From left: Paige Morrison, Colin Smith, Bob Galardi and Graydon Krapohl before the start of the Aug. 19, 2014 Ann Arbor park advisory commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Regarding feedback on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, PAC unanimously passed a resolution to form a subcommittee to study issues related to those urban parks, and to allocate or obtain resources to oversee programming there for up to a year.

Based on that effort, the subcommittee would analyze the outcome and deliver recommendations to council next year – no later than October 2015. This resolution, drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl, had been emailed to commissioners earlier in the day but was not available to the public prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Aug. 19, 2014 Liberty Plaza resolution]

The Aug. 19 discussion also included comments from Matthew Altruda, who programs the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series at Liberty Plaza. Ault had invited Altruda to the meeting to describe that effort, which is widely cited as a successful use of Liberty Plaza.

Regarding the fee waiver, PAC voted unanimously to extend the waiver through October 2015 – coordinating with the subcommittee work on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

In other action, PAC recommended approval of three three-year professional services agreements (PSAs) for engineering services in the parks and recreation unit – with SmithGroupJJR, Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc, and Tetra Tech Inc. The amount was not to exceed $150,000 annually per agreement.

The commission also elected David Santacroce as chair for the coming year, replacing Ingrid Ault in that position. Paige Morrison was elected as vice chair. Each vote was conducted by “secret ballot” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. The one-year terms begin Sept. 1.

One topic that did not appear on PAC’s Aug. 19 agenda was a review of the proposed four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The city council – at its meeting the previous night, on Aug. 18 – had indicated an interest in having PAC take another look at the lease renewal, but parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that he didn’t have additional details on the request.

During deliberations on Aug. 18, mayor John Hieftje had recommended postponing council action until early October, in order to give PAC two meetings during which they could reevaluate the lease agreement. PAC had already recommended approval of the lease, after discussing it at their July 15, 2014 meeting. The parliamentary option chosen by the council was to postpone, not to refer to PAC.

The two council representatives on PAC – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) –  chose somewhat different points of emphasis in their characterizations of the council’s Aug. 18 action on the Fuller Park lease. When Anglin told commissioners that the council wanted PAC to review the lease again, Taylor stressed that the council action was “a straight postponement” – not a vote to refer the item back to PAC. He added that the council was interested in hearing if PAC has any further thoughts on the use of the site.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane

Two items on the Aug. 19 agenda related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

PAC chair Ingrid Ault.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

After July 15, however, PAC called a special meeting for Aug. 5 to begin their discussion on providing feedback to the city council on Liberty Plaza. PAC’s discussion on Aug. 19 was informed in part by a packet of material provided to commissioners at that Aug. 5 special meeting, which The Chronicle was not able to attend because it was the date of primary elections. [.pdf of Aug. 5 Liberty Plaza packet] The materials included a memo with background and a bulleted list of issues related to Liberty Plaza, a list of potential ideas to address these issues, and suggestions for next steps.

Also included were PAC’s downtown parks recommendations, and a summary of previous work related to downtown parks, such as results from surveys conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street study and by PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee. The packet also included case studies from downtown parks in four other communities: Director Park in Portland, Oregon; Arcadia Creek Festival Place in Kalamazoo; Campus Marius Park in Detroit; and Katz Plaza in Pittsburgh.

Commissioners continued that discussion on Aug. 19, focused on a newly crafted resolution that had been drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza resolution, as amended by PAC on Aug. 19]

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Background

The PAC resolution discussed on Aug. 19 responded to a city council resolution that had been considered at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting. That council resolution had been brought forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – as well as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Liberty Plaza is highlighted in green. The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow. The city council has designated 12,000 square feet of that lot, on the west side along the South Fifth Avenue, as a future park.

The original version of Taylor’s resolution would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

But after nearly an hour of debate on June 16, the council voted to refer the resolution to PAC instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broadened the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the proposed resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. Taylor’s resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

Taylor’s resolution came in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp.

Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Teall and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations among councilmembers on June 16, 2014 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on the resolution on Liberty Plaza. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. PAC’s regular monthly meeting had been scheduled for June 17 – the day after the council meeting – but it was canceled.

