the resolution, Taylor recalled the history of the Liberty Plaza fee waiver, and of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for a broader waiver. He noted that the waiver doesn’t alter the authorized uses of the parks, or alter the permitting process. The wording “charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs” was arrived at in consultation with city parks staff, the city attorney’s office, and Camp Take Notice representatives, he said.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that because it would amend an existing ordinance, the resolution would require initial approval at a first reading at city council, followed by a public hearing and final reading at a subsequent council meeting.

Taylor indicated that he would bring this resolution to the city council at its Oct. 21 meeting for a first reading, followed by a public hearing and final reading at a subsequent meeting.

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla noted that someone will have to decide whether a particular application for this waiver is acceptable or not. “It seems like a good definition,” he said, “but this is Ann Arbor, so it seems like also somebody will come up with something that is borderline.” There might be waivers requested for things that aren’t universally recognized as a community benefit, he said.

At the request of a resident, the city hired Matthew Butler to provide sign language interpretation during PAC’s Sept. 17 meeting.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith replied that he was comfortable with the proposed language. There’s room for interpretation on a lot of things handled by the parks staff, Smith noted. For example, activities are supposed to relate to the parks mission, which is open to interpretation. As with other things, the waiver will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, Smith said, adding that by going through the regular permitting process, there are opportunities for checks and balances.

Bob Galardi wondered if there is an appeals process, if the city rejects an application for a waiver. It varies, Smith replied. In this case, it would likely be appealed to the city administrator.

Alan Jackson described the phrase “basic human needs” as a “very fuzzy term.” Food and water comes to mind, he said, but does it extend to shelter or medical care? Is the park an appropriate place for that kind of thing? How broad does this waiver become, and what are the limitations? he asked.

Taylor replied that the word “goods” was specific, and therefore medical services wouldn’t apply. Jackson countered that pharmaceuticals are “goods.” Taylor felt that it would be outside the scope of the waiver.

Regarding shelter, Smith noted that all park rules outlined in Chapter 39 still apply, so no one would be allowed to stay in a park overnight. [.pdf of Chapter 39]

Julie Grand said she felt comfortable with the narrowing of the language, compared to the initial idea of allowing a waiver for humanitarian aid. She noted that the parks staff felt that this approach was “doable.”

Outcome: The fee waiver passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting during the agenda slot for public commentary, Alonzo Young told commissioners he was on the board of Camp Take Notice and he wanted to thank them for passing the resolution about the fee waiver.

PAC chair Julie Grand told him he’d given the most positive public commentary she’d ever heard, and she thanked him for his remarks.

Land Acquisition Annual Report

Ginny Trocchio is a staff member of The Conservation Fund who provides support to the greenbelt program under contract with the city. On Sept. 17 she briefed commissioners on the annual activity report for the city’s open space and parkland preservation program for the fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. [.pdf of draft fiscal 2013 activity report]

Ginny Trocchio, who provides staff support for PAC’s land acquisition activities as well as for the city’s greenbelt program, presented an annual report at the Sept. 17 meeting. In the background is sign language interpreter Matthew Butler.

The greenbelt program and park acquisitions are funded through a 30-year 0.5 mill tax that Ann Arbor voters passed in 2003. It’s called the open space and parkland preservation millage, and appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ.

The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the greenbelt program. The greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) handles the portion for land preservation outside of the city limits, while the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) oversees the funds for parkland acquisition. PAC’s land acquisition committee, of which all PAC commissioners are members, makes recommendations for parkland purchases.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2013 year totaled $1.227 million. [Two debt service payments are made during the fiscal year.]

Regarding parkland acquisitions, Trocchio reported that the city bought two properties in fiscal 2013, and accepted a donation from Ann Arbor Township – the Braun Nature Area, which is adjacent to the city’s Huron Parkway Nature Area. The purchases were:

• 0.91 acres along Hampstead Lane, adding to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area – at a total cost of $118,944.
• 0.35 acres along Orkney, to add to the Bluffs Nature Area – at a total cost of $120,774.

For the greenbelt program, five transactions were completed in the last fiscal year, covering 448 acres of farmland. [More details on those acquisitions, see Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Commission Gets Financial Update."]

Commissioners were also briefed on a financial report for fiscal 2013, related to the open space and parkland preservation millage. [.pdf of financial statements]

For the year ending June 30, 2013, Trocchio reported that net revenues from the millage were $2.626 million. Most of that – $2.141 million of it – came from millage proceeds. The other main revenue source was investment income of $111,137 in FY 2013. That  compared to $176,082 in investment income the previous year.

Karen Levin, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner.

Expenses for the year were $3.357 million. In addition to $1.227 for debt service, expenses included $1.757 million in greenbelt projects and $242,867 for parkland acquisition.

As of June 30, 2013, the fund balance stood at $8.856 million, with about equal amounts designated for the greenbelt ($4.413 million) and park acquisitions ($4.442 million). The greenbelt program also received $396,900 in reimbursements from the USDA Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), and $5,330 in contributions – primarily a $5,000 gift from Cherry Republic.

Administrative costs of $129,966 in fiscal 2013 equate to 3.9% of total revenues. Administrative costs over the life of the millage are limited by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues.

Trocchio also noted that she hopes to hold a joint session of the greenbelt and park advisory commissions sometime later this year.

There was minimal discussion among commissioners. Julie Grand noted that the city has accomplished a lot of its initial goals for land acquisition, but there are still funds available for that purpose. There’s nothing to prevent PAC from looking at its priorities and potentially approaching landowners who might be interested in selling, she said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Survey Data

Tim Berla introduced a topic regarding the accessibility of raw data from surveys that the city conducts. Specifically, he noted that subcommittees for PAC had recently done two surveys – for dog parks, and downtown parks. In addition to producing .pdf files with the results, it would also be helpful to have the raw data available for anyone in the community who wants it, Berla said. For example, someone might want to compare the difference in attitudes toward dog parks by comparing responses of dog owners and non-dog owners.

He had advocated for releasing the data, and referenced some email exchanges with others who had raised objections that he said he didn’t completely understand. So his question was whether the city would release the survey data in raw data form.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Tim Berla and Alan Jackson.

Colin Smith, parks & recreation manager, replied that he had sent an email to all PAC members in response to Berla’s query. The city’s IT staff had indicated that it would be possible to release the data, likely in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. There’s no way to lock the file to prevent someone from modifying it, Smith noted, so that’s an issue that PAC should discuss.

There are several ways to handle the survey data, Smith said. Because the recent surveys used SurveyMonkey, it’s possible to run multiple reports and cross-tabulations, he said – for example, to look at responses for downtown residents between the ages of 25-44. Smith suggested that anyone who wanted a particular type of report could email a request to staff, who could then run the report and publish it on the PAC website.

Berla thought that for the sake of transparency, there should be a way to release the data. He didn’t dispute that people might use the data in a manipulative way. “There’s no way you can give somebody a spreadsheet and prevent them from doing something nefarious,” Berla said. “The good thing is that everybody would have the data,” he added, so anybody could verify the information.

The data is a public resource, Berla said. The point is to learn about how the community feels on these two issues. The advantage to releasing the data would be that it wouldn’t entail more work for staff, he noted. Berla said his main goal is for people to have access to the information.

Graydon Krapohl asked what the city’s policy is on releasing data. He noted that the data collected by PAC’s subcommittees belongs to the city. That’s the bigger issue, he said, and it would apply to all city surveys.

Smith said he didn’t have the answers to some of these questions. More tools have been available in recent years for getting feedback, including social media, and sometimes the policy doesn’t keep up, he noted. That’s something that city staff need to put more work into, he said. Smith pointed out that certain kinds of information – like emails and phone numbers from survey respondents – aren’t released.

Missy Stults observed that the .pdf file posted on PAC’s website includes all the information from the surveys – not just a summary. She also wondered whether the city parks staff had capacity to handle a lot of requests for survey reports.

Stults also suggested that PAC could encourage the city to come up with a policy on the issue of releasing survey data. A lot of people want the data and think that the city is holding it back, she noted, so it would be great if there were a standard policy to explain how the city operates in this regard.

Alan Jackson said he didn’t really understand the reluctance to release data. Without the raw data, it’s not possible to do relational searches. There might be things that could be learned – nuances about the data – that members of the public could discover, he said. Doing the surveys has been a learning experience for PAC, he added. One of the key lessons is to understand what will be released at the end. Jackson didn’t see any reason to hold back the data available from the surveys.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, said that what the public pays for is public property. He suspected that the city would have a hard time telling people that they couldn’t have access to the data. Some local groups “are pretty sophisticated with data,” he said.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Graydon Krapohl and Bob Galardi.

Anglin noted that the city ran into a similar situation with a survey regarding a convention center, saying that the survey’s open-ended responses weren’t included in a final report. “If you’re going to ask the public, then you should report back to the public on what you found,” Anglin said.

Krapohl again urged the staff to develop a coherent city policy. It will only become more complicated as more people start using social media, he noted. If each commission decides how to handle it, then there will be a lot of inconsistencies, he said. The IT staff needs good guidance, and that has to come from a policy that should be reviewed by the city attorney and approved by the city council, he said.

Stults supported releasing data, but agreed with Krapohl that a clear, standard policy is needed. Another challenge is that some people want the surveys to be statistically significant, she noted. That’s something that the staff and PAC don’t have the resources to do, so they need to be very clear about that.

Julie Grand noted that because this is a very educated community, people should also understand the cost that would be involved in conducting a survey that’s statistically significant. The city tries to reach as many people as possible in its surveys, but it’s not possible to be representative of the entire city. The results are representative of the people who are willing to take the time to complete the survey, she said. It’s not realistic that the city would pay tens of thousands of dollars to do a survey that’s more sophisticated. The surveys that are done are one way to get feedback – but not the only way, Grand said.

Jackson agreed that a survey is only part of the process. “Ultimately, our role is to provide judgment to council, who will make decisions,” he said. Certainly it’s important to solicit public opinion, he added, and that’s why PAC did these surveys. “But we don’t have to be a slave to some bizarre criteria that people come up with,” he said.

Smith again stressed that all of the comments received from the dog park survey and the downtown park survey had been posted online [in .pdf form] – “hundreds and hundreds of pages of them.” He said he’d follow up with other city staff regarding the next steps to develop a policy on this issue.

The data for both surveys is now available in .pdf and .xls formats. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] [.xls file of dog park survey results] [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] [.xls file of downtown park survey results]

Officer Elections

The Sept. 17 agenda included PAC’s annual election of officers. The current chair, Julie Grand, is term limited. Her last meeting will be on Oct. 15. Ingrid Ault has served as vice chair for PAC since Oct. 16, 2012, and chairs the commission’s downtown park subcommittee.

Julie Grand, outgoing chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, holds up a blank ballot prior to the Sept. 17 officer elections.

Ault was the only nominee for chair. PAC’s bylaws require that officer elections be conducted by secret ballot, even if there are no competing nominations. The ballots were passed to Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, for tabulation. Ault was unanimously elected, and will lead her first meeting as PAC chair on Oct. 15.

Graydon Krapohl, who joined PAC in January of 2013, was the only nominee for vice chair. He was also elected unanimously. In announcing the results, Smith joked that the spelling of Krapohl’s name showed some variations.

PAC’s chair is responsible for nominating the chair of the commission’s budget and finance committee. Grand nominated the current committee chair, Bob Galardi. This did not require a secret ballot, and his re-election took place with a unanimous voice vote.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Aug. 20 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, gave several brief updates. He noted that the skatepark construction is well underway at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The concrete will be poured soon, he reported. Wally Hollyday, the skatepark designer, is basically living in town for the next few weeks to oversee the project, Smith said.

Roof construction at the Mack pool and Vets ice arena is wrapping up – a project that’s perhaps less exciting than the skatepark, he noted, but very necessary.

The Vets ice arena recently opened, and indoor ice skating has started. In other construction projects, the playground at Esch Park is completed, and phase two of the Gallup renovations has begun. The hope is that the Gallup work will be finished in November.

Smith also highlighted the city’s season-ending dog swim at Buhr Park pool. In 2012, 163 dogs “took their humans to that event,” he joked. This year, there were 419 dogs. He attributed the increase to outreach that staff had done to elevate the event’s profile.

Communications & Commentary: Recreation Advisory Commission

Tim Berla gave a report from the recreation advisory commission (RAC), on which he serves. The group advises Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, a unit of the Ann Arbor Public Schools. He said they’re working on a coach recognition program, to develop a Rec & Ed coaching hall of fame.

He also reported that AAPS trustee Glenn Nelson attended the RAC meeting to talk about the sinking fund millage renewal that’s on the Nov. 5, 2013 ballot. Berla described it as not a tax increase, but a continuation of funding to put money into the local schools, to pay for infrastructure needs. He hoped everyone would support it.

By way of additional background, the sinking fund millage was first passed in 2008, expiring in 2014. The ballot on Nov. 5 will include this statement:

Shall the Public Schools of the City of Ann Arbor, County of Washtenaw, Michigan, be authorized to levy 1.00 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) to create a sinking fund for the purpose of the construction or repair of school buildings and the improvement and development of sites and, to the extent permitted by law, for other purposes, including, but not limited to, the acquisition and installation of furnishings and equipment, by increasing the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the School District for a period of five (5) years, being the years 2015 to 2019, inclusive? It is estimated that 1.00 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) would raise approximately $7,450,000 in the first year that it is levied.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin gave a brief update on work of the dog park subcommittee. Survey results are posted online, with about 1,500 responses. [.pdf of 306-page survey results] [.xls file of survey results] Two public meetings are being held – on Sept. 11 and Sept. 24. The subcommittee is still gathering information, Levin said, both on possible locations for a more centralized dog park, as well as how to improve the city’s two existing dog parks.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Park

Ingrid Ault, chair of the downtown park subcommittee, reviewed that group’s work. Like the dog park, there has been a survey that yielded nearly 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page survey results] [.xls file of survey results] Two public forums – on Sept. 9 and Sept. 18 – were also held. Eight city parcels have been identified as having potential for additional public space, she said. Those parcels, which were part of the survey, are:

• the surface parking lot on South Ashley, north of William, known as the Kline lot
• the surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Main and William, next to Palio restaurant
• the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure
• the surface lot north of William, between Fourth and Fifth avenues – the former YMCA site
• the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue
• the surface parking lot at First & William
• 415 W. Washington, across from the current Y
• 721 N. Main, near Summit

The subcommittee is addressing three questions, Ault said: (1) Is there a need or desire for additional public space in the downtown or near downtown? (2) If yes, then what space would people like to see as an additional public space, and how would they like to use it? and (3) How does the city fund it?

Ault hopes to report back to PAC at its Oct. 15 meeting with recommendations. The goal is to forward recommendations to city council for its first meeting in November, she said.

In response to a query from Tim Berla, PAC chair Julie Grand said she expects the two committees will bring forward recommendations in the form of resolutions for commissioners to consider and vote on.

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

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, Sept. 3 at 4 p.m. [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.

Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition gave a presentation to the Ann Arbor park advisory commission about the Border-to-Border trail. (Photos by the writer.)

The main presentation focused on the Border-to-Border trail connections in Ann Arbor. The trail runs roughly along the Huron River from Livingston County in the north to Wayne County in the east, using paved shared-use paths, unpaved paths and bike lanes.

Larry Deck from the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition highlighted three areas that WBWC has identified as high priorities: (1) between Bandemer Park and Barton Park/Huron River Drive (the B2B trail ends at the north edge of Bandemer Park); (2) near the intersection of Fuller Road and Maiden Lane; and (3) near the Fuller Road bridge over the Huron River.

Another WBWC priority is to improve the bicycling connections between the University of Michigan’s central and north campuses.

Deck suggested that PAC consider a resolution recommending to city council that these projects be designed and funded, and in general renew the priority of the B2B trail along the Huron River greenway. It’s been a city priority for decades, he noted, but it’s good to have a reminder of that.

Discussion among commissioners focused on the challenges of crossing railroad tracks at various points along the B2B route, as well as interest in coordinating with other projects like the recommendations of the North Main Huron River corridor task force.

During the meeting, commissioners also got an annual update from George Taylor, president of the Cobblestone Farm Association, as well as briefings from PAC’s dog park and downtown park subcommittees. Results from surveys to solicit public input for both subcommittees are now available, and will be analyzed by commissioners and staff in preparation for upcoming public forums. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results]

Two public forums are scheduled for the downtown park project: On Monday, Sept. 9 in the basement of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth, from 6:30-8:30 p.m., and on Wednesday, Sept. 18 at city hall’s basement conference room, 301 E. Huron, from 6:30-8:30 p.m.

The dog park subcommittee – which is looking for a possible location for a third dog park – will hold a public forum on Wednesday, Sept. 11 at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farms, 2781 Packard. In noting the history of opposition to proposals for a dog park at West Park, Tim Berla wondered whether it would be possible to locate a dog park anywhere near a residential neighborhood. It’s a “classic Ann Arbor trap,” he said – everyone is in favor of it, until something specific is proposed and the neighbors say no.

In his manager’s report, Colin Smith highlighted several upcoming events. The annual season-closing “dog swim” at Buhr Park pool will be held on Sept. 4 and Sept. 5 from 3-8 p.m. On Sunday, Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. in Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty – a grand opening will be held for the “sensory garden” there. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens.

Smith also noted that the popularity of Argo Cascades has led to a shortage of parking in that area. As a result, beginning Labor Day weekend the staff will start using a portion of Longshore Park to park cars. It’s a short-term measure while the staff seeks longer-term solutions, he said.

Border-To-Border Trail

Larry Deck from the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (WBWC) gave a presentation on the Border-to-Border trail connections in Ann Arbor, highlighting some areas that need attention.

WBWC has been an advocacy organization, Deck said, and he briefly described some of the work that the group has done, including advocating for changes to the city’s crosswalk ordinance. Members have participated in the city of Ann Arbor’s alternative transportation committee, Ypsilanti’s non-motorized advisory committee, the Washtenaw County greenways advisory committee, and other public groups. WBWC also partners with other entities, he said, including the Ann Arbor Bicycle Touring Society, Center for Independent Living, and the getDowntown program.

The Border-to-Border (B2B) trail, an initiative spearheaded by the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, runs roughly along the Huron River from Livingston County in the north to Wayne County in the east, using paved shared-use paths, unpaved paths and bike lanes. About half of it is complete, Deck reported, with more segments in the works.

WBWC has prioritized parts of the trail countywide, Deck said. Those priorities are based on several factors: (1) connecting centers of population and activity; (2) connecting to the existing Border‐to‐Border trail; (3) accommodating the needs of all people and abilities; (4) countywide significance; (5) near‐term feasibility; and (6) whether trails are prioritized in current plans by local municipalities, like Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Outside of Ann Arbor, Deck noted that about 7 miles of trail between Dexter-Huron Metropark through Dexter and out to North Territorial Road will be completed by the end of this year. There are a lot of projects in the Ypsilanti area too, he said, to pull the trail segments together.

Within Ann Arbor, one WBWC priority is to improve the bicycling connections between the University of Michigan’s central and north campuses. Deck reported that WBWC is working with staff at the city and university on this project.

But Deck focused on three other primary areas that WBWC has identified as problems: (1) between Bandemer Park and Barton Park/Huron River Drive (the B2B trail ends at the north edge of Bandemer Park); (2) near the intersection of Fuller Road and Maiden Lane; and (3) near the Fuller Road bridge over the Huron River.

Three problem areas in Ann Arbor for the Border-to-Border trail, as identified by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition.

Some of the city’s plans also identify these areas as locations that need to be addressed, Deck said. For example, the 2007 non-motorized plan calls for a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Huron River just west of Maiden Lane at Fuller, plus trail connections at three existing underpasses in that area. When the existing bridges were built in the 1980s, they included wide concrete paths underneath the bridges, in anticipation that connection to those trails would be completed. “But 30 years later, we still need to complete them,” he said.

The city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan also shows trails at all of those underpasses in the Fuller/Maiden Lane and Fuller/Huron River area. In addition, the PROS plan indicates plans for an underpass under the railroad, connecting Bandemer and Barton parks.

Deck showed PAC members a series of maps that indicated how B2B connections might be achieved in these three areas. In the case of the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane area, the goal is to avoid the “nasty” intersection where pedestrians and cyclists are expected to cross now. WBWC also hopes to see some existing shared-use paths widened to 14 feet. [The Fuller Road and Maiden Lane intersection has one of the higher volumes of pedestrian traffic in the city.]

Deck noted that demand is high, especially in the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane area. A 12-hour traffic count at that intersection in 2006 – conducted between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. – recorded 1,767 pedestrians and 443 bicyclists on Fuller Road, plus 2,694 pedestrians and 292 bicyclists at Maiden Lane. More than 90% of the bicyclists weren’t using the road, but were on sidewalks. “So there is a need for improving these facilities,” Deck said. He estimated the cost at about $500,000 for that area.

Possible B2B connections at Fuller Road and Maiden Lane. (Image by WBWC.)

Possible B2B connections at Fuller Road along the Huron River. (Image by WBWC.)

Possible B2B connections between Bandemer and Barton parks. (Image by WBWC.)

Possible B2B connection between Barton Park and Foster Bridge. (Image by WBWC.)

Making connections at Bandemer and Barton parks would be more expensive, Deck noted – likely $2 million or more, because it involves the railroad tracks. Currently, there’s an “informal” crossing and path that Deck described as “an accident waiting to happen.” With higher-speed trains coming, it will be even more risky, he said. There are other alternatives, Deck noted, but none are as desirable as a railroad underpass.

Deck said that of the projects considered by the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, the highest priority for WBWC is the Bandemer/Barton connection. Lower priorities, from WBWC’s perspective, include: (1) a railroad underpass near Main & Depot; (2) sidewalk repair and possible extension in the North Main Street area; (3) a park on the DTE site, with a trail and bridge over the Allen Creek; (4) a railroad gate at Lakeshore Drive; (5) a crosswalk to Bluffs Park; and (6) Main/Depot intersection improvements.

In terms of financing, Deck told PAC there was funding available for significant projects, especially for regional initiatives. Possible sources include the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, the federal transportation alternatives program, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, local transportation funding, the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage, and the University of Michigan.

Deck suggested that PAC consider a resolution that would recommend to city council that these projects be designed and funded, and in general renewing the priority of the B2B trail along the Huron River greenway. It’s been a city priority for decades, he noted, and it’s good to have a reminder of that.

Border-To-Border Trail: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson told Deck that there are different groups with different priorities, and he wanted to give some pushback on the WBWC’s priorities. He wondered whether all bicyclists would use the B2B connections, or whether it would be better to spend money on road improvements, for those cyclists who ride on the roads. At Fuller Road and Maiden Lane, for example, it’s possible to cross the road, even though it’s difficult, he said. In contrast, the railroad crossing between Barton and Bandemer is a real impediment.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson.

Deck replied that bicyclists do have the right to be on the road, and that’s what many bicyclists do. But a lot of people don’t ride their bicycles because they’re afraid to go on the road, especially at busy intersections like Fuller and Maiden Lane. Deck said he does a lot of biking – he rode to the PAC meeting, for example – but he prefers a good trail, if it’s available. He thinks most people would prefer to use a trail.

Jackson also raised the issue of the route between UM’s central and north campus, saying he agreed it wasn’t a good connection. He wondered if WBWC has worked with the university in any substantive way, and did UM officials indicate they’d be willing to fund such a project? “Certainly that would help us in our decision-making,” Jackson said.

Deck replied that some WBWC members recently met with UM staff and Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager. There’s no indication of funding, but UM is willing to work on these issues, he said.

Bob Galardi told Deck that he’s involved in the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. If the greenway gets built, it would go through downtown Ann Arbor and allow a lot of people to connect to the B2B trail. One of the difficult connections is at Main & Depot, and he wondered what Deck thought about that. Deck replied that the proposed greenway would enhance the B2B trail, though he saw the greenway as a longer-term vision. A good first step would be to figure out a way to cross the railroad tracks near Main & Depot. That would make it easier to justify funding for other projects in that area, Deck said.

Galardi pointed out that getting across Main Street is another challenge. He was on the B2B trail the previous day, Galardi said. “It’s so nice, but getting to it – for a big population that are Ann Arbor residents, at least – is not easy.” Deck suggested looking at building a passage underneath the Main & Depot intersection and the railroad, though he acknowledged it would be very expensive.

Tim Berla agreed that there were a lot of expensive projects related to these connections, but the city should get some of the projects moving. The biggest challenge is the railroad tracks, he said, and it should be the highest priority. Berla recalled that Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, had worked on that a few years ago. How should the city proceed if they wanted to get this project “back on the tracks,” he quipped.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi also serves on the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board.

Kuras recalled that the city did an engineering study about eight or nine years ago, and negotiated with the railroad to get some preliminary commitments for a pedestrian crossing. The biggest issue is that the railroad – which is now under new ownership – wouldn’t allow any changes that might interrupt train service, Kuras said. She’d spent a lot of time lining up potential federal, state and local funding sources, but then the city decided not to move forward with the project. The estimated cost was around $2 million.

Berla noted that a crossing had seemed possible at the time. He suggested that PAC could weigh in and recommend it as a priority, so that Kuras could re-initiate the project. Kuras cautioned that a lot has changed since her previous work, including priorities that are being recommended by the North Main Huron River corridor task force. So it would be important to look at the bigger picture and coordinate with other entities, like the state and University of Michigan. Berla felt it would be a good long-term priority.

