Ann Arbor city councilmember Christopher Taylor, left, accepts a ballot from Tim Doyle, right, a park advisory commissioner. In the center is Sam Offen, who was re-elected as chair of PAC's budget committee. Taylor is a non-voting ex-officio member of PAC.

The report – including 16 recommendations for changes to improve the Burns Park center and senior services – is the latest in an effort that dates back to 2009, when the city considered closing the center. Suggestions include: (1) expanding programs to other locations, particularly to low-income senior housing; (2) partnering with other programs in the area, such as the popular travel program offered by Pittsfield Township’s senior center; and (3) possibly making the Burns Park facility more of a community center, and renaming it to reflect that broader mission.

Staff will be taking this report and incorporating elements of it into a strategic plan, which will be reviewed by PAC and city council before action is taken.

The meeting also included votes to recommend awarding contracts for renovations at Island Park, and support for a bioremediation pilot project at Southeast Area Park. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, told commissioners that the test would determine the effectiveness of an approach to remove an existing vinyl chloride plume. The process would involve giving nutrients to naturally occurring microorganisms that can break down the contaminant. The plume resulted from vinyl chloride being released from the now-closed city landfill into groundwater on the south side of Ellsworth Road.

Margaret Parker, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC), gave a presentation about two potential public art projects along the Huron River – at the Argo Dam bypass, and the Gallup Park canoe livery. Since the work would likely be on city-owned parkland, members of the parks staff and park advisory commission would be part of a task force for the project. Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, also attended PAC’s meeting. She spoke in support of a more comprehensive vision for art as part of RiverUp!, an effort to improve a 104-mile stretch of the Huron River.

During public commentary, commissioners heard suggestions for several ways to improve non-motorized connections between South State and South Main streets.

The October meeting also included a review of FY 2011 and first-quarter FY 2012 financials for the parks system, and PAC’s annual election of officers. There were no deliberations, and current officers – including PAC chair Julie Grand – were re-elected unanimously.

Senior Center Report

Two consultants hired to analyze operations of the Ann Arbor senior center presented their report to the commission at PAC’s October meeting. Frank Bednarek of Hooker DeJong and Kevin Woods of Woods Consulting Group reviewed highlights of the report, and answered questions from commissioners. [.pdf. of Senior Center report] PAC had most recently received a staff update on the senior center at its June 24, 2011 meeting.

By way of background, the report stems from city budget talks in 2009, when city officials were looking to cut costs and said that closing the senior center would save about $150,000 annually in the city’s general fund. In response to objections from local residents, the city formed a task force to develop strategies to keep the center open.

In November 2010, the city council approved a $34,750 contract for the consulting firm Hooker DeJong to develop a long-term strategic plan for the senior center. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation funded $16,949 of that amount, with the remainder coming from the city’s general fund.

Hooker DeJong’s 60-page report makes 16 recommendations regarding the senior center. They include: (1) expanding senior programming to other locations, including North Community Center and Bryant Community Center; (2) exploring partnerships with senior centers outside Ann Arbor, such as Pittsfield Township’s senior center, which offers a popular travel program; (3) using more volunteers to expand programs and activities; (4) reaching out to affordable housing developments to do programming for low-income seniors; (5) marketing to seniors over 70; (6) possibly eliminating the word “senior” from marketing materials; and (7) making future development program-based rather than facility-based.

The report also recommends that the current senior center at Burns Park be used for non-senior programming as well, and that the center be renamed to reflect that broader use – possibly as the Burns Park Community Center.

The consultants said that one thing they heard loud and clear in their research is that people who are on the younger edge of the Baby Boomer generation don’t see themselves as seniors. People who are 55-64 look at themselves as active older adults, so the challenge is to design strategies that speak to that group, Woods said. He also noted that people in a higher-income bracket have many more options, and might not be as likely to seek out activities at the senior center. That’s why the consultants see an opportunity to reach out to lower-income seniors, who might benefit from programming for seniors.

The report recommends continuing the same kinds of programming at the Burns Park location, but if the city wants to expand, staff should look at other locations, Bednarek said. The report includes an analysis of the building where the center is currently located, and makes several recommendations for reconfiguring the space and making renovations.

Woods noted that demographics indicate higher concentrations of seniors in the city’s north and east sides. Those are possible places to add senior services, if expansion occurs. There are also about 800 units of affordable housing in the city, Woods reported, targeted to seniors below the $40,000 income level. Offering services at those locations would be another way to expand.

Woods said the message should be that Ann Arbor wants to provide recreational activities for all citizens to be physically active to the highest extent possible for their entire lives. Gwen Nystuen quipped: “And mentally!”

Senior Center Report: Commissioner Discussion

Nystuen asked if the consultants had come up with any options for new names for the center. Not really, Woods said, adding that it would need to be something other than “senior,” to broaden its appeal. Christopher Taylor asked if the resistance to being identified as a senior lessens over time – that is, will these people change their view as they age? Woods said it might be that people start to think of themselves as seniors when they reach ages 75-80.

Bednarek noted that this isn’t an issue unique to Ann Arbor. Boomers aren’t using senior services in the same way that people have in the past. He also noted that the consultants didn’t find a silver bullet that will suddenly double participation in the senior center’s programs. Nor did they find anything being done that’s particularly awful, he said. The center has solid programming that appeals to a certain demographic – bridge, for example, is especially strong.

Frank Bednarek of Hooker DeJong, and Pamela Simmons, facility supervisor for the Ann Arbor senior center.

Tim Berla asked if there are any activities unavailable elsewhere, that the senior center could offer to draw people in. Though the goal is to make sure the center breaks even, it’s not a business, he said. Part of the point is to offer services that people can’t get anywhere else. Woods said there’s nothing compelling that would cause people to rush in. People want diverse options – birding, hiking, bridge – but most activities are already available in the city.

Bednarek identified the top three things that bring people to the senior center now: (1) the need for socialization, especially for people over 70; (2) bridge; and (3) meals. There’s a strong core group of people – about 350 seniors – who use the center now and who really want those services. It costs the city about $84,000 to do that, he noted.

Sam Offen asked if the consultants had talked with other agencies that provide senior services. Was there much conversation about having more interaction between these entities? Woods said the Turner Resource Center, which is operated by the University of Michigan Health System, is very interested, as is the Chelsea Senior Center and others. They don’t see each other as competition, he said.

Offen asked what kind of services are offered at market rate senior housing. You’d be more likely to find amenities like fitness centers and programmed activities, Woods replied. Bednarek added that for affordable housing sites, there might be arrangements for social services, but not recreational offerings.

Karen Levin said it seemed like a travel program would be a big draw, but the report didn’t recommend that. Bednarek noted that the city had previously solicited proposals for someone to operate a travel program, but there were no responses. The consultants talked to a reputable travel agent, Bednarek said, and to see how the agent reacted to the possibility of starting a travel program here.

Bednarek said the agent felt it would take three to five years to build a program from scratch. That led the consultants to look at other travel programs for seniors in this area, including the one offered by the Pittsfield Township Senior Center. The report recommends possibly negotiating to provide referrals to other travel programs, perhaps in exchange for a fee paid to the city for referrals.

Levin felt that even if Ann Arbor started a small travel program, it could still be a draw. Woods pointed out that if so, the city might want to consider a higher-end offering, because the mid-level market was competitive. The city would also be competing against educational travel programs offered by the University of Michigan, he said.

Taylor observed that it seemed the most fertile ground was for the over-70 resident – is that where the consultants suggest focusing the city’s services for seniors? Yes, Woods said, but don’t ignore the younger ages either. It’s important to offer multi-generational programs – just don’t label them as being for “seniors.”

But why not just walk away from services for the 55-70 age group? Taylor asked. Playing devil’s advocate, he wondered why the city should compete with existing alternatives, if the city can provide more focused options for people over 70. Bednarek said that in practice, the city is already doing that – they’re providing non-generational activities like golf and swimming that attract people in the 55-70 age group.

Julie Grand said that if they focus on activities for people over 70, that frees up space in the senior center for other purposes, which might serve as an entree to the center, and get younger people into the building. She really liked the idea of using it as a community center – but she noted that perhaps people over 70 won’t be comfortable with 4-year-olds running around.

Tim Doyle said there’s an opportunity for the center to be a conduit of information regarding broader city offerings. He lives four blocks from the center and he’s a senior – though he said he doesn’t admit to it. Until PAC’s discussion, he didn’t know what went on at the center. If forms and sign-ups are available there for any city program, then that could draw people of all ages to the center, he said. When they’re older, they might remember that it offers services for seniors, too.

Grand also noted that the city is fortunate in that there are a lot of college students here. UM students in social work, kinesiology and health care might be interested in working with the senior center in some way, she said. They could be a valuable resource, especially in delivering services in a low-cost way to low-income seniors.

During the first public commentary of PAC’s meeting – prior to the senior center presentation – Margaret Leslie, a member of the senior center task force, had asked whether the task force’s work was now done. She wondered who would be responsible for carrying out the report’s recommendations, and when those recommendations would be implemented.

Toward the end of PAC’s discussion later in the meeting, Colin Smith, manager of city parks and recreation, responded to her questions. This is the start toward a strategic plan, he said – the report is not the plan itself. It gives the city tools and information for developing a plan. The staff will review this report, he said, and return to PAC this winter with a plan on implementing some of these recommendations. A lot of the recommendations will likely be acted on, he said, but probably not all of them.

FY 2011, First-Quarter FY 2012 Financial Update

Sam Offen, chair of PAC’s budget committee, reported that the first-quarter report for parks  and recreation looks good. He noted that PAC had reviewed preliminary year-end budget numbers for FY 2011, which ended June 30, at its July 2011 meeting. The financial report included final FY 2011 results, as well as a report on the three-month period of FY 2012 from July 1 through Sept. 30 [.pdf of first-quarter financial statement]

Year to date for FY 2012, revenues of $787,837 are 33% ahead of budget, Offen noted. Expenses of $965,047 are 27% over budget, but offset by the higher-than-budgeted revenues, he said. The full-year FY 2012 budget projects a $1.2 million contribution from the city’s general fund.

Colin Smith, manager of parks & recreation, noted that the FY 2011 budget had called for a $1.227 million contribution to parks from the city’s general fund. The year ended with a $1.219 million draw from the general fund. Getting that close to the projected budget, he said, required coordination and management of many individual budgets within the parks program. He credited his staff for making that happen, noting that while revenues were about $100,000 less than budgeted, expenses had been kept down by about an equal amount.

Park commissioners Gwen Nystuen and John Lawter.

John Lawter asked whether the parks system gets to keep excess revenues, if revenues are higher than projected. Smith noted that for areas that operate as enterprise funds – like the public market or golf courses – then any excess goes to the fund balances for those units. But for parks in general, because they receive general fund support, any excess at year’s end would be returned to the general fund. Gwen Nystuen clarified with Smith that revenues from fees are also returned to the general fund.

Lawter said that in that case, if a unit sees an excess, they’re almost encouraged to spend it – the money can’t be carried over to the next year. That might be true if each parks unit operated in isolation, Smith replied. But managers across the entire parks system are encouraged to work collectively, and they realize they’re all in this together, he said. If one facility does better than expected, that might offset a different facility that had unexpected expenses or less revenue than expected. That way, in aggregate, the overall parks budget hits its target. Last year, for example, the pools didn’t do as well, but the canoe liveries did better than expected, Smith said. This year, the opposite was true, because of construction at Argo – the pools bailed out the liveries a bit, he said.

Offen noted that parks gets $1.2 million from the general fund, so there’s a ways to go before they see any excess as a whole.

Smith reviewed results from several individual units, including the senior center, Mack Pool and the golf course enterprise fund. [PAC had received detailed updates on the senior center and Mack Pool at its June 2011 meeting.]

For Huron Hills, the net cost for FY 2011 was expected to be $259,000, but the course ended up with a net cost of $230,000 – a little better than budgeted, Smith noted. Leslie had budgeted for a net cost of $223,000 but ended up a bit worse, he said, at $243,000. Originally the staff had projected the two courses would lose a total of about $494,000 – and that’s roughly where they ended up, he said.

However, at the end of 2011 the staff had revised their estimate for the projected loss, setting it at $390,000, Smith said. For the golf courses, the first half of the season – July through December – is used to project performance in the second half, January through June. Historically, the courses recognize just less than half of the total year revenues during the first half of the year. Based on that historical trend and the $632,000 in revenues from July to December of FY 2011, staff revised its budget estimate and projected that total revenues for FY 2011 would reach $1.265 million.

However, the spring was an historically poor one, Smith said, with more rainy days than usual. The result was total FY 2011 revenues of $1.15 million – or about $100,000 less than budgeted. For all of April and May, Smith noted, there were only two periods that didn’t see consecutive days of rain. “That’s kind of what we were up against,” he said.

David Barrett asked why Huron Hills did better than Leslie Park for the year. [Huron Hills posted a net loss of $230,051 for FY 2011, compared to a net loss of $243,112 at Leslie.] At Huron Hills, Smith said, golf cart use was higher than projected.

Barrett asked about fees for use of the city’s Fuller Park soccer fields, which have been recently renovated. Smith said it was wrapped into the overall category of park use fees. Use fees totaled $291,084 for FY 2011, up slightly from $289,859 in FY 2010. Tim Berla noted that when fees were set for use of the soccer fields, they were set at a rate that was keyed to anticipated costs of operating the fields. He requested a report on that, to see if the fees are set at a financially sustainable rate.

Smith said they could make a report at an upcoming meeting. He explained that the use fees are a little behind budget so far this year, mainly because of refunds that were made due to rainouts.

In response to a question from Offen, Smith said that he and Matt Warba, field operations supervisor, would be coming to PAC in the next few months with some suggestions for spending part of an accumulated fund balance from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage – about $1.5 million, out of a total of roughly $25 million in millage proceeds over the past five years.

Parks Capital Projects

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, gave a quarterly update of capital projects that are completed or in the works. Later in the meeting, commissioners voted to recommend awarding contracts for two renovation projects at Island Park.

Parks Capital Projects: Quarterly Update

Kuras gave brief descriptions of work being done in more than a dozen of the city’s parks, including Beckley Park, Buhr Park, Hunt Park, Riverside Park, and several others. [.pdf of full capital project update]

The city will be notified in November if it received the state grant for improvements at the Gallup Park boat launch and canoe livery, Kuras said. A conceptual design is finished for livery renovations, an entry path and the dock area. The scope of the improvements will depend in part on whether those grant funds are awarded. [For details, see Chronicle coverage: "PAC Supports Grants for Skatepark, Gallup"] Kuras said a state grant was awarded for preliminary engineering of a boat launch at Gallup, which also needs renovation. The city will apply for a construction grant following completion of that engineering work.

A public meeting was held to discuss renovations at Riverside Park, Kuras said. [See Chronicle coverage: "Work Planned at Ann Arbor's Riverside Park"] The work there will be coordinated with repair to Canal Street by the city’s public services unit.

Problems with West Park’s underground storm management system are still being addressed. Additional work will be done during the next construction season. [As part of the city's recent renovation of West Park, underground swirl concentrators were installed – four each near the north and south entrances of the park off Seventh Street. It was later discovered that all were in some state of failure or were suspected to be on the verge of failing. This summer, a city staff memo indicated that the city expects to recover any additional costs due to the failures – either from the manufacturer or the design firm.]

Parks Capital Projects: Island Park Renovations

On the agenda for PAC’s October meeting were two resolutions related to Island Park, located next to the Huron River – north of Fuller Road and east of Maiden Lane.

PAC was asked to recommend approval of a $92,586 contract with Legacy Custom Builders Inc. for repair of the Island Park Greek Revival shelter. The price includes an $84,169 bid and a $8,417 (10%) construction contingency.

According to a staff memo, the shelter was built in 1914 and has been renovated several times, most recently in 1995. Weather, insect and animal damage has caused the structure to deteriorate. Four contractors made bids on the project, and Legacy Custom Builders proposed the lowest bid. The firm is based in Northville, Mich.

In a separate resolution, the commission was asked to approve a $71,500 contract with Saladino Construction Company Inc. to restore the Island Park bridge and the concrete portions of the Greek Revival shelter. The price includes a $65,000 bid and $6,500 (10%) construction contingency.

The bridge was built in 1916, two years after the shelter. The work includes the repair and sealing of cracks, repair of spalling concrete, and repainting the bridge. Structural concrete support would be added to the shelter, which has sunk slightly in one corner, causing cracks in the concrete walls. According to a staff memo, the city’s Historic District Commission has been consulted on the renovations, though the park is not in an historic district.

Sam Offen said he thought it was interesting that for both projects, four companies submitted bids – and three of those four bid on both projects. But in each case, it was the company that only bid on one project that got the contract, he noted.

Park planner Amy Kuras said that the three companies bidding on both projects are general contractors. But the bids were awarded to companies with specific expertise in the necessary work, she said – Legacy is a builder, and Saladino does concrete work. She said the staff talked about whether to package the work into one bid, but ultimately decided two separate bids would possibly result in a better price.

Funding for these projects is already allocated from the approved FY 2012 Park Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage proceeds.

Outcome: On separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved both resolutions recommending the contracts for work at Island Park. Both contracts require approval by the city council.

Bioremediation at Southeast Area Park

Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, solicited a recommendation from PAC regarding whether to pursue a bioremediation pilot test in a section of Southeast Area Park, a 26.5-acre city park at Ellsworth and Platt roads. The test would determine if technology to remove an existing vinyl chloride plume is effective. The plume resulted from vinyl chloride being released from the now-closed city landfill into groundwater on the south side of Ellsworth Road.

Aerial view of a section of Southeast Area Park, showing the location of the city's bioremediation project. (Links to larger image.)

Naud told commissioners that the city has been managing “legacy problems” at the former landfill since it closed in 1982. In the 1990s a slurry wall was built to stop potential contaminants from polluting clean groundwater. The wall did not extend across the landfill’s northern side. Instead, extraction wells are used there to pull the groundwater and contaminants back to the extraction wells, where the water is discharged to the sanitary sewer for treatment.

The city isn’t legally required to do more than it’s already doing, Naud said, but they’d like to try an additional approach. The pilot project would test a different type of remedial process called bioremediation, where naturally occurring microorganisms are given food and nutrients to encourage the metabolic breakdown of the contaminant. [.pdf of bioremediation proposal] Consultants Patti McCall and Mike Kovacich, who’ll be working on the project, were on hand to answer questions from commissioners.

According to Naud, the park would be affected for three days. The park would remain open, but a portion of it would be fenced off while testing is conducted.

Naud assured commissioners that no park users would be exposed to hazardous materials – the plume is at least 25 feet underground. Soybean oil would be injected in eight locations. They’d likely use a fire hose to push down and distribute the oil for the bacteria, then wait 4-5 weeks and repeat the process. They’d monitor the plume to see if there’s any improvement.

Naud said he’d talked through possible worst-case scenarios with Colin Smith, the city’s parks and rec manager. The worst outcome could be if a hose broke and soybean oil spurted out, he said. Even so, he wanted to make sure the public was aware of what they’re doing, and that the process is open.

Bioremediation: Commissioner Discussion

David Barrett indicated that it seemed the only risk was for public relations – when he hears “bioremediation,” he imagines people in white hazmat suits. Naud said the staff thought about that, because it’s not something the city is required to do. But this community usually tries to do more than it’s required to do, Naud said. If they were pumping contaminated groundwater out of the ground, or doing it near kids, that would be different, he said. But since this is trying to augment a natural process, he thought it was worth at least proposing it.