PAC had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which were completed last year and included recommendations for Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site. The council accepted PAC’s recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Public Commentary

Two people spoke about this topic during the first opportunity for public commentary at PAC’s Aug. 19 meeting.

Ethel Potts told commissioners that she watches their meetings on Community Television Network. “You haven’t seen me, but I see you,” she said – a comment that drew laughs. The city council has given PAC an assignment to do something with Liberty Plaza, she noted. But the council has tied PAC’s hands by limiting the planning to Liberty Plaza. She described the plaza as “orphaned public space, unconnected to anything else in that whole block.” It used to connect to the lower level of the adjacent building, owned by First Martin Corp. on East Liberty, Potts said. Now, that building seems to be mainly offices, she added, with “very little coming and going of people.”

Ray Detter at the Aug. 19, 2014 meeting of the park advisory commission.

Potts thought the plaza’s design is charming, with two features that every park should have – shade and seating. However, to be a success it needs to connect to the downtown library, to the future park on Fifth Avenue [on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure], and to the bus station. She noted that someday, there will be a building over part of the Library Lane structure.

Liberty Plaza needs to have a connection, “so that it isn’t just left out there on a corner on its own,” Potts said. “I would ask you to please disregard the limits put on your planning by council.”

The idea of connecting Liberty Plaza with the rest of that block is supported by the Ann Arbor Preservation Alliance, which is very concerned about the historic buildings on Liberty and Division in that same block, she said. Liberty Plaza itself is becoming historic, she concluded.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. Most of the July DCAC meeting was devoted to a discussion of the future of the “library block,” he said – particularly Liberty Plaza and the future park on top of the Library Lane parking structure. With the former Y lot now sold and a broker hired to explore the sale of development rights on the Library Lane site, “we should all be ready to plan a great urban space on that entire block,” Detter said.

Members of the DCAC support development of a significantly-sized public plaza on the South Fifth Avenue side of the Library Lane site, Detter said, as well as use of Library Lane all the way up to the parking structure entry for scheduled community activities. DCAC also supports pedestrian walkways. All future development should take into consideration the needs of the downtown library, possible connection to the Blake Transit Center, the University of Michigan credit union site, the former Y lot, and nearby historic properties, businesses and residents, he said.

DCAC also supports a new tax-producing private or public development on the major part of the Library Lane site – a development that would provide “eyes” on a future adjoining public plaza, Detter said. In April, he noted, the city council resolved that the city would work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the design serves both spaces. A lot of work and outreach has been done to develop integrated planning, he said, “and I think it’s time we really use it.”

Detter noted that the DCAC was involved in the 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman study, as well as with the 2005 Calthorpe study and more recently the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. All of these studies support a vision for the entire block and area, he said. “Connecting Liberty Plaza and the proposed Library Lot plaza have always been a major part of that plan,” he said. No money should be spent on redesigning Liberty Plaza unless it’s a part of that broader vision. He hoped that any money spent would be used for programming on Liberty Plaza. Events such as Sonic Lunch and Magic Carpet Mornings have proven that with the right programming, Liberty Plaza can be a downtown asset, he said.

Saying that PAC might have forgotten it, Detter recalled that about 10 years ago a group had formed called Friends of Liberty Plaza, which raised $250,000. The DDA agreed to give $250,000 if the city parks department gave $50,000, Detter said. Ron Olson, the city’s park director at that time, agreed to that. So there were major improvements made then, he said. However, he added, “we did not eliminate the problems that the park still faces today. We think we can do that with a comprehensive plan for the entire park.”

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Ingrid Ault began the discussion by noting that both of the city councilmembers who serve on PAC – Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor – were running late. She hoped that Taylor especially would arrive in time to participate, because he had sponsored the council resolution that PAC would be discussing. [He arrived about 30 minutes into the discussion.]

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, pointed out that the council did not vote on Taylor’s original resolution or on amendments proposed by Jane Lumm. Rather, they referred the resolution and amendments to PAC for consideration and feedback about costs and a timeline.