Julie Grand, who has served on the North Main Huron River corridor task force, clarified that one of that group’s recommendations will be for a railroad crossing at Fourth & Depot, to connect to the DTE site and on to the Huron River. [The city hopes that the land now owned by DTE, next to the Huron River and across from Argo Cascades, will eventually become parkland.] There might be grant funding for that project, she noted, which might make it rise in terms of priorities.

Kuras added that three locations have been considered for pedestrian underpasses at the railroad tracks: (1) at Nichols Arboretum; (2) between Barton and Bandemer parks; and (3) at Fourth & Depot to connect to the DTE property. A bridge over North Main Street has also been discussed, she said. The challenges with bridges include the clearance needed for the trains, and making the ramps ADA accessible. And any connection needs to be done in a way that makes people want to use it, she added, or else millions of dollars will be spent and people will just use the current informal routes, if those are more convenient.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said there’s been a lot of attention over the past year regarding the B2B trail, the area around Main Street and the Allen Creek greenway. A lot of opportunities have been identified, and PAC can help figure out where the city should focus when applying for grants to pursue some of these projects, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Cobblestone Farm Association

George Taylor, president of the Cobblestone Farm Association, delivered a brief update to the commission, along with a written annual report for 2012. [.pdf of 2012 annual report] The association is a nonprofit that works in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, which owns the Cobblestone Farm property and buildings at 2781 Packard Road, adjacent to Buhr Park.

George Taylor, president of the Cobblestone Farm Association.

Noting that it seemed like ancient history now, Taylor reported that in 2012 the city hired an architect to assess the facilities, and determined that roof replacement and work on the windows were priorities. Taylor contacted Preservation By Design to look at the windows. Soon after that, one of the windows was broken from an attempted break-in, so that window was replaced by PBD. [On Jan. 7, 2013, the city council approved a contract to replace the roofs at Cobblestone Farm's event barn and the Tincknor-Campbell House.]

One of the newest activities at the farm is a weekly farmers market, Taylor reported. It’s held every Tuesday from 4-7 p.m., and there have been up to 300 people on some Tuesdays, with 10-20 vendors. There are arts and crafts for kids, bicycle repair, free music. He invited commissioners to drop by later that day.

Among other activities held at Cobblestone, Taylor highlighted the first craft show, which had five vendors. They’ll all be coming back for an event in September, he said.

Taylor reported that the parks system rents out the farm for lots of weddings. The association is tapped into the resource, he said, and rents out the Tincknor-Campbell House for two hours for wedding parties to use as a staging area and tour, for a $75 fee. “It’s been a great revenue source from us,” he said. Many people who come say that they’ve lived in Ann Arbor all their lives, but haven’t ever been to the Cobblestone Farm house, he said. “The word’s getting out there that Cobblestone Farm is probably one of the best kept secrets of the city of Ann Arbor.”

Next year will be mark the association’s 40th year in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, which owns the facility. The group is planning a large party at its annual meeting in April, and Taylor invited commissioners to attend. He noted that there have been ups and downs over the years at Cobblestone, but now “everything is really looking up.” He thanked the parks staff for their work.

Downtown Park Update

PAC received a briefing on the downtown park subcommittee from Ingrid Ault, who chairs that group. Other members are Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Ingrid Ault serves on the dog park subcommittee and chairs the downtown park subcommittee.

The online survey has closed, with about 1,600 responses. The results are posted on the subcommittee’s website. [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results].

A lot of the questions had been open-ended, so that the community could drive the conversation, Ault said. The subcommittee members and parks staff will be analyzing and categorizing the results.

The subcommittee’s next meeting is on Tuesday, Sept. 3 at 5 p.m. at city hall’s 6th floor conference room. They’ll be discussing how to do more community outreach, now that the survey results are in, Ault said. The meetings are open to the public.

Two public forums are scheduled as well: On Monday, Sept. 9 in the basement of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library from 6:30-8:30 p.m., and on Wednesday, Sept. 18 at city hall’s basement conference room from 6:30-8:30 p.m.

Dog Park Update

PAC’s dog park subcommittee consists of Ingrid Ault, Karen Levin and Missy Stults. Stults and Levin did not attend PAC’s Aug. 20 meeting, so Ault gave the update. A survey to get public input closed on Aug. 12, and over 1,500 responses were received. The subcommittee will next meet on Friday, Aug. 23 at city hall to discuss the results. Another meeting is set for Sept. 11 at Cobblestone Farm.

The survey had asked a range of questions, Ault said, including whether respondents used the existing dog parks and what people like or don’t like about them. The survey also asked for feedback on specific parks that might include a dog park. Julie Grand noted that about two-thirds of the respondents were female.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said the number of responses for this survey and for the downtown park survey had been extremely high, compared to other city surveys. Both subcommittees had done outreach to solicit input.

Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission.

Tim Berla asked whether the results are available to the public. Smith reported that the results are posted on the subcommittee’s website. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] Berla suggested that in addition to making the information available in a .pdf file, the raw data should be posted in a format so that anyone could download it into a spreadsheet and do their own analysis. He felt it’s important to “just let the ideas into the marketplace and people can figure it out.”

Grand noted that it’s also important to remember that the survey is just one piece of input. It wasn’t intended as a way for people to vote, she said. The survey will be used to help inform PAC’s recommendation, along with feedback at public meetings and other types of information.

Berla then alluded to the prior recommendation to put a dog park in West Park. [In 2012 and then earlier this year, two locations for a new centrally-located dog park were explored at West Park, but ultimately rejected because of protests from nearby residents as well as the New Hope Baptist Church, which is located across the street from the park.] Based on what happened at West Park, he said, “people are going to say, ‘Yeah, I’m in favor of dog parks – just not anywhere near my house.’” It seemed like almost an intractable problem to him. The city’s two existing dog parks, on the far north and south sides of town, aren’t near anyone’s house, he noted.

Berla wondered if there was any way to move forward. It’s a “classic Ann Arbor trap,” he said – everyone is in favor of it, until something specific is proposed and the neighbors say no.

Grand replied that’s why the dog park subcommittee is taking these steps to get more input and look at the broader policy issue. She thought that would make it easier to move forward with a decision. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, expressed interest in developing standard criteria for things like a recommended distance between a dog park and residences. That’s something the subcommittee hopes to develop out of this public process, she said.

In terms of input, the day after PAC’s meeting, the parks & rec staff received an email from Tom Egel, a resident who lives near West Park, with the subject line “Ode to the PAC Dog Park Subcommittee”:

I do not want a loud dog park
I do not want to hear dogs bark

Parks are for people (and dogs on leashes)
Not for a fence that's filled with feces

I live in Ann Arbor and enjoy when it's quiet
Walking my dog means we don't have to diet

We do not need a dog park in "The Ann"
For those who insist, I have a good plan:

There's plenty of land on the outskirts of town
Where dogs can run free and play with more hounds

People with dogs will come from afar
No need to walk there, 'cause they have a car

For those in the city, you can take a nice walk
You'll meet other dogs as you circle the block

So give up this obsession (some call it a lark)
To insist on a centrally located dog park

The residents will thank you, to say the very least
As we relax and enjoy our quiet and peace

Egel had spoken against locating a dog park at West Park during PAC’s March 19, 2013 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Aug. 20 meeting. No one spoke during the two slots available for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: Officer Elections

Julie Grand, PAC’s current chair, reminded commissioners that officer elections would be held at PAC’s Sept. 17 meeting. She encouraged anyone who is interested in holding an office to talk to current officers, including herself.

Ingrid Ault is vice chair. Grand’s term on PAC ends on Oct. 18, 2013.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, gave several brief updates on upcoming events. The annual season-closing “dog swim” at Buhr Park pool will be held on Sept. 4 and Sept. 5 from 3-8 p.m. Even if you don’t own a dog, it’s pretty fun to watch, he said. Local businesses are providing prizes for raffles.

Colin Smith, parks & recreation manager.

On Sunday, Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. in Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty – a grand opening will be held for a “sensory garden” there. It’s a project of the city’s commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens.

Smith also highlighted the grand openings held earlier this summer for the Ann Arbor skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park, and for the newly renovated ballfields at Vets, West Park and Southeast Area Park.

Attendance at the city’s pools has been down in August because of the cooler weather, Smith reported. On the other end of the spectrum, the Argo Cascades has been extremely busy, he said. In July of 2013 compared to July 2012, operations at the Argo livery increased by 52%.

That has resulted in an extreme shortage of parking, especially on the weekends. As a result, beginning Labor Day weekend, the staff will start using a portion of Longshore Park to park cars, Smith said. They expect to accommodate up to 50 vehicles there.

The parks staff will be looking for longer-term solutions, Smith noted, but in the short term, that’s the plan. Part of the problem now is that people are parking on Longshore Drive, which narrows the road and limits the access of emergency vehicles.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Bob Galardi, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Jen Geer and councilmember Mike Anglin. Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Karen Levin, Missy Stults and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio).

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, Sept. 3 at 4 p.m. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

Next downtown park subcommittee meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 3 at 5 p.m. at city hall’s 6th floor conference room. Two public forums are scheduled as well: On Monday, Sept. 9 in the basement of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth, from 6:30-8:30 p.m., and on Wednesday, Sept. 18 at city hall’s basement conference room, 301 E. Huron, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. More information about that group is on the subcommittee’s website.

Next dog park subcommittee meetings: Friday, Aug. 23 at 2:30 p.m. at city hall’s first floor north conference room; and on Wednesday, Sept. 11 at 7 p.m. at Cobblestone Farms, 2781 Packard. More information is on that group’s website.

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.

Aerial map showing a possible location – the purple trapezoid outline – for a dog park in West Park. The image is oriented with south at the top. North Seventh Street runs on the right side of this image, on the west side of the park. (Map by city staff, included in the park advisory commission’s meeting packet.)

No action was taken, and a PAC committee will continue to evaluate 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.

Another PAC committee, focused on developing recommendations for a possible downtown park, gave only a brief update. Its next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 5. However, commissioners heard from four people during public commentary who advocated for a new park atop the city’s Library Lane underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue. Part of the commentary covered a proposal to build a temporary ice-skating rink on that site.

Commissioners also recommended approval of several contracts totaling over $180,000. The contracts cover landscaping work at multiple locations, golf cart leases, custodial work at Cobblestone Farm, renovations at Esch Park, and rental of an overflow parking lot for the Argo canoe livery. The landscaping work is being funded through a donation from the Henrietta Feldman Trust.

And in his monthly report, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith informed commissioners about a strategy the city is pursuing to deal with invasive aquatic plants – primarily Eurasian watermilfoil – at Geddes Pond.

New Dog Park

A report from PAC’s dog park committee turned into an extensive discussion on the topic. By way of brief background, at PAC’s Dec. 18, 2012 meeting, commissioners had recommended locating a new dog park in West Park, in a spot across from New Hope Baptist Church. But because of concerns raised by church members, the recommendation was never put on the city council agenda and that location – by the parking lot off of Chapin Street – was abandoned earlier this year, when it was removed from the city council’s Jan. 22, 2013 agenda.

So the dog park committee – Ingrid Ault, Missy Stults and Karen Levin – met again with park planner Amy Kuras. They visited and evaluated three sites that had been among the top five locations previously identified as suitable for a possible new dog park. The goal is to find a location more centrally located than the city’s two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city.

The locations visited by the committee were:

• A different part of West Park, on a roughly 1-acre knoll in the south-central area.
• About 2 acres in and near South Maple Park, on the city’s west side off of West Liberty.
• Just under an acre at city-owned land at the northwest corner of Crest and Bemidiji.

Each of these sites had been on the short list of locations that were previously considered for a dog park. Committee members had evaluated the three sites, scoring each site based on location, size, shade, parking, water access, neighborhood buffer, surface grading (minimal slopes), and potential conflicts with other uses on the site. The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, from best to worst. [.pdf of scoring and maps for the potential dog park locations]

At PAC’s Feb. 26 meeting, Kuras told commissioners that subsequent conversations with city staff have eliminated the Crest/Bemidiji site from consideration. It’s a former landfill, and for that and other reasons, the city’s utilities department – which is responsible for the site – did not support using it as a dog park.

The utilities department also has plans for the South Maple site, where a water tower might be built at some point, Kuras reported. But city staff felt that a dog park could co-exist with a water tower, so that site remains a possibility. The positives are that it’s a large area well-buffered from neighbors, and is in an underserved part of town. However, there isn’t much parking available there, and that’s an issue that would need to be addressed, Kuras said.

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s vice chair, led the Feb. 26 meeting in the absence of chair Julie Grand, who was on jury duty. Ault reviewed the agenda with parks and recreation manager Colin Smith before the meeting began.

The West Park spot is more centrally located to the downtown, and in a part of the park that is near to only one home – although it would be somewhat near the back yards of houses along North Seventh Street.

Neither of the sites have lighting nearby. That was an advantage of the previously identified site at West Park, where the nearby parking lot provided ambient lighting.

PAC talked about how to proceed, with the committee planning to meet again to make a recommendation to the full commission. There would also need to be public meetings with neighbors and a revised budget, because the sites being considered now are larger than the previous half-acre lot off of Chapin.

Tim Doyle encouraged staff to conduct a survey of current dog park users, to get feedback about existing parks that might be useful in creating a new one.

Christopher Taylor wondered how the site at West Park is currently being used. Kuras replied that the uses are mostly informal –  saying it’s not a location where organized sports are programmed.

Tim Berla wondered whether the new site at West Park was too far away from parking for people to use. His observations were that people preferred to drive to the other dog parks. Kuras thought that the parking – either in the Chapin lot, or on North Seventh – was sufficiently close. She didn’t think it would be a barrier. If that’s the location chosen, the city would need to put in a path to reach the dog park, she said. Graydon Krapohl noted that it’s in more of a residential area than the other two dog parks, so people might be more likely to walk there.

Berla also questioned whether PAC needed to get a broader perspective, perhaps by looking at a larger number of possible sites and identifying how many total dog parks the city should have. Colin Smith noted that this effort is following up on a goal in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan – which PAC approved – that identified the need for a centrally located dog park. It’s not clear how to answer the question of how many dog parks the city should have, Smith said.

Commissioners discussed concerns that neighbors might raise about being close to a dog park. Doyle suggested that PAC consider finding a location away from residential areas, perhaps near a highway so that traffic noise would drown out noise from the dog park. If the point is to add a new dog park, the city might need to give up the idea of one that’s centrally located, he said.

From left: Christopher Taylor, Tim Doyle, and Bob Galardi.

Stults strongly disagreed that the idea is just to add a dog park, and she stressed the importance of the central location. For her, the South Maple location wouldn’t fit that description. She also noted that it doesn’t need to be an either/or decision. When Doyle then suggested pursuing both the South Maple and West Park locations simultaneously, Smith cautioned that the city didn’t want to move forward on anything that it didn’t have adequate funding.

Krapohl wondered what the costs would be, other than the initial start-up expenses. Jeff Straw, the city’s deputy parks and rec manager, reported that the Swift Run dog park, which is operated in partnership with the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, had $25,000 in expenses for calendar year 2012. Those costs include mowing, trash removal and general maintenance. Straw noted that Swift Run is fairly large – about 10 acres – which makes a difference in expenses.

Alan Jackson pointed out that mowing already occurs at the West Park location, so he wondered if there would be any additional increase in expenses by adding the dog park. Parks staff indicated that some efficiencies would be seen because mowing and trash pickup already occur at West Park. Smith again noted that a budget would need to be developed, depending on the location identified.

Public Commentary: Library Lane Park

Four people spoke during public commentary at PAC’s Feb. 26 meeting, all of them advocating for a park on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. The South Fifth Avenue site is owned by the city, adjacent to the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building and across from the Blake Transit Center.

Aaron Hammer told commissioners he lives in Ward 5 and has a background in landscape architecture. He focused his remarks on the load-bearing capacity for part of the Library Lane area – the part of the site that does not include footings for a large building. He was attempting to show how much soil and plant material could be supported on the site. Information provided as part of the city’s previous request for proposals (RFP) for that site indicated that it can accommodate 18 inches of soil, Hammer said, and that accommodating an additional 18 inches of soil beyond that would require further analysis. Average soil weights are between 75-100 pounds per cubic foot, he said, so a cubic yard of topsoil will cover 100 square feet with a depth of 3 inches. That translates roughly to between 19-25 pounds per square foot. So the structure can support about 150 pounds per square foot – the weight for 18 inches of soil.

Mary Hathaway addressed the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at their Feb. 26 meeting to advocate for a park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure.

Factoring in the weight of crushed gravel and stone that’s already on the site, it would be possible to remove the surface parking and replace it with plantings and trees with shallow root systems, Hammer contended. He thought that more questions could be asked about the information in the RFP as well as the construction documents, which show the site in more detail. In addition to being a great green outdoor common space, it could be a live, environmentally-respecting, useable green roof, he concluded.

Mary Hathaway said she was speaking as a member of the Library Green Conservancy and as a former chair of the Ann Arbor historic district commission. She was there to address what she described as two fallacies put forward by opponents of a park on top of the Library Lane structure. Opponents say that the site isn’t suitable for a park because the existing structures wouldn’t face the park, she said. The second fallacy is that new construction would be forbidden under historic district ordinances. “Both of these arguments are false,” she said. There’s nothing in the law that would prevent existing buildings from opening their rear facades to face a new park, Hathaway said. New entries, porches, balconies and decks could seize this opportunity, she added, and would bring the buildings enhanced value.

Also, the historic districts on the block would not prevent new development from occurring, Hathaway said. She showed a drawing that indicated the location of buildings that are part of historic districts – five houses on South Division; a carriage house on East William; three houses on East Liberty, west of Seva restaurant; and three buildings on South Fifth, including those that house Jerusalem Garden and Earthen Jar.

These houses can’t be demolished, she said, but changes are allowed in the rear. Not part of an historic district are the Ann Arbor District library building on South Fifth; the University of Michigan Credit Union building on East William; and the Michigan Square building on East Liberty, next to Liberty Plaza. The Denali condos and the Seva restaurant building on East Liberty are technically within an historic district, she noted, but are classified as “non-contributing” structures and as such could be demolished or replaced.

Hathaway mentioned the “proximity principle,” which predicts increased value of land near public parks. A park at the Library Lane location would encourage redevelopment of properties that aren’t protected by an historic district, she said. The conservancy hopes that a new park and redevelopment of that area would create a vibrant setting for downtown.

Odile Hugenot Haber told commissioners that she’s French, and in Paris there are many parks where you can sit on a bench and meet older people who live in your neighborhood, watch children play, see people walking their dogs – there is social life going on. In Ann Arbor, many people work all day in front of a computer, she said, so it’s nice to walk downtown and have some place to meet your friends. She said she couldn’t think of a better place for that to happen than next to the library. You could check out or return your books, meet a friend in an area where there’s grass and a waterfall, she said, with maybe a concrete ping pong table or place for people to play chess. It would be an interactive urban park.

This kind of thing is happening in other cities, she noted. “I don’t know why Ann Arbor is so stuck in the ’50s.” People want to destroy old buildings and just put in more parking. The city wants to attract people to live downtown, she noted, but why would people want to do that if there’s no place to walk around and see green space? A lot of people she knows would like to see a playground next to the library – there’s a big demand for it, she said. “Why not go for it?”

Alan Haber distributes material about a proposed skating rink on top of the Library Lane parking structure.

Alan Haber spoke next, focusing his comments on a proposal for an ice-skating rink on top of the Library Lane structure, using artificial ice. The site won’t be developed for quite a while, he said, so in the short-term there could be a skating rink there. It would be a way to indicate how people like using that space. Haber said that people have already pledged money toward this project, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been asked to make a contribution too. The Library Green Conservancy is also making this proposal to the city council, he said. [.pdf of handout given to PAC on skating rink proposal]

Skating is a lot of fun, he said, and even people who don’t skate have expressed enthusiasm for it. He called it “public art in motion.” The project is a good idea, and he hoped PAC could make a statement as a body or individually to the city council, urging them to give it a try for just two months. It could even continue into the summer, because artificial ice doesn’t require freezing, he said. Or the ice could come off and the platform underneath could be used as a dance floor.

As commissioners look at the issue of where a downtown park should be, he said, this would be a great project to support on an interim basis and would generate a lot of community involvement.

Downtown Parks

Commissioners did not discuss the public commentary on the proposed park atop the Library Lane parking structure. However, there was a brief update regarding work of a subcommittee that’s developing recommendations on the need for downtown parks. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Committee Begins Research on Downtown Parks."]

The next subcommittee meeting is set for Tuesday, March 5 at 4 p.m. in the council workroom at city hall. The meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee, which typically meets at that time, has been canceled. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith reported that after March 5, the subcommittee will be meeting every two weeks, and will begin posting information about its work online.

Subcommittee 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. The meetings are also open to the public.

Landscaping Contract

A contract to do plantings and other landscaping work at several parks in Ann Arbor was on PAC’s agenda for review. The $53,248 contract with Terra Firma Inc. would be for plantings at Cobblestone Farm, Gallup Park Livery, Huron Hills Golf Course Club House, Leslie Park Golf Course entrance, and the Veterans Park Pool and Ice Arena entrance.

The work would be funded through a $112,442 donation from the Henrietta Feldman Trust. Terra Firm submitted the lowest of two qualified bids, coming in under a $103,695 bid from Crimboli Nursery Inc. The contract with Terra Firm will include a 10% contingency of $5,325, bringing the project total to $58,573.

The contract will include maintenance for two planting seasons, including watering, weeding, and replacing dead plants. It will also cover maintenance of plantings made in the fall of 2012 by volunteers at Bryant Community Center, Northside Community Center, the Ann Arbor Senior Center, Fuller Park and Buhr Park Pool and Ice Arena. Those plantings were also funded by the Feldman Trust, which also paid for work to design all of these plantings. That work was done by InSite Design Studio, an Ann Arbor landscape architecture firm. [.pdf of InSite designs for park plantings]

Diagram of proposed landscaping at Buhr Park, designed by InSite Design Studio of Ann Arbor.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave a presentation to PAC about the proposed work, including before and after photos of plantings that volunteers have already done. She noted that the Ann Arbor Rotary paid for plantings at three of the sites.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith said it’s important to note that there are people in the community who support the parks system – this landscaping project is an example of that. He also cited the previous donation made for improvements at South University Park. [Leslie and Michael Morris made that donation in 2011. See Chronicle coverage: "Couple Gives $50,000 for Ann Arbor Park."]

Smith told commissioners that these efforts make a big difference in the appearance of the parks, which over the years have been affected by budget cuts. He pointed out that several years ago, the city employed a horticulturalist – but that position had been cut. So to have a funding source like the Feldman Trust is really outstanding, he said, and will make the parks look better and more colorful.

Landscaping Contract: Commission Discussion

Missy Stults asked whether the plantings would be robust enough for this climate, and whether they would be native plantings. Kuras replied that InSite was known for its work with native species. The firm had designed the rain garden at city hall, for example. But because of soil and aesthetic considerations, the plantings will be a mix of native plants and cultivars, she said.

Ingrid Ault observed the variation in bid amounts made by Terra Firma and Crimboli Nursery. Kuras said it wasn’t clear why there was such a difference in price. She noted that when the Terra Firma representative saw the other bid, he wondered if his own bid had been too low. Sometimes firms will bid low if they want to get work for the first time with the city, Kuras said. But that’s not the case in this situation, so she didn’t know why.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend awarding the landscaping contract to Terra Firma. The contract requires city council approval.

Esch Park Upgrades

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a $39,219 contract with D&J Contracting for improvements to the 4.5-acre Esch Park, located off Fenwick between Packard and Eisenhower Parkway on the city’s south side. The contract would include a 10% construction contingency of $3,922, bringing the total project to $43,141.

The city received 12 bids on the project, which entails repairing an asphalt walk and game court, adding pathways to the playground that will make the area compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and installing picnic tables, benches and shade trees. The bids ranged from a high of $106,904 by DRV Contractors to the lowest bid, which came from D&J Contracting.

The project would be paid for out of the fiscal 2013 park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Park planner Amy Kuras gave a presentation on the work. She characterized it as a fairly simple project, but noted that neighbors were excited about it. [.pdf showing location and features of Esch Park]

Esch Park Upgrades: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson said it seemed like a nice project, but he wondered what kind of public process had been involved. Kuras explained that it was a three-step process, including an initial public meeting, a questionnaire sent to residents, and a follow-up communication to residents with proposed drawings that showed the work to be done. She noted that the project had been initially spurred in response to complaints from residents about the park’s condition.

Bob Galardi pointed out the wide variance in the bids, and wondered why that had occurred. Kuras said she’d also been baffled by that, given that it’s a straightforward project. She didn’t know why the bids had come in at such different levels.

Responding to a question about her experience working with D&J, Kuras reported that she had worked with D&J on other city projects, including renovation of a bridge at Bandemer Park and work on pathways at Buhr Park.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend awarding the Esch Park improvements contract to D&J Contracting. The contract requires city council approval.

Golf Cart Leases

On the agenda was a resolution to award a two-year contract for leasing golf carts at Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses. The contract with Pifer Inc. – for up to $40,260 – covers the leasing of 65 golf carts for the 2013 and 2014 seasons, with an option to renew for 2015.