Naud said the city staff is reaching out to nearby housing cooperatives – residents there are primary users of the park. Sam Offen asked if there was any contamination leading underneath the housing units. No, Naud replied. All of the contamination is south of I-94. As a practical matter, there was more concern about methane gas coming off the site. A collection system is in place to handle that, which is also used to generate electricity. The city has done sampling of some basements in the housing cooperatives and never detected methane, Naud said.

There is some 1,4 dioxane in groundwater underneath one of the cooperatives related to contamination from Pall/Gelman, Naud added, but there are no private wells there – the housing units are hooked up to the city water system. The 1,4 dioxane is not above regulated standards, he said. That’s why they’re focusing on the vinyl chloride plume.

Doug Chapman pointed out that some people might think the city is introducing new bacteria, but they’re really just trying to increase the population of existing bacteria so that more bacteria will break down the vinyl chloride. Kovacich explained that the microorganisms breathe in vinyl chloride, but need to feed on a hydrogen source – in this case, soybean oil.

Julie Grand asked about the tripping hazard of pipes that will be used at the site. The one-inch pipes will be flush-mounted, Naud said, similar to those that are in other locations in town, like the Armen Cleaners site.

Grand asked if this process could be used to clean up other contaminated sites in the city, noting that several sections of a proposed greenway need remediation. It’s typically an expensive process, she noted. Naud said it depends on what kind of contamination is present. He offered to hold a working session for commissioners with more information on that, if they wanted.

Barrett asked whether Naud would let PAC know about the results of this bioremediation effort. “We always tell you good news,” Naud joked. The consultants already test samples from the former landfill every quarter. This will be added to their testing, he said, and those results can be shared.

Smith then read a resolution supporting the project. It directed city staff to inform and educate neighbors in the area about the project before starting, and asked staff to provide updates to PAC on its progress. The resolution states:

WHEREAS, A vinyl chloride plume exists underneath Southeast Area Park;
WHEREAS, A bioremediation pilot is being proposed to treat the vinyl chloride plume;
WHEREAS, Funding is available from the Solid Waste Fund;
RESOLVED, That staff and consultants provide educational outreach to the Southeast Area Park neighborhood prior to implementation of the bioremediation;
RESOLVED, That staff proceed with this bioremediation pilot, and;
RESOLVED, That staff report back to the Park Advisory Commission after regular monitoring is able to determine the efficiency of the bioremediation pilot.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to move forward with the bioremediation project.

River Artwalk Proposal

Margaret Parker, a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC), gave a presentation about a potential public art project along the Huron River. The art commission’s annual plan for FY 2012 calls for possibly adding public art at two locations on the river. Since the work would likely be on city-owned parkland, members of the parks staff and park advisory commission would be part of a task force for the project.

As one of 10 priorities for the year, Parker told park commissioners that the annual public art plan identified two possible locations for public art along the river: At the Gallup Park canoe livery, and the Argo Dam headrace. Both are attractive locations because they are centrally located and accessible to the public. The plan calls for evaluating this possible project – nothing more, she said.

The first step, Parker said, was to meet with members of the city’s parks staff: Colin Smith, head of parks and recreation; park planner Amy Kuras; and Cheryl Saam, head of the city’s canoe liveries. The staff had three recommendations for possible public art at Gallup Park:

• A memorial wall that combines art with donor names on the north side of the livery building – this was the staff’s preference, Parker said.
• Artwork on the far shore, across the river from the livery.
• Decorative elements on a walkway that will be built between the livery and new docks, as part of a renovation project at the park.

For the second site – at the Argo headrace, near Argo Pond – parks staff cited four possibilities for public art locations:

• At the end of the headrace near Broadway, where a public area with an amphitheater is planned.
• On top of the embankment: A way-finding system could feature the area’s history – its use as a Native American path, for example, or the location of mills.
• Along the river: A way-finding system could mark a water trail.
• At the area connecting Argo Dam with the headrace.

Maintenance and graffiti were mentioned by the parks staff as issues that need to be considered, Parker said.

Parker took these ideas to the public art commissioners, and after discussing the ideas at their August meeting, they were supportive, she said. So the next step was to meet with PAC and get their input. [.pdf of memo to PAC regarding possible Huron River art projects]

These two art projects could connect to a broader vision for art along Huron River, Parker said, as part of RiverUp!, an effort to improve a 104-mile stretch of the Huron River, starting from the north at Milford through Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and downstream to Flat Rock. [See Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"] Public art at Gallup and Argo could be considered as pilot projects for a larger river artwalk, she said.

The Huron River Watershed Council, which is taking the lead in organizing RiverUp!, could also manage the larger river art project, Parker said. Laura Rubin, the council’s executive director, was on hand to voice her support for the art project. Several groups are working together on a river renaissance, Rubin said, trying to orient communities toward the river. She strongly supports the public art proposal, and noted that the University of Michigan – which also owns property along the river – is interested in this too. With a diverse partnership involved, Rubin said, they can create something beautiful.

River Artwalk: Commissioner Discussion

Tim Berla said it would be cool to have an open-ended call for proposals, not tied to specific sites and with the understanding that funding hasn’t yet been identified. The art commission could vet the proposals, with input from city staff and PAC. He also suggested that they think about creating something that’s meant to be covered with graffiti. “I’m just saying take advantage of our community,” he said.

Sam Offen asked whether the projects were meant to be outside, or perhaps would they be located inside – like in the livery building, for example. Parker replied that the process is generally to set up a task force, which would then analyze each site in more detail to determine where the artwork might go. Exterior pieces are more accessible, but an interior work might be possible, she said.

Offen said he likes the idea of an artwalk along the river. He asked how it would be funded. Colin Smith, manager of the city’s parks and recreation unit, explained how the Percent for Art program works. A percent of the budget for each city capital project – up to $250,000 per project’s budget – goes toward public art. That includes capital projects in the parks system. Money earmarked for the Percent for Art program must be used for public art that somehow relates to the original funding source. Offen observed that capital projects for parks in general contribute funding to public art – whether the city does this particular art project or not.

Gwen Nystuen described the artwalk as an exciting project – she especially liked the idea of public art for way-finding along the river.

Smith said the next steps would be to set up a task force, and brainstorm all the things they need to consider. It will also be important to get feedback from the public about what they’d like to see along the river. He reminded commissioners of the art installation by the visiting artist at the University of Michigan. [In 2009-10, William Dennisuk, a visiting artist at UM's Witt Residency program, proposed an art installation of large wire vase-like sculptures in and near the Huron River, as a way to conceptually bridge the town and campus communities. See Chronicle coverage: "Sculptor Tries to Weld City, University."]

Smith said he personally liked Dennisuk’s sculptures, but he recalled that there was a great deal of opposition to the project, and even some anger. So a full discussion about what might go into an area that’s very special to a lot of people is important, he said.

PAC Officer Elections

Julie Grand, who has served as PAC chair since April 2010, said she hoped the gods of the bylaws would forgive the commission for not holding their annual elections in September. [PAC's September meeting was cancelled.] She noted that terms for several commissioners will be expiring in the coming year, so that should be a factor in their nominations.

PAC chair Julie Grand and Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex-officio member of PAC.

Gwen Nystuen nominated Grand for another one-year term as chair, and John Lawter for another term as vice chair. Tim Doyle nominated Sam Offen for another term as chair of PAC’s budget committee. There were no competing nominations for any of these positions.

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, noted that Offen’s term ends on June 15, 2012. Doyle offered to serve as chair-in-training for the budget committee. Other PAC members with terms expiring in 2012 include Nystuen in May, David Barrett in August, and Lawter in December. They are all term-limited and can’t be reappointed.

“Change is good,” Offen said. Grand acknowledged that they’d be welcoming some new energy to PAC, but added that there will clearly be losses.

PAC bylaws require that votes be taken by secret ballot, so commissioners wrote their choices on paper and passed them to Smith, who tallied the votes. ”OK,” he said wryly, after counting the ballots. “I have some not especially surprising results.” Grand, Lawter and Offen were re-elected unanimously.

Misc. Communications, Public Commentary

During every meeting there are typically updates from staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary.

Misc. Comm/Comm: Non-Motorized Paths

Eric Boyd spoke during time set aside for public commentary at the beginning of PAC’s October meeting. His comments focused on the need for more non-motorized connectivity between west and south central Ann Arbor – essentially the area between South Main to South State streets. He noted that on South State, from the corner of East Hoover to Eisenhower, is a two-mile stretch. That’s out of the way for someone trying to go from south central Ann Arbor to southwest Ann Arbor – for example, if you’d like to go from the Produce Station on South State, to Busch’s grocery on South Main, after the East Stadium bridge is torn down.

Currently, there are only three ways to go from South State to South Main, he said:

1. Via East Stadium – but that route won’t be available during reconstruction of the East Stadium bridge, which will begin later this year. It also requires a roundabout path through Stimson and South Industrial.
2. Via the University of Michigan field hockey field to Kipke – but the university has restricted use of that route to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
3. Via a short gravel path between UM’s varsity tennis facilities and Lynden Glen Drive. That’s a relatively unknown route, Boyd noted, and would be a mess in the winter.

There are several options the city could pursue, Boyd said, and some of those could fall under the aegis of the park advisory commission:

• Create a section of the Ann Arbor Greenway linking East Hoover with the intersection of South State and Stimson, with a spur connecting to Kipke/Stadium Way. This would enable passage from Kipke to Stimson without going along the university field hockey field.
• Work with the UM golf course to create a publicly accessible non-motorized path linking South State to South Main along the southern border of the golf course.
• Work with the UM varsity tennis facility to create a non-motorized connection to Golfview.
• Pave the short gravel section between the university soccer facilities and Lynden Glen Drive. Add signage for non-motorized transportation on South State and South Main showing the path.
• Work with the university to reopen the connection between South State and Kipke for all hours – or at least until 8 p.m., when most commuters have gone home.

Tim Berla thanked Boyd, and requested that he email the suggestions to PAC.

Misc. Comm/Comm: Parks and Rec Manager Update

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that work on the Argo Dam bypass is well underway. It’s pretty exciting to see the outline of the series of pools being built, he said. [PAC had recommended approval of the project at its October 2010 meeting. The $1,168 million project is being designed by Gary Lacy of Boulder, Colo., and built by TSP Environmental, a Livonia firm. The project includes removing the canoe portage, and replacing it with a series of “drop pools” so that no portage is required.] Smith said Lacy thinks they’ll be able to run water through the pools this year, to see how it will work.

Colin Smith, manager of Ann Arbor parks and recreation.

Smith said the staff has been working on a plan for improvements to the city’s baseball and softball fields. Some areas are in real need, he said – it’s analogous to the former conditions of the soccer fields, which underwent a major upgrade over the past few years. [PAC member David Barrett, who took the lead on assessing the conditions of the fields, presented a report at PAC's September 2010 meeting. There are 28 fields at Ann Arbor public schools, and 26 owned by the city. .pdf file of Barrett's ballpark report] An item regarding the baseball and softball fields will likely be on PAC’s November meeting agenda, Smith said.

Smith also mentioned that he’d driven down Fuller Road and utility work is happening along both sides – DTE was replacing a gas main in an easement granted by the city on the north side of Fuller Road, and sanitary sewer pipes are being replaced on the south side.

Tim Berla asked whether any of this work is related to the proposed Fuller Road Station, which hasn’t yet been approved by city council. Smith replied that the work would need to be done anyway, but that it’s likely there could be a tie-in to Fuller Road Station at some point. Berla observed that the city council hasn’t take a vote on the project – a partnership with the University of Michigan to build a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station on city-owned property that’s designated as parkland. He noted that it’s possible the project won’t be approved.

Smith said his understanding is that an operating agreement is being developed between the city and UM. He acknowledged PAC’s previous request to see such an agreement prior to it being presented at city council. Staff is aware of that request, he said, but there’s no update at this point. Gwen Nystuen asked whether Smith is part of the negotiations for the operating agreement. No, he said – nor has he seen a draft of the document. As far as he knew, it hasn’t been added to the agenda for any upcoming council meetings at this point.

Mike Anglin, one of two councilmembers who serve as ex-officio members of PAC, said the commission could request an update from Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, or any of the managers involved in the Fuller Road Station project. [Most recently, Cooper briefed PAC on the project at its May 2011 meeting.]

Berla noted that sometimes people ask him about Fuller Road Station, and he’d like to know the truth so that he can respond to them. He wanted to confirm that the council wasn’t sneaking into it and that just because utility work is taking place, that doesn’t mean Fuller Road Station is “a go.”

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

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

Parker told PAC members that two locations have been identified for possible public art along the river: (1) at Gallup Park, in conjunction with planned improvements to the canoe livery; (2) at the Argo Dam canoe bypass, which is currently under construction. A broader project for art along a much longer stretch of the river could also be developed in connection with the RiverUp! project, she said. RiverUp! is an effort to shore up the ecological health and recreational infrastructure of the Huron River and to strengthen the economies of river communities like Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. PAC had been briefed about RiverUp! at its July 19, 2011 meeting. RiverUp! is being administered by the Huron River Watershed Council, and the group’s executive director, Laura Rubin, attended PAC’s meeting to speak in support of public art along the river.

Park commissioners expressed interest in working with the public art commission to set up a task force and explore the possibility of art in parkland by the Huron River.

This brief was filed from the city council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron St. A more detailed report will follow.

The resolution states that the DDA will assist in wayfinding efforts that would help connect the river with visitors to the downtown, but it does not specify a budget for that effort. [For background on the RiverUp! initiative, see Chronicle coverage: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., where the board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riverside Park: Proposed Changes

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

Map showing Riverside Park. (Links to Google Map)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Issues: Argo, Trails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Projects: Buhr Park

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

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

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

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs, including the Ann Arbor parks. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Greek Revival shelter at Ann Arbor's Island Park, where an event to launch the RiverUp! project will be held on Aug. 16. (Photos by the writer)

Elizabeth Riggs of the Huron River Watershed Council, which is coordinating the project, told PAC members that RiverUp! is spearheaded by a conservancy group called the Wolfpack. Co-founded by attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman, Wolfpack members – mostly from the Ann Arbor area – have been previously focused on state issues. Now, Riggs said, they are turning their attention to a 104-mile stretch of the Huron River, starting from the north at Milford through Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, and downstream to Flat Rock.

Also at their July meeting, commissioners got an update about efforts to build an Ann Arbor skatepark. They also reviewed tentative FY 2011 budget results for the parks system – finals numbers will be presented to the commission in August.

Several other topics were discussed or mentioned during the meeting, in the form of communications from staff or commissioners: (1) an update on work at Argo dam; (2) concerns over the proposed Fuller Road Station and the site design’s consideration of the Border-to-Border Trail; (3) a roughly $100,000 donation from the Henrietta Feldman trust; (4) news of the resignation of Greta Brunschwyler, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center; and (5) a preview of an August agenda item regarding dog parks.

Other news regarding the Argo dam project – a $1.17 million effort to build a bypass channel in the Argo dam headrace, and to add whitewater features – emerged the week after PAC’s July 19 meeting.

A July 25 memo from city staff reports that the city was recently notified by DTE officials of upcoming remediation work that DTE plans to do in 2012 adjacent to DTE’s property on the south side of the Huron River, between Allen Creek Drain and the Broadway Bridge. The remediation is being required by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality.

DTE is offering to pay for the whitewater feature of the Argo dam project, if the city agrees to hold off on construction of that piece until after DTE completes its remediation. Details of the offer haven’t been finalized.

River Up! Project

Elizabeth Riggs of the Huron River Watershed Council briefed commissioners about the RiverUp! project, which HRWC is facilitating. The nonprofit is partnering with the National Wildlife Federation, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, and a group of local conservation activists called the Wolfpack – all working to bring a renaissance to the Huron River, Riggs said.

The Wolfpack, Riggs said, was started in 2002 by local residents, and operates under the auspices of the National Wildlife Federation, which has a Great Lakes regional office in Ann Arbor. Wolfpack members include Bill Ford, Bill Martin, Lana Pollack, Jeff Irwin, Del Dunbar, Bob Martel, Phil Power, Mike Staebler, Stephen Dobson, Howdy Holmes, Lisa Wozniak and several dozen others. [.pdf file of Wolfpack members] The Wolfpack has been working on key state environmental issues, but now is turning its attention closer to home, Riggs said.

RiverUp! is a project in its nascent stages that began earlier this year, Riggs said. It was a response to a challenge by U.S. Rep. John Dingell, who called for development of a plan to protect the Huron River – its ecological health, its recreational infrastructure, and the economic health of river communities, including rehabilitating riverside properties that have been abandoned and contaminated by industry. For the first six months of this year, the group has looked at projects and specific improvements that might be undertaken.

The Huron River Water Trail is a project designed to meet some of RiverUp!’s goals. The idea is to make recreating along the 104-mile stretch of the river more enjoyable, safer and accessible. Three work groups were formed to work on different aspects of the trail: (1) infrastructure – looking at where put-ins and take-outs might be added or improved; (2) cultural/natural history – researching what’s happened along the river, and developing a guidebook and other materials, such as signs and a website; and (3) pilot sites – identifying communities along the river to focus on initially. Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, Dexter, Milford and Flat Rock are the initial pilot sites, Riggs said. Details about what that means are still being worked out.

People are excited about the idea of a water trail, she said, and anyone who wants to volunteer on the project is welcome to join.

Riggs also described other Ann Arbor projects that fall under the RiverUp! umbrella:

• HRWC is working with the mayor’s office and DTE Energy on plans for the former MichCon site on Broadway, next to the river. It’s a brownfield site that needs to be cleaned up and redeveloped, and might be used as parkland or for businesses like restaurants. That’s in the very early stages, she said.
• City parks staff are working with the RiverUp! project to identify infrastructure improvements needed along the Ann Arbor stretch of the river. Improvements could be made at the Barton Dam portage and at Island Park, Riggs said. At Island Park, there’s a “social” landing – one that’s used, but that hasn’t been officially built. There’s been a lot of shore erosion, she said, because the location wasn’t designed to accommodate large numbers of people who put in there. The city has offered to pay for part of the design for a landing, Riggs said, and RiverUp! will look for donations to fund the rest of the design and construction.

Riggs said RiverUp! would welcome PAC suggestions for other projects to tackle.

In addition, several projects are also being planned for the Ypsilanti area. Many of the projects are being done in partnership with other groups, including greenway advocates, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, and the Friends of the Border-to-Border Trail. There are natural linkages between “green” land-based and “blue” water-based trails, Riggs said, “so we’re making those connections.”

Ypsilanti area projects include:

• Improvements to the canoe/kayak portage at Superior Dam, near St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. Right now, it’s difficult to get access, and it’s neglected. This will be one of the first water trail sites to get fixed up, Riggs said.
• An analysis of options for the Peninsular Paper dam.
• A renewal of the Water Works Park.
• Canoe/kayak portage improvements at Ford Lake dam.