Ault apologized to commissioners, noting that they had not been sent her draft two-page resolution until earlier that day. It had turned out to be more complicated than she’d anticipated. She said the last page was the most important, and she then read it aloud:

Whereas, placemaking principles specifically identify the importance of dedicated and sustained programming resources as vital components of successful urban public spaces,

Whereas, dedicated and sustained programming resources have not historically been allocated in direct support of Ann Arbor urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza,

Whereas, PAC recommends the formation of a subcommittee to study and specifically address the issues associated with urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot,

Whereas, PAC recommends that prior to any resource being allocated for redevelopment efforts directed at planning and redesign of either Liberty Plaza or the Library Lot, that resources, human and material, be allocated or obtained to specifically oversee the programming of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot for a period not to exceed one year in order to answer the following questions:

1. Determine costs for on-going dedicated resources (human and material) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.

2. Determine the success of programming efforts and how the currently designed spaces function in support of that programming. What worked and didn’t work?

3. Determine at the end of the study if issues long associated with Liberty Plaza are a function of design or the absence of sustained and meaningful programming, or a combination of both.

4. If shortcomings are design related, does it warrant a partial or complete redesign based on the outcomes of the study?

5. Determine what role adjacent and near by properties (public and private) have along with other downtown neighbors with regard to Liberty Plaza in determining key stakeholders for ongoing discussions.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to reaffirm the purpose of PAC is to provide for public involvement in community park and recreation services and to provide advisory recommendations to the Manager of the Department of Parks and Recreation, City Administrator and Council regarding parks administration,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that PAC recommends that Council accept the above recommendations and direct staff and PAC to answer these questions and report their findings no later than October 2015.

Ault said that she and Krapohl had forgotten to include what funds would be designated for this purpose, so the resolution would need to be amended for that.

This would be a big undertaking, Ault said, so the timeframe was very important. It’s not something that could be done in the timeframe indicated by the council resolution – January 2015. She noted that PAC’s downtown park subcommittee had worked for nine months to complete its recommendations.

Pushing back the timeframe would allow PAC and staff to use the fall and winter to come up with ideas for programming, which could be implemented in the spring and summer, she said. The results of that programming then could be reported to the council in the fall of 2015. “You can’t make improvements unless you know how [the space] functions currently,” Ault said.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Q&A with Matthew Altruda

Ault reported that she had asked Matthew Altruda to attend the Aug. 19 meeting and share his observations about what works or doesn’t work at Liberty Plaza, based on his experiences programming the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series.

Matthew Altruda programs the Sonic Lunch summer concert series on behalf of the Bank of Ann Arbor.

Altruda briefly described the history of Sonic Lunch, saying that the bank’s president, Tim Marshall, had wanted to sponsor an event that used music to build community. “We believe music is one of the great chariots of building community. When you’re out seeing music and dancing with someone, that’s where you meet your great friends and future husbands and wives – it really brings the community together.” He pointed out that in the movie “Braveheart,” the only time the characters are enjoying themselves is when they’re dancing around the fire.

Sonic Lunch is a huge event and it takes a lot of time, Altruda said. This summer is the seventh season for this series, and any event that someone tries in a city park needs to be given a few years to get off the ground. “We are in the fruits of our labor now, with great turnouts and the city really embracing us,” he said. It’s extremely difficult to make a new Ann Arbor tradition.

A lot of people understand the “non-programming” that goes on in Liberty Plaza, Altruda said – some people talk about how it’s a place where homeless people hang out or where drug activities occur. In his experience, when the Bank of Ann Arbor staff shows up, the people who are hanging out at Liberty Plaza usually leave. First and foremost, these are people in the Ann Arbor community, Altruda said. “We treat them with respect, and when it’s time for us to do our programming in the park, they return that respect and leave.” If they don’t leave, they “act like great citizens and enjoy the music like everyone else,” he added.

Ault said that one thing PAC learned when they studied downtown parks is to focus on behavior, not on particular groups of people. She thanked Altruda for reminding them of that. “Everybody has the right to use a public space, until behavior encroaches,” she said.