Doug Kelly, the city of Ann Arbor’s director of golf.

Part of the deal includes selling 24 city-owned golf carts to the company. That sale is a trade-in of nine-year-old carts that are no longer suitable to rent, and will be used to offset the new lease.

The city received four bids for this contract, from Club Car-Midwest Golf & Turf; Ellis Sales Inc.; Michigan Tournament Fleet; and Pifer. Club Car submitted the highest bid at $124,113 with a trade-in offer of $28,800 for a net cost of $95,313 over two years.

Pfier was the lowest responsible bidder. The lease cost of $75,600 will be offset by the trade-in valued at $35,400, for a net bid of $40,260 – or $20,130 per year.

According to a staff memo, golf cart rental at Huron Hills and Leslie Park generated about $250,000 in revenue for the city during fiscal year 2012.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, explained that in 2009, the city council authorized buying a fleet of golf carts that the city had been leasing. Since then, those carts have been supplemented with additional carts leased during the season, but at an amount that didn’t trigger the need for council approval. Now, the carts are too old to continue using, he said, so they’re being sold to Pifer to “retire to Florida for less intensive use.” That trade-in aspect makes this particular contract more complicated than it would normally be, he said.

He noted that the current FY 2013 budget includes a $45,000 line item for golf carts. So the good news is that there will be substantial savings, he said, because the lease is for $20,130 per year.

Golf Cart Leases: Commission Discussion

Tim Doyle asked how much a new golf cart would cost. Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf, replied that the cost would be about $6,000.

Karen Levin asked why the city was leasing, rather than buying. Colin Smith explained that the current carts are gas-powered. Eventually, the city would like to explore moving to electric carts, but the infrastructure for that – such as charging stations – isn’t in place yet. The city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) includes the infrastructure for electric vehicles in the future, Smith said, so the staff is recommending a short-term lease until the transition from gas to electric can be made.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend awarding the golf cart leasing contract to Pifer. The contract requires city council approval.

Custodial Contract at Cobblestone

Commissioners were asked to review a three-year contract with Magic Finish to provide custodial and event services at Cobblestone Farm. The contract would not exceed $44,250 annually, from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2016. It would include an option to renew administratively for an additional two years at an amount not to exceed $47,200.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Tim Berla and Alan Jackson.

Four firms bid on the contract, according to a staff memo, but two of those bidders – Kristel Cleaning and Pristine Cleaning – were disqualified. Magic Finish submitted a lower bid than H & K Janitorial Services, which had bid $47,695 for the first year and $51,280 in each of the subsequent two years.

The city-owned Cobblestone Farm, located at 2781 Packard, is used as office space for the parks and recreation customer service staff and GIVE 365 volunteer program. Event space is rented to hold public meetings and special events, including weddings.

Parks staff noted that revenue generated by the facility is growing, and reached $342,000 in 2012. Although cleaning and set-up services have been used in previous years, the amount now required has grown to the point that the contract triggered the need for city council approval.

Jeff Straw, the city’s deputy parks and rec manager, reported that Cobblestone Farm hosts about 160 events each year. This year, the facility is booked every Friday, Saturday and Sunday from April through mid-November.

Custodial Contract at Cobblestone: Commission Discussion

Tim Doyle asked whether the city provides staffing for events held at Cobblestone Farm, or if the renter brings in outside staff for services like catering. Straw replied that the city provides a staff person to oversee the building during the event, but the renter is responsible for everything else, like catering, DJ, and other amenities.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend awarding the custodial contract to Magic Finish. The contract requires city council approval.

Parking for Argo Canoe Livery

A $3,000 lease to accommodate overflow parking for the Argo canoe livery was on PAC’s Feb. 26 agenda for review. The lease of a parking lot at 416 Longshore Drive – with about 40 spaces – will cover Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from May 25 to Sept. 2, 2013, with an option to renew administratively for two successive one-year periods.

City parks staff reported that the overflow parking at this lot had been used during the 2012 season, and they recommended continuing the lease. According to city records, the land is owned by the Stewardship Network.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that even though the amount is low, the city’s charter requires that any land contract must be approved by the city council.

Parking for Argo Canoe Livery: Commission Discussion

Ingrid Ault asked how the use of this lot is monitored. Smith said that the lot owners have asked the city to put signs up to indicate when the lot is available for the public. The owners would call the city if there are any problems, he said, but so far there hadn’t been any issues.

Bob Galardi wondered if there was sufficient parking, even with this overflow lot. Jeff Straw, deputy parks and recreation manager, reported that the extra lot helps, but parking is still a challenge as the use of the canoe livery grows. He clarified for Galardi that people come to that area both to rent from the canoe livery as well as to use the public boat launch for their own canoes or kayaks.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the parking lot rental. The contract requires city council approval.

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, manager of Ann Arbor parks and recreation, gave commissioners an update on plans to deal with aquatic plants at Geddes Pond.

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation for the city of Ann Arbor.

Last year, city staff hired a company to harvest excess vegetation in July near the Gallup Park canoe livery. The main problem is with Eurasian watermilfoil, an invasive plant that makes it difficult for people to use paddleboats or canoe on that part of the pond. In addition to the difficulty of using that area and the aesthetics, the vegetation increases the rate of sedimentation, reduces water clarity, and is perceived as unsafe.

This year, the city staff are proposing to harvest the vegetation three times, and are preparing a request for proposals (RFP) to hire a company to do the work. The parks staff is working with the city’s staff in natural areas preservation and water quality, as well as with the city’s environmental coordinator, Smith said. He referred commissioners to a staff memo with more information. [.pdf of staff memo]

Alan Jackson reported that he’d talked with Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Natural Resources Center in Ann Arbor. Buchsbaum had expressed skepticism about this approach, Jackson said, and had hoped that the city would pursue other alternatives.

Smith responded, saying that the city staff who’ve looked at this have a wide range of expertise and had explored a variety of options. They had also consulted with Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council. Approaches like dredging would require getting state permits and would be quite costly, he said, although that might be something to consider in the future. Smith also noted that the harvesting approach is used by other park systems, including the Huron-Clinton Metroparks.

Manager’s Report: Budget, Conference

Smith also reported that the budget process for fiscal year 2014 is underway, and for the first time in years, no budget reductions are proposed, he said. The outlook for fiscal 2015 is less clear, he added, but still encouraging. [The city's fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30.]

Smith will meet with PAC’s finance committee – Tim Doyle and Bob Galardi – then bring the budget for parks and recreation to PAC’s April meeting for review and a recommendation to the city council. The council will vote on the entire city budget in May.

Smith also reported that he’d be attending the Michigan Recreation & Parks Association conference in Lansing later in the week, along with some of the other city parks staff. Gayle Hurn, the city’s outreach coordinator for the Give 365 program, will be making a presentation at the conference about outreach efforts, he said.

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

Absent: Julie Grand.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, March 19, 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.

Ann Arbor water main and sanitary sewer fixed charges: 2004 to present. The proposed increase indicated for 2013 was not adopted by the city council at its Jan. 22 meeting.

The charges are due when a single- or two-family property connects to water and sewer for the first time. The charges are paid by either the contractor/developer or the property owner, depending on who makes the request for a connection.

Consent agenda items – a subset of the council’s business – are by definition voted on as a group, but councilmembers can choose to pull out items from the consent agenda for separate discussion.

That’s what happened at the Jan. 22 meeting. After an attempt to postpone the item failed, the council simply chose not to adopt the increases. But councilmembers were split on the question, with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje voting for the increased charges. Arguments against the increase were based on the amount of the increases, their possible impact on the likelihood of infill development in lower-income neighborhoods, and the fairness of charging new connections for depreciation costs.

The other major chunk of the council’s meeting was devoted to a briefing from Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton on the transition of police dispatch operations for the city to the sheriff’s office – Washtenaw Metro Dispatch (WMD). Highlights of that presentation included benchmark metrics. For example, WMD answers 97% of all calls within 20 seconds (4 rings). Total call processing time – from when the call is received until some unit is dispatched – ranges from 2.2 minutes for robberies to 5.16 minutes for disorderly conduct calls. According to Clayton, over the last six months since operations have been shifted to WMD from Ann Arbor police dispatch, the cost per 911 call has been decreased by more than half – from just under $40 per call to around $16 a call.

The council also established a project planning budget for a sidewalk on a quarter-mile stretch of Newport Road just north of Wines Elementary School. In other business, the council approved establishing a residential parking district off Washtenaw Avenue southeast of the University of Michigan campus, because streets in the neighborhood were being effectively used as a commuter parking lot for students taking the bus further into campus.

The new residential parking district is located in a neighborhood in the vicinity of the Beth Israel Congregation. Beth Israel came up during communications time as Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) responded to public commentary critical of him for not yet bringing a resolution to the council table on the topic of Palestinian rights. Warpehoski essentially indicated he would not be contemplating such a resolution as long as demonstrations continue outside Beth Israel on Saturdays during worship services.

Half of the public commentary at the start of the meeting was on the topic of a proposed dog park – in West Park, across the street from the New Hope Baptist Church. The proposal had been expected by supporters to be on the council’s agenda, but it had not been included. So some turned out to urge council to pursue a dog park at that location. Others simply advocated for establishing a centrally-located dog park somewhere in the city.

The decision to pull the item from the agenda had come after the city’s park advisory commission had voted in December to recommend establishing a dog park in the West Park location for a one-year trial period. But subsequently, parks staff and commission leaders were convinced by members of the New Hope congregation not to push the proposal ahead for consideration by the city council.

Sewer, Water Connections

Included as part of the consent agenda was the annual setting of fixed charges for water main and sanitary sewer improvements. The charges are due when a single- or two-family property connects to water and sewer for the first time. The charges are paid by either the contractor/developer or the property owner, depending on who makes the request for a connection.

The council was asked to adopt the result of a calculation – which has a methodology prescribed by city ordinance – to raise the charges from $15,552 and $24,665 for water and sewer, respectively, to $15,967 and $25,370. That’s an increase of a little under 3%.

The methodology prescribed by city ordinance for water mains is as follows:

“Water main improvement charge fixed charge” shall mean the charge per residential unit for water main improvements, set by city council annually by resolution and calculated on the basis of the city’s average actual cost per residential unit for the 10 most recent publicly constructed water main improvement projects preceding the date the fixed charge is set by city council, with the costs of said projects adjusted as needed to be brought current, using the most recently published Handy-Whitman Index for “Distribution Plant Mains, Average All Types.”

The methodology for sewer connections is similar.

Consent agenda items – a subset of the council’s business – are by definition voted on as a group, but councilmembers can choose to pull out items from the consent agenda for separate discussion. Items on the consent agenda are supposed to have certain characteristics – for example, the consent agenda includes all contracts under $100,000. From the city council rules:

The Consent Agenda shall consist of ordinances and resolutions considered routine. Items on the Consent Agenda may be approved by a single motion. The motion to approve the Consent Agenda shall not require the reading of the titles of items on that agenda other than ordinances. If any member of the Council objects to consideration of an item as part of the Consent Agenda, that item shall be moved to the end of the appropriate portion of the regular agenda. All contracts under $100,000.00 will be listed in the consent agenda for council approval. Contracts over $100,000.00 will be listed in Motions and Resolutions under the DS section for staff.

The item on fixed charges for water and sewer was pulled out for separate consideration by Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Sewer, Water Connection: Initial Deliberations

Lumm led off discussion by observing that the charges had increased by almost 50% over the course of nine years – reasoning that it amounts to about a 5% increase per year. She observed that 5% is higher than the general inflation rate: Why is that?

Called to the podium to explain the connection charges were public services area administrator Craig Hupy and Elizabeth Rolla, a senior project manager with the city.

Elizabeth Rolla, senior project manager with the city of Ann Arbor.

Rolla pointed to the Handy-Whitman Index for water mains, which aggregates labor rates and material rates. Those rates typically increased about 3% per year, she said. For sewer charges, the guide is the Engineering News Record-Construction Cost Index. Any additional increase in the charges is due to the projects the city has actually done. The costs for the most recent projects are averaged, she explained. Rolla ventured that one of the reasons the costs of completed city projects have increased is that the city’s infrastructure is already built out to a certain point. The places where it is not built out are those areas where it’s more difficult to extend the infrastructure – and that might explain why there’s been an increase in the projects themselves.

An inquiry from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the rationale for calculating the charges, even when the pipe to which the property is connecting already exists.

Hupy explained that when the connection is first made – no matter how old the pipe is – that’s the first time that property owner is making an investment in the pipe. They get the same service as if it’s new. Their neighbor next door, who’s been connected all along, has been paying for depreciation. The charges put the two parcels on equal footing, and that makes it equitable for existing ratepayers, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to the contention of equity by recalling conversations he’d had with Hupy’s predecessor, Sue McCormick. He’d always remembered hearing about costs that went up dramatically, but didn’t hear about the unintended consequence of lowering the value of unimproved property. He pointed out that the total of the connection charges – around $41,000 – would have to be factored into the cost of acquiring and developing the property, which meant that the value of the property was less. Lower property value meant that its taxable value is less, which means less revenue for the city, he said.

Kunselman wondered how the city would promote infill development in a neighborhood like Springbrook, where houses have been torn down. Kunselman questioned the rationale for the connection charges, saying the pipe to which a property owner is being charged to connect is already in the ground and paid for. “That’s where we disagree,” Hupy responded.

Sewer, Water Connection: Deliberations – Postponement

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) observed that every year the council is asked to approve the fixed charges before the budget is approved in May. She wondered why it was not synchronized with the budget. Hupy explained that the timing is keyed to the construction season that starts in the spring. Higgins then observed that the city already has fees in place – so she wanted the setting of the fees to be based on the budget cycle. She indicated she would be willing to postpone the vote. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Higgins that she wasn’t actually moving for postponement at that moment.

Briere said she’d support postponement. It would also give the council time to discuss whether the fees should be raised at all. Higgins then moved for postponement of the item to the council’s first meeting in April.

Lumm wondered what was going to happen between now and April. Would the council get more information about the capital improvements plan (CIP)? Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she already knows of a water main she would like to see replaced in Ward 2, which is not recommended in the CIP for replacement in the next construction season.

From left: Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) did not see a need to postpone. While he understood the rationale for aligning the budget process and the setting of fixed charges, the data is aggregated based on the construction season. And he saw a risk that the city would be put “behind the cycle.”

Kunselman indicated support for postponement, but asked how many parcels actually had to pay such charges in the past year. Cresson Slotten, the city’s systems planning unit manager, told Kunselman it was on the order of a couple of dozen – not hundreds.

Hieftje indicated that he agreed with Taylor but said it didn’t bother him if the item was postponed. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wasn’t clear about the nature of other councilmembers’ objections – was it because the new connections included the depreciation costs? Hupy reviewed how the fixed charges for the new connections put a property on “equal footing” with existing ratepayers. Anglin seemed to indicate agreement with that basic approach, but indicated he’d vote for postponement.

Hieftje described the fixed charges as “buying a share” in the infrastructure system that’s been built and paid for. Briere ventured that the motion to postpone reflected not so much the question of how the charges were calculated, but rather on the timing of the cycle for approval.

During this discussion, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had looked up the city code and noted that the mechanism is set forth in the city code. The code instructs that council that it approves the rates by annual resolution. He saw the value in coordinating with the budget from a planning perspective – but not so much that he wanted to change things now. As he thought about the work ahead of the council, he didn’t see the issue as a high priority. He suggested that the council should set the rates and move on.

Lumm expressed some concern that a reduction in the charges would result in a reduction in revenue that might have an impact on the city’s ability to undertake improvement projects. Hupy confirmed that any reduction in revenue would have some impact, but he didn’t think it would eliminate or save a project.

Outcome: The motion to postpone the vote on the fixed charges for water and sewer connections failed, with only Marcia Higgins, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sabra Briere and Stephen Kunselman voting for it.

Sewer, Water Connection: Final Deliberations

Higgins said she wouldn’t vote in favor of raising rates. She felt that the rates for 2012 were sufficient. An increase of 5% every year is a lot, she said. Kailasapathy also wouldn’t vote to support an increase. She said that if an asset is 10 years old, and someone buys into it in the ninth year, even though that person didn’t use the asset, they have to contribute nine years’ worth of depreciation. She ventured that the city needs to rethink how it determines these rates. One approach might be to consider a longer period for taking the average – not just the 10 most recent projects. That might smooth out the costs.

City councilmember Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Taylor indicated he would vote in favor of increased rates. He felt that increasing rates in response to increased costs makes a great deal of sense. He ventured that someone will be on the short end of the arrangement. When there’s an improvement, Taylor said, if a property owner doesn’t pay for the depreciation, then the owner of the new connection will be “freeloading” on the other residents.

Briere sought additional clarification about whether the connection charge reflected a prospective or a retrospective payment. Responding to Hupy’s explanation that the improvement charge paid for the pipe to serve a parcel, Briere abandoned her line of questioning, saying, “I’m not getting any more than confused.”

Kunselman drew out some of the history of the city’s water and sewer improvement projects. Specific projects mentioned included one in the Arbor Oaks neighborhood and one on Baylis Drive. Kunselman questioned whether the city of Ann Arbor was charging for depreciation on a pipe placed by the former municipality of East Ann Arbor. Hupy responded by saying that the city of Ann Arbor has been maintaining it and has paid depreciation on it, and is responsible to replace it. Kunselman reiterated his view that the connection charges are a disincentive for infill development. The amount of the charges, he said, is “getting out of hand.” He called the fees punitive.

Warpehoski came back to the point that the methodology for calculating the charges is laid out in the city ordinance. He saw little discretion for the council – except perhaps on timing.

Lumm called Warpehoski’s point a good one. She was not happy that costs have been increased. She felt that the funding model needs to be addressed, but given that the amounts presented are what the city code dictates, she indicated that’s what the council should vote on.

City councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Hieftje said he’d appreciate it if people would support the rates as proposed as a result of the staff calculation.

Kunselman noted that the city code does not say that the council must do anything – indicating that only the methodology is prescribed. The council has to vote on the increase, but the code doesn’t say the council has to vote yes. He wouldn’t vote for a rate increase, he said. He wanted to encourage some infill development. Higgins said Kunselman was absolutely correct – that the council can say yes or no.

Lumm briefly put forward an amendment to the resolution saying that the existing rates would be retained. Higgins indicated that voting no on the existing resolution would have the same effect – so Lumm withdrew the amendment.

Outcome: The new rates failed on a 4-6 vote. Voting for the rate increases were Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje. Voting against it were Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Margie Teall (Ward 4) was absent.

County Dispatch Services

As part of the city administrator’s communications, Steve Powers introduced Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton to give an update on the first six months of operations since the city began contracting for 911 dispatch services with the sheriff’s office. [.pdf of slides presented by Clayton]

Clayton led off with an historical overview.

• 2010 January: City of Ypsilanti contracted with the sheriff’s office for dispatch services.
• 2010 May: Sheriff’s office and Ann Arbor police department co-located dispatch operations. Agreement for the co-location came at a Dec. 9, 2009 meeting of the city council. Authorization to fund technology related to the co-location came at the council’s Jan. 19, 2010 meeting.
• 2011 March: First strategic discussions between sheriff and police chief.
• 2011 April: Joint city/county task force formed.
• 2011 June: First public discussion of opportunity for consolidation. Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor, Washtenaw Joint 911 Dispatch.”
• 2011 September: Ann Arbor city council working session.
• 2011 December: Ann Arbor city council approves contract proposal at its Dec. 6, 2011 meeting.
• 2012 January: Washtenaw County board of commissioners approves contract proposal at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting.
• 2012: WCSO assumes full responsibility for Ann Arbor dispatch services.

Joining Clayton at the podium were Spring Tremaine and Rochelle Noonan. Tremaine was hired as dispatch operations manager in 2012 upon retiring as a lieutenant with the Ann Arbor police department after 25 years of service. Rochelle Noonan is dispatch operations coordinator, and has worked for the sheriff’s office since 2003.

Highlights of the presentation included a change in the staffing model. A large part of the cost savings stem from eliminating the duplication of a position – that of the LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network ) officer. Clayton also highlighted the labor union’s agreement to add part-time staff, which allows for more scheduling flexibility.

Staffing levels before and after the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office started providing 911 dispatch services for the city of Ann Arbor.

Clayton stressed that the emphasis is on quality of service. The sheriff’s office is tracking various metrics, in order to establish benchmarks for operations, service quality, financials, and training.

Through the first six months, 97% of calls are being answered within 20 seconds (four rings), which compares favorably to a NENA (National Emergency Number Association) standard.

By way of additional background, the NENA standard also calls for 90% of calls to be answered within 10 seconds – for the hour of the day with the busiest call volume. Washtenaw Metro Dispatch is achieving call answer times of less than 10 seconds for 86% of all calls. From the NENA standard:

3.1 Standard for answering 9-1-1 Calls. Ninety percent (90%) of all 9-1-1 calls arriving at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) shall be answered within ten (10) seconds during the busy hour (the hour each day with the greatest call volume, as defined in the NENA Master Glossary 00-001). Ninety-five (95%) of all 9-1-1 calls should be answered within twenty (20) seconds.

Time to answer emergency calls: Washtenaw Metro Dispatch.

Speed to compete dispatching – from the time a call comes in to the time an officer is sent to the scene – was also broken down by incident type.

Washtenaw Metro Dispatch: Time to dispatch by incident type.

Complaints about how 911 dispatch is handled are also logged and tracked. Some come from responding officers, while others come from the 911 caller. Each one is investigated to determine if it was founded or not. Examples of founded complaints include data entry mistakes (e.g. a wrong license number), notifying the wrong wrecker company, or dispatching an officer who was not the nearest available for that incident.

The number of founded complaints by agency for which Washtenaw County Metro dispatch provides services correlates roughly to the call volume per agency:

Washtenaw Metro Dispatch – founded complaints by agency: Michigan State Police (MSP), Northfield Township Police Department (NTPD), Ypsilanti Police Department (YPD), Ann Arbor Police Department (AAPD) and Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO).

Washtenaw Metro Dispatch – call volume by agency: Northfield Township Police Department (NTPD), Ypsilanti Police Department (YPD), Ann Arbor Police Department (AAPD) and Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO).

Questions from councilmembers included the basics of how dispatching works, especially with respect to fire dispatching, which has been handled by Huron Valley Ambulance since Dec. 1, 2009.

Here’s a sketch of how it previously worked:

[Call]
↓
[911 center]
[fire-protection-related] → [send firetrucks]
[any of 5 "auto-send" medicals] → [send firetrucks]
[any of 28 other medicals]
↓
[HVA]
[as medical information dictates] → [send ambulances]
[as medical information dictates]
↓
[911 center]
[based on HVA request] → [send firetrucks]

-

Since Dec. 1, 2009 the dispatching is handled roughly like this:

-

[Call]
↓
[911 center]
[fire-protection-related or medical-related]
↓
[HVA]
[as medical information dictates] → [send ambulances and/or firetrucks]
[as fire protection information dictates] → [send firetrucks]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that it might be worth re-examining the contract with HVA and considering a further consolidation of dispatch operations. City administrator Steve Powers indicated that putting all dispatching in the same room would be a “significant undertaking” and would take “more than a memo from the administrator.” Powers based his assessment on his experience having overseen a complete dispatch consolidation as county administrator in Marquette County. [Powers served in that position for over a decade before being hired as Ann Arbor city administrator in 2011.]

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers signs agendas for students so they can prove they completed a class assignment.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) passed along a concern from a resident who had called 911, and HVA was dispatched. The resident had been surprised to get a bill. Had the resident known there would be a charge, they wouldn’t have called. The explanation offered to Lumm was that the HVA dispatcher makes a judgment about who to send to the scene – a fire truck or ambulance. The Washtenaw Metro Dispatch operators aren’t in a position to quiz a caller to determine and convey information about possible costs.

John Seto, Ann Arbor’s police chief, added that this is an issue that Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard is looking at, with an eye toward educating residents about what they can expect when they call 911.

Kunselman added that he knows it’s possible to call 911 and state clearly that “This not an emergency,” and that the call taker would then route the call appropriately. He asked if an educational effort could be made through the Community Television Network (CTN) so that residents could improve their role as citizens when they call for service. Seto indicated he’d follow up with the city’s communications unit.

Outcome: This was an informational update, and did not require a vote by council.

Residential Parking Permit District

The council was asked to approve funding for signs and to authorize a new residential parking district in Ann Arbor – in a neighborhood about a mile southeast of the University of Michigan campus, off Washtenaw Avenue. [.jpg of map showing relation of district to campus]

According to the staff memo accompanying the city council’s agenda item, the rationale for the district is that residents in the area have “extreme parking problems due to the students parking in their neighborhood and then bussing into campus.” Sixty percent of residents in the area signed a petition requesting that the district be established.

Signs for each of the 12 block faces in the district – which includes sections of Austin Avenue, Norway Road and Fair Oaks – will cost a total of $1,800, an amount that was not previously included in the city’s FY 2013 budget.

Permits are sold annually only to residents of the parking district. Without a permit, it will not be lawful to park on the street for more than two hours from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Fees are $50 per permit, per calendar year. Replacement permits are $15.

The city council was asked to approve the $1,800 appropriation from the city’s general fund balance. Because the action changed the budget, it required eight votes to pass.