Riggs concluded by inviting commissioners to the Tues., Aug. 16 launch of RiverUp! A bus tour begins at 11 a.m. at Island Park in Ann Arbor, with stops at the Superior Dam portage and the Angstrom property (the former Ford/Visteon plant in Ypsilanti). Owners of that property are granting a 100-foot easement along the river to connect to the Border-to-Border Trail, Riggs said. The bus will return to Island Park for some remarks by Dingell, Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje, HRWC executive director Laura Rubin and others. Gov. Rick Snyder, an Ann Arbor area resident, has also been invited to speak at the event.

RiverUp! – Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners had several comments and questions about the RiverUp! project. John Lawter asked about the river’s water quality – does it change as the river moves east? He also wondered how far east you can travel on the river. Riggs said it’s possible to travel all the way to Lake Erie, though there are several dam portages along the way, and some are more difficult to navigate than others. Portages at the Ford Lake and Belleville Lake are “particularly gnarly,” she said.

Elizabeth Riggs of the Huron River Watershed Council gave a report to park commissioners about RiverUp!, a project to make infrastructure improvements along the Huron River and to support the economic development of river communities, including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

The Huron is the cleanest river in southern Michigan, Riggs said, but it’s common to find contaminants wherever there are human developments. Upstream of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti is generally cleaner. It’s a good idea to wait 48 hours after major rains before going into the river, she said, because of possible runoff contamination. This kind of safety information would be included in the river guidebook being developed.

The fact that it’s possible to talk about encouraging more recreation in the Huron River indicates that it’s clean enough for that kind of activity, Riggs said. Even so, there are pollution “hot spots,” and HRWC is working with landowners along the river to ensure that they are complying with the Clean Water Act requirements, she said.

Gwen Nystuen asked for more information about the Superior Dam portage, and the city of Ann Arbor’s involvement. The project involves making the portage more accessible, Riggs said, and involves land owned by both the city and St. Joseph’s. Right now, the take-out is at a steep embankment. It then requires winding through a wooded area to a put-in that’s fairly close to the downstream side of the dam. It’s not an easy portage, Riggs said. The project would relocate the put-in to a quieter area downstream, and make a gravel path for the portage. Signs would be added to mark the way – that’s a sponsorship opportunity, she said.

The Wolfpack will be providing funding for the project, Riggs said. That group is in the process of securing permits and getting bids for the work.

In response to a question from Sam Offen, Riggs said the first year’s funding for RiverUp! is being provided by Wolfpack members. For specific projects, organizers will try to identify other funding sources at the local, state and federal level, or from other partners. For example, Angstrom will be donating the 100-foot conservation easement for the Border-to-Border Trail. Another project – creating an underpass or overpass at I-94 in Ypsilanti for hikers and bikers – would be much more expensive. RiverUp! has funding for an engineering feasibility study, but the actual under/overpass project could cost millions. Terri Blackmore of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) is involved in exploring options for that project, Riggs said.

Riggs noted that there would be plenty of opportunities for the city of Ann Arbor to participate.

Lawter observed that there’s no mention of camping sites along the stretch of the Huron River where RiverUp! is focused. Riggs said a water trail map that’s being developed will include locations where canoers/kayakers can take out for camping and other lodging, as well as where to park and store belongings. She noted that there’s a fairly large stretch of the river with no official campsites.

Ann Arbor Skatepark

Scott Rosencrans – a board member with Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark (FAAS), and a former PAC chair – delivered a presentation similar to those he’s given recently to the Ann Arbor city council and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. It focused primarily on safety issues and ways in which skatepark organizers have been collaborating with the city’s commission on disability issues to ensure that the skatepark facility planned for Ann Arbor would be accessible to everyone.

PAC members had several questions after the presentation. John Lawter wondered whether discussions with the disabled community have let to any design changes for the skatepark. Rosencrans said the design hasn’t been finalized. FAAS will be issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for the design and oversight of construction, he said. A later RFP will be issued for the actual construction. Recommendations from the city’s commission on disability issues are meant to inform the design, he said, but many of the recommendations would already be required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Karen Levin asked about the project’s funding status. Organizers have raised about $515,000 – an amount that includes $400,000 in contingent matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation. In addition, the group has applied for about $350,000 in grants, including a $300,000 grant (through the city of Ann Arbor) from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.

The group has recently received $20,000 from a donor who wants to remain anonymous, Rosencrans said, and $5,000 from the Tony Hawk Foundation. There are deadlines that the skatepark needs to meet, he said. To secure the county’s matching funds, for example, skatepark organizers need to raise $400,000 by January 2012. ”So we’re under pressure here, but we’re also optimistic,” he said. Several major donors are being cultivated, and skatepark supporters are excited by the prospects, he said.

PAC vice chair John Lawter talks with Julie Grand, chair of the commission, before the group's July 19 meeting.

Lawter asked for more details about the deadlines and the total amount of money the skatepark organizers need to raise. The deadline for the county funding is January 2012, while the memorandum of understanding for use of the city parkland is 2014, Rosencrans said. Organizers are looking at January 2012 to raise $1 million, he said, and they think that’s a doable goal. They’ll need about $900,000 for construction, and $100,000 to set aside for future maintenance. On that timeline, organizers hope to issue a design RFP relatively soon.

David Barrett asked whether there’s any aerobic value in the sport of skateboarding – in a culture of obesity, that would be a good thing. Rosencrans said he’s not a fitness professional, but it’s clear from his observations that a lot of calories are burned. It’s also a great way for kids to get out who might not be attracted to traditional sports like baseball, basketball or football. A skatepark and the city’s relatively new BMX/dirt bike course in Bandemer Park are places that might attract more kids to get out and be active.

Tim Doyle asked whether the skatepark would be amenable to winter activities, other than skateboarding. If there’s no ice and it’s a sunny day, people will skateboard even if it’s cold, Rosencrans said. Joe Galante, FAAS chair, told commissioners that skateboarders will shovel the snow themselves so they can use the skatepark in the winter. But a skatepark isn’t designed to be used for other purposes, like sledding.

Mike Anglin asked what the age range is for skateboarders. There are kids as young as 6-7 years old involved, Rosencrans said. He joked that Trevor Staples might be the oldest. [Staples, a board member who was instrumental in organizing the skatepark effort, is in his mid-40s.]

Anglin noted that it’s important for more city parks to be accessible via AATA bus routes. Rosencrans replied that the skatepark is intended to be a “destination amenity,” and the location was chosen in part because it’s on a bus route and near major roadways – I-94 and M-14.

Urban Forest Management Plan

On the agenda for the July PAC meeting was a presentation about the city’s Urban Forest Management Plan. However, no one came to the meeting to give an update. John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair who also serves on the project’s advisory committee, said he hoped that someone could attend the next PAC meeting to brief commissioners and get their input. The group is helping put together a master plan for managing the urban forest. Lawter said the effort includes possible recommendations for ordinances regarding management of trees on public and private property, and how to raise money for the city’s forestry unit.

Parks Budget Update

Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks & recreation, gave a budget update and answered questions about the year ending June 30, 2011. He noted that there will be additional adjustments – the final report on fiscal year 2011 won’t be ready until PAC’s August meeting.

The general fund portion of the parks system brought in $2.336 million in revenues for the year, with $3.428 million in expenses. The net loss of $1.09 million was covered by the city’s general fund.

Straw went over many of the line items in the budget, and answered questions from commissioners. Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, reviewed the budget as it related to his area of responsibility. This report provides some highlights of the budget discussion. [.pdf of financial statements as of June 30, 2011]

Jeff Straw, the city's deputy manager of parks & recreation.

• Facility rental revenues of $308,815 exceeded expectations – this has been an area of growth, Straw said. It includes rentals for Cobblestone Farm, the public market, and athletic fields. Expenses for this category totaled $311,184, and were slightly lower than budgeted.
• It was a successful year for revenues in the city’s pools, Straw said. Revenues of $137,076 at Veterans Memorial Park pool, for example, exceeded the amount budgeted by about 30%.
• Julie Grand wondered why some pools – like Fuller – make money while others don’t. [Fuller Pool brought in revenues of $254,410 with $207,917 in expenses. That compares to Vets Pool, with $137,076 in revenues and $239,868 in expenses.] Straw said each pool as unique characteristics and rental opportunities. Fuller Pool, for example, is used more for rentals and masters swim classes.
• Staff had been too aggressive in projecting revenues for ice rink rentals, Straw said – they didn’t see as many rental opportunities during the year as they expected, and have lowered expectations for the FY 2012 budget. They tried to manage expenses to compensate, but still fell short in FY 2011, he said.
• Straw reviewed the budgets for Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor senior center. [Those operations had been discussed in detail at PAC's June 21, 2011 meeting.] In response to a question from Offen, Straw said that Mack Pool had lost about $22,000 in rental from the departure of a synchronized swimming group. But that will free up the schedule for other rentals in the future, he noted.
• Significant rainfall in the spring affected revenues for the canoe liveries as well as the golf courses. Revenues were down from the amount budgeted, and staff tried to manage expenses accordingly, Straw said. For example, Argo livery had budgeted revenues to reach $246,425 for the year, but the operation only brought in $219,489. Expenses were $204,875 – about $35,000 less than expected.
• The public market – an enterprise fund – fell short on revenues in a couple of areas, but managed expenses, Straw noted. Parking fees were budgeted at $13,000 but didn’t bring in that much – the budget had anticipated more daily fees, he said. The FY 2012 budget has been adjusted to reflect lower parking revenues. The fees are collected only on market days (Wednesday and Saturdays). On non-market days, parking revenue at the market goes to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of public market financials]

Commissioners had a more extended discussion about the budget for the city’s two golf courses – Huron Hills and Leslie Park – which the city operates in a combined golf enterprise fund. [.pdf of golf financials] Operations in enterprise funds are those that city staff have determined should be self-sustaining, although the golf operations are not, based on the city’s accounting.

Revenues for the two courses combined reached $1.65 million for FY 2011, with combined expenses of $1.46 million. Straw noted that not all expenses have been tallied for the year. Revenues also include a transfer in of $504,000 from the city’s general fund.

At Huron Hills, cart rentals increased significantly, in part because the city increased its fleet there. Rentals were up about $20,000, while golf fees increased about $10,000, due to more people playing, Straw said. Staff also managed expenses better during the year, he said.

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio PAC member who represents Ward 3 on city council, clarified that the golf courses combined had a year-to-date net of $191,000, taking into account a transfer from the general fund. Does the net above zero get transferred back into the general fund? he asked. Straw replied that the staff will look at the performance of the courses in FY 2011, plus the month of July 2011. Based on that 13-month period, they’ll determine what’s needed to transfer from the general fund for FY 2012, he said. The transfer will be adjusted to reflect the financial performance of the two courses.

Tim Berla noted that the financial report shows the FY 2011 general fund subsidy to parks and recreation was $1.09 million. However, that figure doesn’t include the $504,000 general fund transfer into the golf enterprise fund. With that, the general fund support is $1.6 million, he said. Of that $1.6 million, nearly 20% was used in FY 2011 to support the golf courses – or about $300,000. [Though $504,000 was transferred in from the general fund to the golf courses for FY 2011, the net loss for the golf courses was lower than expected and only about $300,000 was necessary to break even.] The point is to assess how much of the parks budget is going to support golf, Berla said. Offen said it appeared to be a decent-sized portion, but getting smaller.

Berla acknowledged that the trend was heading in the right direction. He recalled that a consultant’s report indicated that only 4% of residents played golf.

Another area that garnered some discussion related to mowing. Berla clarified that the field operations report covered all mowing, including mowing for non-park city property. Grand wondered why so much money budgeted for mowing – about $600,000 – was unspent in FY 2011. Warba explained that there were fewer full-time employees during the year than they had originally anticipated, and his operation used temporary workers instead – at about a third of the cost. In the future, the city will be hiring some full-time workers so the budget won’t show such a large amount of unspent funds.

Related to funds from the parks millage, Gwen Nystuen expressed concern that it appeared more millage funds are being used pay for routine maintenance. Warba said everything that field operations does could be considered routine maintenance. Straw added that the millage can be spent on capital projects or maintenance.

Nystuen said it becomes an issue when the city asks voters to renew the millage. The city’s general fund support for parks maintenance appears to be declining, she said. In the past, all maintenance was covered by the general fund. Now, it’s shifting to the millage, and general fund support is decreasing, she said.

John Lawter added that part of the concern stems from the uncertainty about future support for the millage. If the city depends more on the millage for things like routine maintenance, what happens if voters reject a millage renewal and those funds go away?

Communications: Argo Dam, Fuller Road Station, Dog Parks

Several other topics were discussed during the meeting, in the form of communications from staff or commissioners. Topics included: (1) an update on work at Argo dam; (2) concerns over the proposed Fuller Road Station and the site design’s consideration of the Border-to-Border Trail; (3) a donation from the Henrietta Feldman trust; (4) the resignation of Greta Brunschwyler, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center; and (5) a preview of an August agenda item regarding dog parks.

Communications: Argo Dam

Tim Berla asked Jeff Straw, deputy parks and recreation manager, for an update on work at the Argo dam. Berla said he thought the project would be done by now, but it looked like the work hadn’t really started.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $1.17 million project to build a bypass channel in the Argo dam headrace and add whitewater features. PAC had previously recommended approval of the project. [See Chronicle coverage: "PAC Recommends Argo Dam Bypass"]

The plan calls for removing the canoe portage, and replacing it with a series of “drop pools” so that no portage is required. The project will also improve accessibility of the path – which is part of Washtenaw County’s Border-to-Border trail – and address problems in the headrace embankment that were identified by state officials. The work is tied to a consent agreement that the city reached with the state in May 2010, laying out steps that the city must take to deal with some long-outstanding structural issues with the earthen berm.

Straw reported that the city was still waiting for the state to issue the necessary permit for the project – that could happen at any time. Meanwhile, the contractor is doing as much prep work as possible, including tree removal.

Berla characterized the situation as depressing. It looked like an entire season would be lost, he said. Was there any chance the work could be completed this year? Straw reminded commissioners that the state had mandated closure of the headrace – that would have been closed regardless of what happened with the new project. It’s possible the project can be completed by November, he said, but in part “that depends on Mother Nature.”

Deer grazing at the bottom of the Argo dam headrace, which has been de-watered in preparation for construction of a bypass channel. (Photo by Sabra Briere)

Following PAC’s meeting, additional information was emailed to The Chronicle by councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Brian Steglitz, the city’s senior utilities engineer, had informed Briere that although the city initially submitted its application for a permit in March, it wasn’t considered complete by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) until June 6. This was the city’s third submittal, in response to changes requested by MDEQ. From June 6, the state has 90 days – until Aug. 23 – to issue the permit.

Briere said that in order to complete the work (at least substantially) by mid-November, the contractor would need to work very aggressively after the construction permit is granted. The contractor has already begun removing trees, and almost all of the headrace is completely de-watered.

Then on July 25, Sue McCormick and Sumedh Bahl – two senior city managers – sent a memo to interim city administrator Tom Crawford. The memo stated that the city had been notified by DTE officials of upcoming remediation work that DTE plans to do in 2012 along the Huron River, adjacent to DTE’s property on the south side of the Huron River, between Allen Creek Drain and the Broadway Bridge. The remediation is being required by MDEQ. From the memo:

DTE has requested the City to delay construction of the whitewater features of the Argo Headrace Reconstruction project until DTE completes the remediation in 2012 as DTE recognizes that the whitewater features will likely need to be removed and rebuilt if the remediation plan includes these areas. DTE has also proposed paying for the construction costs of the whitewater features with their installation in 2012 following completion of the remediation, although the details have yet to be finalized. [.pdf of memo on DTE/whitewater feature]

Communications: Fuller Road Station

Gwen Nystuen asked Straw about the status of an agreement between the city and the University of Michigan regarding the proposed Fuller Road Station. She asked when PAC would have the opportunity to review it, and noted that the city was already moving ahead with related utility work that would affect the project, even though no public hearing has yet been held.

Straw said he didn’t have that information, but that he’d follow-up and report back to commissioners.

Later in the meeting, Mike Anglin – an ex-officio PAC member who represents Ward 5 on the city council – expressed disappointment over how the city is handling the project. The decision to build on parkland seems to have been made, he said, without adequate input from PAC. Many citizens are upset about building along the Huron River, Anglin said. The level of discourse by city councilmembers had been very discouraging, he added, and information provided to the council was simply dismissed, he said.

Anglin was referring to a recent re-vote that had been taken by city council to approve utility work on the Fuller Road Station site. From Chronicle coverage of the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting:

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) made a motion to reconsider a June 20, 2011 vote that the council took in awarding a $1,216,100 construction contract to Hoffman Brothers Inc. The project involves relocating a sanitary sewer south of Fuller Road, and east of the Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive intersection.

The project includes moving and replacing an 825-foot, 30-year-old section of 60-inch sanitary sewer pipe. It also includes construction of 525 feet of 24-inch stormwater pipe, as well as construction of 925 feet of a new 12-inch water main for service to Fuller Pool. The water main portion of the project will be completed in two phases, the second of which is planned for 2013.

Anglin’s effort to reconsider the motion was based on criticism that the work is being undertaken only because of the planned Fuller Road Station (FRS) in the area – a project  to which he has expressed opposition. Proposed in partnership between the city and the University of Michigan, it calls for construction of a large parking structure, bus depot and possibly an eventual train station.

Anglin had originally voted in favor of the utility project. At the July 5 council meeting, he said was bringing forward the reconsideration to discuss with councilmembers what he’d heard from the community about questions to which he didn’t have answers. He said he’d voted for the contract on June 20, thinking it was related to flooding conditions on the city’s northside. He subsequently realized the project was for water utilities at the Fuller Road Station site. Several councilmembers noted that they had understood what the original vote was for. The re-vote failed, with only Anglin voting against approval of the utility project.

Toward the end of PAC’s July meeting, Nystuen distributed two documents related to Fuller Road Station:

• Some reflections by Bob Elton, who was PAC chair in 1993 when the city struck a deal with UM to build a surface parking lot at the proposed Fuller Road Station site – the lot has been leased to the university since then. [.pdf of Elton's reflections]
• An email from mayor John Hieftje in which he answers questions about the project posed by former city councilmember Bob Johnson, who also served on PAC. [.pdf of email Q&A]

Nystuen also raised the issue of how the Border-to-Border Trail would fit into the Fuller Road Station site design. She noted that the topic has been brought up on several occasions, but that the trail wasn’t even mentioned when the council approved the utility work at that site. In the context of projects like RiverUp! and partnerships with Washtenaw County on the Border-to-Border Trail, the trail should be part of the city’s consideration, too, she said.

Tim Berla noted that when he’d most recently raised the issue with Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, Cooper had said that the portion of the trail running through Fuller Road Station would be widened to 10 feet, but no other changes were planned. That was upsetting, Berla said, because the trail will be crossing roadways where hundreds of vehicles will be traveling – it’s a safety issue.

Another plan has been floated to make a trail that looped under the bridges in that area, Berla said, so that cyclists and pedestrians could avoid the traffic at the intersection of Fuller Road, Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive. But that plan hasn’t been incorporated into the project, he said.

Berla suggested that PAC might consider a resolution of support for an alternative trail. PAC chair Julie Grand said that Berla could write up such a resolution – he indicated that he would. Later in the meeting, Grand said that in light of the concerns that had been raised about the Border-to-Border Trail, it was something they could add to PAC’s August agenda. She noted that PAC had made a statement previously about the Fuller Road Station project – the commission had passed a resolution a year ago urging for transparency. [See Chronicle coverage: "Park Commission Asks for Transparency"] That was the kind of thing PAC could continue to do, she said, “with the powers we lack.”