Paige Morrison asked Altruda to elaborate on obstacles that Sonic Lunch has faced. Altruda replied that some of it relates to reassuring families about the safety of Liberty Plaza. Early on, there was an issue with people panhandling, he said. So some confidence had to be built to assure visitors that the park was safe.

“A lot of people fear the unknown, and when they walk by the park, they’re thinking that there’s terrible people there doing terrible things,” Altruda said. “I think that’s an unfair thought to have for these people.” There are definitely some “bad apples” who hang out at Liberty Plaza, he added. But others have started to police themselves, he said, if someone is out of line.

PAC member Paige Morrison.

Bob Galardi asked how much time is devoted to programming these concerts. Altruda said it doesn’t seem like a lot of time because he’s passionate about it, but in fact it’s his job and he does spend a lot of time on it. He works on Sonic Lunch year-round, communicating with record labels and booking agents to ensure that the series gets great performers. It’s part of the bank’s marketing effort, he said, so they spend money and time on the event.

To do other kinds of programming at Liberty Plaza, “it would take a lot of passionate people that want to do great events, and empowering them to do so. I think that passion is just gonna run wild with this community, if given the opportunity,” he said.

Graydon Krapohl asked about costs. Altruda replied that it’s a marketing opportunity for the bank, “so we’re definitely putting a lot of money and effort into it.” He indicated that although the bank is willing to spend a lot of money to bring major artists like Michelle Chamuel and ZZ Ward, that level of support isn’t necessary to have a successful event. “We just go big because it’s part of our vision, with the size of the event,” he said. If it were scaled down, Altruda thought they could still put on a great event. He added that he didn’t really know how to address the budget issue for other events.

Alan Jackson asked whether it mattered if the infrastructure of Liberty Plaza were different in some way – like eliminating the sunken aspect of the plaza. Altruda said it’s definitely been an issue, but it improved when the city trimmed and removed some bushes to create better sight lines for the bands. The bank also bought a stage that it sets up each week, which has helped. Altruda said he’s been told that people hide in the sunken parts of Liberty Plaza to do various things, but he hasn’t seen any of that.

Altruda said that if you leave Liberty Plaza alone, people will come and do whatever they want. But if you put on great events, then the people who want to participate in those events will come. There needs to be programming at Liberty Plaza, so that people will want to come there and bring their families, he said, “changing the perception to make people feel safe there.”

Altruda added that he feels safe at Liberty Plaza now, because 99% of the people who hang out there are harmless. But others might not have as much faith in people as he does, he said.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl began the discussion by stressing the importance of programming any urban space. For Liberty Plaza, he noted, there hasn’t been a commitment to sustain programming over a period of time, to offset some of the behaviors that take place there. That’s a critical thing to explore before making recommendations about infrastructure, he said. “I’m not sure we know what needs to be redesigned or how it needs to be redesigned until we actually do programming” to see what does or doesn’t work, and how programming can be coordinated between Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl.

Ingrid Ault highlighted some data associated with Campus Martius Park in Detroit. She was there about a month ago for lunch, and there was live music, a small farmers market, a sand beach and fountain. It’s commonly lauded as a great public space, she said, but it entails a lot of investment. It costs between $1.2 million and $1.4 million each year to operate, Ault said. “That’s pretty serious dollars – which comes back to the funding.”

So the city needs to identify sustainable funding before moving forward, she said. “That’s the one area that I’m gravely concerned about, with only $23,000 being identified at this point.”

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, clarified that the $23,577 mentioned in the council resolution was the result of a “parks fairness” budget resolution. Every year when the city council approves the city’s annual budget, adjustments are made to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas, or to make sure there aren’t disproportionate cuts to the parks budget. This year, the parks budget was increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were approved for the general fund.

Smith noted that the $23,577 isn’t currently allocated for any specific purpose. He added that if there is a desire to heavily program Liberty Plaza for a year, then “that is by no means enough.” He said he didn’t have any suggestion for where additional funding might come from within the parks and recreation budget. PAC could always suggest that the council consider using general fund reserves, he added.