The city’s ordinance empowers the city administrator to designate a residential parking district, after notifying the city council. From Chapter 126 Article 6 10:66 on residential parking districts:

If a residential area has excessive parking of vehicles not owned by residents of the area, the Administrator may, after notice to City Council, issue a traffic control order designating a residential parking district. The city shall install signs in a residential parking district indicating that parking time limits do not apply to vehicles with permits. After receiving evidence of residency within a parking district, the city shall issue permits for the vehicles of residents of the district. If a permit is displayed on a vehicle in accordance with the rules of the transportation department, it shall not be a violation to park it in excess of the time limits in the residential district named on the permit. The city council may establish permit fees by resolution.

In addition to the district in the area of Austin Avenue, Norway Road and Fair Oaks, the city has at least eight other residential parking districts.

The minimal council discussion consisted of a brief remark from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who said he was happy to see the residential parking district come to pass. The city streets in the area had effectively become a commuter lot. He was glad residents got together and, with the help of city staff, established the district.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the new residential parking district.

Sidewalk Repair Inside DDA District

The council was asked to approve an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority covering sidewalk repair inside the geographic district of the DDA. Under terms of the agreement, sidewalks inside the district will be repaired by the city of Ann Arbor – using funds captured by the DDA from the city’s sidewalk repair millage, under the DDA’s standard tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism.

Voters approved the 1/8 mill sidewalk repair millage in November of 2011. The city council resolution placing the question on the ballot that year excluded certain properties inside the DDA district – those that are not one- and two-family houses – from the city’s sidewalk repair program that’s funded with the millage proceeds.

The council subsequently enacted an ordinance, on June 4, 2012, that assigns responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and repair to the city of Ann Arbor. But for the excluded properties within the DDA, the ordinance provides the option that the DDA itself handles repair of adjacent sidewalks or that the DDA pays the city to do the work.

It’s an agreement related to the second of those two options that the city council was asked to approve.

Outcome: The council vote unanimously, without deliberations, to approve two one-year agreements with the DDA.

Newport Sidewalk Planning Budget

The council was asked to approve a planning budget of $15,000 for a quarter-mile stretch of Newport Road – from Wines Elementary School northward to Riverwood. The stretch of road might see construction of a public sidewalk by the summer of 2014. The preliminary $15,000 budget includes preliminary design and construction cost estimates, an evaluation of different funding scenarios, and gathering additional public feedback on the project.

The project has a background that dates back at least to Nov. 15, 2011, when the city held the first of two meetings in response to requests from residents who live in the neighborhood to consider construction of a safe walking path to the school.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the city considered a much longer project that would have extended roughly a mile – all the way to the city limits near Holyoke Lane. But based on feedback from public meetings, the city opted for a reduced version of the project. There had been concern about the impact of a non-motorized sidewalk  on natural features and on the “rural character” of Newport Road along that stretch.

Some residents whose property does not front the section of the sidewalk that’s being contemplated have nevertheless indicated a willingness to pay a special assessment to fund the project. That sentiment was conveyed in a 79-signature petition received by the city in late 2012. Special assessments typically apply to just properties immediately adjacent to the sidewalk.

Funds generated from the sidewalk repair millage, approved by voters in 2011, can be spent only on repairing existing sidewalks, not to construct new sections of sidewalk to fill in gaps.

The timeline indicated in the staff memo provided for four months – from February to May – to perform a topographical analysis, prepare preliminary alternatives/cost estimates, and investigate special assessment and other funding opportunities. The month of June would be used to get additional feedback from the public. In August, the city council would authorize final design, construction and funding. From September this year through February 2014, the project would be designed and the multiple, sequenced special assessment resolutions would move through the city council, then the construction would be bid out. Following that general timeframe would allow construction sometime in the summer of 2014.

This is the second sidewalk design project budget that the council has authorized in the last two months. On Nov. 19, 2012, the council approved a $15,000 project budget to design alternatives for a stretch along Scio Church Road. That also came in response to a petition submitted to the city with over 70 signatures.

On Sept. 17, 2012, the council had considered but rejected a proposal added late to that meeting’s agenda to establish a five-year plan to eliminate sidewalk gaps in the city.

Newport Sidewalk Planning Budget: Public Comment

Kathy Griswold spoke in support of the two sidewalk resolutions – especially the one for Newport Road. She called it a good first step. But she encouraged the city to look at a comprehensive system for identifying gaps in the sidewalks – which she believed was taking place now. She also wanted the city to prioritize which gaps to fill and to find funding. She mentioned an AnnArbor.com post that generated 305 comments, which she attributed to confusion about the city’s crosswalk ordinance language. When she tried to find the ordinance language online, she visited the city’s Walk Bike Drive, which she contended had a link to the old ordinance. So she understood why people are confused. She said she was appreciative of the Ann Arbor police department’s efforts and the safety they provide to the community, saying that neither they nor the traffic engineers should be blamed. She asked the council to take the political element out of transportation safety and engineering in this community.

By way of background, the wording of the current ordinance – after two revisions in two years by the city council – reads as follows:

10:148. – Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Griswold has previously pointed out the tension that results from motorists following the ordinance while school crossing safety patrol members follow the AAA safety manual for school crossing guards, which includes the directive, “Never allow students to walk in front of a car that stops to allow them to cross.”

Newport Sidewalk Planning Budget: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations on the agenda item by describing how residents along Newport Road have requested installation of a sidewalk for over a year. That was stimulated in part by concern that public school busing might become “a thing of the past,” she said. If their children have to walk to school or to a park, then they would prefer to do it off the street instead of on the street.

Briere noted that despite the fact that the project had been reduced in scale, many residents haven’t given up hope that the sidewalk would eventually go all the way to the city line. She thanked everybody who’s worked so hard. She encouraged the council to improve sidewalks in the city by filling in this gap on Newport. She noted that the project budget now is for design – and actual construction costs would be borne by residents who live in the neighborhood of Newport Road.

From left: City councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Addressing the general city-wide issue of sidewalk gaps, mayor John Hieftje indicated that each gap would require a unique solution. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if there would be cost savings to the Ann Arbor Public Schools – because AAPS wouldn’t need to provide busing services to the neighborhood. City administrator Steve Powers indicated by way of responding to Petersen that he did not know that level of detail about the AAPS budget, but it was not part of the city staff analysis for the Newport Road sidewalk project. Powers noted that as far as AAPS reviewing its transportation plans, that’s part of a larger strategic direction that the district might be taking: providing safer routes to school for children.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, added that AAPS had identified two sidewalk gaps as priorities – the one on Newport and one near Clague Middle School, which is located on Nixon Road. The Clague sidewalk is being constructed as part of the Safe Routes to School initiative, Hupy said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the petition that residents had submitted was the initial step in starting the special assessment district to provide funding for the project. He wanted to know if the $15,000 design budget that the council was voting on would be wrapped into the total project budget to be funded through a special assessment. Hupy told Kunselman that if the project comes to fruition, and a special assessment provides the funding, then the $15,000 for design would be part of the project budget and the general fund would eventually be “made whole.” But that might take five, ten or fifteen years to happen, Hupy cautioned.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Briere for her work on this. He’d attended the first public meeting when residents were trying to get a sidewalk installed all the way up Newport to the city line.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) followed up on Petersen’s comment about school busing, asking if parents would find the cessation of busing acceptable. Briere responded to Higgins by saying that she’s gone out to Wines Elementary School to enjoy their First Friday walk, and stood there in cold weather watching the kids walk and bike with parents over the bridge. The neighborhood is supportive of this project, she said. It’s not a long distance, and parents seem happy to have their kids walk to school, she noted, but they want them to be safe.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $15,000 budget for the design of the Newport Road sidewalk.

Rezoning of Limited Geddes Area

The council was asked to give initial approval to rezoning six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood. The sites are to be rezoned from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The locations are 2014 Geddes Ave.; 2024 Geddes Ave.; 520 Onondaga St.; 2025 Seneca Ave.; 2023 Seneca Ave.; and 2019 Seneca Ave. [.jpg aerial view of parcels] These are six parcels in a block of 10 sites – the other four sites are already zoned R1C.

The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting. The planning commission had considered the rezoning after the city council directed the planning staff to study the issue of rezoning the parcels. That direction came at the council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting.

According to a staff memo, the direction on the rezoning came from city council at the request of property owners: Raymond Maturo and Ann Mulhern; Joseph and Suzanne Upton; Rishindra and Gwendolyn Reddy; Shahrzad Vazirzadeh and Chad Patterson; Vassilios Lambropoulos and Artemis Leontis; and the Clan Crawford Jr. Trust.

R1B zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Three of the parcels don’t conform with that zoning. Under the proposed R1C zoning, all parcels would conform with required lot size and width. The rezoning would potentially allow three of the parcels – each lot size currently about 17,500 square feet – to be divided in the future, if other city code requirements are met.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning requests. Because a change to zoning is a change to the city’s set of ordinances, to be enacted it will require a second vote after a public hearing at a future meeting of the council.

Appointments

The council acted on two appointments at its Jan. 22 meeting.

Appointments: Environmental Commission

The council considered a resolution re-appointing Christopher Graham to serve on the city of Ann Arbor’s environmental commission. The resolution was attached to the previous council meeting’s agenda as a communication item to alert councilmembers that their vote to confirm him would be forthcoming.

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.

During the brief council remarks, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves as one of two city council representatives to the commission, said Graham had recently been elected chair, so she hoped that the council would agree to his re-appointment.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to re-appoint Graham to serve on the city environmental commission.

Appointments: Taxicab Board

At the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje announced several nominations to boards and commissions, including that of Eric Sturgis to the taxicab board. Ordinarily, appointments take place in a two-step process: (1) names are nominated at a meeting of the city council; and (2) at a subsequent meeting, the council votes to confirm the appointment.

City councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

However, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – who serves as the city council representative to the taxicab board – asked that Sturgis be appointed in a one-step process with the vote taken that same evening. Kunselman pointed out that the taxicab board had a meeting on Thursday that week, and it would be useful to have Sturgis attend. [It turned out that Sturgis was not able to attend that meeting, but the board still achieved a quorum.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that it would be useful if Sturgis would update his resume, because the one he’d included with his application indicated he didn’t live in the city of Ann Arbor (though the application itself indicated he did).

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to appoint Eric Sturgis to serve on the city taxicab board.

Communications and Commentary

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: Council Public Art Committee

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave a brief update on the work of a city council committee that was formed to review the city’s Percent for Art ordinance – in the context of a failed public art millage in November 2012. Briere reported that the committee had met four times so far, including just before that evening’s council meeting. [The group consists of Briere, Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They were appointed at the council's Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, when the council voted to temporarily halt the expenditure of funds accumulated as a result of the city's Percent for Art ordinance.]

Briere reported that the committee has discussed concerns with the existing ordinance. At this point, the committee is considering changes to the Percent for Art ordinance and to the ordinance on boards and commissions that defines the public art commission – which are the two tasks identified in the council resolution appointing that committee. The committee is also looking for creative ways for art to be administered in the city, although the committee didn’t have a mandate to do that, Briere allowed.

Comm/Comm: Urban Core Transportation

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that meetings were occurring between Ann Arbor Transportation Authority staff and Ann Arbor councilmembers. She described other meetings the AATA was having, with elected leaders from the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township, among others. She seemed to indicate some skepticism that the description of “urban core leaders” was apt, saying that some of the jurisdictions included were those that had opted out of the newly incorporated Act 196 transit authority.

Lumm wanted to make sure that resources are not wasted in planning for expansion of services. She questioned whether it made sense to proceed with this more local effort while the impact of the newly created regional transit authority (RTA) is not yet clearly understood. [The RTA covers the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland, as well as the city of Detroit. For more detailed background on Lumm's remarks, see Chronicle coverage: "AATA OKs Labor, Agency Fee Accords."]

Lumm made an appeal for a city council working session to be held on the topic.

Comm/Comm: Solid Waste Plan

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), who is one of two city council appointees to the city’s environmental commission, announced that the environmental commission would hold hearings on the updated city solid waste plan. Those hearings were to take place on Jan. 24. The plan would be coming before the city council in a few weeks, he said.

Comm/Comm: Cold Weather

In the context of the recent cold weather, mayor John Hieftje indicated that it had been reported that no one had been forced to sleep outside who didn’t want to be sheltered – anyone who wanted to be sheltered had been sheltered, he said. He indicated that he got data back from the Delonis Center on that. The Delonis Center had also figured out how to accommodate those who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, he said.

Comm/Comm: Five-Parcel Plan

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) followed up on a Jan. 14 city council work session, which included a presentation from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on the five city-owned parcels that are part of the Connecting William Street project. The DDA had undertaken the project under the council’s direction, Anglin said, to come back to the council after receiving public input on the future use of the city-owned land.

Anglin felt the DDA did a good job of presenting its perspective, but he felt there was a gap in the presentation. He noted that a number of councilmembers had responded at the working session to that gap. The city’s park advisory commission had urged that there be more open green space in the downtown, he said – saying that was a clear mandate from PAC. So he urged the public to make their voices heard in the new year, suggesting that members of the public might like to consider that a New Year’s resolution. He encouraged people to contact the DDA, PAC, and the city council, to let those public bodies know what should happen on the five downtown city-owned parcels. “You should speak up and tell us what you want,” he said.

At its meeting on Jan. 15, 2013, PAC had decided to study for the next four to six months the views they’d heard from the council and within their own body regarding downtown parks and open space, in order to make recommendations to the council. Anglin indicated a preference for confining the discussion to just the five parcels – because that was the scope of the Connecting William Street project. The CWS project had not included all the land in the downtown area.

Anglin encouraged people to speak up so that the council could hear what the “townspeople really do want.” He appreciated the efforts of groups who had spoken about the use of the space on the top of the underground parking garage as a park. [That space, on South Fifth Avenue, is the focus of advocacy by the Library Green.] Anglin said a group advocating for leaving the space open was looking into whether the top of the garage was actually “build-able,” as had been envisioned by the DDA.

Comm/Comm: Dog Park in West Park

Two members of New Hope Baptist Church had addressed the council at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting about a proposed dog park in West Park, directly across from the New Hope Baptist Church on Chapin Street. The proposed location had been recommended by the park advisory commission (PAC) at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. The item had been expected to be on the council’s Jan. 22 agenda, but it was announced at the Jan. 15, 2012 meeting of PAC that the West Park dog park would not appear on the council’s agenda. At a meeting with church leaders – after PAC’s December vote – it had emerged that the church concerns were more deeply rooted than concerns about noise, safety and smell, and reflected cultural differences about what it means to have a dog park so close to their place of worship.

During public commentary at the council’s Jan. 22 meeting, Aina Bernier introduced herself as a member of the dog owners community. She urged the council to establish a dog park somewhere in West Park. Citing concerns about the size of her carbon footprint, she said she would never drive to one of the two dog parks on the outskirts of town to walk her dog. She read aloud a written statement from another dog owner, Christopher Hewitt. His statement commended efforts of PAC to address the need for a dog park. Ann Arbor lacks a sizable central dog park, and the need for amenities in the central area will only decrease, Hewitt’s statement continued. The lack of a dog park in the central area was one reason he and his wife decided against living there. Dog owners need a practical alternative for exercising dogs, the statement continued, and existing parks aren’t fully utilized – given the amount of money that the city spends on them.

Also addressing the council on the topic of a West Park dog park was John Lawter, who just recently concluded his service on PAC. In December, Lawter had voted as a member of that body to recommend that a provisional dog park be established at the West Park location. He told the council he was there because he’s dismayed that the dog park had been pulled from the agenda based on concerns expressed by New Hope Baptist Church. He contended the concerns stemmed from a gross misunderstanding of canine behavior.

Lawter told the council that as a former member of PAC who’s worked on the issue for years, he was skeptical that the commitment to find an alternative site in the central area would be found. He then ticked through some of the objections to the proposed location inside West Park. As for the contention that the proposed area was too small, he pointed out that playgrounds come in all sizes. Two similarly-sized dog parks could be found in the city of Saline, he said. [Mill Pond Park has an area described on the city's website as a one-acre facility. The proposed area in West Park was described as about a quarter acre. One of the city of Ann Arbor's two existing dog parks is 10 acres, while the other is slightly smaller than a soccer field, or about an acre.]

Lawter took on the idea that a dog park land use is incompatible with a church use by pointing to a dog park in Pinckney, north of Ann Arbor, where the Arise Church owns and operates a dog park that’s open to the public. The church credits it with increasing the size of its congregation. Addressing the concern that the site might become crowded, Lawter asked if the city would not build a playground out of concern that there are too many kids in the neighborhood. Of course not, he said, answering his own question – and the city would begin looking for an additional site after building it.

If people had a concern that dogs smell, bark incessantly and are dangerous, then Lawter suggested they visit the city’s two existing dog parks to see for themselves what goes on there. People who take the time to go to a dog park are not the kind of people who own dangerous, dirty or obnoxious dogs, he contended. People who use dog parks self-police for picking up after their own dogs.

If the site was rejected because of cultural differences, then he argued that no decision should be based solely on one culture’s desires compared to those of another culture. Ann Arbor is a culturally diverse city, he said, and Ann Arbor’s dog owners are also culturally diverse – and parks should be open to all cultures, including “the four-legged variety,” he added. If members of the New Hope congregation are afraid of dogs – and Lawter said he believed they were sincere in that fear – then he said to the members of the congregation: “Please be open to change. Let us put our dog park in. Let us show you there’s nothing to be afraid of.” Fear is an ugly thing, he said, and it should be “put down” whenever possible. The proposal as a temporary facility that could be removed after a year if it’s a problem was, Lawter felt, a fair compromise.

Another speaker with a connection to PAC was Melissa Stults, a recently-appointed commissioner. She was speaking, however, as a resident of Ann Arbor and a dog owner, who was relatively new in town. She wanted to speak to show her support for more dog parks in the city. She pointed to the social benefits of providing amenities for dog owners – saying that after eight months in Ann Arbor, she’s made connections in her neighborhood only to people she meets walking their dogs. That group is an important reason that makes her feel like she belongs here.

Virginia Gordan told the council she’s been a resident of Ann Arbor for more than 30 years, and she was speaking in support of more dog parks. The item establishing the dog park area in West Park was supposed to be on the city council agenda that night, she noted. The last action taken had been PAC’s resolution in December recommending that the dog park area be established. She was dismayed that somehow it had been removed from the agenda.

Gordan said she was very perplexed by the city’s continued reluctance to establish neighborhood dog parks. Other cities have such parks or have parks with off-leash hours. Other cities have had such amenities for 10-20 years – so the concept is not new. But establishing dog parks in Ann Arbor is very difficult, for reasons she did not understand. Out of all the parks in Ann Arbor [157 total] only two were dog parks – and they were on the outskirts of town. There needs to be some proportionality, she said. She certainly wholeheartedly supported other recreational facilities provided by the city, which she described as very expensive but which she has no interest in – like golf, swimming, or baseball. She was happy to pay taxes to support those activities for those who enjoy them. But she contended there should be the same kind of respect for dog parks.

Harold Kirchen introduced himself as one of the Ann Arbor dog owners. Like John Lawter, he pointed to the Arise Church dog park in Pinckney as an example of the possible coexistence of a church with a dog park. A dog park is not just a place for dogs to get exercise, he said. Like Missy Stults, Kirchen also pointed out that dog parks were a way for dog owners to make friends. He called on PAC to allay the fears that people had about dog parks and not to be swayed by NIMBY complaints.

Comm/Comm: Israel/Palestine

Blaine Coleman led off by alluding to remarks made by Thomas Partridge during his turn of public commentary (see below). Partridge had implicitly criticized Coleman’s choice of topic, but had asked the council to pass a resolution calling on the federal government to appropriate funding to provide affordable housing, transportation, health care and education throughout the country. Coleman told the council that Partridge’s proposed resolution makes a lot of sense – because it makes sense to spend billions on infrastructure, and the city council should be jumping to pass a resolution like that. But Coleman contended that the council would not pass a resolution like that, and quoted writings of Martin Luther King Jr. in support of that contention, which were recorded during the Vietnam War: “… and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.” Coleman drew a comparison of the inability of the U.S. simultaneously to provide for domestic needs and fight the Vietnam War, and current conditions that have the U.S. in continued military engagement abroad. The U.S. is “gobbling up the resources of the planet,” he said.

Coleman continued by contending that Israel has massacred thousands of Arabs and Palestinians. In that context, Coleman asked why Warpehoski would promise not to make a vote as a councilmember that is critical of Israel – given that Warpehoski is the executive director of a peace group [Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice]. Coleman wondered if anyone had asked Warpehoski to make such a promise and if Warpehoski had received anything in return for making that promise.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani told the council she was there to speak about what she always does – to ask the council to boycott Israel, which she called a “Nazi, racist state” throughout her remarks. Israel receives billions of dollars a year in U.S. aid to maintain colonial, violent conditions, she said. Israeli soldiers, she claimed, would shoot children dead on sight. Ann Arbor councilmembers drink their coffee and read their emails but do nothing to stop what she described as genocide. She called for stopping aid to Israel. She contended there was a global movement toward a boycott of Israel, and she asked people not to buy things that are made in Israel. She noted that she’s been addressing the council since 2002. Of the councilmembers who have served, only one person – Chuck Warpehoski – has indicated he is against some of the violence Israel commits. Warpehoski has said he’s against military aid to Israel, Savabieasfahani said. She wanted Warpehoski to act on that. Instead, she said, he sits quietly and does nothing.

Councilmembers typically don’t respond – either directly or indirectly – to public commentary remarks. However, during council communications time, Warpehoski responded to the comments of Coleman and Savabieasfahani. He began by comparing them to two-year-olds – saying that his daughter is two years old and sometimes acts in ways that are designed to get attention and that generally he does not respond to that kind of attention-seeking behavior. But in this case, he indicated that it was important to respond. When he ran for office, he continued, he did a lot of “discernment.” He felt his duty as a councilmember is to serve the community. And he’d come to a personal decision that the best way he could serve the community – given the “noise” around the Israel-Palestine issue – would be to stay away from it as long as the demonstrations continue outside the Beth Israel synagogue.

Comm/Comm: Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Reads

During communications time, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he’d been impressed with sheriff Jerry Clayton. Warpehoski mention that he and Clayton had attended a meeting where Clayton had recommended that people read Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” The book is part of the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Reads program this year.

Comm/Comm: Corrections to the Minutes

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked that the minutes of the Jan. 7 special session be revised to reflect the fact that Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) was present for the closed session, arriving about 6:15 p.m., and present when the meeting reconvened at 6:47 p.m. [Kailasapathy had not been present when the attendance roll call was taken or when the roll call vote to enter into a closed session was taken.]

Comm/Comm: Energy

A U.S. Department of Energy grant accepted by the council at it previous meeting on Jan. 7, 2103 was the starting point for remarks made by Kermit Schlansker during public commentary. The problem with getting money for a bad project is that it takes money away from a good project, Schlansker said. He noted that the DOE’s award of the wind turbine grant to Ann Arbor illustrates his contention that DOE does not know how to spend its money – and needs to be led by local units of government, like cities. There’s nothing new about windmills, he said. He cited the rooftop of Mitchell Elementary and Scarlett Middle schools as a good place to install solar panels. He mentioned that last summer during a heat wave, the amount of power had dwindled in his part of the city. He said the DOE money would be better spent buying land to construct an energy farm.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor, Michigan’s 18th senate district and 53rd house district, noting that he’s run for office to represent those districts. He said he still has finance committees from those campaigns and will be a candidate in 2014. He said he was there during an important week celebrating the birth of Martin Luther King Jr. – not to talk about dog parks or about trying to cause turmoil in Ann Arbor by using international controversy. He asked the council to pass a resolution calling on the White House to fund affordable transportation, health care, housing, and education and to end homelessness throughout the country. He asked for the recall of Gov. Rick Snyder and mayor John Hieftje.

Partridge also addressed the council during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting. He was critical of the city that its offices were closed on Jan. 21 in observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when other organizations like the University of Michigan had scheduled a full two weeks of events that were related to MLK Day. Partridge reported that he’d attended the keynote address by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, but had not seen any city councilmembers at that event. He called on the council to reset its moral and public policy compass to advance the cause of the most vulnerable. Partridge found it inexplicable that Hieftje appeared to ignore the personal attacks against Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) by those he ventured might be paid representatives of Palestine. He contended that Warpehoski was being criticized because he appears to be a Christian who ran on an agenda of peace and justice, not on causing more conflict in the city of Ann Arbor.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 4, 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!

Three of the leaders of the New Hope Baptist Church sign up for public commentary at the Ann Arbor park advisory commission’s Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners recommended that a site at West Park – next to the park’s entrance off Chapin Street – be designated as the city’s third dog park. Their action came after several members of the New Hope Baptist Church spoke during public commentary to oppose the location, which would be directly across the street from the church. Congregants cited concerns over safety, noise, “dog stink” and other issues. One speaker suggested the possibility of swapping the location with the existing Project Grow gardens, located in West Park but farther away from the road.

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. The new dog park would need approval from the city council before being installed.

In another vote, commissioners recommended approval of the final concept design for the Ann Arbor skatepark, to be built at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, near the intersection of North Maple and Dexter Avenue. They were briefed on the design features by Wally Hollyday, a well-known California skatepark designer who had come to town specifically for the presentation. He had been hired earlier this year to do the design and oversee the project’s construction.