Communications: Feldman Trust

Straw reported that the city has been notified of a roughly $100,000 donation from the Henrietta Feldman trust, to be used for tree plantings or land acquisitions. He said that city staff didn’t yet have a lot of information about the donor or her reason for giving, but that he’d follow up with more details at a later date.

Communications: Dog Parks

John Lawter told commissioners that he’d be making a presentation on “dog issues” at PAC’s Aug. 16 meeting. “I know you’re anxiously awaiting that,” he joked.

Offen noted that dog permits in the city are down. Lawter replied that although permits are down, usage of the city’s dog parks is up. That’s something to add to the “issues” list, Lawter said. At previous meetings, Lawter has mentioned the possibility of establishing another dog park.

The city currently has two dog parks – enclosed areas where dogs are permitted to run off-leash. They are located at Olson Park, on the city’s north side, and at Swift Run Park, located at the northeast corner of the Swift Run landfill. The Swift Run dog park is in partnership with Washtenaw County. Permits are required to use the dog parks, but enforcement is limited.

Communications: Leslie Science & Nature Center

Sam Offen, a PAC member who also serves on the board of the Leslie Science & Nature Center, reported that its executive director, Greta Brunschwyler, had resigned and would be leaving at the end of July. Lisa Brush will be serving as interim director until a new director is hired.

Brunschwyler was relatively new to the position. Hired after a national search for a new director, she started the job in March 2010 and had attended PAC’s March 16, 2010 meeting to introduce herself. Offen said Brunschwyler had resigned for personal reasons, and that board members had been surprised by the decision.

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

Absent: Doug Chapman

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Dave Barrett, right, talks with fellow park advisory commissioner John Lawter prior to the start of PAC's Oct. 19 meeting. Barrett represented PAC on a selection committee that recommended reconstruction of the Argo Dam headrace and embankment. (Photos by the writer.)

The resolution that PAC ultimately approved was a recommendation to build a bypass channel in the Argo Dam headrace for $988,170, and to add whitewater features for an additional $180,000. The $1,168,170 project would be designed by Gary Lacy of Boulder, Colo., and built by TSP Environmental, a Livonia firm.

City staff said this was the only proposal submitted that met the requirements laid out in the city’s request for proposals (RFP). The plan calls for removing the canoe portage, replacing it with a series of “drop pools” so that no portage is required. The project will also improve accessibility of the path – which is part of Washtenaw County’s Border-to-Border trail – and address problems in the headrace embankment that were identified by state officials. The work is tied to a consent agreement that the city reached with the state in May, laying out steps that the city must take to deal with some long-outstanding structural issues.

Commissioner Tim Berla voted against the resolution, calling it a “protest vote” because removal of Argo Dam hadn’t been considered as an option – that same point was made by several speakers during public commentary. Park staff has indicated that this project doesn’t preclude removing Argo Dam in the future, if that’s a decision that the community makes.

Funding for the project is available from the city’s Parks Rehabilitation & Development millage and the drinking water fund, according to city staff. An additional $50,000 might be available from the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission, to help pay for a portion of the project related to the county’s Border-to-Border trail.

Several people – both commissioners and speakers during public commentary – questioned the appropriateness of using the water fund for this purpose, saying that Argo dam has nothing to do with drinking water. Local attorney Scott Munzel argued that using the water fund to pay for dam-related projects might be illegal, based on case law, because it’s being used as a way to skirt the Headlee Amendment. Munzel is a board member of the Huron River Watershed Council, which has lobbied vigorously to remove the dam for environmental reasons.

The proposal for reconstruction of the headrace and embankment will now be forwarded to city council.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, PAC members heard an update from parks staff about this season’s activities at the city’s three outdoor public pools – at Buhr, Fuller and Veterans Memorial parks. The former supervisor for Buhr Park Pool, Gayle LaVictoire, also gave a brief presentation to commissioners about her new job as volunteer outreach coordinator for the parks system, a newly created position.

And at the end of the meeting, Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, announced that the Ann Arbor Senior Center received more residents’ votes than other city facilities in a recent contest sponsored by Stonyfield Farm, and will receive $15,000 from that firm.

Argo Dam Bypass

The boardroom at the Washtenaw County administration building, where PAC typically holds its monthly meetings, was crowded with people on Tuesday, several of whom spoke during time set aside for public commentary. Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) also attended the meeting, as did Steve Bean, an independent mayoral candidate and chair of the city’s environmental commission. None of them spoke during public commentary. Two additional councilmembers – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Tayler (Ward 3) – serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of PAC. Both attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Argo Dam: Public Commentary

Ten people spoke during public commentary about Argo Dam, most of them revisiting the debate over whether to remove the dam or keep it in place. Here’s a sampling of the comments.

Marta Manildi said she was speaking of behalf of herself and her husband, Paul Courant. [Manildi, a local attorney, is a board member of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. Courant is the University of Michigan librarian and dean of libraries.] Manildi they were very concerned about the proposed funding sources for the headrace reconstruction. The fact that funds previously allocated for emerald ash borer replacement and drinking water are available for the reconstruction means that she can’t count on PAC or the city to spend money in the manner that taxpayers are told it will be spent. She’ll take that into account when she’s asked to vote for future millages, she said. [Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith addressed this issue later in the meeting.]

Secondly, Manildi noted, there’s been no real cost analysis for the project, and no comparison to the cost of dam removal. There’d be many benefits to removing the dam, she said, including recreational benefits. Manildi also contended that it’s disingenuous to say that the dam could be removed in the future, even if the reconstruction project moves forward – that possibility is stated in a staff memo about the project. She said the city doesn’t have the resources to spend a million dollars on reconstruction now, then another million on dam removal later. Finally, Manildi said there is a group of very serious and concerned citizens who are interested in dam removal – they need to be included in the discussion in ways that so far they haven’t been, she concluded.

Don Gray, a University of Michigan professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering, described the challenges of containing the Huron River if the dam is removed. [He wrote an essay about the same topic, published in the Stormwater Journal earlier this year, as well as other publications.] With the dam in place, the river makes a sharp 90-degree bend, away from its original channel. If the dam were removed, Gray said, the momentum of the river would be to return to that natural channel, which is now a contaminated DTE site, he said. In addition to the cost of removing the dam, there would be significant engineering and bank protection measures required, which won’t come cheaply, he said.

John Rubin said he was speaking out of frustration that dam removal wasn’t part of the deliberations. It seems that federal subsidies for dam removal haven’t been explored, and that staff have been told explicitly not to consider dam removal. It’s especially disheartening since the cost of repairing the toe drains came in three times higher than expected. Let’s put dam removal costs to the test, he said. Rubin asked PAC to get a cost estimate for dam removal and see whether federal funds might be available to pay for it. He also urged them to stop paying for the costs of Argo Dam out of the water fund – pay for it out of the parks recreation budget, he said, so that the costs for supporting rowing can be weighed against other uses.

Eric Boyd said he doesn’t have strong views on the dam in/dam out debate, but he is an advocate for the Border-to-Border Trail. Decisions about the dam and millrace will affect the trail, which runs along the top of the embankment. Whatever decision is made, they should remember that the trail is a key recreational asset. If the dam is kept, will the city pave the path along the millrace embankment? If the dam is taken out, will they build a pedestrian bridge? He noted that other counties have more extensive non-motorized trails.

John Russell recalled that in 1968, floods decimated four dams along the Huron River, including Argo. So a discussion was held about whether to rebuild the dam – it’s the same discussion they’re having today, he said. At the time, the Huron River Watershed Council supported rebuilding the dam, making it a recreational facility. Contentions that the dam is falling apart now are completely false, he said. When rebuilt, it was connected to the railroad embankment, rendering the millrace obsolete. Further, studies show that the dam does little to harm Huron River. He concluded that there were no environmental or engineering reasons to remove the dam. Why is the millrace relevant to the dam at all? he asked. If it’s not relevant, why pay to repair the toe drains? He said he suspected there’d been a lot of behind-the-scenes lobbying with the MDEQ (the former Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, now the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment). He said he favored keeping the dam.

Scott Munzel identified himself as a Ward 5 resident and a board member of the Huron River Watershed Council. The council supports the use of the river by all residents, including rowers, he said. But recreational uses must be balanced with other uses for city resources, and with the long-term environmental health of the river. He urged PAC to recommend studying the cost of dam removal and how it would impact the river. Munzel said that the original estimate for repairing the toe drains was $300,000, but the bids have come in at three times that amount.

Now they know that the cost of repairing the toe drains is nearly the same as for dam removal, he said. There is no question that dam removal would be better for the environment, Munzel said. It’s ironic to spend money on reconstructing the millrace when removing the dam would achieve the same effect. So the city is essentially spending money that results in environmental degradation, he said. Munzel also pointed out that using money from the city’s drinking water fund to pay for parks and recreation projects is improper, if not illegal, according to certain case law – it skirts the Headlee Amendment.

Joe O'Neal, left, and Donald Gray spoke during public commentary at the Oct. 19 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, opposing removal of Argo Dam. O'Neal's company rebuilt Argo Dam in 1972.

Joe O’Neal told commissioners that when his firm built Argo Dam in 1972, little did he know they’d be having these conversations today. He said that he’s the one who gave the original $300,000 to $500,000 estimates for toe drain repairs, but those estimates are based on very different work than what the current proposal entails, he said. [Parks staff later clarified that among other things, the new scope of work included a vegetation management plan for the embankment.]

O’Neal said if they wanted to do some value engineering on the project, no doubt the costs could come down. O’Neal observed that the discussion had become about whether or not to remove the dam, and he recalled that about four weeks ago he was summoned to the Depot Street area where they’d had a “little flood, to the tune of about 18 inches of water,” he said. “If you think you have a problem on Depot Street now, wait til the dam is not there.” The dam is doing a good job for the city now, he concluded, and if there’s a budget problem, it can be solved.

Argo Dam: Staff Report

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, and Molly Wade, the city’s water treatment services manager, gave a joint presentation about the options being considered by PAC.

Wade began by reminding commissioners that they’d been briefed about the options at their July 2010 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "Two Dam Options for Argo" – the article includes an extensive timeline and links to previous coverage.] PAC member Dave Barrett was selected to serve on the project selection committee, which also included Wade, Smith and several other city staff members. Wade said the city’s environmental commission was asked to select a representative for the committee, but they declined.

She gave a refresher on recent history related to the dam, noting that in August of 2009 the state issued a dam safety order to the city, with several deadlines that the city needed to meet in addressing problems with the dam, as well as an order to immediately close the headrace. The city closed the headrace in November but contested the order – negotiations with the state resulted in a consent agreement that was signed in May of 2010. [.pdf file of consent agreement]

The agreement allowed the city to reopen the headrace for this past summer season, which allowed the city’s livery to operate, with canoeists and kayakers continuing down the Huron River south of Argo. The stop log was reinstalled last week and the headrace is now closed again, she said. It will remain closed until the deficiencies identified by the state are resolved.

If they wants to keep the headrace open, the city has two options, Wade said. The first option is that the city could repair the toe drains in the embankment, and develop a plan to manage trees and other vegetation on the embankment. The city then would reopen the headrace for canoes and kayaks. It would not change the headrace or embankment trail, and operations at the Argo livery would be unchanged.

The second option would be to reconstruct the headrace and embankment. The scope of the request for proposals (RFP) for this option included connecting the headrace to the river and removing the existing portage, improving the Border-to-Border Trail, repairing any remaining toe drains, developing a vegetation management plan, and giving some options for recreational amenities.

Wade handed off the presentation to Smith, and he described existing conditions on the headrace and portage area. He showed commissioners several photos of the area being used during the summer, noting that about 16,000 trips every season start at Argo and end at Gallup Park, which also has a canoe livery. To do that, canoeists have to portage their 85-pound canoes down a difficult slope, about a quarter-mile into their trip. On busy days, there’s a backup of canoeists and kayakers. “In a sense, we have a traffic jam on the river shortly after starting the trip to Gallup,” Smith said. Canoes are often dropped, causing damage. And the livery staff report that many people say they can’t make the trip because of the difficulty of the portage.

Smith also described trail conditions along the embankment, noting that it’s one of the few stretches of the 35-mile Border-to-Border Trail that’s neither paved nor ADA compliant. It’s essentially a single-file path, very near the river. Improvements would have to be made there regardless of other action, he said. If it’s done in conjunction with other work, he added, there are opportunities for savings through economies of scale.

Wade then described the city’s options in greater detail.

The city has an option to do nothing, in which case the headrace would be closed permanently, according to conditions of the consent agreement. That would result in a dramatic change to the city’s canoe livery operation, and an estimated loss of $75,000 in revenue annually, Wade said. She noted that 94% of the 24,000 canoe trips taken from the city’s canoe liveries start at either Barton or Argo, and end at Gallup. It would close this popular route, and create even more crowded conditions on Argo Pond, she said.

The second option would be to repair the toe drains. It addresses the consent agreement, and the headrace would remain open. There would be no accessibility improvements for boaters or trail users, she said. For this option, the city received three bids, ranging from $707,300 to $829,150. Wade addressed the question about why these bids are so much higher than the original $300,000 estimate, saying that the estimate was made in 2005 and didn’t include any vegetation management of the embankment – a state requirement.

This rendering shows the proposed Argo headrace reconstruction, eliminating the need for portage by creating a series of connected pools from Argo Pond to the river. A whitewater recreational area is included in the design, near the exit onto the river. (Links to larger image)

The third option, which the selection committee recommended, is reconstruction of the headrace and embankment. The city received two responses to its RFP for this option, but only one of them addressed the scope of the project, Wade said. TSP Environmental, a Livonia firm, would work with Gary Lacy, a consultant from Boulder, Colo., to design and build a bypass channel in the Argo Dam headrace for $988,170. In addition to meeting the requirements of the consent agreement, it would improve ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility by removing the portage, and would make the trail more accessible as well. The city would expect to see increased use of the Argo canoe livery, thereby increasing revenues – as much as $30,000 per season, Wade said. In addition, maintenance costs for upkeep of the toe drains would decrease. The proposal also included an option of adding a section of whitewater – the “recreational amenity” – for an additional $180,000.

Smith then gave a more detailed description of the proposal, saying that the headrace would become a series of connected pools that would flow from Argo Pond down to the river – removing the need to portage. The trail on the embankment would be widened and paved, making it more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

Smith outlined several possible funding sources for the reconstruction project:

• $683,000 is available from the city’s Parks Rehabilitation & Development millage. A few years ago, Smith said, about $1.4 million had been transferred out of the millage fund into a fund to remove trees affected by the emerald ash borer – a project completed in July 2010. The remaining $683,000 is now available for other projects. An additional $195,000 is available from the same millage, which has been earmarked for improvement of river parks.
• $300,000 is available from the city’s water fund to repair the toe drains.
• $50,000 might be available from the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission, to help pay for a portion of the project related to the county’s Border-to-Border trail.

Not counting the county funds, $1.178 million is available for the project. The selection committee was unanimous in selecting this third option, Smith reported. They saw little price differential between this one and the cost of just repairing the toe drains. That, coupled with all of the other improvements they would gain, caused them to settle on reconstruction, he said.

Smith also noted that if the Argo Dam is removed in the future, the bypass would be essential for novice canoeists and kayakers – assuming that the dam removal would result in faster-flowing conditions on the river. [Possible removal of the dam has been a controversial issue, and one that city council has never acted on. At PAC's July 20, 2010 meeting, commissioner Tim Berla called out the city council for not taking a vote on the dam-in/dam-out question. He said that by not voting, the council essentially made a back-door decision not to remove the dam.]

Smith said that staff was asked to look at options that comply with the consent agreement – that’s why they didn’t look at the option of dam removal. If the community decides it wants to remove the dam, these designs could be incorporated into a dam-out design, he said.

Gary Lacy, a consultant from Boulder, Colo., designed the proposal to reconstruct the headrace and embankment at Argo Dam.

The project’s designer, Gary Lacy, came up to the podium to describe similar projects he’s worked on in other communities, showing slides of designs on the Platte River in Casper, Wyoming; the Arkansas River in Salida, Colo.; the Truckee River in Reno, Nev.; Clear Creek in Golden, Colo.; and Bear River in Petoskey, Mich. Each design aims to create accessible areas that fit into the natural environment, he said. The projects are extremely successful from an economic standpoint, he said – as gathering places, they become “economic generators” for the community.

Lacy noted that the culvert entrance to the headrace at Argo is narrow and low – 10-feet wide, with about a 4-foot clearance. They’ve talked about replacing that with a larger archway, he said. Beyond that, they’d build a series of connected pools that would gradually drop from the higher elevation of Argo Pond down to the exit into Huron River. This channel would be designed to accommodate novice paddlers, he said. No portage would be required.

The whitewater feature would be on the Huron River, slightly upstream from the channel’s exit into the river – if you didn’t want to enter the whitewater, you’d simply continue downstream on the river. Christopher Taylor later clarified that the whitewater area wasn’t something that you traverse. Rather, it’s something to “wallow” in – “a water court in which I frolic,” Taylor quipped.

The embankment would be lowered and flattened, and dirt from that part of the project would be used to shape the channel’s pools. A wider path would then be constructed on the embankment. Lacy said that if the city later decided to remove the dam, the reconstruction project would only need slight modifications, to match the new level of the river.

Argo Dam: Drinking Water Fund Background

The concern expressed during public commentary and by commissioners about the funding of dam maintenance out of the city’s drinking water fund has a long history. From previous Chronicle reporting, here’s a summary:

Through the fall of 2009 and during the early 2010, budget meetings held by the council, councilmembers and staff gave indications that a change would be made for the FY 2011 budget – which was adopted in May – to fund the Argo Dam maintenance out of the city’s parks budget. The motivation behind the change was that the dam serves a recreational function, not a drinking water function.

From the Nov. 5, 2009 city council meeting:

Later in the meeting after [Ward 4 councilmember Margie] Teall arrived, she got clarification that the money for the attorney fees would be paid out of the fund that pays for maintenance and operation of the city’s dams – the water fund. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked where the money in the fund came from. City administrator Roger Fraser explained that it came from the sale of water – that is, from residents’ water bills.

Fraser indicated that while there’d been discussion of putting the maintenance and operation of Geddes and Argo dams into the parks and recreation budget instead of the water fund, at this time it was the water fund that currently supported those dams. The maintenance and operation of those dams is built into the fee structure for water, he said. In response to a question from Higgins, he allowed that changing the funding to the parks and recreation budget should have an effect – how much was hard to say – on calculating the water rate structure.

At the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, a resolution to accept the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan was postponed to the Dec. 7 meeting. It included an explicit recommendation to move dam maintenance funding out of the water fund:

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council recommends that operation and maintenance of the recreational dams (Argo and Geddes) not be funded from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund; and

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council recommends that funds currently used for the operation and maintenance of the recreational dams from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund be reallocated to implement the Source Water Protection Plan to protect Ann Arbor’s Drinking Water.

The HRIMP report was ultimately remanded back to the city’s park advisory commission and the environmental commission at the council’s Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, but the resolution language on shifting funding of the dam maintenance out of the water fund was removed. From The Chronicle’s report [emphasis added]:

In the course of the meeting, when Hohnke’s amendment removed mention of the funding shift, mayor John Hieftje stressed that the intent to shift dam maintenance funding out of the water fund to parks and recreation was part of the budgeting plan for FY 2011. The reasons why it’s a potential legal problem to fund dam maintenance out of the drinking water fund were explored to some extent at the council’s caucus the night before.