Traditionally, Smith explained, the parks staff has done programming within the city’s recreation facilities – the pools, rinks, canoe liveries and golf courses. The “non-facility” parks, which comprise the majority of city parks, are unstaffed from a programming standpoint, he said.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

But urban parks, to be successful, really do require some level of staffing, Smith said, noting that Director Park in Portland, Oregon, makes a good case study. It’s about the same size as the entire Library Lane site, and it also has underground parking. That park has fountains, public art, a cafe – and 26 businesses around the park’s perimeter. The annual operating costs are $475,000, which comes out of the city of Portland’s general fund. That funding is primarily for maintenance and staffing, Smith said, including a full-time “urban park specialist” who oversees the park.

Smith said he talked to Director Park’s specialist, who described it as “a community center without walls that requires attention every hour of the day.” Smith added that her words rang true to him. “It works really well when you work really hard at it.” For Liberty Plaza, $23,577 isn’t enough to make a difference – nor would it be a one-time investment, he said. Even if Liberty Plaza is redesigned successfully, funding would be needed on an ongoing basis.

Mike Anglin said that one way to evaluate a park is by looking at its use. That’s something to keep in mind if the city moves forward with programming. He recalled that one year there was a parade around Christmas time, and he was amazed at how many people came downtown. “We have a lot of talented people who have pent-up energy,” Anglin said. That’s something the city should tap into in a very positive way, he added. Anglin also spoke about the New York City park system, and some of its programming.

Alan Jackson wanted commissioners to keep in mind that if funding is spent on Liberty Plaza or a Library Lane park, “there may be associated economic benefits.” He suggested that when they evaluate the outcome of programming, they also evaluate benefits to adjacent businesses.

Karen Levin wondered if there were ways to partner with other entities, like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

PAC member Karen Levin.

David Santacroce pointed out that there might be people who are willing to program the space at no cost to the city. He cited the Sunday Artisan Market at the Ann Arbor farmers market. He supported the approach reflected in Ault’s resolution. No matter how Liberty Plaza might be redesigned – other than fencing it off – without people in the park, there will continue to be “behavior that we may not want in a park.” Santacroce noted that Liberty Plaza has already been redesigned, “and it still didn’t accomplish what we wanted it to accomplish.”

Based on previous PAC discussions, Santacroce thought there was consensus that commissioners aren’t endorsing a city-funded public park versus a public space funded by a developer of the Library Lane site. “We’re not weighing in on that,” he said. That’s important to note, he added, because the process is still underway regarding development of that site.

Bob Galardi agreed. He wondered whether PAC had the purview to insert a whereas clause related to funding sources. Smith replied that since it was a recommendation to the council, adding that kind of clause would be appropriate, if that’s what PAC wanted to do. Galardi thought there might be other sources of funding, beyond just the city.

Smith said that since the programming would be for a year, it would likely be handled by hiring someone on contract to do the work. There’d need to be funding for materials and supplies as well, and possibly for security. Parks staff could come up with an estimate for the cost, he said. It’s also important to be very focused about what a contractor’s roles and responsibilities will be during that year, Smith added. He noted that it would take time to develop partnerships and other funding sources. Would that be the person’s focus? Or would the worker focus primarily on programming? He urged commissioners to keep in mind that they can’t accomplish everything immediately.

Anglin cautioned against hiring someone to “run” the programming. He wanted to make sure the community had the opportunity for input and consensus. “This is a discussion that needs buy-in first before we proceed,” Anglin said. If you have events and people show up, that means you’re on the right track, he said. But if no one comes, “you’re not moving – you don’t have the support.” Anglin thought it would take some time to do, saying that “deliverables in the public sector are very difficult, as we all know.”

PAC member Alan Jackson.

Jackson thought a one-year process would be setting it up for failure. It would probably take at least two years, he said.

Santacroce noted that there was a lot of public input when the PAC subcommittee on downtown parks did its work just last year. “I would be hesitant to re-engage the public in the identical conversation that we just did a year ago, because I think it’s a waste of time and public resources,” he said. One strategy might be to refine the request for input, he added, which would shorten the process a bit.

Krapohl agreed that one year probably isn’t enough time, but it would be the minimum amount needed. He thought the primary responsibility of a person dedicated to Liberty Plaza should be programming, and working out the metrics for how the city should measure success.