Two residents who live near Veterans Memorial Park spoke against the location during public commentary, concerned about noise, maintenance, safety and other issues that they felt hadn’t been adequately addressed.

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. He indicated the group would be involved in ongoing support for the skatepark. Part of the memorandum of intent with the city stipulates that 10% of fundraising for the skatepark is being set aside for future maintenance.

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

Also at the Dec. 18 meeting, commissioners recommended awarding a $109,500 contract to Renaissance Restorations Inc. to replace roofs at Cobblestone Farm on the event barn and on the Tincknor-Campbell House. They also got an update from Colin Smith, who reported that the city has withdrawn its application for a state permit to build a whitewater section in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. City staff are working with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to come up with a different design that would address concerns raised about the environmental impact of the whitewater feature.

At the end of the meeting commissioners bid farewell to John Lawter, whose term ends on Dec. 31. Lawter has been instrumental in moving forward plans for a new centrally located dog park.

Dog Park at West Park

For more than 18 months, the issue of a possible new dog park has periodically emerged at PAC meetings, spearheaded by John Lawter. At PAC’s Aug. 21, 2012 meeting, commissioners had voted to direct its dog park subcommittee to work with city staff and develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks. The city currently has two legal off-leash dog parks, at Olson Park and Swift Run. Those parks are located on the far north and south sides of the city; but there’s not a centrally located dog park.

Aerial view of proposed dog park in West Park, next to the park’s entrance off of Chapin Street.

On Dec. 18, PAC considered a resolution recommending a section of West Park, located off Chapin across from the New Hope Baptist Church, as the preferred location for a new fenced-in dog park.

The site is 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. PAC had been most recently briefed on the project at its Oct. 16, 2012 meeting.

Five potential locations were evaluated by the PAC subcommittee of Lawter, Karen Levin and Ingrid Ault, with park planner Amy Kuras. Those locations were: West Park (the new lot on Chapin Street), two sites at Bandemer Park (south of Huron River, and north of Huron River at Barton Drive), South Maple Park, and Ward Park. Criteria included location relative to other dog parks, size, parking, access to water, shade, and neighborhood buffer. [.pdf of scoring sheet and map of existing and potential dog parks]

The site at West Park emerged as the preferred location.

City parks staff reported that feedback from a public meeting held on Nov. 7 was overwhelmingly positive. But at a subsequent meeting with members of New Hope Baptist Church, none of the church members who attended were supportive of a dog park at that location.

Dog Park at West Park: Public Commentary

Ten people spoke about the dog park during public commentary at the Dec. 18 meeting, including eight members of the New Hope Baptist Church who are opposed to the location.

Tom Miree, a trustee of the church, commended commissioners for their work and for the overall condition of parks in Ann Arbor – saying they are world-class in every way. But members of the church were there to oppose the dog park location. He showed commissioners a map of the properties that New Hope owns in the neighborhood. In addition to the chapel at 218 Chapin, the church owns six other lots on Chapin and Miller, including sites for the New Hope Outreach Clinic at Miller and Chapin, and a parking lot directly adjacent to the West Park parcel where the dog park is proposed. He asked commissioners to reconsider the West Park location for a dog park.

Lawrence Brown, chair of the church’s board of trustees, strongly urged commissioners to reconsider the location. “We will be directly affected by the dog park, more than anyone else on the street.” He asked that the city be sensitive to the church’s concerns. He said he wasn’t opposed to dog parks or dogs – he loves dogs. It was simply a matter of the location. Ann Arbor is a city that really cares about the aesthetics of their land, he said, and he commended the city for renovations at West Park. It adds a lot to the area, but he strongly urged commissioners not to put the dog park there.

Sammie Hugan, chair of the church’s board of deacons, also opposed the location, citing safety concerns. He said he has a dog himself and he loves dogs. But “you know, dogs do get loose.” Sometimes dogs like to jump on people and it scares people, he said. And because the dog park would be next to the church parking lot, people might be afraid when they go to get into their cars.

A few of the congregants of the New Hope Baptist Church on Chapin Street who attended the Dec. 18 park advisory commission meeting to oppose the dog park at West Park.

Johnita Porter supported looking for other locations, and was concerned about the proximity of the proposed site to the New Hope worship facility. Children and teenagers from the church often go over to the park to play, and she was worried about their safety. She also wondered why such a small parcel of land was deemed acceptable, when the other two dog parks are so much larger. She was uncertain that the city would achieve its goals for the dog park, given its size.

Porter noted that the church has collected over 130 signatures from congregants who are opposed to this location, and they are continuing to collect signatures. She asked commissioners to reconsider it. Even moving the location more toward the park’s interior would be better, she said.

Cloyd Peters, also a church trustee, told commissioners that he grew up on a farm and liked dogs. But putting a dog park 100 feet away from the church is too close, he said, citing potential noise problems, safety concerns and the fact that people don’t always clean up after their dogs.

Charles Stroud of New Hope suggested swapping the proposed dog park location with the area in West Park that’s currently used for Project Grow gardens. That way, the church wouldn’t be faced with noise, “dog stink” and safety problems, he said.

The groundskeeper for the church also spoke, saying that he already had to clean up a lot of trash because of activity at West Park, and a dog park would only add to that work.

Another church member, who didn’t give her name, told commissioners that she was opposed to a dog park, especially in front of a church. She’s seen several other locations that would be better, including land along Stadium Boulevard. She wondered if any of the commissioners attend church, and if they did, how many of those churches had dog parks next to them. People only pick up after their dogs if someone else is watching, she said. She noted that in the past, you could call the police if a dog came into your yard. But now, the city won’t take any action for that. In Ann Arbor, she said, if you hit a dog with a stick, you go to jail. If you hit a person with a stick, the police will just come out and talk to you.

Two people spoke in support of a dog park at West Park. One man identified himself as a resident of the Old West Side, and noted that dogs are now running off-leash – saying that’s a safety issue, too. He recalled that there used to be gatherings of people with their off-leash dogs at a middle school. [He was referring to what was considered an informal dog park at Slauson Middle School.] There’s a need for a dog park on the Old West Side, he said, and West Park seems like a good fit – if not at that specific location, then perhaps elsewhere in the park. However, he wondered if the proposed site was large enough for dogs to socialize.

Virginia Gordan supported the West Park dog park. In most major cities, it’s very common to have dog parks and it creates a sense of community without causing problems or danger. In Ann Arbor, most people who use the parks have dogs, she said. Gordan said she happily votes to pay for parks, even though there are many things that she doesn’t use, like baseball diamonds. People want more dog parks so they don’t have to spend time and money on gas driving to the other city dog parks. She urged commissioners to add more dog parks, noting that the city is trying to encourage people to move downtown. But if you live in an apartment downtown, there’s no place to take your dogs off-leash. That’s not consistent with the city’s overall policies, she said. There might be another location within West Park that would be better, but in general she supported this dog park and creating additional ones as well in more neighborhoods.

Dog Park at West Park: Commission Discussion

Amy Kuras, the city park planner who’s been working on this project, reminded commissioners that she had briefed them about the proposal at their Oct. 16, 2012 meeting. The resolution notes that Chapter 107, Section 9:45 of the city code states that dog play areas are designated by the city’s community services area administrator, and approved by city council.

The original resolution had one resolved clause:

RESOLVED, That the Park Advisory Commission recommend designating a fenced off leash dog play area in West Park as identified by the Community Services Area Administrator.

Referring to the safety concerns cited by church members, Christopher Taylor clarified with Kuras that the area would be fenced and gated. Kuras explained that the fence would be about 4-5 feet high and like the city’s other dog parks, it would be double-gated. People would enter the first gate into a small corral, before passing through another gate into the main dog park.

A parking lot for New Hope Baptist Church, on the right, is separated by a row of hedges from the parcel at West Park, on the left, that’s being proposed for a dog park.

Responding to a query from Mike Anglin, Kuras said there were no specific limits to the number of dogs that the area would contain. Unlike the other two dog parks, though, it’s not intended to be a running area, she said. It’s viewed as an area where dogs can socialize off-leash.

John Lawter spoke at length about the issues that had been raised during public commentary. Of course it would be better to have a larger area, he said. But in his experience, people and their dogs tend to cluster together, regardless of the dog park’s size. Any area where dogs can be off-leash and socialize is better than nothing, he said. If it’s crowded, that’s great – it would show that there’s a need for even more dog parks.

Lawter said that in his experience, noise isn’t a problem, either. If someone brings an aggressive, barking dog, other people at the dog park will self-police and tell that owner to leave. The same thing happens with clean-up after a dog, he said – saying that if the owner doesn’t notice it, others will point it out. Nor is safety a concern, Lawter said. He didn’t know of any dogs that had escaped from the other dog parks.

To him, having more dog parks could be an opportunity to educate people about the true nature of dogs. Usually, when people are afraid of dogs they’ve had a bad experience, Lawter said. He’s witnessed parents bringing their children to a dog park to get familiar with dogs. At first the children are apprehensive, but soon they become comfortable and the joy on their faces is spectacular, he said.

Regarding the idea to switch places with Project Grow, Lawter said the lot that’s being considered for a dog park has mature trees, which is great for a dog park but not for gardening. He also noted that West Park would eventually be great for an unfenced off-leash dog park, but the city isn’t ready for that yet. Nor would it be a good idea to fence in a larger area of West Park, he said, for aesthetic reasons and because it would limit people from using the park for other purposes.

PAC’s Dec. 18 meeting was the last one for John Lawter, who has led the effort for more dog parks in Ann Arbor. He has served for two three-year terms – his current term ends Dec. 31.

Wrapping up, Lawter said if the location becomes a problem, “the city can always make [the dog park] go away.” He asked people to give it a chance, saying he thought it would be a huge amenity.

Several commissioners weighed in with their own experiences at dog parks, saying they didn’t find noise, safety or cleanup to be a problem. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, offered to organize trips to other city dog parks for people to see the situation at those locations.

Julie Grand wondered whether there could be limited hours of use, encouraging people not to use it during Sunday worship services, for example. Smith indicated that the city could post signs, but having a sign doesn’t mean that people will pay attention to the directions.

Kuras noted that it would be possible to put up temporary fencing for a period, until it’s determined that the location will work for a dog park. Smith reminded everyone that the resolution was just to recommend that the site be designated as a possible dog park location – PAC’s action wouldn’t commit the city to actually building it there, although that’s implied, he said. Temporary fencing was certainly something they could consider, Smith added.

Taylor suggested amending the resolution to specifically mention that there would be follow-up after a year, to see whether the location was suitable. Alan Jackson wanted to add a mention of checking noise levels as part of the follow-up.

Smith crafted two additional resolved clauses, which were considered friendly amendments and did not require a separate vote: (1) that parks staff and PAC’s dog park subcommittee will work with the New Hope Baptist Church to discuss locating the dog park there on a trial basis; and (2) that staff will report back on the dog park’s one-year anniversary with a status update, including information about noise levels.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution, as amended, recommending West Park as the preferred location for a new dog park. The city council is expected to consider the item at its Jan. 22 meeting.

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design

Commissioners were briefed on the proposed design for a $1 million skatepark, an ambitious effort to be built at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. It’s a project that’s viewed as a potential regional attraction. The designer, Wally Hollyday, attended the Dec. 18 meeting to talk about his work. It incorporates a variety of features for skaters at all levels, as well as elements for the general public, suggestions for dual-purpose objects like skateable public art, and rain gardens and other landscaping features to help with stormwater management. In July of 2012, the Ann Arbor city council had authorized a $89,560 contract with his firm – Wally Hollyday Skateparks, based in Orange County, California – for the design and construction oversight of the skatepark. [.pdf of skatepark concept design]

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Public Commentary

At the beginning of the meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to oppose the skatepark’s location at the site in Veterans Memorial Park. Patricia Bova Boven passed out a letter to commissioners – addressed to Trevor Staples of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – that outlined her concerns. [.pdf of Bova's letter] She said she represented 20 homeowners and residents who live near the park, and contended that they were never brought to the table when the location was being considered. She said they never received a direct mailing about the skatepark until a notice for the design meeting on Oct. 15, 2012. The residents are calling themselves the Friends of Veterans Park and are circulating a petition, she said. The request might sound extreme, Bova said, but they’d like the skatepark to be moved to the southwest corner of the park. She reported that residents – including the owners of Knight’s Restaurant, located across the street from the park – are concerned about the impact of traffic, and how maintenance will be handled. “We’re not against the skatepark,” she said. “We’re against the location of the skatepark.”

Carol Potter told commissioners that she lives on Lyn Anne Court, across from the north side of Veterans Memorial Park. She lives on a beautiful street, she said, and she’s concerned about the impact of the skatepark. Would skateboarders get off the bus and ride on the sidewalk to get to the park? What about the noise?

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Presentation

Later in the meeting Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, began the skatepark presentation by describing the history of the project. He recalled that Trevor Staples and other supporters had approached PAC in 2007 about the need for a skatepark. In 2008, there were two public meetings about choosing a location. Smith described the meetings as heavily attended with about 75 people, and noted that the meetings had been publicized with a mailing to residents.

Wally Hollyday, left, with two supporters of the proposed skatepark.

During 2008, the skatepark had been an item on PAC’s agenda at three public meetings, and a public hearing had been held on the project in May of 200 specifically to get input about the location on the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, Smith said. PAC had unanimously voted to support that location, he said, and public input for it had been overwhelmingly positive.

In November of 2008, PAC unanimously recommended approval of the memorandum of intent (MOI) between the city and the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee – which later became the nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – spelling out how the two entities would interact to design, fundraise and build the proposed skatepark.

The city council approved that MOI in December 2008, specifically citing the Veterans Memorial Park location. [.pdf of memorandum of intent] Among other things, the council stipulated that 10% of all fundraising must be set aside in an endowed fund for future maintenance. From the council resolution:

Whereas, 10% of all funds raised by the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee shall be allocated to an endowed fund designated the Ann Arbor Skatepark Fund (or similar name), through the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation for operations, maintenance and future improvements to the Ann Arbor Skatepark.

The community foundation provides more details about the endowment on its website.

Smith told commissioners that the city will also tap its volunteer programs, like Adopt-a-Park, to help with the skatepark. But he stressed that the care and maintenance of the skatepark would not be on the shoulders of volunteers.

Finally, Smith reminded commissioners that grants awarded for the skatepark – from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission, and the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund – were linked specifically to the site in Veterans Memorial Park.

Trevor Staples spoke next, as chair of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. [He has addressed PAC on several other occasions related to the skatepark, most recently at the June 19, 2012 meeting when PAC recommended approval of Hollyday as the skatepark's designer.]

From left: Skatepark designer Wally Hollyday, Ann Arbor park planner Amy Kuras, and Jeff Straw, deputy parks and recreation manager.

He and others have been working on this project for about five years, Staples noted, and it’s exciting to see the skatepark come to fruition. He remembered attending the public hearing in May of 2008, and recalled that the council chambers had been packed. Only one person had opposed the project, Staples said, and everyone else had supported it – it was great to get such strong community support, he said.

The original mission of the nonprofit had been to build a skatepark, Staples continued. Now that they’re close to achieving that goal, the board will be holding a retreat this winter – facilitated by the NEW Center – to shape its next mission. They’ll invite the city parks volunteer outreach staff, he said, and plan to work together. The nonprofit intends to help with all aspects of the skatepark in the future, including maintenance, upkeep and special events.

Staples thanked the skatepark supporters, PAC and the city council, but gave special thanks to Bob Tetens, director of the county parks and recreation commission, and county commissioner Conan Smith for offering $400,000 in matching funds, which was crucial in securing the $300,000 state trust fund grant. Those two grants are providing the majority of funding for the skatepark construction.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave additional background, saying that the skatepark and the dog park have been two projects with the most advocacy and public input of any others she’s worked on with the city. She noted that even though the more recent skatepark effort dates back to 2007, the history of residents pushing for a skatepark can be traced to the 1980s.

Kuras gave an overview of the project, noting that the cluster of oak trees in the northwest corner won’t be removed, and will provide shade for portions of the skatepark. The city has also pushed to include more greenspace in the design, she said, and she’s excited about that. The location was chosen because it’s easily accessible – located on a bus line, and near the interchanges with I-94 and M-14. And Veterans Memorial is already a very active park for recreation activities, she said. [The park includes baseball diamonds, a pool and ice arena.]

Kuras said the project hopes to get stormwater funding from the city, which will help with skatepark’s budget. The design also provides barrier-free access, she noted, with a new path that connects the parking lot on Dexter Avenue to the parking lot on North Maple. Barrier-free access will also be an element of the design within the skatepark itself.

The skatepark design has been in the works for about six months, Kuras said. After getting a recommendation on the concept design from PAC, the plan is to present the design to city council in January for their approval.

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

Hollyday was on hand to walk commissioners through the elements of the design. He noted the advantage of having the skatepark on a hillside – it would help with stormwater runoff.

The design includes a wide variety of skateboarding features – including bowls and pools; banked, Hubba and cantilevered ledges; and slappy curbs. The two larger bowls, with an 8-10 foot depth, provide a lot of variety – including stairs and a “love seat.” The bowls will be popular with older skaters, he said, as well as with “punky” teen skaters – because of the retro appeal. Those bowls also provide larger transitions – the term used to described the curved surfaces, transitioning between horizontal and vertical.

The smaller bowls are easier to skate, Hollyday said, with lots of places to roll in and roll out. You can literally tear through the bowls on a wheelchair, he said. “As crazy as that sounds, I’ve seen that happen.” There are also lots of places to transfer from one bowl to another.

Looking good is important in skating culture because it’s a very social sport, Hollyday told commissioners. He said young girls are really attracted to small bowls. When his own daughter began skating, she had been put off by “the stares from the boys and the looks of ‘What are you doing here?’” It makes you very self-conscious, he said, but you can look good in the small bowls, even as a beginner.

Other features include flat banks, rocks built into walls, rollers, a quarter pipe, and several other skateable elements.

Landscaped areas and rain gardens are located throughout the park, which will also serve as stormwater management elements. It’s important to create a visual effect, Hollyday said, so there are elements like spillover areas on walls for rain water to flow down into the rain gardens, for example.

The design also includes a small stage, which could be used for skateboarding demonstrations as well as other community performances.

Ann Arbor Skatepark Design: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla said he’d expected that there would be a fence around the skatepark, but clarified with Wally Hollyday that it wouldn’t be fenced. Hollyday explained that skaters like to socialize, and in parks where there are fences, people find ways to get around them anyway. There will be guardrail fences around the large bowls, but the intent is for non-skaters to be able to walk through the skatepark, too. If it succeeds as a community center, Hollyday said, that’s even more important than succeeding as a sporting center.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, had briefed planning commissioners about the Ann Arbor skatepark design at the planning commission’s Dec. 11 working session.

Amy Kuras added that the city would put up signs along the pathways to indicate that people are entering the skatepark. She noted that there will be paths going around both sides of the skatepark too, so people don’t have to go through it.

Responding to another question from Berla, Hollyday said he plans to put benches along the paths, so there will be places for people to sit. Trevor Staples recalled that when he was growing up, there were picnic tables and barbeque pits at the top of the hill in that part of the park. Now, that area isn’t well used, he said. It will overlook the skatepark, and he hoped it would again become a community gathering place. Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, noted that there are a lot of comparisons, in that regard, to the Argo Cascades, which is also drawing the community – even people who don’t canoe or kayak.

Responding to another question, Smith said that the nearest bathrooms were in a shelter, but those will be removed during an upcoming renovation. As an interim, there will be port-o-potties in the area.

Alan Jackson asked about the durability of the materials. Are there choices that can be made to reduce future maintenance needs?

Hollyday replied that the skatepark itself will be concrete, and that the parts requiring more regular maintenance will be the landscaping elements. He noted that he’s seen city officials in other communities “freak out” when concrete gets chipped, but a popular, well-used skatepark is a good thing, he said.

Kuras pointed out that one of Hollyday’s tasks is to provide the specifications for construction so that the city can pre-qualify concrete contractors. The work is specialized, and requires more experience than most other projects that use concrete.

Jackson also asked how much of the concrete would be colored. That will depend in part on the budget, Hollyday replied. But there are less expensive ways to add color, he added – for example, adding black paint will result in a richer, charcoal gray concrete that won’t reflect light. It’s an inexpensive way to reduce glare.

Bob Galardi jokingly referred to palm trees shown in the design images, then asked how the skatepark would hold up in Michigan’s colder climate. The construction will use 4,000 psi (pounds per square inch) concrete, Hollyday said, which is “pretty strong.” There will be a lot of reinforcement and caulking in the joints, with a rebar structure and six-inch minimum thickness.

Smith noted that the terms of the MOI require that the skatepark design gets approved by city council. After that happens, the final design specifications will be completed and the city will seek bids for construction. Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with a goal of completing the project by the fall.

Outcome: The commission unanimously recommended approval of the design for the Ann Arbor skatepark. It will next be considered by city council for approval.

Cobblestone Farm Renovations

The commission was asked to recommend awarding a $109,500 contract to Renaissance Restorations Inc. to replace roofs at Cobblestone Farm on the event barn and on the Tincknor-Campbell House. It was the lowest of three bids received for the work. The contract includes a 10% contingency, bringing the total to $120,450.

The work would 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 proposal is being reviewed by the city’s historic district commission. The Cobblestone Farm Association has already reviewed the proposal and agreed with these recommendations.

Cobblestone Farm Renovations: Commission Discussion

There was little discussion on this item. Alan Jackson asked about the material being proposed. Amy Kuras reported that if the historic district commission signs off on using the recycled plastic shingle for the event barn, then it would likely last longer and cost less.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved recommending the contract with Renaissance Restorations for the Cobblestone Farm roof replacements. The item will next be considered by the city council.

Volunteerism in the Parks

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program, presented NAP’s Volunteer of the Year award to Community High School. He read a proclamation from the mayor that had been presented at the city council’s Oct. 24, 2012 meeting, which recognized the school’s students and staff for working “enthusiastically” to improve the city’s parks and natural areas, in part by participating in a bi-annual day of service focused on invasive plant removal, trail maintenance, and tree planting. Borneman noted that in the spring, 360 CHS volunteers pulled nearly 4 tons of garlic mustard and other spring invasives in the city’s natural areas.

Dave Borneman, left, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program, presented the NAP 2012 Volunteer of the Year award to Community High School. In the foreground is lead teacher Marci Tuzinsky. Also on hand were CHS students Lexi Schnitzer, Obiageri Ugwuegbu and Denny Carter.

On hand to accept the award were Marci Tuzinsky, a lead teacher at CHS, and students Obiageri Ugwuegbu, Lexi Schnitzer and Denny Carter. They received a round of applause from commissioners. Tim Berla pointed out that he was a member of the school’s second graduating class.

Borneman, who has been with the city since the NAP program began 19 years ago, now also oversees all volunteer efforts in the parks. Those programs include NAP workdays and park stewards, Adopt-a-Park and Adopt-a-Median, memorial plantings and “citizen pruner” efforts. For the overall parks system, the Give 365 initiative offers a range of volunteer opportunities, including one-day events, swim team volunteers, counselor-in-training and lifeguard-in-training programs, and golf rangers.

He then introduced a presentation by two of his staff: Tina Roselle, volunteer and outreach coordinator for the city’s NAP and Adopt-A-Park programs, and Gayle Hurn, outreach coordinator for Give 365.

Highlights of their presentation:

• Since NAP was launched in 1993, volunteers have contributed nearly 90,000 hours of work.
• More than 425 people have been trained for NAP’s volunteer crew for controlled burns.
• Volunteers work on a range of monitoring programs, including frog and toad surveys, salamander surveys, breeding bird surveys, photo monitoring, and a new turtle steward program. The turtle steward program grew out of concern by volunteers who discovered turtles nesting in the volleyball court at Scheffler Park, and a report of snapping turtles that were crossing the road near Dolph Park. Now the city has created five turtle nesting locations in various parks.
• There are 55 park stewards who work in 35 of the city’s parks.
• Twelve medians have been “adopted” by volunteers in the city’s relatively new Adopt-a-Median program.
• About half of the total volunteer hours is spent on control of invasive species.
• The number of volunteer workdays per year reached a high of 129 in 2010. Since then, the number of workdays has been decreasing, in part because staff is scheduling workdays for private groups on the same days as public workdays, in an effort to better allocate staff resources, Roselle said.
• Give 365, which launched in March of 2011, has logged nearly 12,000 hours of volunteer service. In fiscal 2012, volunteer efforts were the equivalent of $124,173 based on $20 per hour. Nearly six months into fiscal 2013, volunteer hours are the equivalent of $81,488 in hourly wages.

In response to a question from Alan Jackson, Hurn indicated that the city planned to work with volunteers to help with the ongoing care of the skatepark, after its construction.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, noted that the Give 365 program has dramatically exceeded expectations for the number of volunteer hours they had hoped for in its initial year. Several commissioners also praised the outreach and volunteer efforts.