The previous night’s caucus had included remarks from local attorney Scott Munzel. From The Chronicle’s report [emphasis added]:

Scott Munzel introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident of Ann Arbor, who also serves on the board of the [Huron River] watershed council. [...]

If the council decided to leave the dam in place, he said, he hoped that they would take seriously the question of how much it costs to maintain, which he said was around $50-60,000 per year. Currently, he said, that is paid out of the drinking water fund, which was not just inappropriate, but possibly even illegal, based on the Bolt v. City of Lansing case. That case involved a stormwater fee, which in the view of the court amounted to a tax. The court established criteria distinguishing a fee from a tax as follows [from the Michigan Municipal League summary]:

1. a user fee must serve a regulatory purpose rather than a revenue-raising purpose;
2. a user fee must be proportionate to the necessary costs of the service; and
3. a user fee must be voluntary – property owners must be able to refuse or limit their use of the commodity or service.

Responding to Munzel, mayor John Hieftje noted that the intention was to rectify the funding source issue when the next budget is prepared.

Then, on Feb. 8, 2010, at the second meeting of the city council devoted specifically to the budget, Jayne Miller, who was at the time the city’s community services area administrator, indicated that the dam maintenance funding needed to be shifted. From The Chronicle’s report:

Miller then put the question in the larger context of the Argo Dam. Its maintenance funding is currently in the city’s water fund, but needs to be moved out of that fund. [Roger Fraser has previously indicated that this is something that will be undertaken in the current [FY 2011] budget cycle.]

However the funding of dam maintenance was not shifted out of the water fund in the FY 2011 budget, which was adopted by the city council in May.

Argo Dam: Commissioner Questions, Comments

At PAC’s Monday meeting, John Lawter began by asking how long the project would take to complete. Lacy explained that construction is the quickest part – it takes far longer to get approvals and permits. If the city makes a decision quickly, he said, they can start the permitting process and possibly get started building this winter, with the goal of finishing by early summer of 2011. It’s easier to do the work when the ground is frozen, he said. If they miss that window, they wouldn’t complete the project until 2012.

Sam Offen asked what would happen if they did nothing, and left the stop log in the headrace. [The stop log is a metal plate that's wedged into a concrete slot, in shim-like fashion, at the entrance to the headrace. It cuts off water flowing in from Argo Pond.] Smith replied that unless the city implements repair or reconstruction, the consent agreement mandates that the stop log remain in place.

Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, added that it could remain that way as long as they wanted. Once the pressure from the water in the headrace is removed, it’s less dangerous to the embankment. Offen confirmed that the state is concerned about the stability of the embankment due to saturation from water in the headrace. Bahl said that’s why the state wants the city to repair the toe drains, which would relieve that pressure, as well as remove some of the trees and vegetation – work that was done earlier this year.

Tim Berla asked why the consent agreement didn’t include the option to remove the dam. Bahl said that the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) doesn’t push for dam removal – the agreement just addressed the toe drains. Berla responded, saying that the city could have negotiated to include dam removal as an option. Bahl said they left it up to the community to decide.

Berla said it seemed like the process resulted in them being backed into saying that removing the dam isn’t an option. Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, pointed out that PAC didn’t request that it be included in the consent agreement. Berla noted that they’d shut themselves off from that path, and now didn’t know how expensive it would be, if they decided to pursue dam removal.

Commissioners Dave Barrett and Gwen Nystuen both confirmed with Bahl that the dam was structurally sound. Bahl said the state had no problem with the concrete portion of the dam – their concerns only dealt with the earthen embankment. The city has been monitoring the embankment with a series of piezometers, which measure water pressures in the earthen berm, and that’s been stable. “I have done that personally, so I can tell you that conditions haven’t changed,” Bahl said.

Mike Anglin, one of two city councilmembers on PAC, asked about the water fund – why were they using that to fund this project? They were doing that because it had been budgeted this way, Bahl said. “Someone would have to direct us not to do that.” Anglin said he didn’t have a problem with it personally, but he noted that the issue had been raised during public commentary, so he’d like a report from whoever decided to finance part of this project from the water fund.

The value of the project is in its long-term recreational value to the community, Anglin said. The redesign will attract a lot of people, and eliminate the difficult portage, which he said he experienced this summer. However, he said he was concerned about maintenance costs.

Lacy said that if designed properly, there’s virtually no in-stream maintenance costs, except after flooding or if a tree falls into the channel. He cautioned that because the area will likely see more active use, maintenance costs for things like trash removal might increase. Smith said they anticipated more staff time would be spent on that kind of maintenance, but that would be balanced by a decrease in work they’d need to do maintaining the current embankment and monitoring its stability, he said.

Grand asked whether the funds formerly earmarked for the emerald ash borer project could now be used for any capital project – Smith said that it could, because it would revert back to the parks and recreation capital fund.

Berla asked whether novice canoeists, like himself, would be able to navigate the pools. “It looks scary,” he joked. Lacy replied that these channels were designed for drunk innertubers at night holding longneck beer bottles. More seriously, he said that the shallowest end of each pool was downstream, so even if you capsized, you could stand up in the water. It’s designed for the novice, he said.

Berla then said he was concerned about the sustainability of financing for this project. For years, they’ve been using the drinking water fund to pay for dam maintenance, he said, and he was personally uncomfortable with that, because Argo has nothing to do with drinking water. The project would require a lot of money to maintain over the next 20 years, and he doesn’t see where that money can come from except from the parks and recreation budget. He said that spending $683,000 from the millage fund was entirely legit – but it would be equally legit to spend it on other projects, like a skatepark.

Smith responded to the water fund concern, saying that when the city went through the process of developing the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), there had been discussions about that issue by the city council. However, city staff hadn’t been given direction to remove the water fund from the budget, or to look for other funding alternatives. He said he felt the parks budget would be able to absorb the cost of maintenance for the project.

Barrett mentioned a hydro feasibility study that the Veterans Administration hospital in Ann Arbor had recently conducted, looking at possible electricity generation from the dams along the Huron River. That possibility is still in play, he said, and his understanding is that the VA is serious. The city obviously can’t make its decision based on that, he said, but it was something to keep in mind.

Molly Wade, the city’s water treatment services manager, said the VA has shared its report with city staff – the study looked specifically at Argo and Geddes dams. It shows a shorter payback period for Geddes compared to Argo, she said, adding that the city has no idea how the VA intends to proceed.

Barrett said his understanding is that the VA is looking at those dams as a package, to fulfill their federal green energy credit requirements. If they were to assume full or partial responsibility for those dams, he said, that would alleviate some costs for the city. Wade stated that the city hasn’t yet had those talks with the VA.

At this point, Grand said she’d like to address the actual resolution. [.pdf file of original draft] After it was read aloud by Smith, John Lawter moved to amend it, adding the optional whitewater amenity for an additional $180,000. That brought the entire project cost to $1,168,170.

Sam Offen said he thought it was an admirable amenity, but he wouldn’t support the amendment. The money could be used elsewhere, he said – he’d rather it be spent at another park, to help a different set of people.

Grand asked Smith why the whitewater feature hadn’t been included in the resolution – did staff think it wasn’t a good idea? Smith said the whitewater wasn’t included because it was beyond the scope of the RFP, which was designed to address the consent agreement. That’s what staff were working from, he said, adding that from the cost perspective, he assumed it would be less expensive to add the whitewater feature now, while the other work was being done.

Outcome: With dissent from Offen, the commission approved the amendment adding the optional whitewater feature to the resolution, at an additional cost of $180,000.

Returning to the main resolution, Berla said he wouldn’t support it, even though it was the best option of the ones they’d been presented. He described his vote as a “protest vote – and I wish it would have been done differently.”

Grand thanked the staff for their hard work, saying she was excited about the project.

Outcome: The commission passed the resolution, as amended, to recommend selecting TSP Environmental to build a bypass channel in the Argo Dam headrace for $988,170, and to add whitewater features for an additional $180,000 – for a total project cost of $1,168,170. Tim Berla dissented. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

City Pool Update

Jeff Straw and the city’s three outdoor pool supervisors from last season gave an update on the 2010 season at the city’s three outdoor swimming pools: Buhr Park, Fuller Park and Veterans Memorial Park. All three are open from Memorial Day through Labor Day – they are now closed for the season.

Overall, the pools were open a total of 2,942 hours this season and had 96,407 visits, including 3,421 uses of the park systems’ “scholarship pass.” The city sold 2,278 season passes, and had 1,518 participants taking swim classes. The pools employ 104 seasonal workers.

Here’s a breakdown of each facility:

• Buhr Park Pool: Gayle LaVictoire has been the pool facilities supervisor for the six-lane, 25-yard pool. In addition to general swim, it offers swimming lessons, water polo camp, and swim teams. A day camp at the pool had 190 participants, including 33 youngsters who attended on scholarships. The pool, which employs 40 seasonal workers, is known for its end-of-season Dog Swim – this year, 280 dogs and owners participated. During the season, the pool recorded 28,154 total visitors. Improvements at the pool included a handicap pool lift, handicap pool steps, ADA picnic tables, deck chairs and new lane lines and reels. LaVictoire told commissioners that her seasonal staff is “phenomenal,” and said that some of the lifeguards working for her this summer had been kids that she taught in swim class when they were five or six years old.
• Fuller Park Pool: This pool, supervised by Dan McGuire, employs 39 seasonal workers and features a water slide, a 50-meter outdoor lap pool and a 12-foot-deep diving well. Programming includes master swims, group and private swim lessons, and the Dawn Ducks – swimmers who use the pool in the early morning. A day camp at Fuller Pool had 197 participants this year, including 30 scholarship recipients. In total, there were 37,090 visits to the pool this year. Facility improvements included ADA picnic tables and an ADA pool wheelchair, a pace clock and swim platform trainers.
• Veterans Memorial Park Pool: This summer was a great one for Vets pool, said supervisor Dennis Simon, with increased participation in several programs. The pool includes a 125-foot water slide and a “raindrop” interactive water play system. It employs 25 seasonal workers and offers group and private swim lessons, as well as swim teams. This year, they had 113 participants in the swim teams, compared to just 70 last year. The coaches did a tremendous job, Simon said, with the goal that the kids have fun. During the season, the pool had 31,163 total visits. Improvements to the facility this year included an ADA pool wheelchair, an electronic pace clock, deck chairs, ADA picnic tables and lap lines.

Commissioners congratulated the staff for their work. PAC chair Julie Grand said it’s always great to hear good news from the parks facilities.

New Volunteer Outreach Coordinator Introduced

Gayle LaVictoire got a second turn speaking to commissioners as she was introduced as the city’s new volunteer outreach coordinator for the parks system. She described some of her goals for the newly created position, including 1) developing an online management system to coordinate volunteers, 2) developing a ballfield adoption and maintenance program, 3) coordinating master gardener volunteers to do landscaping at city parks facilities, 4) collaborating with the AARP to do facilities cleanup, and 5) getting help with the “seasonal startup” of facilities next spring – mowing, painting and the like.

She’s talked with supervisors at all of the city’s parks facilities to do a needs assessment, asking them what they need from volunteers. The idea is to match up volunteers’ interests and skills with facilities that need help.

LaVictoire is working with Jason Frenzel, her counterpart for the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program, who has been in that position for several years. In response to a question from commissioner Dave Barrett, she said she plans to reach out to the community at large after she’s laid the foundation for the volunteer program. They’re planning to develop a logo and do a marketing blitz to recruit volunteers, she said, especially focusing on young people. If kids learn to be volunteers at a young age, she said, they’ll be volunteers for life.

Present: David Barrett, John Lawter, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, Julie Grand, Doug Chapman, Karen Levin, Tim Berla, Mike Anglin (ex-officio), Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Absent: Tim Doyle

Next meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

The State of Our Environment Report is developed by the city’s environmental commission and designed as a citizen’s reference tool on environmental issues and as an atlas of the management strategies underway that are intended to conserve and protect our environment. The newest version of the report is organized around 10 environmental goals developed by the environmental commission and adopted by the city council in 2007.

Phosphorus takes its place in the periodic table of elements with atomic number 15. Too much P is not good for the Huron River.

This installment focuses on phosphorus levels in our creeks and river. Adrienne Marino is a recent graduate of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment and is an Environmental Programs Assistant with the city of Ann Arbor. Matthew Naud is the Environmental Coordinator at the city of Ann Arbor and can be reached at mnaud@a2gov.org.  Elizabeth Riggs with the Huron River Watershed Council and Molly Wade with the city of Ann Arbor provided additional input on the regulatory issues.

All installments of the series are available here: Environmental Indicator Series.

April showers will surely give way to May flowers and the start of lawn care season in southeast Michigan. As you tend to your lawn this spring and summer, you should know that your choices regarding lawn maintenance – especially fertilizer application – have large and measurable effects on the health of the Huron River and on the natural and human communities who depend on it.

How do we know this? The city of Ann Arbor’s ordinance regulating phosphorus-based lawn fertilizers took effect at the beginning of 2007. And sampling of Huron River phosphorus levels by University of Michigan scientists shows significant decreases in total phosphorus levels in 2008 and 2009. Huron River Watershed Council sampling of the creeksheds support these findings.

Why Measure Phosphorus?

Applications of lawn fertilizer by residents are an example of non-point sources of phosphorus [chemical symbol P]. That’s different from a single-point source of phosphorus like the city’s waste-water treatment plant. This month’s installment on environmental indicators discusses Total Phosphorus Reductions in the Huron River and chronicles a community-wide effort among residents, non-profits, local governments, and businesses to limit non-point sources of phosphorus to the Huron River.

The city of Ann Arbor is interested in monitoring phosphorus on the Huron River for two basic reasons. First, it’s because the city understands the possible negative environmental impact of excess phosphorus in the river. Second, the amount of phosphorus in the Huron has drawn the attention of the federal government.

So collecting phosphorus data provides information needed to assess progress toward federally mandated phosphorus reduction requirements. Communities in the Middle Huron watershed – which encompasses the land that drains into Ford and Belleville lakes – are under a federal  TMDL requirement for phosphorus.

What’s a TMDL?

A TMDL, or Total Maximum Daily Load, is established by the state and quantifies the amount of a pollutant a water body can accept, or assimilate, without violating water quality standards. [We pronounce TMDL like you would "timdle," if that word existed.] This load is calculated based on point source loading, plus non-point source loading, plus a margin of safety.

The TMDL for Ford and Belleville lakes specifies the amount of phosphorus the lakes can assimilate and still meet protected uses – e.g., not stimulate algal blooms, which are rapid population increases of algae in an aquatic system. TMDLs are required for water bodies that are not attaining standards established by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The Michigan CWA program is administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment [formerly Michigan Department of Environmental Quality].

One algal bloom on Ford Lake in 1991 was so severe that a hazardous materials team was called in to investigate what residents thought was a “green paint spill.” More details on why phosphorus is a problem can be found at the end of this article.

Phosphorus is not inherently a pollutant – it’s an essential nutrient for plant growth. But in excess, it wreaks havoc on aquatic ecosystems, often contributing to nuisance plant growth and algal blooms.

Excess phosphorus enters the Huron River from both point and non-point sources. The main point source under our control is the Ann Arbor wastewater treatment plant. The plant accounts for 43% of Ann Arbor’s cumulative phosphorus input into the Huron River. Point sources have been regulated under the Clean Water Act since the 1970s. The Ann Arbor wastewater plant currently removes most (over 95%) of the phosphorus from wastewater before discharging it into the river. We are doing a very good job controlling the phosphorus in our wastewater.

When phosphorus was first identified as a problem in the Huron River system, the city of Ann Arbor, the Huron River Watershed Council, and other Middle Huron communities relied heavily on public education campaigns and environmental monitoring to inspire voluntary actions that would reduce non-point source phosphorus loading.

In 2007, Ann Arbor developed and passed its ordinance limiting the use of lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus. That came after a decade of investment in public education and research with limited measurable progress toward water quality goals, and a federal mandate (TMDL) to reduce phosphorus levels by 50%.

How Do You Measure a Change in Phosphorus Levels?

Very carefully. Sure, there are sampling and testing protocols to measure phosphorus levels – total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus. But natural systems are messy and there is a lot of noise in the data. You need lots of good data to measure small changes in the system.

Gathering lots of good data is typically very expensive, and it is rare for it to be affordable by local governments, watershed councils, and even state environmental agencies. Many communities in Michigan and throughout the United States have passed laws regulating phosphorus fertilizers that are similar to Ann Arbor’s. What makes Ann Arbor’s story unique is that it is the only place in the country with good “before” and “after” data. That data show measurable and significant decreases in total phosphorus levels, following implementation of a city-wide ordinance that prohibits the application of phosphorus lawn fertilizers.

Ann Arbor’s data story is better because Dr. John Lehman at UM has a long-term study of nutrients in the Huron River, beginning in 2003, looking at a variety of nutrient levels at key points upstream of Ann Arbor, through Ann Arbor and continuing downstream to Ford and Belleville lakes. The U.S. EPA has supported this effort. This is the part of the story that we like best. Here’s what was going on in 2007:

• EPA had been funding basic research that was not originally intended to evaluate a phosphorus ordinance;
• With this funding, a university professor and students were working on nutrient monitoring in the river and more importantly, they reached out to the watershed community annually to share their research results;
• A separate creekshed modeling effort predicted a significant change (20%) in phosphorus loadings if a ban on phosphorus is implemented; and
• The city enacted a phosphorus ordinance after two years of background work with community partners, knowing that it would have an effect but not sure how much.

Then, quite simply, the parties involved talked to each other.

When we discussed evaluating the effectiveness of our ordinance with Dr. Lehman, he and graduate students proposed a sampling frequency that would measure a statistically significant change of approximately 20%, based on certain assumptions. The city has supported a graduate student to sample at three sites – one upstream control and two in-city experimental sites – for the past two years and again this summer.

Figure 1. Lehman study sampling sites. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

What Do the Phosphorus Data Show?

Phosphorus levels in Ann Arbor’s section of the Huron River have gone down over the past two summers when compared to previous years’ data and upstream controls.

This is really good news. It’s a big deal.

When it dropped the first year, we were “cautiously optimistic” that the phosphorus fertilizer ordinance was responsible for a measurable and statistically significant drop in phosphorus levels in the Huron River. After two years of significant drops, we are more optimistic. But we know we do not have a perfect experiment.

A combination of other factors also can influence phosphorus levels – including changes in behavior resulting from continued public education, increased focus on green infrastructure such as stream buffers and rain gardens, and decreased development in the watershed. It is not clear that any of these, individually or combined, would have an effect at the magnitude we are seeing. Regardless, the data do show real decreases in phosphorus levels, an indication that we are moving in the right direction toward meeting our clean water goals.

A Closer Look at the Phosphorus Data

With Dr. Lehman’s pre- and post-ordinance data, it is possible to compare total phosphorus concentrations for 2008 and 2009 sampling periods to a 2003-2005 reference period.