Smith drew an analogy to the city’s Give 365 volunteer program, which started a few years ago. One metric for that was to measure the number of volunteer hours per year, and gauge that in terms of hours worked by a full-time employee. The first year, the city had a goal of getting volunteer hours to equal three FTEs. So the parks and recreation staff is familiar with the need to measure a new initiative, he said. For Liberty Plaza, one measure could be the number of visitors to events.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion – Amendments

The remainder of the discussion focused on relatively minor amendments, all of which were considered friendly – no votes were taken. Amendments included:

• Substitute “public open space” for “park” in the first whereas clause: “Whereas, the Park Advisory Commission (PAC) was asked to make recommendations for development of five city owned parcels in the downtown regarding use as a park public open space in late 2012,..”
• Eliminate “urban parks, especially” from this whereas clause: “PAC recommends the formation of a subcommittee to study and specifically address the issues associated with urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot, …”
• Add “and financial” and “or obtained” in this whereas clause: “PAC recommends that prior to any resource being allocated for redevelopment efforts directed at planning and redesign of either Liberty Plaza or the Library Lot, that resources, human, material, and financial be allocated or obtained to specifically oversee the programming of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot …”
• Add “and financial” in one of the questions to be answered: “Determine costs for on-going dedicated resources (human, material, and financial) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.”
• Change “superintendent” to “manager” in this resolved clause: “… to provide advisory recommendations to the Superintendent Manager of the Department of Parks and Recreation, City Administrator and Council regarding parks administration, …”

Ault and Krapohl clarified that they intended the new subcommittee to study the space at Library Lane and Liberty Plaza as it exists now, and to determine how it might function in the future based on activities during the year of the study. That might include looking at how to coordinate activities at both locations, Krapohl said.

Jackson advocated for extending the timeframe to two years rather than just one. Ault said she’d feel more comfortable leaving it at one year, with the understanding that one of the recommendations delivered in October 2015 might be to extend the period of study another year. Santacroce agreed with Ault, saying by that time there might be more clarity about what’s happening at the Library Lane site, in terms of development.

Ault then read aloud the two-page resolution, as amended. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza resolution, as amended by PAC on Aug. 19]

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously on a voice vote. It will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver

Also on Aug. 19, commissioners considered an extension of the Liberty Plaza fee waiver.

Liberty Plaza, an urban park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division.

By way of background, a year ago the city council voted to waive fees for use of Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Divisions streets. The waiver was for a one-year trial period, through July 1, 2014. The waiver had been recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting. It came in response to a situation that arose earlier that spring when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

The goal of the waiver was to attract additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza. A key “whereas” clause of the 2013 council resolution stated: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Later in the year, on Nov. 18, 2013, the council approved ordinance revisions to allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses any park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance was revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.”

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver: Commission Discussion

On Aug. 19, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that the PAC resolution passed a year ago included a resolved clause stating that PAC should review the waiver after a year and make a recommendation to council about whether it should become permanent.

Alan Jackson asked how well the fee waiver has worked. Smith replied that there’s been some use – he mentioned the Turkey Trot – but not a lot. There hasn’t been a staff person available who could promote it. Smith thought it would dovetail nicely with PAC’s study of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site, which had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

Responding to the possibility of a similar fee waiver at the Library Lane site, Smith said that would be a question for the Ann Arbor DDA, which oversees the city’s public parking structures – including Library Lane.

David Santacroce suggested extending the Liberty Plaza fee waiver to synch with the proposed study of Liberty Plaza and Library Lane – through October 2015.

Christopher Taylor suggested the following wording for a resolution:

WHEREAS in the past year, fees have been waived at Liberty Plaza;

WHEREAS the park advisory commission has insufficient information about whether this is wise on a permanent basis;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that PAC recommends that city council continue the fee waiver in its current form for another year.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a voice vote, PAC unanimously recommended to extend the Liberty Plaza fee waiver. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Election of Officers

PAC held its annual election of officers on Aug. 19. David Santacroce was nominated as chair for the coming year, to replace Ingrid Ault in that position.