Communications & Commentary

Throughout the meeting there were several opportunities for communications and commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Whitewater on Huron River

During his report to commissioners, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – reported that on Nov. 9 the city had withdrawn its application for a permit to build a whitewater section in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. A permit was needed from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), but letters of objection to the project had been filed by by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council. [For more details on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

The EPA had filed its letter on Aug. 15. From that date, the MDEQ had 90 days – until Nov. 13 – to resolve the EPA’s concerns. Rather than let that period expire and possibly have the permit denied, the city decided to withdraw the application. Smith said city staff have met with MDEQ staff and are working to come up with a new design that would be acceptable. They’re looking at projects in other communities, he said, so work will continue on that.

Communications & Commentary: Appointments

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, joked that she was continuing the commission’s long tradition of appointing people when they weren’t at the meeting – noting that she initially had been elected chair that way. Grand told commissioners that she was appointing Missy Stults, the newest PAC member, to fill the PAC position on the city’s environmental commission. Grand reported that Stults, who was absent from the Dec. 18 meeting, had agreed to serve, and that she had “more than adequate background” for the job.

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

Stults is a research scientist and doctoral student at the University of Michigan, studying urban and regional planning. She previously has worked as a sustainability analyst with Summit Energy Services in Louisville, Kentucky, and in various roles with the Boston-based ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA.

Also during the meeting, Grand referred to a list of PAC committees that had been discussed at the commission’s Nov. 4 retreat. The list was a summary of the committees, and the PAC members who’ll serve on them. [.pdf of committee list] There are two new committees: (1) a downtown open space committee (Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson), to work with other entities like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on needs for parks and open space in the downtown area; and (2) an education committee (Missy Stults) to educate the public on issues like invasive species and other parks-related issues.

Bob Galardi, one of the newer PAC members, asked about the greenway committee. That committee’s membership includes Galardi, Stults and Grand. Grand indicated that it was an existing committee that has been “dormant”– but it’s now re-emerging because of activity related to the Allen Creek greenway. She explained that work on this and other committees is left up to the discretion of its members.

Ault reported that the downtown open space committee had held is first meeting and plans to do a walk-through of downtown sites with DDA executive director Susan Pollay. The date of that walk-through hadn’t been set, but all PAC members would be invited, Ault said.

Communications & Commentary: Ice Rink at Library Lane

During public commentary, Alan Haber told commissioners that he’d spoken to them before about the need for the Library Lane site to be a park for all the people. [Most recently, Haber addressed PAC at its June 19, 2012 meeting.] He said he was glad that PAC had made a recommendation that a park should be considered as a best use for downtown property. [Haber was referring to a resolution that PAC passed at its Sept. 18, 2012 meeting regarding the Connecting William Street project. PAC did not advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommends that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation of 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.]

Haber suggested that part of the Library Lane site could be turned into an ice skating rink. A downtown skating rink would be a great community gathering place, he said, and it would give people a sense of how the area would work as a park on a permanent basis. Volunteers could build a platform for the rink and a small warming shelter, he said, using private donations. There aren’t many cars that use the surface lot now, he noted, so it’s not being efficiently used for that purpose. Turning it into a skating rink “would be very easy to do,” Haber concluded.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to John Lawter

PAC chair Julie Grand noted that this was the last meeting for John Lawter, whose term ends on Dec. 31, 2012. She said she was thrilled that PAC had acted on the dog park at the meeting, since this had been an initiative led by Lawter. However, Grand noted that he hadn’t been a one-trick pony – “or dog, as it were,” she joked. Lawter had served as vice chair, and had always been a “reasonable voice” and advocate for parks, Grand said.

Lawter described the last six years as a “huge growth experience” for him, and that PAC had accomplished a lot during that period. He looked forward to working with the parks as a park steward and in other ways in the future.

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

Absent: Tim Doyle, Missy Stults.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 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.

The vote followed public commentary from more than a half dozen members of the New Hope Baptist Church, which would be located directly across from the dogpark. Members were opposed to the location, citing concerns over safety, noise and other issues. One speaker suggested the possibility of swapping the location with the existing Project Grow gardens, located in West Park but further away from the road.

The proposed dogpark site is roughly a quarter-acre in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off of Chapin Street. [.pdf of aerial view showing proposed location] PAC had been most recently briefed on the project at its Oct. 16 meeting. However, the effort to develop a new dogpark has been in the works for more than a year, led by commissioner John Lawter. The city currently has two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city, but nothing that is centrally located.

City parks staff reported that feedback from a public meeting held on Nov. 7 was overwhelmingly positive. But at a subsequent meeting with members of New Hope Baptist Church, none of the church members who attended were supportive of a dogpark at that 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 dogpark at that location, and to review the status of the dogpark a year after it’s in place, with particular attention to noise levels.

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

Signs for Ann Arbor parks millage renewal. PAC member Ingrid Ault has formed a campaign committee – called Friends of the Parks – to support the renewal. (Photos by the writer.)

A committee that has focused on identifying possible locations for a new dog park recommended the West Park site – specifically, a parcel in the park’s northeast corner, where the city recently bought and demolished a house near the entrance off of Chapin Street. No formal vote was taken, but PAC’s support means that staff will bring back a proposal for PAC’s consideration, and hold a public meeting for community input.

PAC members did formally vote on a recommendation to relocate tennis courts within Windemere Park, to the east of the current location. Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended the meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision. They noted that the option being recommended by staff had not been presented at an Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, later explained that the fourth option had emerged from a consensus of ideas at the meeting.

Berla, who voted against the PAC resolution, felt there was nothing to lose in giving residents another month to review the proposal. But other commissioners believed that moving ahead was the best approach, and that no option would satisfy all residents – especially people with property facing the park. The resolution also recommended incorporating input from residents regarding landscaping around the courts, which was a concern raised by some of the homeowners.

In an unusual move, PAC member Ingrid Ault spoke to her fellow commissioners during public commentary. Telling them that she was speaking as a citizen, not a commissioner, Ault said she had formed a campaign committee – called Friends of the Parks – to support the park maintenance & capital improvements millage renewal, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. Ault brought yard signs to distribute, and encouraged commissioners and the public to support the renewal. PAC had passed a resolution in support of the millage at their June 2012 meeting.

As part of his manager’s report, Colin Smith noted that city staff will be meeting with representatives from the state on Nov. 2 to get a better understanding of concerns that have been raised regarding a planned whitewater section of the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. He said he’d have an update on that situation at PAC’s November meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

Commissioners held their annual officer elections, re-electing Julie Grand as chair. Ingrid Ault was elected vice chair and Tim Doyle was tapped as chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee. All nominations were uncontested, and the votes were unanimous. PAC also welcomed Missy Stults to her first meeting as commissioner. Her nomination had been confirmed by the city council earlier this month.

Dog Parks

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave PAC an update on the effort to create another dog park. John Lawter, the commissioner who’s been leading this project, was not at the meeting. Commissioners had most recently discussed this issue during their meeting on Sept. 18, 2012. The city currently has two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city.

Kuras provided some background on the effort, and reviewed a scoring sheet that had been included in the meeting packet. Five potential locations had been evaluated: West Park (the new lot on Chapin Street), two sites at Bandemer Park (south of Huron River, and north of Huron River at Barton Drive), South Maple Park, and Ward Park. Criteria included location relative to other dog parks, size, parking, access to water, shade, and neighborhood buffer. [.pdf of scoring sheet and map of existing and potential dog parks]

The site at West Park emerged as the preferred location. Commissioners involved in the evaluation included Kuras, Lawter, Karen Levin and Ingrid Ault.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

A couple of commissioners asked about the scoring. Karen Levin, who devised the system, explained that each aspect of the location had been rated on a scale of 1 to 5, from best to worst. Then the scores from each of the four raters were added to come up with a total – the lower the score, the better the location.

Alan Jackson asked if any consideration had been given to Riverside Park. Amy Kuras replied that Riverside had been considered a possible location when the original effort to identify dog parks took place several years ago, but since then it has become more heavily used by Ann Arbor Rec & Ed programs. Much of the park is also on the floodplain, she noted, so about a third of it is under water after a heavy rain.

From left: Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, and Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation.

Ault observed that the West Park site is a piece of land that would be difficult to use for any other purpose. It’s a long, narrow strip, with a church parking lot on one side and the driveway entrance into West Park on the other. It was previously the site of a single-family home, which the city demolished after purchasing the property. Using it for a dog park makes sense, she said.

Kuras added that the parks staff has also been looking for ways to draw more people to West Park. A dog park would be one way to do that.

Julie Grand, who serves on the technical committee for the city’s North Main Huron River task force, reported that there’s a large portion of the city-owned site at 721 N. Main that can’t be developed because it’s located in a floodway. One idea that’s been suggested for that part of the site is a dog park, she said. Grand wondered whether that information changed anyone’s perspective on putting a dog park at West Park.

Not necessarily, Kuras replied. For one thing, it’s unclear whether a dog park could be located in the floodway.

Tim Doyle wondered about congestion at the West Park site – would it be too small? Putting more than five dogs in the space of a single-family lot might not work. He liked the location, but was concerned about the size.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the West Park lot as about half the size of the Olson dog park. The Swift Run dog park is much larger. Even so, he said, Olson can accommodate about as many dogs as Swift Run – but the dogs do different things there. At Olson, there’s more socializing, while dogs have more room to run at Swift Run. The West Park site might be crowded, he said, but it could still work well as a dog park.

Levin said the dog park committee had visited the Chapin site at West Park, and it’s larger than she’d originally thought – it’s narrow, but long. She also noted that there’s the possibility of adding another dog park at a different location.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC, asked whether the city council needs an update on the situation at Slauson Middle School. He indicated that the choice of West Park as a dog park grew out of the unofficial use of Slauson property as a dog park, because people didn’t feel they had any other place to go.

Kuras replied that the Slauson situation might have brought things to a head, but the West Park location isn’t recommended in response to it. Smith added that the idea for a centrally-located dog park has been in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and was a goal long before dog owners started using Slauson. PAC has been working on this issue for some time, he said. West Park had also been discussed as a possible location during that park’s recent renovations, but at that time the city hadn’t yet acquired the Chapin Street property.

Tim Berla said he’d like to stay away from the implication that people used Slauson as an unofficial dog park because they had no alternatives. There are alternatives in the form of the two dog parks in the city, he noted. He didn’t feel PAC should accept the idea that if there’s no place within walking distance for a dog to run free, than people should just use whatever park or school property is convenient. Even if the city keeps adding dog parks, it would take a long time to satisfy a goal of having dog parks within walking distance of all residents. Berla felt that playgrounds should take a higher priority, but he agreed that the city should look for more opportunities to add dog parks.

Grand concluded the discussion by saying it seemed they’d reached consensus on West Park as a possible location. Kuras said she’d be coming back to PAC with a formal proposal for their consideration, and would hold a public meeting for community input.

Outcome: This was not a voting item, and no action was taken.

Windemere Tennis Courts

At their Oct. 16 meeting, PAC members were asked to recommend a new location for the tennis courts within the park. Commissioners had already supported the project in May of 2012. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, briefed commissioners on the project.

Windemere Park is a nearly four-acre parcel on the city’s northeast side, north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Map showing proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts.

Over the past few months, city staff has held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by staff – which locates the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of participants at the most recent public meeting had favored, according to staff and commissioners who attended. That meeting took place on Oct. 8.

The plan also calls for adding a rain garden to help handle stormwater runoff. There are low-interest loans available for that, Kuras said, with the possibility of loan forgiveness – it’s another possible funding source for the project.

The cost of the project is estimated at around $100,000. Kuras said she planned to solicit bids this winter, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Several residents of the neighborhood surrounding Windemere Park attended PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting and advocated for a postponement on the decision.

Mary Catherine Spires said she lives on Windemere Drive and her front window faces the park. Her understanding was that the neighbors had originally reached a consensus that they preferred a different option – Option 1. [.pdf of Option 1] Then in early October, suddenly this new proposal came up. She said she hadn’t seen it until a few days ago. Calling it a last-minute proposal, she requested that PAC delay action for a month so that she and others would have time to understand the impact on their homes and traffic in the area. That’s especially important for neighbors with homes on the perimeter of the park, she’s said, who need time to reflect on this significant change.

From left: Ann McCarren and Catherine Spires, residents who live near Windemere Park, spoke during public commentary and urged commissioners to postpone action on the tennis court project.

Ann McCarren, who also lives on the park’s perimeter, described the process that the neighbors had gone through with Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner. She pointed out that Option 1 had been the preferred proposal, but that a new proposal had emerged at the Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting. Some people at the meeting had supported that new option, she said, but others didn’t say anything. She also urged commissioners to postpone a decision until their November meeting.

Sven Hahr, another Windemere Drive resident whose home is near the park’s southeast corner, also advocated for a postponement. He felt the tennis courts shouldn’t be located in the area where soccer is played. Perhaps the courts could be swapped with the location where the children’s playground is, he suggested. He didn’t think it would take much to do that.

Joseph Dorenbaum told commissioners that his living room, office and a bedroom look onto the park, and it’s very nice now. He and his wife are quite distressed, because they spend a lot of time at home and don’t want to look at a fence. It would feel like they’re living in a prison, he said. Dorenbaum asked that the city provide landscaping to mask the fence. He noted that when his home was built there 30 years ago, the park was for the subdivision. But now, as a city park, it’s used by lots of other people. He requested that the city put up signs indicating that people should park only in certain areas while using Windemere Park.

Ruth Huff said she also lived in the neighborhood and agreed with Dorenbaum about the traffic in the area. Kids run across the street and it’s an accident waiting to happen. The park is important, but she’d like to see the land cleaned up. In a perfect world, the tennis courts would be dug up, the land would be cleaned up, and the courts would be rebuilt at the same location. She acknowledged that it’s not a perfect world, but she hoped at least there could be landscaping around the courts to help with noise and to make it look better.

Windemere Tennis Courts: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson wanted to know if a rain garden could be included in the plan, regardless of where the tennis courts are relocated. It’s possible, Kuras said, though a rain garden in the courts’ current location would involve cutting through an existing berm.

Tim Berla asked whether delaying a decision by a month would impact the project. Is there anything that would prevent having additional public meetings? He saw a benefit in having more time, if it meant getting the best possible plan. More public process might be a good thing, he said.

Kuras replied that one more month wouldn’t set the project back, but she wasn’t sure the extra time would help the neighbors reach more of a consensus.

From left: Park commissioners Tim Doyle, Alan Jackson and Bob Galardi.

Berla noted that in her presentation, Kuras had cited a lack of other tennis courts in that part of the city. However, she hadn’t included the courts at Huron High School, which are located in that area.

Kuras indicated that she didn’t feel comfortable telling people to go to a school site. The reason that the staff recommended this option is because they didn’t feel there were any suitable alternatives, she said.

Julie Grand weighed in, saying that PAC had already discussed this issue and had voted at their May 15, 2012 meeting to support the rebuilding of tennis courts at Windemere, based on feedback from neighbors. To her, now it was just a question of where to locate the courts within the park.

In response to a query from Ingrid Ault, Kuras said the proposed location would not interfere with other activities, like the use of the park for soccer. Jackson noted that there’s an unused baseball area that would be affected. That’s right, Kuras said – that former baseball diamond would be removed.

Missy Stults cited the concerns that had been raised during public commentary, and asked whether all the options would include landscaping. Kuras replied that landscaping would be part of any plan. She later explained that the fence would be on three sides, about 10 feet high.

Tim Doyle asked what would happen to the area where the courts are currently located. Kuras said it would likely be “naturalized,” since it’s frequently soggy and would be difficult to mow. An area to the north of the courts is currently naturalized for that reason, she said.

Both Jackson and Grand reported that they had attended the Oct. 8 neighborhood meeting, and both felt that there had been general agreement among the neighbors in support of Option 4 – the one that was being recommended by staff. Jackson said there would likely be some opposition to any plan. Grand noted that this option is the one that seemed to be the furthest away from the sight lines for most residences.

Berla again advocated for postponement until PAC’s November meeting. Grand wondered what the process would be, if they postponed the vote. Smith didn’t think there was the need for another public meeting, but staff could continue to gather and share feedback they receive from the neighbors. The Oct. 8 meeting had been well-attended with about 30 people, he said, and there had been a spirited and productive discussion.

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio non-voting PAC member who serves on city council, said that if it doesn’t cause a problem for staff, then allowing another month for the neighbors to mull over the proposal “strikes me as a good thing.”

From left: Missy Stults, the newest park advisory commissioner, and PAC chair Julie Grand.

There was some discussion about whether a delay would allow for the two neighborhood associations in the area to take a formal vote of their membership. Kuras pointed out that since it’s a public park, it didn’t seem fair to rely on that kind of vote.

Grand reported that there had been an informal vote of neighbors who attended the Oct. 8 public forum. When asked if the vote had been unanimous, she laughed – it had not. However, she felt there had been a “fair amount of consensus” supporting Option 4. Given the spirited nature of the meeting, she had been surprised by that consensus. The option seemed like something that most people could live with.

Jackson didn’t want to put more staff resources into the decision-making process, and felt there would be some complaints no matter what was decided.

In response to a question from Bob Galardi, Kuras reported that there had been two previous neighborhood meetings – so this was the third PAC meeting that had addressed the situation.

Commissioners then voted on a resolution, put forward by Grand, that recommended moving forward with Option 4.

Outcome: The proposed relocation of Windemere Park tennis courts was recommended for approval by a 6-1 vote, with Tim Berla dissenting. John Lawter was absent and Missy Stults abstained.

Parks Millage Renewal

Ingrid Ault, who was appointed to PAC earlier this year, moved from her seat at the council table to the podium during the first opportunity for public commentary, telling her fellow commissioners that she was speaking to them as a citizen, not as a member of PAC.

Ingrid Ault

Ault said she wanted to update the community about actions related to renewal of the park maintenance & capital improvements millage, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot. She’d been concerned that the renewal would get lost on the “burgeoning” ballot, so she decided to form a campaign – called Friends of the Parks – to support the millage and educate the public about it. [According to records on Washtenaw County’s campaign finance database, the committee was formed on Oct. 1, with Ault listed as treasurer.]

She brought yards signs to the meeting, and encouraged people to take one. She said more information is on the campaign website. Ault asked everyone to vote yes on the renewal and to volunteer with the campaign.

After the meeting adjourned, Ault told commissioners that she’d like them each to either donate at least $50 to the campaign, or raise that amount. She again encouraged them to take yard signs and to volunteer, especially on election day.

The current 1.1 mill tax expires this year. A renewal would run from 2013-2018 and raise about $4.9 million next year. The recommended allocation of revenues is 70% for park maintenance activities, and 30% for park capital improvement projects. Of that allocation, up to 10% can be shifted between the two categories as needed.

Examples of park maintenance activities include “forestry and horticulture, natural area preservation, park operations, recreation facilities, and targets of opportunity,” according to a staff memo distributed to PAC in June. Capital improvement projects would cover parks, forestry and horticulture, historic preservation, neighborhood parks and urban plazas, park operations, pathways, trails, boardwalks, greenways and watersheds, and recreation facilities. [More projects are listed on the city's website.]

Commissioners have received updates on the millage renewal at previous meetings, and in June 2012 passed a resolution of support for it. City employees are not allowed to advocate for it, but can provide information. Colin Smith, manager for parks and recreation, told The Chronicle that he’d checked with the city attorney’s office regarding Ault’s presentation to PAC – and they’d advised that she could address the issue as a citizen during public commentary, he said.

Commission Elections

PAC chair Julie Grand apologized to commissioners, noting that elections should have been held in September but she had forgotten to put it on the agenda. Three officers needed to be elected: chair, vice chair, and chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, was re-elected for another one-year term.

Grand has served as chair since April 2010. Before the vote – which the PAC bylaws require to be conducted by a secret ballot – Tim Doyle asked when her term ends. Grand said she will serve on PAC through 2013. Tim Berla asked if she would be willing to serve another one-year term as chair. She indicated that she would.

The term on PAC for the current vice chair – John Lawter, who was absent from the Oct. 16 meeting – ends on Dec. 31, 2012. He would not be running for re-election as vice chair. Grand encouraged any of the new commissioners who might be interested in eventually chairing PAC to consider first serving as vice chair. Duties aren’t excessive, and many relate to planning and leading meetings if the chair is absent, she said.

Ingrid Ault nominated herself. There were no other nominations for chair and vice chair. Commissioners indicated their votes on pieces of paper, which were passed to parks and recreation manager Colin Smith who tallied them. Both Grand and Ault were elected unanimously.

Grand then nominated Tim Doyle to continue serving as chair of the budget and finance committee. He reported that he might not seek a second term on PAC, but he’d be willing to chair the committee for now. [His current term on PAC runs through May of 2013.] There were no other nominations, and Doyle was elected unanimously on a voice vote.

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, highlighted several items during his brief report to the commission.

He noted that a public forum was set for the following day to get feedback on possible designs for a new Ann Arbor skatepark. State grant funding for the skatepark had been formally accepted by city council the previous evening, he said, along with grants for other city park projects.

Work on South University Park is almost done. Smith reminded PAC members that the project had been funded with a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris. “It’s been well-spent,” he said.

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

Smith also reported that construction is underway on trails around the raptor enclosures at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. A grand opening of a new raptor enclosure – for the center’s second bald eagle – is planned for Nov. 11.

Tim Doyle asked for an update on the status of the whitewater project in the Huron River, near Argo Cascades. By way of background, at PAC’s September meeting, Smith had reported to commissioners that several letters of objection from different organizations had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. Objections were filed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council. [See Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”]

On Oct. 16, Smith told commissioners that city staff will be meeting with representatives from the state on Nov. 2 to get a better understanding of the situation, and of potential solutions to concerns that have been raised. He said he’d have more to report at PAC’s November meeting.

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

Absent: John Lawter.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 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.

Eric Lipson and Mary Hathaway attended the Sept. 18, 2012 Ann Arbor park advisory commission meeting to advocate for more green space in the downtown area, specifically on top of the Library Lane parking structure. (Photos by the writer.)

PAC took action on one of those topics, passing a resolution to give formal input on the Connecting William Street project. That effort, led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, is process to examine five city-owned parcels for possible redevelopment. All but one of the sites are now used as surface parking lots.

PAC did not advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommends that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation of 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 recommends 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 final Connecting William Street resolution]

At the start of the meeting, three members of the Library Green Conservancy – advocates of creating a commons on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure – spoke during public commentary. [The Library Lane site is one of the five properties included in the Connecting William Street project.] They urged commissioners to support their plan for a park at that location, adjacent to the library. The underground structure was built with a foundation to support a high-rise building on the site, in addition to a plaza area. PAC’s recommendation to the city council did not highlight that particular site.

Also during the meeting, commissioners heard from two speakers during public commentary who supported the creation of more dog parks. One speaker noted that despite potential problems – such as dog fights and the fact that ”pooping can occasionally go unnoticed” – a dog park poses no greater liability than a skatepark, pool or “even simply sidewalks.”

Colin Smith, the parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that staff did not support an unfenced option, but indicated that they’re exploring possible locations for one or more fenced-in dog parks. One possible site: A parcel on the east side of West Park, near the entrance off of Chapin.

PAC also was briefed on plans for rain gardens and other biodetention measures at Miller Nature Area and Garden Homes Park, in connection with a major reconstruction of Miller Avenue next year.

Smith also updated commissioners on letters of objection that had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater in the Huron River, near the Argo Cascades. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. For a full report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”

It was the last meeting for commissioner Doug Chapman, whose term ended on Sept. 30. At the city council’s Oct. 1 meeting, his replacement was confirmed: Melissa Stults, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

Connecting William Street

On the agenda was a resolution to make a recommendation to city council regarding a downtown park. The resolution came in response to a request from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which had asked park commissioners for input on the Connecting William Street project. That effort is focused on developing a plan for five city-owned properties along William Street, between Ashley and Division. Four of the parcels are surface parking lots; the fifth is a parking structure at Fourth & William.

PAC members previously had a lengthy discussion on the issue at their land acquisition committee meeting in early September. [See Chronicle coverage: "Park Commissioners: More Green, Please."] They concluded that the possible development scenarios being floated by the DDA did not include sufficient green space or parkland.

Connecting William Street: Public Commentary

Three people spoke about the need for a downtown park. Gwen Nystuen – a long-time PAC member who was term-limited and left the commission this summer – said she was part of the Library Green Conservancy, advocating for more open space downtown. She hoped that PAC’s resolution would highlight the fact that there aren’t many parks or much open space right now. The Connecting William Street choices seem to be “dense, dense or denser,” she said, but a survey done by the DDA had found that a desire for more open space was one of the top four responses. With more dwelling units being added downtown, the city needs more open space, she said.

Eric Lipson, another member of the Library Green Conservancy, told commissioners that he’d been heartened to hear some of them ask why there isn’t more green space in the Connecting William Street scenarios. It’s been disappointing to see the scenarios lacking in this regard, especially because there have been several large-scale studies that promoted the idea of more green space. In the Calthorpe plan, for example, the only site-specific mention of public space was the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Now, that space is being used for surface parking, he noted. The conservancy wants as much of that area as possible to be used as a plaza.

Lipson noted that a plurality of responses to the DDA survey had listed urban open space as a priority, yet it’s not in the Connecting William Street plans – except for a “tiny” amount of green space on top of Library Lane. The argument that downtown parks attract bad elements is no excuse, he added. That’s a problem, but it shouldn’t be a reason to shut down parks. The Library Lane site would be perfect, Lipson concluded, because of its proximity to the library, the AATA’s Blake Transit Center, and local restaurants.  He hoped that commissioners would listen to a large segment of the population as they considered this issue.