Figure 2. Sample locations – map reproduced here from Reduced River Phosphorus Following Implementation of a Lawn Fertilizer, Lehman, et al. 2009. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Sample sites for this study include:

• A control site (see CTL north of Barton Pond in Figure 2 above) located upstream of Ann Arbor. This site receives drainage from outside the area impacted by the phosphorus fertilizer ordinance.
• Sample site A, located on the Huron River upstream of Geddes Pond. This site drains 11 square miles of Ann Arbor.
• Sample site B, located on the Huron River downstream of Geddes Pond. This site drains 36 square miles of Ann Arbor. Because it drains a larger part of the city, site B may be more responsive to the fertilizer ordinance.
• Sample site F, located downstream of Ann Arbor, upstream of Ford Lake.

In the first year of sampling (2008), there were six statistically significant decreases in total phosphorus levels between May and September. Compared to the 2003-2005 reference period, the 2008 reductions ranged from 18-43%, with an average reduction of 28%.

Figure 3. In 2008, six out of ten monthly average phosphorus reductions were statistically significant. An asterisk * indicates statistically significant total phosphorus reduction. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The 2009 data showed similarly significant reductions in total phosphorus, with an average reduction of 17%. In both years, the total phosphorus reductions were only observed at sample sites A and B, but not at the upstream control site. Further, non-target variables sampled at the same time as phosphorus (e.g., nitrate, dissolved organic matter, silica, specific conductance, and pH) did not change over the sampling period.

Figure 4. Total phosphorus levels were below the average measurement from the 2003-2005 reference period (100% line). The average reduction in TP at site B was 17%. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

At this point in the story, we have two years of good data showing statistically significant drops in phosphorus levels. These data suggest that, over the two-year time period, something was happening in Ann Arbor to cause a decrease in Huron River phosphorus levels that was not occurring upstream and not affecting other nutrients.

What Else Do We Know to Support or Refute Conclusions?

The Huron River Watershed Council, under its Middle Huron Nutrient Monitoring Program, collects data on phosphorus and other variables from tributary streams within and outside Ann Arbor. They also have a growing data set of samples. The results from their data show that after the ordinance went into effect, total phosphorus concentrations (2008-2009 data) for the urban creeksheds were 36% lower on average when compared to pre-ordinance levels. Again, the phosphorus fertilizer ordinance is one explanation for the significant phosphorus reductions in urban creeksheds.

Table 1. HRWC Middle Huron Nutrient Monitoring Program (Ric Lawson). Bold findings are statistically significant. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Verdict on Phosphorus

So we know that phosphorus levels are still higher than we want them to be and the indicator has been set as yellow.

The upward arrow for the phosphorus indicator reflects an improving trend – that phosphorus levels are going down.

We also know, based on good science and statistics, that phosphorus levels have dropped over the past two summers in Ann Arbor and there is creekshed monitoring data that support the river findings.

So we have set the indicator trend as improving, indicated by the upward arrow.

More on Phosphorus and Ann Arbor’s Ordinance

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient found in all living things, as well as in soils and water. Phosphorus promotes healthy root development in plants.

In Michigan freshwater systems – including the Huron River – phosphorus is the limiting nutrient. In other words, the amount of phosphorus in the system controls the growth of plants and algae. Under natural conditions, phosphorus concentrations in freshwater systems are very low, and plants are efficient at getting the nutrients they need.

When excess phosphorus runs off from lawns into lakes and streams, it quickly accelerates the growth of algae and aquatic plants. One could understand, then, how unnecessary applications of phosphorus on land and subsequent runoff into lakes and rivers can lead to significant surface water quality problems.

Just one pound of phosphorus can stimulate the growth of 500 pounds of algae!

As those algae die and decompose, the decay process consumes dissolved oxygen, reducing the available oxygen supply for fish and other aquatic organisms.

Too much phosphorus contributes to the growth of nuisance aquatic vegetation and algae, not just in Ford and Belleville lakes downstream, but in Ann Arbor’s Huron River impoundments (Barton, Argo, and Geddes ponds). Nuisance plant growth reduces the quality of the habitat for aquatic organisms, and it impacts recreational activities like swimming, boating, canoeing, kayaking, rowing, and angling.

Why Did We Focus on Lawn Fertilizer?

Non-point sources of phosphorus in stormwater include soil and fertilizer run-off. Allen, Malletts, Millers, Swift Run, and Traver creeksheds all contribute high phosphorus loads to the Huron River in Ann Arbor. Reducing the application and subsequent runoff of phosphorus by implementing a formal policy regarding lawn fertilizers provided the city the opportunity to meet water quality goals at a relatively low cost.

Moreover, it turns out additional phosphorus is not even needed for healthy turf in most of southeast Michigan. In general, turf fertilizers are developed for national distribution, and they all contain the three macronutrients required for plant growth: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Data from Michigan State University (MSU) Extension shows southeast Michigan soils have adequate phosphorus levels, and, in most cases, do not need supplements to support healthy lawns. Plants cannot absorb the excess phosphorus, and it runs off into our waterways.

Another compelling reason to focus on phosphorus fertilizer was the result of a modeling effort that showed a significant reduction in phosphorus loading to the Huron River was possible if there were full city-wide compliance with a fertilizer ordinance. This modeling, completed as part of the Malletts Creek Restoration Study, showed 100% compliance with the phosphorus ordinance in Malletts Creekshed alone would reduce phosphorus loading by 560 pounds per year. Extrapolating to include all Ann Arbor creeksheds, the expected reduction in total phosphorus was 22%. Two years of post-ordinance data show the expected reductions are on target with observations – total phosphorus levels were 28% lower on average in 2008 and 17% lower in 2009.

What Does Ann Arbor’s Ordinance Require?

Ann Arbor’s ordinance applies only to manufactured lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus. In general, it prohibits the application of phosphorus fertilizers. There are exceptions to the rules if you are establishing new turf or if a soil test from the past three years demonstrates a need for supplemental phosphorus.

For lawn fertilizers, the phosphorus-free varieties list “0” as the middle number on the packaging. Phosphorus free lawn fertilizers are readily available from Ann Arbor retailers. Remember to choose “the hero with the zero.”

Phosphorus and the Rest of the River

Ann Arbor is not the only Huron River watershed community with regulations regarding phosphorus lawn fertilizer. Commerce Township, Hamburg Township, the city of Orchard Lake Village, Charter Township of Pittsfield, and Charter Township of Ypsilanti all have similar ordinances. Several other communities and counties throughout the state have passed or are considering phosphorus fertilizer bans.

With more communities pursuing phosphorus regulations, fertilizer companies and suppliers do worry that it will be difficult to comply with a patchwork of phosphorus fertilizer regulations. Many are responsive to a uniform statewide policy. A statewide ban on phosphorus lawn fertilizer, like the one currently being considered in Lansing by Michigan lawmakers, would provide clarity on guidelines among manufacturers and consumers, and it would eliminate the problem of having to keep track of a range of rules.

Michigan House Bill 5368, introduced by state Rep. Terry Brown (D-Pigeon), would prohibit property owners from using lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus unless a soil test indicates the existing phosphorus level is too low, or the property owner is establishing new turf. The bill is currently pending in the Great Lakes and Environment Committee. If passed and signed into law, Michigan would join Minnesota, Maine, Florida, and Wisconsin as states that have passed phosphorus lawn fertilizer regulations in the past five years.

Paths to Contribution

Cleaner water starts in your yard.

We’re all part of the Huron River watershed, and how we take care of the land impacts our local streams, the river and our neighbors downstream.

Keep lawn care pollutants out of the river by following these tips:

• Take proper care of your lawn to reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer. Maintain the lawn at a minimum height of three inches and, when you mow, cut no more than one-third the height of the grass. Taller grass has a deeper, healthier root system, is more tolerant of drought, and resists weed infestation. When you mow, mulch the clipping back into the lawn to add nitrogen and organic matter to the soil.
• Choose phosphorus-free fertilizer. Most area lawns already have adequate phosphorus supplies.
• Have the soil tested before applying it, if you think your lawn needs phosphorus,. Contact your county MSU Extension office to find out how to submit a soil sample. On Saturdays throughout April, you can bring a soil sample to one of several Washtenaw County retailers for testing by the MSU Extension. See this flier for more information, including instructions for collecting a soil sample.
• Keep fertilizer on the lawn, and off hard pavement. Immediately sweep up any spills, especially on sidewalks and driveways, with a broom. Never wash spilled fertilizers off pavement with a hose.
• Never apply fertilizer right before a storm or to frozen ground.
• Avoid applying fertilizer within 25 feet of any wetland, stream, waterway, or stormwater basin.
• Prevent soil erosion from your property – phosphorus binds to sediment, and finds its way to waterways when soils run off during wet weather events.

In addition to practicing river-safe lawn care, make an effort to purchase other phosphorus-free products. Did you know that some dishwasher detergents can contain up to 8% phosphorus? Choosing low or no-phosphorus products reduces the amount of nutrient that must be removed at the wastewater treatment plant, which is Ann Arbor’s largest source of phosphorus to the Huron River. Beginning July 1, 2010, manufacturers will no longer be allowed to sell detergents with more than 0.5% phosphorus in Michigan.

Voice your support for statewide phosphorus lawn fertilizer legislation. Contact your state representative to speak in support of statewide restrictions on phosphorus lawn fertilizer use. This law will help improve water quality in streams and rivers statewide, and in the Great Lakes.

Finally, celebrate the Huron River this spring, summer and fall.

Get to know the amazing resource flowing through the heart of our city by taking a canoe trip, visiting riverfront parks, or volunteering to keep natural areas in good condition.

A student stands next to the sculpture-in-progress by William Dennisuk, in the studio of the University of Michigan School of Art & Design. When finished, the piece made of bronze rods will be flipped – its base is at the top of the photo. (Photos by the writer.)

William Dennisuk is still waiting for the state to sign off on a public art installation that could dot a stretch of the Huron River with large vase-like sculptures. As he waits, he spends most of his days in a studio, hoping to complete the project before he returns to Finland later this year.

The Chronicle first met Dennisuk – a visiting artist and lecturer at the University of Michigan School of Art & Design – when he came to the October 2009 meeting of the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission. He described his project, called Vessels, as a way to bring together the city and campus communities, and to raise awareness about how we interact with the natural world.

When The Chronicle dropped by the art school’s studio recently to get an update on the project, Dennisuk said that working through the required approval process took longer than expected. Also taking longer than projected was working through his own learning curve for some new techniques he’s trying with these sculptures.

Although he had hoped to install his artwork in April, now it looks like late May will be a more realistic goal.

Who Decides? Navigating Red Tape

A native of the Detroit area who now lives and teaches in Finland, Dennisuk has been supported this academic year as a visiting artist by the UM School of Art & Design’s Witt Residency program. In materials submitted to the city’s park advisory commission last year, here’s how he describes his vision:

I would like to see artworks, projects, interventions and performances which illuminate hidden or neglected dimensions of nature, while perhaps also redefining our relationships toward it. While the immediate goal of this project would be to heighten visitors’ experience of the parks and pathways of Ann Arbor, what I am aiming for is a wide‐ranging examination of how our various disciplines can shed light on our relationship with the environment.

In this public art project I would like to see what Robert Irwin defines as a, ‘site‐determined’ approach to the public space. This approach stands in contrast to the sculpture‐park or gallery outof‐doors approach to the public space. In this respect the object or artwork should be considered as only one of the elements within a wider matrix of considerations. In this site‐determined approach each artwork, performance or intervention should evolve out of an intimate dialogue with a particular setting.

This approach to the public space calls for a hands‐on assessment of the various levels in which we move through and experience a particular site: all the tactile or haptic components, the particular historical context, personal memory and emotional layers, how people use the site, the overall social/political atmosphere, as well as the intangible dimensions each site engenders. It is my hope that if this detailed “reading” of the various sites along the Huron River can be conjoined with developments in our respective disciplines we could see the beginning of a new model for engaging the environment; one that arise out of an on‐going dialogue with the world around us.

Last fall, Dennisuk began exploring what kinds of permissions he’d need to install his artwork both on campus and along stretches of the Huron River that run through city parks. Conceived of as a temporary public art project, these large sculptures – standing six or seven feet tall – would appear to hover above the water, affixed to steel bases that would be weighted down in the riverbed with heavy stones. He’s hoping to place the artwork at a location in the river next to Riverside Park, Gallup Park and Nichols Arboretum, plus at two locations on UM’s north campus.

He discovered there’s no single place you can go to get information about doing a public art installation, especially one that crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries. For the city, he talked with parks staff as well as the park advisory commission, attending PAC meetings in October and November 2009 to explain what he was hoping to do.

William Dennisuk, in a fabrication studio at the UM School of Art & Design.

Dennisuk couldn’t attend PAC’s December 2009 meeting, but two UM staff members came to speak on his behalf: Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors programs at the UM School of Art & Design who also oversees the Witt Residency program; and Heather Blatnik, with the university’s environmental permitting program.

Blatnik told PAC that the project needed a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – because it involved placing artwork in the Huron River. As part of the application process, MDEQ required a signature from the city.

At that meeting, Hamilton and Blatnik also addressed some concerns expressed by PAC members – for example, they explained that UM’s insurance would cover liability.  The commissioners unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the university’s application to the MDEQ for a permit for Dennisuk’s project.

Since then, the MDEQ has merged with the state’s Dept. of Natural Resources – it’s now the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment. Reached by The Chronicle last week, DNRE spokesperson Linda Jones said that on Feb. 11, 2010, a public notice of the application was posted and sent to public officials in this area, including the Ann Arbor city clerk and the Washtenaw County health department, among others. That triggered a 20-day public comment period, she said, which is required by law for work that’s done in or over Michigan’s inland waters.

When that period passed, Jones said, the application and file were forwarded to the DNRE’s regional office in Jackson, which oversees an area that includes Washtenaw County. The Chronicle hasn’t yet received a response to calls placed to the staff member there who’s handling the permit.

The application cost $500 – Dennisuk said the state agreed to combine the three sites into one application, rather than charging for three separate applications.

Aside from the pieces near the parks, Dennisuk plans to place two similar sculptures on UM’s north campus: In the formal reflecting pool next to the Lurie Engineering Center, and in a pond next to the School of Music. (He hopes to install the reflecting pool sculpture on April 30 – in time for commencement ceremonies and President Obama’s visit to campus.)

The artist's rendering of his sculpture as it might appear in the Lurie Engineering Center's reflecting pool on UM's north campus.

For those two pieces, he’s had to navigate a different path to permission. He told The Chronicle that there seems to be several avenues for placing public art.

If the art goes into a building on campus, you need permission from the top administrator. For example, if you wanted to put your work in the Lurie Biomedical Engineering Building, you’d need permission from the dean of the College of Engineering. Plant maintenance supervisors would also have a say.

For artwork on campus grounds, there are several groups that might need to vet a project, including the Dept. of Public Safety (if security needs to be on site during installation), grounds maintenance, the campus External Elements Design Review Committee, and the UM president’s Advisory Committee on Public Art.

Dennisuk is sanguine about the process. The good news, he said, both with the city and the university, is that nobody he’s encountered has been antagonistic about the project. “That’s been encouraging,” he says.

Trying New Techniques: A Learning Curve

Seeking permits hasn’t been the only challenge. Dennisuk points to his own learning curve, as he tries new techniques and materials for these sculptures. For one, he’s been learning to use a new computer numerically controlled (CNC) system to design the artwork – the School of Art & Design has some sophisticated software and equipment, he says.

William Dennison holds copies of computer-generated images of his sculpture designs.

Materials have been a challenge, too. Rather than using iron, as he has in the past, Dennison is making the new pieces out of bronze rods, which he describes as a “very difficult material to work with.” If the metal overheats when it’s being welded, “it will bend in ways you don’t want it to,” he said.

Another complicating factor: Dennisuk’s designs for some of the sculptures in this project are more complex than his usual approach of welding horizontal and vertical bars. Some of the pieces require twisting the metal, a process that takes longer to execute, he said.

It also takes a delicate touch to weld two round rods together. Depending on what angle you’re using, the torch interacts with the metal differently, causing it to flatten or crimp.

That difficulty is in evidence on one of his nearly finished sculptures in a School of Art & Design fabrication studio, located in a building off of Fuller Road. The piece is checkered with small slips of green paper, which Dennisuk explains are used to mark some “lousy” welds. Someone at the school who’s more of an expert in working with bronze will be helping him fix those spots, he said.

Beyond strengthening the welds, Dennisuk plans to sandblast the piece, then apply a patina to give the bronze a slightly greenish cast. The idea is to help it better set into its environment, he says, so that it appears to be emerging more naturally from the river. Bronze would normally develop a patina on its own, but that process would take several years. At this point, the sculptures are planned as temporary installations, to be removed at the end of the summer.

William Dennisuk points to problematic welds on a sculpture he's making that he hopes to eventually place in the Huron River.

Green tags mark problematic welds on a bronze sculpture by William Dennisuk.

A nearly finished bronze sculpture by William Dennisuk, suspended from a wooden frame in a studio at the UM School of Art & Design.

William Dennisuk's rendering of his bronze sculpture as it might appear when installed in the Huron River, next to Riverside Park.

Another rendering by the artist of a bronze sculpture as envisioned in Gallup Park.

This image shows how wire sculptures on the Huron River might appear, if a public art project proposed by a University of Michigan visiting professor gets approval from the state and city. (Image courtesy of William Dennisuk.)

At its Dec. 15 meeting, park commissioners raised concerns but ultimately signed off on a city staff proposal to use parts of Allmendinger and Frisinger parks for football parking during the 2010 season. The plan could raise an estimated $34,000 in net revenues for the city.

In a separate move, the commission gave the go ahead for UM to apply for a state permit that’s needed to install a series of wire sculptures at four locations along the Huron River, from Argo to Gallup. It’s an ambitious project by UM visiting artist William Dennisuk, designed to bridge the town/gown communities – assuming that the project itself gets approval from the city and state.

Commissioners also got a budget update from Jayne Miller, the city’s community services director, who told them to anticipate additional cuts over the next two years, and described how that might affect parks and recreation.

Budget Update

Jayne Miller, Ann Arbor’s community services director, spoke to commissioners to give an update on the city’s budget. Her responsibilities include supervising parks and recreation.

The city has a two-year budget cycle, Miller explained. Typically, the city council will adopt the budget for the first year and approve the second-year plan, which will later be adjusted as necessary. Usually, those adjustments for the second year are minor, Miller said. “That’s not the case this year.”

Last year, the city council dealt with budgets for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. The city is currently in the middle of FY 2010, which ends June 30, 2010. Staff is starting to work on revisions to the FY2011 budget plan, which begins July 1, 2010. Miller told commissioners that starting in January, Colin Smith – manager of parks and recreation – would be working with them on budget recommendations to send to the city council by April.

Also starting in January, the city will be implementing $3.3 million in cuts to the current general fund budget, Miller said. In addition, they’re looking to cut an additional $5.4 million in FY2011, she said. From FY2010 through FY2012, the city will likely need to make as much as a 30% reduction in its general fund budget. “I wanted to set the tone so you understand the magnitude of the challenge,” Miller said.

Parks programs will be affected in several ways. Miller noted that Mack Pool and the Ann Arbor Senior Center are slated to close as of July 1. [City council appointed task forces earlier this year to work on ways to keep Mack Pool and the senior center open. See recent Chronicle coverage: "Task Force Tries to Save Senior Center" and "More Options for Ann Arbor's Mack Pool"]

In addition, mowing cycles for parks will be extended from 14 days to 19 days, starting in the spring. And the city is eliminating hand-trimming contracts in the parks, to save about $140,000 annually.

