The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, on May 2, 2012, mayor John Hieftje expressed his view that the 721 N. Main property should become a city park as part of an Allen Creek greenway. At that meeting, he spoke of a possible grant from the state’s Natural Resources Trust Fund and matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation to support the construction of such a park, with connections to the Border-to-Border Trail, which runs along the Huron River, on the opposite side of Main Street from the 721 N. Main property.

The memo accompanying the resolution includes the MichCon property – between the Amtrak station and the Huron River – as part of the task force’s scope: “This task force’s efforts should create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increased public access to the river-side amenities of existing park in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use for MichCon property at Broadway.” [For discussion of MichCon's planned environmental cleanup work on the site, see previous Chronicle coverage of the March 20, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission.]

The task force is supposed to conduct a series of public workshops, and consult with independent professionals and city staff. By July 31, 2013, the task force is supposed to provide a report. The task force is also supposed to provide a recommendation on the use of the 721 N. Main parcel by Dec. 31, 2012. That earlier deadline is there to facilitate the city’s application to the state for the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has a deadline of April 2013.

The city’s 2007 Non-Motorized Plan shows a long-term vision for pedestrian and cycling amenities on the west side of the Huron River, including an underpass for the railroad tracks that would essentially extend a shared-use path from Fifth Avenue at Depot Street under the tracks across Riverside Park the MichCon property, where it could eventually connect with the Border-to-Border trail. [.pdf of map from 2007 Non-Motorized Plan] Responding to an emailed query, transportation program manager Eli Cooper wrote to The Chronicle that the Non-Motorized Plan is currently being reviewed for its regular update.

The specific members of the North Main Huron River task force have not been named, but the makeup of the group set forth in the resolution is as follows: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

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

MDEQ is also accepting written public comment on the remediation plan through April 30, 2012. A copy of the plan can be viewed online at ftp://ftp.deq.state.mi.us/deq-outgoing/ with the user ID deq-public-ftp and the password Jumbl355#.

A copy of the construction permit application can be viewed online by searching for the file #11810066, then clicking on the folder icon for details. Copies of the plan and permit application also can be viewed at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

A representative from DTE Energy, which owns the MichCon property, gave an update on the project at a March 12, 2012 Ann Arbor city council working session and at a March 20, 2012 meeting of the city’s park advisory commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: HRIMP Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Master Plan Revisions Committee & HRIMP

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

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

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

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

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

MichCon Property Remediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MichCon Property Remediation: Background

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

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

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

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

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

MichCon Property Remediation: Site Investigation

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

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

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

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

MichCon Property Remediation: Implementation

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

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

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

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

MichCon Property Remediation: Whitewater Feature

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

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

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

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

MichCon Property Remediation: Future of the Site

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

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

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

HRIMP and Land Use: Master Plan Revision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Askins contributed to the reporting of this article. The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission and the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

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.