Conservancy member Mary Hathaway agreed with the points made by Nystuen and Lipson, and said she wanted to address the question of why the top of the Library Lane structure should be used as a park, rather than other parcels. For one thing, the city already owns it, she said. The city still owes money on the former YMCA site on William between Fourth and Fifth, and it might be good to sell it before the balloon payment is due. The suggestion that the downtown library could build on top of the Library Lane structure is impractical, she said. It’s a financial disadvantage to the library to build anywhere except its current site, at the corner of Fifth and William.

Hathaway also pointed out that city officials don’t want different ideas for each of the four surface parking lots that are part of Connecting William Street. They want a connected plan – that’s reflected in the project’s name, she said. There’s a strong desire for a pedestrian-friendly design. People should be led to enjoy walking from Main Street to State Street and beyond, with a series of green, enticing paths. The central feature of that would be right next to the library, she said. The land there is already connected with a diagonal path to Liberty Plaza and an east/west path between Fifth and Division. It would draw people in, she said. So she hoped commissioners would consider the Library Lane site as the prime location for a downtown Central Park. She brought handouts and larger drawings that showed how a park could occupy that space as well as a building, in a very attractive way – the conservancy isn’t opposed to a building there, she noted.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Julie Grand began the discussion by saying she drafted the resolution based on her view of the consensus that commissioners had reached at their Sept. 4 land acquisition committee meeting. The draft resolution read as follows:

Whereas, the DDA has been charged by City Council to make recommendations regarding five City-owned lots through its Connecting William Street initiative;

Whereas, the PROS plan recommends that PAC work with the DDA to consider plans for downtown open space, including, but not limited to the Library Lane lot;

Whereas, the PROS plan reflects PAC’s commitment to, “assure citizens a voice in the decision-making process of the park, recreation, and open space system, including acquisition, planning, and development”;

Whereas, many community members have expressed a preference for a downtown park in this area;

Whereas, PAC recognizes the potential benefits of downtown density, the value of mixed-use interface with downtown open space, and the importance of creating a safe, attractive programmable space in the downtown;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street may be insufficient;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that there is more than one potential site for open space within the five City-owned properties;

Resolved, that PAC recommends additional input from City staff regarding the evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to utilize a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the Parks system.

Resolved, that PAC recommends that City Council refrain adopting plans for three of the five City-owned lots prior to resolving the question of open space within the Connecting William Street area.

Alan Jackson asked a question of Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. Given that the resolution calls for input from city staff, Jackson said, does the staff actually have the resources to handle that?

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, talks with former PAC member Gwen Nystuen prior to the start of PAC’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Smith described it as a multifaceted issue. Staff is currently providing information on multiple sites, including 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington, the Library Lane site, Liberty Plaza and the overall issue of downtown parks, per the mayor’s request. [Mayor John Hieftje had attended PAC's August meeting and asked commissioners to help prioritize action regarding downtown parks.]

“It’s work that needs to be done,” Smith said.

Grand continued, saying that the point of the resolution is to state that no hasty recommendations should be made without the input of parks staff.

Tim Berla said that overall, he supported the resolution. But he felt they should take it a step further, and state that there should be a park in the William Street part of downtown. He believed that PAC is in agreement on that, and should go on the record about it.

Bob Galardi said he wanted to ask a procedural question. Does PAC decide where parks should be built? [In addition to serving on PAC, Galardi is a member of the  leadership & outreach committee of the Ann Arbor DDA's Connecting William Street project.]

Berla replied that PAC can advise city council on anything it wants. If PAC members agree on an exact plan, they can recommend it to council. That doesn’t mean that the council will do it, he noted.

Galardi then highlighted one of the resolution’s whereas clauses: “Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street is potentially insufficient;…” He wanted to know what amount of open space would be considered sufficient: Is there some sort of ratio?

Grand noted that there are recommendations about open space in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and technically, the downtown area meets those guidelines. But that doesn’t mean PAC can’t evaluate what might be needed if more buildings are constructed, as proposed in the Connecting William Street scenarios.

Galardi ventured that they were being more qualitative than quantitative in their approach. That’s definitely true, Grand said – it’s fuzzy.

Berla characterized the project as a new approach for the city, and he hoped that in five years the downtown density of businesses and residents would be higher than anywhere else in Ann Arbor. But they don’t have experience in this kind of thing, he noted. He referred to a resolution that he had prepared, which he did not formally bring forward, that proposed looking at a much larger section of downtown, not just the Connecting William Street area.

Smith offered to come back at a later date with additional information about the guidelines that Grand had pointed to from the PROS plan, as well as some comparative data from other communities. He noted that there is a desire for more green space – that was reflected in responses to the DDA’s survey.

Referring to another point in the PROS plan, Grand said part of their task is to plan for the future and anticipate future needs. This resolution fits in with that mission, she said.

John Lawter felt that perhaps the final resolved clause could be stronger, and that they should mention any deadlines that might apply. Galardi clarified the next steps. There will be another public meeting in October, then the committee will develop recommendations to present to the city council. PAC’s resolution will be part of the mix when the committee evaluates all the feedback it has received.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Where to Put the Park?

Some of the discussion centered on where to focus the possible recommendations for a park or open space. Galardi wondered why the draft recommended looking at only three of the five sites for Connecting William Street?

Park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi is also a member of the  leadership & outreach committee of the Ann Arbor DDA’s Connecting William Street project.

Grand replied that in previous discussions, no one seemed enthusiastic about recommending a park at the Ashley site, on the west side of the project area. And it wouldn’t be feasible to recommend it for the large parking structure at Fourth and William.

Galardi felt that all sites should be considered, so that they wouldn’t be pre-selecting.

Tim Doyle pointed out that they also had focused on just the three sites because those were the best positioned to make a connection between Main Street and the University of Michigan campus. That goal shouldn’t be forgotten, he said.

Berla highlighted a point he’d made previously: That the city should decide where it wants to put a park before selling off any property. He’d be open to sites other than the three possibilities in the Connecting William Street area, but the main thing is to make a decision about a park location before selling or developing anything.

Smith cautioned against identifying a specific location for a park without knowing what might be located around it. That could result in an impractical, underused park, he said. Smith felt that development and a park needed to happen in a coordinated way.

The two councilmembers who also serve as ex-officio members of PAC – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – were asked for their opinions about what advice would be most helpful.

Taylor suggested it would be helpful to know what kind of features PAC would like to see. A tree-filled and canopy-laden park? Playgrounds? A “soft” public meeting space? The council would also be interested in knowing PAC’s rationale – why commissioners feel that a particular type of park is important.

Anglin said this discussion had been very meaningful, in terms of looking at the future of the city’s first urban park. He felt that such a downtown park would exceed the usership of even the Ann Arbor farmers market. There might be opportunities for performance art, he said, if the public art millage passes. [The mechanism of a millage would allow for more flexibility in funding certain types of projects, like temporary performance art. The current Percent for Art program, which uses capital dollars, does not allow for that.] Anglin felt a park could be an economic generator, drawing people downtown.

There was some discussion about whether to include a whereas clause about the value of an urban park for economic development, but that addition didn’t gain traction.

Galardi noted that the main message PAC wants to sent to the DDA and city council is that they need to more actively consider green space in their planning. As far as the ideas mentioned by Taylor, Galardi thought PAC still needed to “get our act together” on that. He said he’d be comfortable passing the more general resolution, to give quick feedback to the DDA.

Karen Levin noted that they could address more detailed issues at a retreat, which has not yet been scheduled.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – How Much Green Space?

Part of the discussion centered on how to quantify the amount of green or open space needed in the downtown area.

Referring to the three scenarios that the DDA had presented at PAC’s August meeting, Ingrid Ault noted that the amount of green space in each scenario was the same, although density levels for residents and businesses varied widely. She felt it was important to send a message to the council that there should be a proportionate increase in green space, as density increased.

When she referred to the scenarios as “options,” Bob Galardi quickly pointed out that these scenarios are not intended to be options or proposals. They are ideas that can be mixed and matched. He felt uncomfortable talking about proportions, because that implies a ratio or formula that somehow defines what “sufficient” means.

Alan Jackson said that even though he’s a physicist he didn’t want to formulize this approach. They should make judgments, he said. The key thing is that there’s an opportunity here because these parcels are undeveloped, so they should figure out where a park could be located. They shouldn’t lose sight of this historic opportunity.

Julie Grand noted that regardless of whether the scenarios are options or not, members of PAC still feel there is insufficient green space in all of the scenarios. Tim Doyle ventured that PAC would advocate for more open space, even if there were no population gains in the downtown area. The city doesn’t have a town square, he said, reminding commissioners that Ann Arbor is known as the “city of trees.” His sense is the city needs a park in this area.

Colin Smith asked whether their opinion would change if they factored in the possibility of adding parkland in other parts of town, like 721 N. Main (near Summit) or the DTE/MichCon property off of Broadway, near Argo Dam. Galardi threw the First & William site into the mix – would that change their opinion?

Smith said his point is to ask whether they’re considering this issue in isolation, or in the totality of the downtown area. It’s worth asking the question, he said.

Berla replied that he could imagine people walking between the library and Main Street, but not further west down the hill to First & William. He felt the DTE site could be a great community gathering space.

Grand said she’d like to consider this question in totality, but that time constraints required them to focus on the confines of the Connecting William Street project. Berla wondered why the DDA couldn’t have a scenario D, with a larger park.

Galardi observed that the Connecting William Street committee hadn’t completed its work. He promised to take PAC’s formal resolution – as well as the tenor of this discussion – and report it to the other committee members as they develop final recommendations for council.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Minor Amendments

After additional discussion, the commission reached consensus on some minor amendments to the draft resolution. The first five whereas clauses were unchanged. Changes in the remaining clauses are indicated in strike-through for deletions and italics for additions:

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street may be is insufficient;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that there is more than one potential site for open space within the five City-owned properties under consideration;

Resolved, that PAC recommends additional input from City staff regarding the evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to utilize a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the Parks system.

Resolved, that PAC recommends that City Council refrain adopting plans for three of the five City-owned lots prior to resolving the question of open space within the Connecting William Street area.

[.pdf of final Connecting William Street resolution]

Outcome: On a 7-2 vote, commissioners passed a resolution urging the city council to get more input for a possible downtown park. Voting against the resolution were Ingrid Ault and Bob Galardi.

Dog Parks

At PAC’s Aug. 21 meeting, commissioners had voted to direct its dog park subcommittee to work with city staff and develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks.

John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair, has been leading this initiative, advocating in particular for more options in Ann Arbor’s central area. He gave a formal presentation on the topic at PAC’s Aug. 16, 2011 meeting. Currently there are two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city. Lawter has recommended incorporating this goal into the city’s park planning efforts, adding it as a consideration when looking at land acquisitions, and asking that parks staff actively look for potential sites.

Dog Parks: Public Commentary

Susan Miller told commissioners that years ago, she regularly took her dogs to a field near the former Gelman Sciences plant in Scio Township. She later found the group of dog owners who gathered on Saturdays at Slauson Middle School, but that gathering was shut down recently, she noted. Miller said she doesn’t fault anyone, but there’s still a large, unmet need for a centrally located place for dogs and their owners to congregate in Ann Arbor. The city has failed to fill this need.

Miller described in detail the different dogs and people of all ages that she’d met, noting that she isn’t able to interact with them anymore because there’s no place to gather. Her point is that dog parks are about recreation for dogs and the community. Yes, problems can arise, she acknowledged. Dogs might fight and ”pooping can occasionally go unnoticed.” But these pose no greater liabilities than a skatepark, pool “or even simply sidewalks,” Miller said. She hoped commissioners would consider putting in a more centrally located dog park.

Describing himself as a lifelong Ann Arbor resident, Harold Kirchen also spoke in favor of another dog park. He said he knew Miller because of the Slauson dog party, and that they both knew PAC commissioner John Lawter for that same reason. Lawter is PAC’s “resident scofflaw,” Kirchen joked, referring to the fact that letting dogs run off-leash at Slauson had violated a city ordinance. In the past, the city hasn’t dealt with this need, Kirchen said. One city dog park is “halfway to Whitmore Lake,” he said, referring to Olson Park on the city’s north side, and the other [Swift Run, on the southeast side of town] is almost in Ypsilanti.

Kirchen also addressed possible concerns, saying that when a lot of people are around, someone is bound to call out a “poop alert” when they see a dog defecating. So the possibility of dog poop being left in the area is a false issue, he said. Also, people are better behaved when they’re watched by their peers – “just ask any cop.” He reported that when he went for a walk in the woods this spring, he filled two buckets with dog poop that had been left near the trail. At a dog park, people would self-police, he contended.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

Later in the meeting, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – gave a report on the dog park initiative. He noted that staff had met with the dog park subcommittee and reviewed previous work that had been done on this issue. The need for a centrally located dog park is identified as part of the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which is used to guide capital spending and funding priorities. So the idea is not a new one, he said.

The staff has also reached out to other communities to get feedback about how off-leash parks have worked, Smith reported. They talked a lot about unfenced areas in particular, he said, and didn’t get positive feedback about that approach. Concerns that were raised included dogs leaving the designated areas and going onto private property. One community reported that they wound up fencing in an area that was initially unfenced, and that both dog owners and nearby property owners preferred the fenced-in park. Based on this feedback, Ann Arbor parks staff doesn’t support an unfenced dog park, Smith said. An additional point is that establishing an unfenced dog park would require an ordinance amendment, which Smith characterized as a lengthy and cumbersome process.

From left: Park advisory commissioners John Lawter and Tim Doyle. Lawter is spearheading an effort to create one or more centrally located dog parks in Ann Arbor.

Smith said the staff looked at possible areas in existing parks. The field at Slauson is bowl-shaped, with fencing on one side, creating a defined space – even though it wasn’t fenced-in. But in looking at Ann Arbor’s larger “programmable” parks, there aren’t many areas that would work, Smith said. The northwest corner of West Park has some of those characteristics, but it runs up against private property and the stormwater feature.

That said, Smith reported that the parks staff supports adding another off-leash, fenced area for dogs. So the next questions to address are how many of such areas should be created, and in what parts of town? They’d need to establish criteria for ranking locations, then visit different locations and rate each one. He hoped to have a report and recommendations for PAC at their Oct. 16 meeting.

No decisions would be made in October, he stressed – this is all background work. In 2007, when the city was evaluating locations for what eventually became the two existing dog parks, other sites were also evaluated as possible fenced-in dog parks, Smith noted. Rather than reinventing the wheel, it makes sense to revisit those other locations. One of those was Riverside Park, but now that’s become heavily programmed by sports groups. Another option is the parcel in the northeast corner of West Park, where the city recently bought and demolished the house on that site, near the entrance off of Chapin.

If PAC supports the recommendations that staff brings forward, Smith said, the next step would be to hold neighborhood meetings in the areas that have been identified as potential dog parks.

John Lawter told commissioners that although it sounded like there were many hurdles in this process, he wanted to put a more positive spin on it. The staff is looking at possibilities for a fenced-in dog park, but that doesn’t mean the door has closed on an unfenced area. But he agrees with staff that it makes sense to look at a more traditional fenced-in dog park at this point, rather than spending energy pushing for an unfenced option.

Assuming they can make recommendations in October and hold neighborhood meetings after that, Lawter believed it’s possible to get site approval from the city council by December. A fence would then be put up whenever the city can identify funding for the project, he said. Lawter noted that his original concern with a fenced-in dog park is that the cost would be prohibitive, but he’s been assured that the expense wouldn’t be too great and that it might be built within a year. He’s satisfied with the process, and the important thing is that the project is moving forward.

Smith observed that the original dog park project – Swift Run, at Ellsworth and Platt – had been a true capital project, as the 10-acre site had to be reshaped for a different use. The land also posed challenges for the fencing, he said. [Located on a former landfill, it also includes a gravel parking lot.] The next fenced-in dog park would be more like fencing someone’s back yard, at a fairly low cost.

Julie Grand suggested there might be a dog lover in the city who’d be willing to donate the cost – and perhaps the dog park could be named after the donor.

The West Park entrance off Chapin, looking west. A lot on the right side of this image is one potential location for a fenced-in dog park.

Tim Berla recalled that there used to be a group that attended PAC meetings to lobby for a dog park. Perhaps such a group could take responsibility for an unfenced dog park. He said that some of his dog-loving friends feel it’s dangerous to have an unfenced park, but perhaps an organized dog group could help with some of these issues.

Smith reported that this summer, the city’s park supervisors dropped by Swift Run and Olson dog parks to help educate residents about the need for dog licenses. Between May and mid-June, they found 107 unlicensed dogs at those parks. From mid-June until now, only 14 dogs were at the dog parks without tags. That’s a dramatic shift, Smith said.

Lawter noted that maintaining an active volunteer group is difficult. Now that there’s a volunteer coordinator for parks, that would go a long way in helping to keep such a group alive, he said.

Ingrid Ault asked whether they’d be considering just one more dog park. Not necessarily, Smith replied. One of the things that needs to be determined is how many dog parks are desired, and where they might be located. If more than one site is conducive to a dog park, they can consider that. Ault also requested that PAC be provided with a map showing the locations of Swift Run and Olson dog parks.

Outcome: This was not an action item – no vote was taken. Staff recommendations for possible dog park locations are expected at PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting.

Bioretention at Miller Nature Area & Garden Homes Park

Nick Hutchinson, a project manager in the city’s public services unit, briefed commissioners on plans to add bioretention areas – including rain gardens – in the Miller Nature Area and Garden Homes Park. Both city properties are along Miller Avenue, which will be reconstructed next year between Newport Road and North Maple. Coordinating with that road reconstruction, the city is planning this project to help improve stormwater management in the area.

Map showing planned bioretention areas along Miller Avenue.

There are three places where the Miller Nature Area extends to Miller Avenue. The “finger” of land that’s the farthest east – between 1553 and 1575 Miller – is where one of the bioretention areas will be located. The project calls for removing vegetation, regrading the area, and planting seeds for native plants. Some of the flow from the existing stormwater pipe along Miller would be diverted into the bioretention area, and the current path would be rebuilt to go around the bioretention site.

Garden Homes Park is located further west of Miller Nature Area, north of Miller between Franklin and Fulmer. The bioretention there would be located at the northwest corner of Miller and Franklin, which Hutchinson described as an “isolated fragment” of the park. A similar approach would be taken to remove vegetation, regrade, and replant seeds of native plants. Stormwater would be diverted off Miller to flow under the sidewalk and into the bioretention basin.

A new path would be built through the bioretention area to provide better access to the park from that corner.

Hutchinson noted that public meetings have been held with residents, and the sites were selected with input of staff from parks and the natural area preservation program.

Bioretention: Public Commentary

Natalie Fulkerson told commissioners that her family lived on Miller Avenue, next to the section where the bioretention work is proposed. She thanked PAC member Alan Jackson for visiting them to see the situation. She expressed appreciation to the city for these improvements, and said she’s excited about most of the plans. However, one concern is the plan to relocate the path. The new path would abut their back yard. They have a seven-year-old son, she said, and are concerned about strangers and off-leash dogs. The plans also call for removing some of the trees and growth that currently provide screening and privacy for their property. She hoped that the plans could be modified, and she thanked commissioners for their attention.

Bioretention: Commission Discussion

Commissioners asked Hutchinson several clarificational questions about the project, and generally expressed support for the changes. Alan Jackson said he hoped the plans could be modified to respond to concerns raised by Natalie Fulkerson during public commentary. Hutchinson indicated that the project could accommodate those issues, possibly with more plantings to act as a screen – and the staff had already discussed it.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager for Ann Arbor, talks with Natalie Fulkerson, a resident who lives near the Miller Nature Area.

Jackson also wondered how wet the areas would become, especially during spring rains. Would there be standing water? Hutchinson replied that there might be some standing water after a rainfall, but as the rain garden plants take root, those plants help absorb the water.

John Lawter asked about the project’s funding source. Hutchinson said that although staff from the city’s natural area preservation program will perform the work, it will be paid for out of the city’s stormwater fund.

Mike Anglin noted that some of the lawn extensions in that area are quite large, and that residents might be encouraged to install rain gardens there as well. Perhaps the city could work some kind of deal with residents to do that, he said.

Responding to a question from Tim Berla, Hutchinson said the rain gardens are intended to help the flow of water as well as its quality. By detaining some of the stormwater, the rain gardens would slow the flow of water going downstream. The plants would also help filter out pollutants.

Berla wondered if there was any chance that this project might actually make flooding worse. He noted that he had attended a meeting of residents in the West Park area, where many expressed the opinion that flooding had worsened after the city’s stormwater project there. Hutchinson replied that the rain gardens would also have outlet areas so that during heavy rains, there are designated places for water overflow. Overall, the project is located in the upper edge of Allen Creek, he said, so it could only help the situation downstream.

Tim Doyle wondered what happened to rain gardens during drought conditions. Would the plants survive? That question was fielded by David Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program. He noted that conditions like they’ve seen this summer are hard for some plantings. The critical period is the first couple of years – after that, the plants are deeply rooted and can withstand drought conditions.

Colin Smith wrapped up the discussion by noting that this project ties in with the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which calls for using unused portions of the parks for stormwater management. He also thought the changes at Garden Homes Park would greatly improve the “curb appeal” of that area.

Misc. Communications

There were opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Sept. 18 meeting.

Misc. Communications: Objections to Whitewater Project

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported to commissioners that several letters of objection had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater in the Huron River, near the Argo Cascades. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. Objections were filed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council.

For a full report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”

Misc. Communications: Farewell to Chapman

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, noted that this was the last meeting for Doug Chapman, whose term ended in September. She thanked him for his service on the commission. Chapman described it as a positive experience, and said he was sorry he didn’t have the chance to work with the new commissioners. [Within the last few months, three term-limited PAC members – Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett – have been replaced by Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi and Alan Jackson.]

Chapman’s position has been filled by Melissa (Missy) Stults, for a three-year term running through Sept. 30, 2015. Her appointment was confirmed at the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 1 meeting. According to her application, she is a research scientist and doctoral student at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

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

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 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 right: Bob Galardi, the newest member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, talks with parks & recreation manager Colin Smith before the start of the Aug. 21, 2012 PAC meeting. Because the PAC meeting in July was cancelled, this was the first regular session for Galardi since his appointment by city council. (Photos by the writer.)

In their main action item, commissioners voted to direct PAC’s dog park subcommittee to develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks, to be located in central Ann Arbor. Those recommendations will likely be presented at PAC’s Sept. 18 meeting.

The commissioner who’s been spearheading this effort for more than a year, John Lawter, didn’t attend the meeting. That disappointed one member of the public, Steve Thorp, who advocated for West Park to be considered as a potential site for a dog park. He dubbed Lawter “Citizen Canine” and said the ballfield at West Park could be a spot for a temporary dog park during certain hours of the day or times of the year.

Commissioners also heard from mayor John Hieftje, who 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.

Commissioner Tim Berla asked how the Library Lane site – atop the new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue – fits into the mayor’s vision for downtown parks. Hieftje said he’d attended a picnic there this summer hosted by the Library Green advocates. He felt it was a little disingenuous of them to show images of a possible future park with large, mature trees – because there’s only three inches of soil, he said, so if you’re looking for greenery and shade, that’s not the best place. There’s room for a plaza, Hieftje added, but the question is how large it should be.

The Library Lane site is one of five city-owned properties that are being evaluated as part of the Connecting William Street effort, which aims to coordinate planning and possible development on those properties. At the Aug. 21 meeting commissioners were briefed about that project, led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA was seeking feedback from PAC on three development scenarios that, generally speaking, represent low density, moderate density and high density development.

Several commissioners expressed disappointment that the scenarios did not include more green space. Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, 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. She said the city needs to find a “sweet spot” between parks and the population density needed to support those parks.

Also on the agenda was an update from the nonprofit Community Action Network. CAN operates Bryant Community Center and Northside Community Center under contract with the city, which owns those properties.

Dog Parks

John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair, has been leading an effort to increase the options for dog parks, especially in Ann Arbor’s core area. A year ago, he gave a presentation on the topic at PAC’s Aug. 16, 2011 meeting, and cited the need for another off-leash area in the central part of the city. There are only two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city. He recommended incorporating this goal into the city’s park planning efforts, adding it as a consideration when looking at land acquisitions, and asking that parks staff actively look for potential sites.

On Aug. 20, park commissioner Karen Levin gave an update on the situation, noting that Lawter was unable to attend the meeting.  She has also worked on this project and introduced the resolution asking for a formal recommendations. Parks staff would be asked to review all possible options, she said, including unfenced off-leash hours in some city parks.

Recommendations would be presented at PAC’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Dog Parks: Public Commentary

Steve Thorp told commissioners that he’s lived on Chapin Street, adjacent to West park, for about 30 years. He was there to confess two obsessions: (1) renaming West Park as Central Park West; and (2) putting a dog park in the central part of Ann Arbor.

Thorp said he was disappointed that John Lawter wasn’t at the meeting, because he wanted to make his case to Lawter – adding that he thought a good nickname for Lawter would be “Citizen Canine.” Thorp walks his dog at “Central Park West,” and thinks it would be a great location for a dog park of some sort. The existing partially-fenced ballfield could be fenced-in completely, creating an enclosed space. The use of the field as a dog park could be confined to certain times of day or periods during the year. He said he wouldn’t want to interfere with its use as a ballfield.