Like other areas supported by the general fund, the parks and recreation unit is being asked to cut 7.74% from its FY 2011 budget, Miller said. Some of the possibilities to explore, she said, included asking voters to rescind or re-purpose the parks millage, forming a public/private partnership for Huron Hills Golf Course, discontinuing some maintenance in the parks and getting more volunteers to help with that, or selling some parkland, among other things. Responding to a query from commissioner David Barrett, Miller said the city would be open to exploring a public/private partnership for the city-owned soccer fields as well.

Another possibility is some sort of collaboration with the Ann Arbor Public Schools and Washtenaw County, Miller said.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember representing Ward 5, said he thought working with the schools and county was a good approach, but that there will be cuts as well. “Bottom line, there’s going to be a lot of hurt, and services will disappear – and that’s the reality of it,” he said.

Christopher Taylor, another city councilmember (Ward 3) who like Anglin serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, said the commission can help by providing guidance to city council.

Commissioners also discussed how a focus on the budget would affect staff time and other projects. Smith said he was still trying to prioritize, but that he would need to spend the majority of his time on budget-related issues and task forces. That meant some projects would be put on hold, he said.

Football Parking at Two Parks

Under direction from city council, the parks and recreation staff explored the possibility of having parking in city parks during University of Michigan home football games. Staff proposed allowing parking in two parks – Allmendinger and Frisinger – during home games this fall. At its Dec. 15 meeting, the park advisory commission discussed how this would work, raised some concerns, but ultimately approved the proposal, which will now be forwarded to city council.

[A resolution allowing parking at Frisinger appeared on, but was subsequently yanked from, the city council's Oct. 5, 2009 agenda. Opposition to parking at Frisinger Park can be anticipated from Margie Teall (Ward 4), in whose ward it's located. Parking at the two parks is not a part of the resolution on parking to be considered at the city council's Dec. 21 meeting.]

Public Commentary

During the time set aside for public commentary, two people spoke about the football parking proposal.

Nancy Leff, chair of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association, said she was opposed to this proposal. She asked that the city consider a range of questions: How much will the city net in revenues? How much will they have to pay attendants during the games? How will cleanup occur? What kind of overtime will be incurred for city staff? Whenever tailgating occurs, there’s a tremendous amount of trash generated, she said. Additionally, if the weather is bad, vehicles will tear up the ground. Most of all, she said, she’s concerned that residents won’t have access to these parks for eight Saturdays during the fall. Asking whether the city has done a cost/benefit analysis, Leff wondered if the revenue raised was really worth it.

Helen Cerey also spoke against the proposal. The parks are a great refuge for neighbors, she said, especially during football games. She described herself as a walker, and said she walked on sidewalks that were supposed to be maintained by the city, but weren’t. Given an even further reduction in the city budget, she wondered whether there would be sufficient resources to return the parks to their proper condition each week, so that they would be usable for residents, especially children.

Staff Report

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, told commissioners that earlier this year, city council had directed staff to explore the issue of football parking in the parks. In putting together this proposal, several people and groups were consulted, he said, including Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations; Jessica Black, who supervises events planning; the city forester, Kay Sicheneder; the police department;  and community standards personnel.

Based on that feedback, the staff proposed allowing parking in Allmendinger and Frisinger parks during the seven home UM football games next fall. Game days in 2010 are Sept. 4, 11 and 25, Oct. 9 and 16, and Nov. 6 and 20.

Staff estimate that Allmendinger – bounded by Pauline, Edgewood, Potter and Hutchins streets – would accommodate 350 vehicles at $15 each. Frisinger, at East Stadium and Woodbury, would park 200, with a proposed fee of $10 each.

The proposal calls for four people to work during game day at each park, to oversee the parking. Smith also provided a list of recommended guidelines. They include:

The city won’t be responsible for the loss or damage to vehicles or their contents parked for football games.

The city prohibits possession of open intoxicants and the consumption of alcoholic beverages within Allmendinger and Frisinger parks.

Spaces are available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Spaces may not be reserved for later-arriving vehicles.

Vehicles may begin parking at 8 a.m. on home football game days. Overnight parking is prohibited. All vehicles must vacate the parks within two hours after the end of the game or vehicles may be towed.

No RVs or buses are allowed.

Parking area personnel will have final decision on the location of vehicles.

There will be no parking on days where there is high likelihood of rain or the prior inclement weather has rendered the parks unsuitable for parking vehicles. Final decision of parking and rain will take place on the Friday before the game and will be posted on the city’s website, Twitter account and Facebook account.

The following breakdown of revenues and expenses assumes parking during all seven games.

Frisinger:     Expenses       Revenues
Vehicles
  200 @ $10                    $14,000
Porta-Johns (4)  $1,320
Trash barrels      $325
Trash pickup     $1,260
Site prep          $532
Materials          $500
Site restoration   $685
Staff            $2,394
Total            $7,016         14,000

NET REVENUE                    $ 6,984
-

Allmendinger:  Expenses       Revenues
Vehicles
  350 @ $15                    $36,750
Porta-Johns (6)  $1,980
Trash barrels       520
Trash pickup      1,610
Site prep           840
Materials           950
Site restoration  1,184
Staff             2,394
Total             9,478         36,750

NET REVENUE                    $27,272

-

Inclement weather was factored into estimates of revenues, Smith told commissioners. If parking occurs during only six games, due to bad weather, net revenues would be $22,714 at Allmendinger and $5,528 at Frisinger. For only five games, Allmendinger would net $18,156 in revenues, with $4,180 from Frisinger.

Combined revenues are estimated to be as high as $34,256 for all seven games, or as low as $22,336 is the parks are used for only five games.

Commission Deliberations

Commissioner concerns had several themes, including safety and liability, impact on the parks and residents, and the “worth it” factor – whether the effort and impact to the city was worth the additional revenues.

Sam Offen asked who would enforce the no-alcohol policy – that’s an issue for parking at the Pioneer High School property too, he noted. Smith responded that they’ve talked with police, who suggest putting up signs and having literature on hand describing the policy. Each park will also have four staff members on site, he added, who can watch out for alcohol use. If there’s a problem, staff would call police. In response to a query from Christopher Taylor, Smith said that non-alcoholic tailgating would be allowed.

Offen also wanted to know if children would have access to the playground area on football Saturdays. Yes, Smith said. Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, said certain parts of the park were out of the mix – there’ll be no parking in the playgrounds, he said, nor underneath the drip lines for trees in the park (the area underneath a tree’s canopy).

Tim Berla expressed concern about the ability of staff to clean up the parks in a timely way. If it’s going to be a problem, he said, it wasn’t worth doing – the city’s parks are too valuable to risk damaging. Warba said it was not unlike managing other large events that happen on a regular basis at city parks. Smith added that in many cases, big events are held at the parks that staff doesn’t know about in advance, but they respond with clean-up as soon as possible. In the case of football Saturdays, he said, they’ll be prepared and can staff appropriately to handle the job.

The staff knows they’ll be under a microscope on this, Warba said, adding that there will likely be residents going to the parks on Sunday mornings just to check on the aftermath.

Berla suggested doing outreach to residents in the neighborhoods served by Allmendinger and Frisinger, by providing phone numbers of people to call if there’s a problem on game day or with clean-up. Smith said they could also include information about nearby alternatives to those two parks, such as Woodbury Park.

John Lawter applauded the staff’s creativity, but said he’d had experience with this kind of thing in a different city, where they eventually pulled the plug on parking. “Tailgating is nasty,” he said, with charcoal ashes and chicken bones getting buried in the ground. He suggested that staff do an evaluation after every game – it might not be worth the negative publicity. Smith said they were only looking at the 2010 for just that reason – they would evaluate how things went, and that would determine whether they continue the program in 2011.

Offen wanted to know why the parking rates were so low. Warba allowed that they were being conservative in their pricing, and that they could probably get more out of both locations. Taylor said he imagined that residents who had parking on their property wouldn’t be pleased to be undercut by the city. Smith said that in the past, the city had been overly optimistic in its estimates and he didn’t want to get into that situation again. However, he agreed that they didn’t want to undercut, either.

Taylor also asked whether it would be possible to allow parking, but not tailgating. The majority of concerns seemed to human-based, not car-based, he said, and “we can set the rules.” Smith said that tailgating is a reality of pre-game parking, especially if you’re in a park. It’s easier for staff to plan for that than to try to enforce a no-tailgating policy, he said.

Offen offered that perhaps selling reserved spots would be a better approach. That way, the city would know exactly who’d be parking there – people would get a dependable spot, and the city would know who to contact is someone caused a problem. Jessica Black, who supervises event planning and scheduling for parks and recreation, said they’d talked about using the city’s booking system for selling reserved spots. They decided that they’d revisit that possibility after seeing how the first season unfolded – it would be a bit of a challenge to set up, she said.

David Barrett commented that they were in an awkward position, given that the “Poseidon Adventure” wave was about to hit the city. “This wave is coming to shore, and I applaud you for trying to get out in front of it,” he told staff.

Smith said that $30,000 might not seem like a lot, but as an example, it’s almost exactly the amount of the gap between revenues and expenses to operate Veteran’s Memorial Park ice arena.

Outcome: The resolution recommending that parking be allowed in Allmendinger and Frisinger parks during 2010 Saturday home games for UM football passed, with Scott Rosencrans and Doug Chapman dissenting. City council will take up the issue at an upcoming meeting.

Art in the Huron River

The park advisory commission has heard from William Dennisuk at its previous two meetings, on Oct. 20 and Nov. 17. Dennisuk lives in Finland but this year is a visiting artist and lecturer through the University of Michigan’s Witt Residency program. He’s proposing an art installation in and near the Huron River, as a way to conceptually bridge the town and campus communities.

Public Commentary

Dennisuk did not attend PAC’s December meeting. However, two other people, both with the University of Michigan, spoke in support of his project.

Chrisstina Hamilton, director of visitors programs at the UM School of Art & Design, told commissioners that she runs the popular Penny W. Stamps Distinguished Visitors Series and the Witt Residency program, which is supporting Dennisuk this academic year. Hamilton said the university is in full support of his project – it’s being supported with $35,000 in funds from the Witt program. She described his project as a great way to engage the Ann Arbor community. After talking with city staff, the student component has been removed from the piece of the project that connects with the city, she said – student work will be placed on university property, in Nichols Arboretum and Matthaei Botanical Gardens. She said they looked forward to working with the city, and that the university would be flexible in responding to the city’s concerns.

Heather Blatnik, with the university’s environmental permitting program, explained that in order for the project to proceed, they needed to apply for a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. As part of the application process, MDEQ required a signature from the city, which owns property along the river where Dennisuk is proposing to place his artwork.

Staff Report

Amy Kuras, a city park planner, reported that she’d talked about the project with Bob Grese, director of Nichols Arboretum and Matthaei Botanical Gardens, and Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, as well as other city and university staff. City staff thought it was an exciting proposal, she said, and were generally in favor of it.

There were some concerns, however. Putting anything in the river could be controversial, Kuras said, adding that there was discussion about the need for a process to ensure the public was on board. City staff also had questions about who’d be checking the installations to make sure they weren’t vandalized or filled with garbage. Curiosity from the public can be both a benefit and a drawback, she noted. And if one of the works were vandalized, it’s still not clear how that would be handled. Some of the other concerns had been addressed by Dennisuk in a packet provided to the commission. [.PDF file of material related to Dennisuk's project]

Commission Deliberations

Scott Rosencrans, who chairs the commission, said he’d had several questions that Dennisuk had answered – the questions and answers were provided in the commission’s meeting packet. Tim Berla asked whether staff felt confident that the installations wouldn’t have a negative impact on canoeing, rowing or kayaking. Colin Smith reported that Cheryl Saam, facilities supervisor for the city’s canoe liveries, was on board with the project and the proposed locations – in Argo Pond, near the Broadway Street bridge, in Nichols Arboretum and in Gallup Park. However, Smith said he’d just recently talked with the head of a rowing team that uses Argo Pond, and the location there will have to be reconsidered. Right now, it’s proposed for an area that rowers use to turn their boats. [.PDF file showing proposed locations for the river art project]

Several commissioner mentioned the need to inform the public – Kuras said the staff had discussed the idea of holding a series of public meetings about the project.

Commissioners also questioned what authority they had to act. In response to a statement from Rosencrans, Kuras clarified that city council doesn’t need to sign off on the request to apply for an MDEQ permit.

Kuras noted that even if the university applied for and received a permit from the MDEQ, that doesn’t mean the city would be forced to give its permission, too. Hamilton said that at this stage, the university was simply asking the city – via PAC – for permission to apply for the MDEQ permit. That allows MDEQ to start the process. If at any point the state or the city says no, then the project is “off the table,” she said.

Hamilton further assured commissioners that the university’s insurance would cover this project, that they’re also paying for materials, installation and maintenance, as well as signs and literature promoting the project.

Several commissioners expressed support for the project, at this stage. There was some discussion about the level of detail needed in a resolution giving permission to apply. They settled on a fairly short resolution with this resolved clause: “Be it resolved that the Ann Arbor park advisory commission endorses the University of Michigan’s making of an application to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for approval of the project.”

Outcome: The resolution endorsing the university’s making of an application to the MDEQ for a permit for William Dennisuk’s public art project on the Huron River was unanimously approved.

City/Parks Agreement Renegotiated

An agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Public Schools’ Rec & Ed program – governing the use of city-owned fields – expired in November. According to a memorandum from Colin Smith, the city’s manager of the parks and recreation, the new agreement differs in the following respects. The new agreement:

• Covers all AAPS use of park space for sports including, but not limited to, soccer, field hockey, flag football, and lacrosse. The expiring agreement pertained only to baseball, softball, and kickball.

• Better outlines City responsibilities for baseball field conditions.

• Allows for AAPS to groom any designated park space for the purposes of preparing the field for interscholastic baseball or softball games.

• Provides for supplies of infield material to be stored at fields so that on-going field maintenance may occur.

• Allows the City and AAPS to renew this agreement if mutually agreed upon in writing.

• Allows the City greater flexibility in scheduling and programming events on certain City Parks by better reflecting AAPS usage levels.

[.PDF file of full agreement]

Commissioner Sam Offen asked whether money would be changing hands. Smith said that fees for third-party users hadn’t changed. There’s no set amount mentioned in the agreement for Rec & Ed’s payment to the city, he added, because Rec & Ed collects fees during the season, and their payment to the city depends on usage. The same applies to Rec & Ed’s payment for ballpark lighting.

Outcome: The commission unanimously passed a resolution recommending that city council approve the agreement.

HRIMP Report Redux

During the section of the meeting reserved for communications from commissioners, Christopher Taylor reported that city council, at its Dec. 7 meeting, had voted to ask the park advisory commission and the environmental commission to review the 30 recommendations in the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan, known as HRIMP. [Those had been considered consensus recommendations and did not include the two conflicting recommendations related to Argo Dam – the HRIMP committee could not agree on recommending that the city remove the dam or keep it in, and that question remains unresolved.]

Now, PAC and the environmental commission are being asked to identify which of those 30 so-called consensus recommendations could be implemented with little or no cost to the city. The council would like a plan for implementation within a year, Taylor said. He noted that council had a “fulsome discussion” about the report, and that there was no longer a sense that the recommendations reflected a consensus.

Scott Rosencrans, PAC’s chair, took issue with the characterization of the 30 HRIMP recommendations as not reflecting a consensus. After a healthy debate, they were submitted by a unanimous vote, he said. Taylor responded that the public conversation has evolved since then, to the point that city councilmembers no longer felt comfortable giving their imprimatur to the consensus.

PAC won’t be able to get to the task for a few months, Rosencrans said. It would be valuable, he added, if the commission could get some criteria from council for doing the review, as well as information about funding sources. Taylor stated that the request is to review the HRIMP report regarding recommendations that can be implemented with little or no cost.

Public Commentary: Misc

John Satarino, a former park advisory commissioner, said he represented hundreds of activists and thousands of taxpayers, park users and staff who’ve created a beautiful and utilitarian park system. He wanted to share concerns about the Fuller Road Station project. Since the ’70s, he said, activists have worked to keep the Fuller Road corridor a green, rolling vista – but the University of Michigan has never fully bought into that view. He said that appeasing the university or anyone who has designs on the city’s parkland or park resources sets a dangerous precedent. He urged the commission to take a long look at the proposal for the transit station, and to consider the benefits for the average park user. There aren’t many, he said. Satarino also asked the commission to help disseminate information about the proposal and hold a public hearing on it. [The Fuller Road Station is a proposed UM/city project that includes building a parking structure for 1,020 vehicles on city-owned property that's designated as parkland. Most recently, at its Nov. 5 meeting, Ann Arbor city council approved two resolutions related to the project, including a memorandum of understanding with the university. UM currently leases a portion of the site for a surface parking lot.]

David Walsh told commissioners that he was representing both himself and his neighbors. On Oct. 31, the neighborhood suffered a loss, he said. A house at 1701 Waverly Road burned, killing three people. He reported that the city finally cleaned up the lot, and that the neighbors are hoping it can be turned into a community garden or park.

Present: John Lawter, Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen, David Barrett, Scott Rosencrans, Julie Grand, Doug Chapman, Karen Levin, Tim Berla, Mike Anglin (ex-officio), Christopher Taylor (ex-officio)

Next meeting: Tuesday, Jan. 19 at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

Mayor John Hieftje also gave some additional detail on a proposal he’d mentioned at the council’s budget retreat on Saturday: an across-the-board wage cut of 3% for all city employees, which would include councilmembers.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) presents his case for having a plan for the Huron River. (Photos by the writer)

Though the topics of firefighters and wage cuts were mentioned during the council’s communications section of the meeting, what pushed the meeting to nearly midnight were deliberations on two resolutions: (i) a three-year reduction of the Percent for Art program to effectively a “Half-Percent for Art” program, and (ii) acceptance of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP).

Both resolutions passed, though the HRIMP resolution was heavily amended. The material effect of the amendment was that it was not technically “accepted” by the council, but rather remanded to the city’s park advisory commission and the environmental commission.

In a similar parliamentary move, but with no discussion, the council also returned the area, height and placement (AHP) project to the planning commission.

The council postponed its appointment of new council committees, as well as a resolution to purchase parking meters to be installed on Wall Street. That was the second time the parking meter resolution had been postponed.

In other business, the council approved a move to new accounting software, two greenbelt acquisitions, and funds for remodeling the city’s 911 dispatch center so that it can accommodate co-location with the county’s dispatch center.

Council also authorized a change order to the Buhr ice rink project that illustrated the crunch currently being experienced by the city’s planning and development staff.

Two resolutions were passed in support of affordable housing: one to exempt eligible nonprofit housing providers from property taxes for up to two years, and another expressing support for the efforts of the Inter-Cooperative Council to secure federal funding.

The council also authorized the city attorney to take the action he’d recommended in a closed session held to discuss the pending lawsuit the city faces over the underground parking garage that is starting construction at the Library Lot.

Balanced against some of the bleaker and contentious items on the agenda was a mayoral proclamation honoring Pioneer track coach Don Sleeman, who has some interesting connections to personalities at the city of Ann Arbor.

In Part I of this council report, we handle the HRIMP resolution, the Percent for Art resolution, and budget issues (a possible 3% across-the-board wage cut and firefighter layoffs.)

HRIMP Resolution

In the course of council deliberations on the HRIMP resolution, much of the history of the HRIMP committee’s work and its context emerged, which we present here in summary form.

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

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan produced by the committee contains 30 recommendations labeled “consensus recommendations,” with two others on which there was no consensus. The two non-consensus resolutions contradicted each other, with one calling for the removal of Argo Dam and the other calling for its preservation. Much of the public engagement focused exclusively on the dam-in/dam-out question. Part of the context for that question was a problem with toe drains, identified by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, in the earthen embankment adjacent to the concrete and steel dam, which separates the headrace.

In May of 2009 the city’s environmental commission voted in support of dam removal, while the city’s park advisory commission voted for its preservation. [Chronicle coverage: "City Council To Weigh Mixed Advice on Dam"]

The city council held a work session in July at which they received the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) flips through a copy of the HRIMP report.

In October, the council considered, but ultimately tabled, a resolution that called for the city to repair the toe drains in the earthen embankment adjoining the dam. [Chronicle coverage: "Still No Dam Decision"]

Repairing the toe drains would have addressed the dispute between the city and the MDEQ over the drains. A temporary understanding between the city and the MDEQ was reached in late October, which resulted in the closure of the headrace next to the dam. [Chronicle coverage: "City, MDEQ Agree: Argo Headrace Shut"]

At the Nov. 5 city council meeting, the council approved $38,000 in attorney fees to support the contested case the city was pursuing against the MDEQ.

The resolution to accept the committee’s plan was first considered at the council’s Nov. 16 meeting, but postponed until Dec. 7. At the council’s Sunday caucus on Dec. 6, the focus of discussion was on the difference between “approving” the plan and “accepting” it, with the option of “receiving” it also thrown into the mix. [Chronicle coverage: "Huron River Plan, Percent for Art Program also Discussed"]

During council’s Dec. 7 meeting, the resolution would be amended by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who’d co-sponsored the resolution with Margie Teall (Ward 4). The original “Resolved” clauses were as follows:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council accepts the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan and the 30 consensus recommendations in the Plan;

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council supports the establishment of a River Stewardship Committee (RSC) to provide oversight to the implementation of the Plan;

RESOLVED, That the RSC should be created with representatives from the Environmental Commission, Energy Commission, and Park Advisory Commission and others appointed by City Council with expertise in river science (e.g., ecology, hydrology) and river recreation (e.g., canoeing, rowing, angling, and other user groups);

RESOLVED, That the RSC is to be supported by staff from Systems Planning, Natural Area Preservation, Field Operations, and Parks and Recreation Services;

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council shall appoint the members of the RSC, including one Council representative, within the next 60 days;

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council directs the RSC to provide an implementation plan with funding needs and proposed funding strategies, including language for a river millage, within 6 months;

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council recommends that operation and maintenance of the recreational dams (Argo and Geddes) not be funded from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund; and

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council recommends that funds currently used for the operation and maintenance of the recreational dams from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund be reallocated to implement the Source Water Protection Plan to protect Ann Arbor’s Drinking Water.

In the course of the meeting, when Hohnke’s amendment removed mention of the funding shift, mayor John Hieftje stressed that the intent to shift dam maintenance funding out of the water fund to parks and recreation was part of the budgeting plan for FY 2011. The reasons why it’s a potential legal problem to fund dam maintenance out of the drinking water fund were explored to some extent at the council’s caucus the night before.

Several speakers during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting commented on the resolution.

Public Commentary on HRIMP

A common theme among those who spoke against the resolution was that the consensus recommendations did not actually reflect a consensus of the 18-member HRIMP committee.

A member of the HRIMP committee, Michael Taft, told the council he had represented the “rowing community” on the committee, which was not, he stressed, a single entity. He reported that he felt like the outcome of the committee’s work was “predetermined” and that not all information was allowed to be used. Based on some of the scientific data that had emerged subsequent to the completion of the committee’s report, he believed that today there would not be consensus on all of the 30 “consensus” recommendations.

Another member of the HRIMP committee, David Barrett, contended there was not a consensus on the committee for a shift in the dam maintenance funding source from the drinking water fund to user groups. That was a something that had been put through by the committee’s chair, David Stead, at the very last meeting of the committee in April, Barrett said.

Jeff DeBoer, who actually led off public commentary on the HRIMP resolution, also focused on the possible funding shift to rowers as a user group. He is president of the Pioneer Rowing Club. It was the suggestion of David Stead, the chair of the HRIMP committee at the last meeting of the committee, who had made the suggestion, he said. He offered the council a videotape he’d made of the meeting. At an annual cost of $60,000 for dam maintenance, he said, that amounted to a per capita cost of around $0.50 a year, which was reasonable.

It was an email from the Huron River Watershed Council advocating for shifting dam maintenance costs – from the drinking water fund to user groups – that Tony Iannone said prompted him to come speak. He questioned how that related to the HRWC’s mission of protecting the river and suggested that the city’s $10,000 contribution to the HRWC be cut. He asked why the embankment had not been properly maintained, and contended it was unfair to target user groups with fees.

Some speakers were more supportive of accepting the HRIMP report. Elizabeth Riggs noted that the recommendations had been accepted by the city’s park advisory commission. She asked the council to accept the plan, which would direct the protection of the river. It would allow the next steps of the implementation to begin. She also posed some questions. Given that the drinking water fund was not an appropriate source of funds for maintenance on a recreational dam, she asked: Who should pay? She asked how and when the dam-in/dam-out question would be answered. She also questioned why the city was spending $38,000 on legal fees to contest the MDEQ order.

Justin Heslinga, who introduced himself as an ecologist for the Huron-Clinton Metroparks, said that he lived a two-minute walk away from Argo Dam and was a strong advocate for dam removal. He pointed to the gains in parkland that would result, as well as the cooling effect that would result, which would improve the habitat of smallmouth bass.

John Rubin identified himself as a rower, but argued that the Argo Dam should be removed. He said that dams were inherently bad for rivers, and that the removal of Argo Dam specifically was supported by six different environmental groups. He also contended that in the longer run of 5-15 years, it would be $2-3 million cheaper to remove the dam. He pointed to the 28 acres of additional parkland that would be gained. He said that according to a Michigan Rowing Association study from 1983, Argo Pond was only seventh best out of nine locations.

Council Deliberations on HRIMP

-

Meta-Discourse on HRIMP

The council’s deliberations reflected some of the same themes as the public commentary. In particular, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on the point that there had been perhaps less consensus on the HRIMP committee than the phrasing “consensus recommendations” reflected.

He also suggested that the chair of the HRIMP committee, David Stead, may have had some bias  – Stead serves on the city’s environmental commission, and introduced the resolution passed by that body recommending removal of the dam. Kunselman questioned how the person who was supposed to be leading the effort to build consensus on the HRIMP committee could then propose a resolution to remove Argo Dam.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In separate speaking turns, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) took up the issue of the “consensus” nomenclature and the overall tenor of discourse – both of which, he allowed, were meta-issues that did not necessarily speak to the substance of the resolution.

On the use of “consensus,” Taylor urged that it be seen more as a “label” in the report that might not necessarily have its full meaning attached to it, so that it was not an obstacle to the council’s acting on the report in some way.

As for the suggestion of bias on the part of the HRIMP committee chair, Taylor declared that he felt like some folks’ integrity had been impugned based on very little evidence. To contend “bias,” he said suggested duplicity and conniving, but he’d seen no evidence of that. To bring a resolution as an environmental commissioner, he said was “entirely right for our commissioners to do.”

Earlier in the deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had said it was “absolutely inappropriate to suggest the chair [of the HRIMP committee] had a bias.” And he cautioned that councilmembers should be careful about impugning members of the community who have put time and effort into service for the city.

Taylor lamented the fact that over the course of long community discussion, both sides had accused the other of being driven by a special interest and that this did not advance the conversation.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) echoed Taylor’s sentiments, saying that the dam-in/dam-out question did not need to be answered quickly, but it did need to be answered civilly.

Mayor John Hieftje followed up Taylor’s remarks by saying that the Huron River Watershed Council was responsible for delivering the cleanest urban river in Michigan, and that speaking ill of the HRWC doesn’t advance a speaker’s cause. He added that he would vote to keep the dam, if the vote were to be taken that night. [This was a hypothetical – the dam-in/dam-out question was not on the agenda.]

Parliamentary Issues with HRIMP

Similar to the Sunday night caucus discussion, council deliberations were dominated by what it meant to “accept” the plan. On Monday, Kunselman said he was content to “receive” the plan, but not to “accept” it. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also indicated that what he’d been prepared to do was to acknowledge the receipt of the plan. Briere pointed out that the council had already received the plan – they had it in their “hot little hands,” she said.

Among their options was “adopting” it, Briere said, which was not what they wanted to do, because that implied implementation, together with the costs of that implementation. They also had the option of simply “rejecting” it, she said, which was also not what they wanted to do.

In addition to “accepting” the plan, the original set of resolved clauses essentially asked the park advisory commission and the environmental commission to proceed on a specific set of the recommendations in the plan – which Hohnke stressed did not speak to user fees nor to the dam-in/dam-out question.

However, there was concern that the “acceptance” of the plan, together with the specific direction to PAC and EC to engage in specific activities, implied a willingness to invest money – which was not available, given the current budget crisis.

From the floor, then, Hohnke proposed an amendment to the resolution that wiped out all the original resolved clauses, replacing it with a single clause giving the two commissions a more general task, and inserted a whereas clause to make clear that the “receipt” of the plan had already happened.

So what was left was a general remanding to the two commissions, with no “acceptance” of the report.

That amendment would be subjected to further alteration, so we present the version of the amendment that eventually was incorporated into the resolution that passed:

Whereas, On July 6, 2009, the Ann Arbor City Council received from the Environmental Commission the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan and the 30 consensus recommendation contained therein; and

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

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

Merits of Remanding: How the Amendment Was Altered

Hohnke’s initial amendment, which had a date certain for completion of the two commissions’ work of March 31, 2010, was first altered through a “friendly” amendment from Briere to have no reference to a date at all.

That had been prompted by concern expressed by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) about the workload of the park advisory commission. One aspect of that workload is their budgetary responsibility – given the tough budget year, Rapundalo and Anglin wanted the PAC focused on that issue in the coming months. The PAC is also currently revising the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan, which Rapundalo said he knew was a time-intensive project, having chaired the endeavor back in 1998.

The resolution without its date certain, however, lost the support of mayor John Hieftje, who said that the Huron River was too important to leave out there “in the ether.” It also failed to win the support of Anglin or Rapundalo. Kunselman was the fourth vote against the amendment. He criticized the vagueness of the term “little or no cost” and called into question why the HRWC’s stewardship was not adequate to address the need for a river plan – Hohnke had compared the importance of a river plan to a non-motorized plan, or a downtown plan or a parks plan. Kunselman pointed out that the city paid dues to the HRWC for that purpose.

Kunselman also questioned whether sending it back to those commissions had a reasonable chance of building consensus, when they had not been able to achieve that consensus thus far.

With four votes against it, that left six votes in favor, which meant that the amendment passed.

Hieftje then asked that an additional resolved clause be added to provide a one-year time frame. That request was  accommodated by a unanimous vote. The resolution as amended was then voted and approved.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to remand the 30 consensus recommendations to the park advisory commission and the environmental commission, asking those groups to develop options for implementation.

Percent for Art

The city of Ann Arbor has a Percent for Art program, which reserves 1% of the cost of any capital improvement project for public art up to a maximum of $250,000 per project.

Much of the council deliberations focused on how the program actually worked and what constraints existed on it. Deliberations also led to some insight into how the city attorney sees his duties vis-a-vis the city charter.

In the context of looming budget cuts because of a down economy, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who co-sponsored the resolution on the Percent for Art program with mayor John Hieftje, said that everything had to be looked at. “These are extraordinary times,” she said.

The text of the resolution read:

… provided that for the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, the percentage shall be reduced to and be one half percent (½%). Where a capital improvement project is only partly funded by the city, the amount of funds allocated for public art shall be one percent (1%) of that portion of the project that is city-funded, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project; provided that for the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, the percentage shall be reduced to and be one half percent (½%).

In making the case for the resolution, Smith pointed out that the program would continue, which she wanted. It would also resume at its full 1% level after three years, with no council action required.

This isn’t the first time a reduction in the percentage in the program has been floated. In February 2009, at a Sunday night caucus, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had mooted the idea of modifying the Percent for Art ordinance. From Chronicle coverage of that caucus ["Discontent Emerges at Caucus"]:

One Percent for Art? Really??

Higgins also called into question the need for construction projects to allocate a full 1% for public art, noting that around $1 million had already accumulated in the fund in the year since the program was adopted. She wondered if perhaps a half percent would be a more appropriate level.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor noted light-heartedly that “A Half-Percent For Art!” just doesn’t have quite the same ring. But on a more serious note he suggested that monies are being accumulated faster than they’re being allocated because a mechanism for distribution is still getting up and running.

In deliberations, every councilmember who spoke acknowledged the importance of art in the culture and economy of the Ann Arbor community.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that this was the first of many tough issues the council would face: “If you won’t vote for a cut, which ones will you vote for?” he asked. This one was not one he wanted to vote for – not at this time. He also said he felt like three years was a long time.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated that the resolution did not demolish the whole program.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that so long as the city’s revenue fails to meet its full aspirations, they’ll face difficult choices.  He said that based on the cross section of the community he’d heard from on the issue, it was apparent that the community values art but acknowledges that these are difficult times. The resolution, he said, was consistent with the cry for the balance of those ideas.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that the amount that the city would save was an intangible amount – the council had discussed at their budget retreat the idea of delaying certain capital improvements. If the capital improvements didn’t happen, then no money would be allocated to the Percent for Art program. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also focused on the uncertain nature of the dollar amount to be saved, saying that he preferred to focus budget savings efforts on amounts that were fixed.

In response to the “uncertainty of amount” argument, Smith offered as a reference point that in the FY 2011 capital improvements plan (CIP), there were $519,000 eligible – so that the savings were around $260,000.

Hieftje asked for clarification from Sue McCormick, the public services area administrator, about how much money the general fund had contributed to the public art program. She clarified that the $12,500 figure she’d given at an earlier meeting had been the result of erroneous inclusion of some Act 51 funds for a non-motorized capital project. So over the first three years of the Percent for Art program, no money from the general fund had gone towards the program, she reported.

Hieftje had wanted to dispel the myth that money spent on art could instead be spent on salaries in the fire department.

Following up on Hieftje’s question about the general fund, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked if there were any funds that can’t contribute to the art program. McCormick distinguished between two types of restrictions: those built into the Percent for Art ordinance about the kinds of capital improvement projects, and those stemming from the source of funds. For example, the ordinance itself, she said, rules out “projects” that consist of a property purchase. And a project that uses Act 51 funds as a source are not eligible – the act provides money for operations and maintenance of streets.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked McCormick who on staff determined the legality of a capital improvement project’s contribution to the art program. Her answer: the city attorney’s office. She explained that in crafting the ordinance, the city attorney had been asked for an opinion. Kunselman followed up by asking, “Why wouldn’t the public know the attorney’s opinion?” [The Ann Arbor city charter has a provision that requires the city attorney to file any opinions with the city clerk's office.]

McCormick referred Kunselman’s question to Stephen Postema, the city attorney. He contended that what he’d sent to council was an “advice memo.” Kunselman pressed the issue by noting that McCormick, as a department head, could request advice that would need to be filed as an opinion.

The city charter reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

The Attorney shall:
(1) Advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of all the Attorney’s written opinions;

Based on the charter provision, “an advice memo” could be analyzed as synonymous with “an opinion.”

Also related to funding sources was an amendment to the resolution proposed by Briere that would have stipulated that “projects shall not be restricted by funding source in determining the type or subject matter of the art.” The need for art from the street reconstruction millage to involve projects like pressed pavement, she said, had led her to propose the amendment.

The amendment garnered only Briere’s vote, and failed.

Rapundalo laid out a case for art as a key factor in economic development – attracting and retaining talent. In support of that, he cited his professional work –  as president of  MichBio ["Mission: Drive biosciences industry growth in Michigan"].

Mike Anglin asked for an example of a project that had been completed with Percent for Art funds. McCormick explained that none had been completed yet. The first one is associated with the new municipal center under construction. [The expected Dec. 7 council vote on that project was again delayed – until Dec. 21. Chronicle coverage: "City Council Vote on Dreiseitl Delayed"]

Outcome: The council approved the resolution on its first reading to reduce public art funding from the 1% reservation of capital improvement projects to 0.5% for a three-year period, from 2010-2012. Dissent came from Rapundalo and Derezinski. The resolution must be approved on its second reading before council as well, and will include a public hearing.

Budget

-

A 3% Across-the-Board Wage Cut?

The initial public mention of a possible across-the-board wage cut had come from mayor John Hieftje at the council’s budget retreat conducted on Saturday, Dec. 5.

At Monday’s meeting, councilmembers and the city administrator alike expressed satisfaction with the format of the retreat. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that it was “the best one we’ve had – because of the council discussion amongst itself.” He noted that it serves as the beginning of the budget season.

Hieftje then put Ann Arbor’s budget difficulties in the context of other cities in the state. Grand Rapids faces 150 layoffs, he reported. Lansing is laying off 14 police officers. And in Troy, he said, one-third of the work force could be laid off if a special millage does not pass.

He introduced again the 3% across-the-board wage cut that he’d mentioned at the budget retreat and also discussed the previous evening at caucus. The idea, he said was for all city councilmembers to accept a 3% pay cut and for all city workers to do the same. For workers whose salaries are paid out of the general fund, he said, that would save $850,000 per year. If all workers citywide were added in, it would amount to a savings of $1.5 million.

The 3% corresponds to concessions made this year by unions representing most of Washtenaw County government employees, but in that case it reflected forgoing a contracted 3% wage increase, not making a cut. [Chronicle coverage: "AFSCME union concessions help, but other issues remain"] In the case of the city’s unions, it would mean a cut.

[Otherwise put, in the case of the county, a worker making $100,000 – with a scheduled raise to $103,000 – was left at the $100,000 level. That's a different proposal from asking a worker making $100,000 to accept $97,000 instead.]

Hieftje said he wanted to take the proposal to the unions. He noted that 48% of the general fund is accounted for by safety services – police and fire.

Firefighter Layoffs

At the budget retreat, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated to councilmembers that unless they directed him otherwise, layoff notices to 14 firefighters – part of mid-year cuts necessary to achieve a balanced FY 2010 budget – would be sent this week.

Fraser was asked to address an issue that had been raised by a city resident at the Sunday caucus: How does the three-person truck crew figure into the safety protocol that requires four people on scene before someone can enter a burning structure?

Fraser began by saying that there are any number of variables that go into any response to a fire call. But national standards, he said, require at least two firefighters to enter the building together, with two remaining outside – a total of four. Fraser said that with layoffs, there could be longer times to get four people to the scene. He said that greater detail would be forthcoming about how the deployment would work.

Hieftje said he was particularly interested in hearing how the extra person – in addition to the three on a truck crew – would get to the scene.

Council took no action on the firefighter layoffs.

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

Absent: Marcia Higgins

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 21, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]