Thorp felt that some kind of arrangement could be worked out that wouldn’t be expensive and would accommodate both uses. He noted that he doesn’t like dog poop, and that generally groups are good at policing themselves. But there are always a few bad apples, he said, so he would support greater enforcement and higher penalties for violating rules at such a dog park.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Julie Grand pointed out that this has been Lawter’s passion for some time – and it’s brought him positive and negative attention, she said. He hopes to move this project forward before his term expires. [Appointed in 2006, Lawter's second three-year term ends on Dec. 31, 2012. PAC members are limited to two consecutive terms.]

Bob Galardi wondered whether one month was sufficient time to prepare recommendations. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, replied that this has been discussed for a long time and shouldn’t require much more time to prepare. If they do need more time, Smith added, he wouldn’t be shy about asking for it.

Ingrid Ault asked whether staff had received enough guidance from PAC. As a dog owner, she said she’s very passionate about this topic and would be willing to share her ideas. Smith observed that the recommendations they’d bring back to PAC would not focus on a specific location, but would lay out a process for how to proceed. A lot of research had been done previously, before the city put in its current dog parks, he said, and that work could still be used – including suggestions for other locations.

Tim Berla said he’s not a dog owner, but he has supported the two existing dog parks. He didn’t want to gloss over the behavior of dog owners – saying he felt that it’s more likely they would drive to a dog park, rather than walk several blocks to get there. He also raised potential problems with designating temporary dog parks at parks that are used for other purposes. He said he’d be upset the first time he encountered a “present” not removed by a dog owner, or if he were ever bothered by a dog while at a park. He wanted to ensure that whatever action PAC took, it considered the impact on the rest of the community.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to direct its dog park subcommittee to work with city staff and develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks.

Downtown Parks: Liberty Plaza, North Main Corridor

PAC’s Aug. 21 agenda included a presentation by mayor John Hieftje about downtown parks. His remarks began by focusing on Liberty Plaza. A staff memo outlined possible strategies to improving that park, located on the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. But he also discussed a range of other city-owned sites that could be included in the Ann Arbor parks system, including 415 W. Washington, 721 N. Main and possibly the DTE/MichCon site near Argo Dam, if it’s acquired by the city.

Downtown Parks: Public Commentary

At the beginning of PAC’s meeting, John Teeter of First Martin Corp. introduced himself, saying he was on hand to answer questions about Liberty Plaza if necessary. First Martin owns the building next to that park. He said this is the third year that the firm has provided grounds services at the park on weekdays. The company has spent over $27,000 on the park during that time, he said.

In addition to his comments on dog parks, Steve Thorp told commissioners that West Park – which he calls “Central Park West” – recently celebrated its 100th anniversary. Perhaps 100 years ago, it was appropriate to consider it a park on the west side of town, he said. Just before the meeting, the mayor had told him that when the park was first formed, Seventh Avenue wasn’t paved. But now, it’s really central to the city, he said. The downtown has a couple of pocket parks, but nothing that’s of the same stature. He said that renaming it would keep “west” in its name, so that the park’s history wouldn’t be lost. There are natural areas, new programming – he said he’s looked at it every day for 30 years, and there’s a lot to cherish. He hoped commissioners would give his idea some consideration.

Downtown Parks: Mayor’s Perspective

Mayor John Hieftje attended PAC’s Aug. 21 meeting to talk about Liberty Plaza and other parks in the downtown area. He said his goal was to bring commissioners up to speed, to ask them to start thinking about prioritizing needs and possibly integrating additional parks into the system.

Hieftje noted that Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere was also attending PAC’s meeting, and that he had spent time with her and others thinking about Liberty Plaza. Around 2000, there had been significant problems at Liberty Plaza, he said. For some residents, their current perceptions of the plaza are colored by that past situation. Years ago, police had set up surveillance cameras and ultimately made several arrests for heroin sales and other crimes, and for the most part that took out the “criminal element.” The DDA and parks commission had worked to make improvements too, making it more visible from the street, for example. He talked about his own efforts – eating lunch there.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, also serves on the North Main/Huron River corridor task force.

It’s come a long way and it’s a nice park, Hieftje said. He’s comfortable there and said many citizens feel that way too, though “it could be better than it is.” He talked about how he, Briere and others met with people there who were part of Occupy Ann Arbor, and started thinking about the park beyond that issue. Working with parks staff and others, he said, they started thinking about how to make Liberty Plaza a more dynamic park.

He referenced a staff memo that outlined some of Liberty Plaza’s history, as well as suggestions for more improvements and a process for moving forward. It’s a starting point, he said. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza memo] There are ways to make the plaza better, he said, mentioning the Sonic Lunch summer concert series, more links to the adjacent Kempf House, and possible increased pedestrian traffic now that the nearby underground parking structure is open. He indicated there might be partnerships with others, like the library and DDA.

It’s a park at the center of downtown, he continued – saying there are actually a lot of downtown parks. He felt that the green space at the University of Michigan campus, even though it’s not officially part of the city, still offers people green space that they can use, even if they aren’t students.

Hieftje then talked about other downtown city property that might become part of the parks system. He said he had some confidence that something will come out of efforts at the 415 W. Washington site, where the city has been working on a future use for the property with the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy and the Arts Alliance. Hieftje noted that the Arts Alliance has taken a “back seat” now – and it’s the 555 Nonprofit Gallery & Studios that is representing the arts community on the project. It’s been looked at as a possible community arts center and a greenway park. It’s been a long slog, he said. [The latest council action, taken on July 16, 2012, was to approve $50,000 of general fund reserve money to be used for various physical surveys on the  property, which is a former vehicle maintenance facility.]

Although the 415 W. Washington site was originally expected to be the first city property in a greenway, he said, it now seems that the 721 N. Main site is a more likely possibility, Hieftje reported. Uses on these sites are constrained because they are located on either floodways or floodplains, he said. The North Main/Huron River corridor task force, which the council formed in May of 2012, is looking at the 721 N. Main site, he said. The city is planning to apply for a state Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund grant to help make it the initial piece of a greenway.

The Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission might be interested in providing matching funds, he said, because the site could be part of the countywide Border-to-Border Trail. Those two sources might be able to provide $600,000 to transform the site. Hieftje said he talked with the city’s consultants in Lansing [the lobbyist firm Governmental Consultant Services, and one of its directors, Kirk Profit]. Hieftje said they believe it will be one of the highest-scoring applications ever for a trust fund grant. He believes it could likely become the first anchor site for the Allen Creek greenway.

Looking forward, he said, the city needs to think about integrating the 721 N. Main site into the parks system. The city also needs to look at 415 W. Washington and other greenway issues, including the Border-to-Border Trail, Hieftje said.

Hieftje also mentioned the DTE/MichCon site along the Huron River near Argo Dam. The area has seen an explosion of interest following the opening of Argo Cascades, the city’s new dam bypass, Hieftje observed. If the MichCon site is cleaned up to a park standard – which Hieftje thinks will happen – he said the city would be interested in it. The city has wanted that property for decades, he noted.

So it’s time to start prioritizing parks and how to take care of them, he said. How can the city integrate the 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington sites? How should the city handle the DTE/MichCon property and integrate it into the parks system? He said he couldn’t think of a better use for that property. He thinks DTE will be in a position to let the city take ownership and it could become a park. “At least that’s where preliminary conversations have led us,” he said. That would give the city parkland on both sides of the whitewater section that’s going to be built along that stretch of the river, near Argo Cascades. If the city has property on both sides of the river, he noted, the city might be able to get yet another state DNR trust fund grant to develop it as a park.

Hieftje said he was there to bring PAC up to speed. Nothing has happened yet, he added, so it’s a good time for their input. It might be overwhelming to think about how to maintain existing parks, he said, but it’s also time to think about integrating new parks into the system, and making Liberty Plaza as good as it can be.

Downtown Parks: Commission Discussion

Tim Berla said he was sure the mayor knew about the Library Green group who are advocating for a park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. A bigger park – either there, or at some other downtown site – is in Berla’s vision for what’s good for the city. He noted that there are a lot of processes underway, such as the Connecting William Street effort. [PAC was briefed on that project later in the meeting – see below.] Berla wondered how the prioritizing that Hieftje was asking for would fit into these other efforts, and how citizen input would be involved.

John Teeter of First Martin Corp. and Susan Pollay of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the Aug. 21, 2012 park advisory commission meeting.

The fact that there are so many efforts underway shows why it’s important to think about prioritizing, Hieftje replied. A greenway has been a goal since the 1970s, he said, although there’s been a big push more recently for that. These are city-owned sites that the city needs to do something with – he didn’t want the city to own blighted sites. PAC will have a central role in prioritizing these issues, he said. New park development will land in PAC’s lap.

As for the Library Lane site, Hieftje said he attended a picnic held there by Library Green advocates. He felt it was a little disingenuous of the group to show images of a possible future park with large, mature trees.  There’s only three inches of soil, he said, so if you’re looking for greenery and shade, that’s not the best place. There is a place for a plaza at the Library Lane site, he noted. The question is about size.

Berla said there seems to be a good fit for some kind of park next to the library, but it might be good for PAC to look at other sites, and options for possible green space as well as connections between downtown parks. The first place he thinks of is the lot across the street, on the former YMCA site that’s now a city-owned surface parking lot.

Hieftje pointed to University of Michigan green space at the Diag and the new North Quad at State and Huron. But on the other side of town, that kind of space doesn’t exist, he said. It might be nice to have a playground near the library, he said. Hieftje pointed out that a significant investment was made in infrastructure to support a building on top of the Library Lane parking structure. If you have a park, you also need people and buildings with active uses that face the area, he observed. Without activity, there will be problems – the city learned that lesson from Liberty Plaza, he said.

Hieftje again said he felt PAC should be at the center of helping the city prioritize and take advantage of opportunities for existing and potential parks. It has to be done at some point, he said, though it’s difficult.

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, noted that she serves on the North Main/Huron River corridor task force, as well as on the subcommittee of that group that will explore various grants for the 721 N. Main site. She suggested that this might be a topic to discuss at PAC’s retreat this fall – but a date hasn’t yet been scheduled for that. PAC might want to form a committee to look at downtown parks and other downtown issues.

Outcome: This was a presentation only, and no action by PAC was required.

Connecting William Street

Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning and research specialist, were on hand to update the commission on the Connecting William Street project, a DDA-led effort to coordinate planning for five city-owned sites in downtown Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee had served as a focus group for an earlier stage of the project, and commissioner Bob Galardi is a member of the project’s leadership & outreach committee.

Acting under direction by the Ann Arbor city council, the DDA is crafting a proposal for a framework to guide possible development of the five sites, which are primarily surface parking lots: (1) the Kline’s lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William), (2) the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William), (3) the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, (4) the old YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth), and (5) the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, which recently opened north of the downtown library.

The substance of the presentation was very similar to one that was made at an Aug. 14 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission. See Chronicle coverage: “Planning Group Briefed on William St. Project.”

Like the session with planning commissioners, the DDA was seeking feedback from PAC on three development scenarios that, broadly speaking, represent low density, moderate density and high density development. All conform to current zoning. They were created based on input from interviews, focus groups, an online survey, and the work of land use economist Todd Poole. [.pdf of Poole's market study]

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion

After the presentation, Susan Pollay and Amber Miller fielded questions and comments from commissioners.

Tim Berla wondered whether the DDA envisioned these scenarios being achieved through private development, or would the city or DDA becoming involved – by issuing bonds, for example. He noted that the city already had invested in building the underground parking structure.

Pollay replied that at this point, the DDA is simply exploring possible uses for these sites. In the past, a developer whose proposal was considered for the top of the Library Lane structure – Valiant Partners – had asked for a lot of things from the city, she said. That process drew out the fact that the city needs to talk about these issues before getting a proposal, she said. So one of the things that the Connecting William Street process is trying to do is to tease out the issues that need to be discussed, Pollay added – issues that the city council, the DDA and others need to think about.

From left: Park commissioners Tim Berla, Alan Jackson and Ingrid Ault.

Beyond the provision of parking spaces, requests from Valiant had included asking the city to back bonds for the project, and that the DDA to use its TIF revenues (tax increment financing) in a different way, Pollay said.  Other developers often ask for other things, like for the DDA to pay for streetscape or infrastructure improvements. Those kinds of questions need to be considered – what are the city and the DDA willing to do? But those discussions haven’t happened yet, she said.

Berla asked how PAC could best give its feedback to the DDA. For example, if PAC reached a consensus that they wanted a park on one of the sites – how should they communicate that?

Getting PAC’s priorities is important, Pollay replied. Should the city reinvest in existing downtown parks, like Liberty Plaza? How does that fit in with their priorities? What audience are they trying to reach? What locations? All of these things are important to hear about, she said.

Berla asked whether the project had considered closing any streets to create pedestrian plazas. No, that wasn’t on their list of things to consider, Pollay said. She noted that the DDA’s assignment from council was limited to the five city-owned sites. One of those sites – the lot next to Palio restaurant, at Main and William – is often closed for special events, she said. Library Lane is also designed so that it can easily be closed for special events, too, Pollay added. Given the weather in Michigan, only certain months of the year are conducive to using outdoor space. So it’s important to look for flexibility – ways that sites might be used in multiple ways.

Alan Jackson wondered whether other communities have gone through this process, and used a land use economist, as the DDA had. How successful have they been? How reliable is the data, and do developers “play along”?

Pollay observed that one of the biggest concerns expressed by developers relates to the clarity of the city’s development approval process. Developers propose something they think will be successful, but people keep asking them to make changes, she said, and time passes. Universally, what developers say is that they need to know what the community wants, then they’ll deliver that, she said.

Given Ann Arbor’s activism, Jackson observed, is might not be realistic to think there will ever be a process that doesn’t involve changes along the way.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – More Green, Please

Julie Grand said it bothers her that there aren’t any scenarios that include more green space. There’s movement in the community toward that goal, she said.

Tim Doyle picked up on that issue, too. He wondered whether other scenarios with more green space had been “deep-sixed” because there weren’t any tree huggers in the room. He had been taken aback that none of the options represented a “pretty city,” with fewer buildings. Doyle said he’d recently visited New York City and seen the High Line – a park built on a former elevated freight rail line. Saying he wasn’t trying to be critical, Doyle described the Connecting William Street scenarios as seeming to have been created by a bunch of developers trying to make money off the city, not in an effort to try to make the city prettier.

Pollay responded by noting that there are eight million people living in New York City – an amount of density that can support parks like the High Line. Yes, Doyle replied, but none of the DDA scenarios even make an attempt to create a greenway or to close streets. Perhaps it’s not economically feasible, he noted, but he was glad that PAC had the opportunity to react to these ideas. He’d like to see more green space by a factor of three to five, not two. He said he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on the feedback form they’d been given, because he didn’t like any of the scenarios. He was very disappointed.

Pollay said this process was driven by adding to what the city already has. Part of the challenge is that right now, there’s relatively low density downtown, she said. Successful parks have a lot of people near them, she said. In Ann Arbor, there are a lot of choices – and a lot of those choices involve finding ways to animate the open space that’s already in the city, and making sure that open space and density work together.

Yes, Doyle said, and it’s important to have both. Pollay agreed – that there’s a “sweet spot.”

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, highlighted the comparison between the Library Lane plaza and Sculpture Plaza, in Kerrytown. Sculpture Plaza is successful because of the activity there, he said – people spill out into the plaza from adjacent businesses, and use the space. There’s already a lot of green space nearby and in the city, he said. Commissioners just need to make sure they give feedback about how to activate it.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – First & William

Julie Grand wondered why First & William – another city-owned parcel that’s used as a surface parking lot – isn’t part of this project.

Christopher Taylor, the Ward 3 city councilmember who’s an ex-officio member of PAC, fielded her question. He noted that originally, the council had considered asking the DDA to look at all city-owned downtown sites. It was ultimately decided to “cabin” the effort into a smaller area, he said, to give it more focus. [The council approved the planning effort at its April 4, 2011 meeting. But even if the First & William lot had been included in the council's direction at that meeting, the planning effort would have been guided by the vote the council took at its July 6, 2009 meeting, to designate the First & William parcel as a future part of the Allen Creek greenway.]

Grand pointed out that it had been the “third of three” at one point. [Her reference was to a previous three-site plan that the DDA had proposed in 2005 but that was never put on the city council agenda for a vote. The three sites had included lots at First & William, First & Washington and the Kline’s lot on Ashley. ]

Taylor replied that it had been the subject of much conversation among councilmembers. He had felt the DDA’s scope should be much broader, he said.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Infrastructure, Parking

Alan Jackson said the high density scenario would put a lot of pressure on infrastructure. What would be the impact on parking? Would the city need to build another parking structure?

Ann Arbor park commissioner Alan Jackson.

Susan Pollay replied that the city has the opportunity to rethink transit. About two dozen bus routes emanate from the Blake Transit Center, located in the general William Street area. Increased density would result in a level of ridership that would sustain public transit, she said.

The DDA talks about how the recent underground Library Lane parking structure is the last one it intends to build, she said. How can the proposed countywide transit plan help that goal? In addition to buses, the city has a range of other alternative transportation – Zipcars, vanpools, taxis, parking for scooters and bikes, electric vehicle parking. How can the city use an increased downtown population to support things they’d like to see, like countywide transit?

Amber Miller said the DDA has talked with city staff about infrastructure needs in the William Street area, including sanitary sewer. All scenarios would entail infrastructure upgrades, she said.

Jackson noted that while it’s high-minded to encourage more public transit, do businesses buy into that when they’re looking at those sites? Is there realistic demand for that?

Pollay replied by talking about the growth of the city’s go!pass program, which offers bus passes to employees who work in the DDA district. Even without additional development, she said, the program is growing. There’s a certain kind of business and employee and resident who comes downtown, she noted, and those people are more apt to use public transit. In this part of the downtown, there’s the opportunity to build a community where cars aren’t a central part of how our lives are organized, she said.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

Karen Levin wondered about the DDA’s timeframe for getting feedback. PAC was planning a retreat this fall, and could perhaps talk about it then, she said.

Amber Miller replied that in late August and early September, they’ll hold additional meetings with specific groups as well as a couple of public forums. They’re also planning some webinars, for people to participate online.

They’ll use the feedback they’ve received to develop a recommended draft scenario by October. That recommendation will be reviewed with the public through meetings and surveys for additional input, with revisions made in October and November.

Tim Berla asked whether the DDA will be picking one of the three scenarios. Susan Pollay replied that they’ll be looking for areas of overlap, to come up with a strategy that most people can live with and that meets as many needs as possible.

Berla wanted to know what kind of feedback would be most helpful – specific or general? Pollay suggested being specific: Where would they like to see green space located, and what size parcel would they prefer? Who maintains it and pays for that? How would they envision it being used, compared to other parks or nearby green space?

Miller added that getting PAC’s feedback in the next month or so would be helpful. Julie Grand suggested discussing it at the next meeting of PAC’s land acquisition committee – on which all PAC members serve – then relaying their consensus to the DDA via Bob Galardi. The land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, Sept. 4 at 4 p.m. in the city council workroom.

Colin Smith asked when the DDA expected to take a final recommendation to the city council. Based on what he’d heard during the presentation, he said, it sounded like there would continue to be opportunity for input. Pollay didn’t give an exact timeframe, but said “of course everything council does is fully public” and she was sure there would be more input there as well.

Berla suggested putting as much information as possible online, so that community members could weigh in, too – the sooner, the better. Miller said there’s already a lot of material on the Connecting William Street website. The website includes information about upcoming webinars on Aug. 29 and Sept. 5, as well as public meetings at the downtown library on Aug. 28 and Sept. 10.

Outcome: This was a presentation only, and no action by PAC was required.

Community Action Network

Joan Doughty, executive director of the nonprofit Community Action Network, and Derrick Miller, director of the Bryant Community Center, updated commissioners about their work for the city. CAN operates Bryant Community Center and Northside Community Center under contract with the city, which owns those properties.

Joan Doughty and Derrick Miller of the nonprofit Community Action Network.

The presentation was prompted in part because the city council last year appropriated $82,500 from its open space and parkland preservation millage to acquire the property at 5 W. Eden Court, immediately adjacent to  Bryant Community Center. The center is located in a neighborhood south of I-94 and east of Stone School Road.

Miller described the improvements made to both Northside and Bryant since CAN took over management. Renovations were aimed at making the buildings more client-friendly and hospitable, and programming includes First Steps for early childhood education, a partnership with Project Grow for community gardens, after-school study programs, summer camp, food programs, a toy lending library, workforce readiness training for adults and teens, and general community events. For the Bryant neighborhood, CAN has also been an advocate for addressing chronic drainage and flooding problems.

Miller noted that the Bryant Community Center is expanding into the adjacent building acquired by the city, and that they hope the two buildings are connected someday. He also reported that CAN is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, and will hold a volunteer recognition event on Wednesday, Sept. 19 at Cobblestone Farm from 6-8:30 p.m.

Community Action Network: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson noted that obviously CAN has a partnership with the parks, and he wanted to know if there was anything more that the parks system could do to help.

Miller replied that they work closely with Jeff Straw, the city’s deputy manager of parks and recreation. Congestion had been a problem at Bryant, which had led to the city’s purchase of the adjoining property.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the city supports CAN’s activities at Bryant and Northside from the parks general fund budget with $105,000 annually, and that renovations and repairs are funded as needed from the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage. The acquisition of property next to Bryant Community center is another example of the city’s support, he said.

Miller pointed out that CAN doesn’t charge for the programs it offers. Doughty added that while the city is by far CAN’s largest partner, the nonprofit also receives support from the United Way of Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, and the joint city/county office of community and economic development.

Ingrid Ault asked about the Buy Bryant program. [The program is a directory that links customers with neighborhood service providers – including daycare, pet care, handyman services and the like.] Miller reported that it was popular, and that one person had pulled out of the program because he’d been inundated with interest.

PAC chair Julie Grand clarified with CAN and parks staff that contact information is on the city’s website, in order to reach potential donors.

Outcome: This was a presentation only, and no action by PAC was required.

Misc. Communications

The meeting included a variety of communications from parks staff and commissioners.

Misc. Communications: Manager’s Updates

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, gave several project updates. He reported that on Aug. 9, the city council had unanimously voted to put the park maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal on the Nov. 6 ballot. [PAC had recommended the action at its June 19 meeting.] The staff is now working on a communications plan for the millage, he said.

Colin Smith, manager of Ann Arbor parks and recreation.

DTE has started remediation work on its MichCon site, Smith said, noting that PAC had been briefed on the project earlier this year. He commended the company for coordinating with parks staff, and said the work will start near Argo Dam and move downstream. DTE is paying for construction of a whitewater area along that same stretch of river. Smith reported that the city expects to hear soon regarding a state permit that’s needed for the whitewater project.

In response to a query from Tim Doyle, Smith said the parks staff will be developing a course to teach people how to use the whitewater section of the river, and possibly will offer rentals from the livery specifically for that.

Turning to golf courses, Smith reported that summer tournaments were nearly over and had good participation. The creekbed stabilization project in Leslie Park golf course, which PAC had been briefed on at its June 2012 meeting, will begin in November.

Renovations at the Veterans Memorial Park ballfields have started. PAC had recommended approval of that project at its January 2012 meeting. The first field was recently torn up and is on its way to being rebuilt, Smith said.

Smith reminded commissioners that the night farmers market continues through September, from 4:30-8:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. This is the second season for that, and the city has seen an increase in vendors and customers, he said.

Smith also noted that registration starts on Monday, Aug. 27 for the parks and recreation fall courses and activities. It seems too soon, he said, but the brochure for that is already distributed.

Misc. Communications: West Park

Tim Berla asked for an update on work at West Park – he wondered why he’d seen large pipes being unloaded in the park.

Amy Kuras, the city’s parks planner who has overseen renovations at West Park, reported that the current work is being done in two phases. The first phase was to replace covers of underground swirl concentrators, devices that help remove solids in the stormwater stream. The second phase involves diverting water that will exit the concentrators – that’s what the pipes will be used for. Work will continue through September, she said.

The construction site at West Park where swirl concentrators are being re-installed. The project is located on the park’s west side, off of Seventh Street.

By way of background, swirl concentrators had been installed for stormwater management as part of a major renovation of West Park in 2010, but the system failed. PAC had originally been briefed on that failure in February 2011, then received a detailed update at its Jan. 24, 2012 meeting from Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer and one of the project managers in the city’s public services unit. Hutchinson had told the commission that after the manufacturer of the swirl concentrators made repairs on the units, the city would hire a contractor to complete additional work. The work was recommended by Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM), which the city had engaged in 2010 to look into the problems with that aspect of the West Park project. City staff had previously hoped to have that work completed by July of 2012.

At PAC’s June meeting, Colin Smith had reported that the city expected the manufacturer of the swirl concentrators to replace the lids and finish repairs on those units within a few weeks. After that, the project’s contractor would rebuild the diversion structures, finish the access paths, and complete native plant restoration in that area, located along Seventh Street.

The city posts updates about the work on a website focused on this project.

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

Absent: Doug Chapman, John Lawter, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio).

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2012 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.