Ault told commissioners that she’d be stepping down soon from PAC, as she’s moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She has been commuting there from Ann Arbor.

David Santacroce (left) was elected chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission for a one-year term starting Sept. 1. Next to him is Alan Jackson.

Santacroce is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. Before his appointment to PAC in November 2013, he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which last year delivered its report to the council on recommendations for that corridor.

There were no competing nominations.

The vote was taken by “secret ballot,” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith passed out slips of paper for commissioners to write their vote. City councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor, who serve as ex officio members of PAC, are not allowed to vote.

Outcome: On a 6-0 vote with one abstention, David Santacroce was elected chair, for a one-year term starting Sept. 1. He received a round of applause.

Paige Morrison was nominated as vice chair.

Typically, the current vice chair is nominated and elected as chair. However, PAC’s vice chair, Graydon Krapohl, is running unopposed for a city council seat in Ward 4. He won the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, also unopposed, and will appear on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election. Krapohl told The Chronicle that he plans to step down from PAC after the November election, but is interested in being appointed as one of the two city council ex officio members. Those positions are currently held by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Taylor won the Aug. 5 Democratic mayoral primary, and faces independent Bryan Kelly in November.

There were no competing nominations for vice chair.

Outcome: On a 6-0 vote with one abstention, Paige Morrison was elected vice chair for a one-year term starting Sept. 1.

After the vote, Smith commented that he didn’t remember any abstentions in previous years, “so that was an exciting departure from the norm.”

Agreement for Engineering Services

At the start of the Aug. 19 meeting, the agenda was amended to add a new resolution related to engineering services. The resolution, brought forward by staff, was to recommend approval of three three-year professional services agreements (PSAs) for engineering services in the parks and recreation unit. The amount was not to exceed $150,000 annually per agreement. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

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

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, explained that for the last six years, the city has maintained professional agreements for engineering services for capital projects that the parks and recreation staff oversees. The existing three-year agreements are expiring.

The staff conducted interviews earlier in August with companies that responded to a request for proposals (RFP). They made a decision on Aug. 18 – that’s why the resolution was a late addition for PAC’s Aug. 19 meeting, he said.

The engineering firms are pre-qualified so that as projects come up, it speeds up the process, Smith explained. Each project still requires that the city administrator approve a “work statement” before a contract is signed with the firm, he noted.

Ten firms submitted RFPs. The three firms that qualified were selected based on the city’s needs: SmithGroupJJR; Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc; and Tetra Tech Inc.

City park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that this process really helps her streamline projects. Responding to a query from Mike Anglin, Kuras clarified that the $150,000 ceiling applies to each firm annually. Sometimes it’s a lot less, she said, but there are also some projects that exceed that amount.

Smith said there’s no guarantee that any of these firms would get any work – it depends on whether projects emerge that are best suited for any of the firms.

Christopher Taylor asked whether any money is paid before specific projects are proposed. No, Kuras replied – the firms aren’t on retainer, they’re just pre-qualified. Kuras also noted that before contracts are awarded for projects, the firm must provide a detailed description of the work and cost estimates, which are sometimes negotiated down, she said.

Outcome: On a voice vote, PAC recommended approval of the professional services agreements.

Communications & Commentary

During the Aug. 19 meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two slots for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report – Senior Center, Fuller Park Lease

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that the city’s outdoor pools would be closing for the summer after Labor Day, and he urged commissioners to get out and enjoy them in the remaining days.

Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

Smith also gave an update on repairs to the Ann Arbor senior center, located at 1320 Baldwin Ave. near Burns Park. He described a recent story in the newspaper “that perhaps raised more questions than provided answers.” There are repairs being done to the ceiling, and it’s easier and safer for users of the center to relocate to other sites. While that work is being done, there will also be improvements made, such as adding skylights. The staff expects it to reopen at the beginning of September.

Regarding a city council resolution on renewing a lease with the University of Michigan for the Fuller Park parking lot, Smith reported that the council postponed action on it until October. That action came at council’s Aug. 18 meeting. He said he didn’t have more details on that. [PAC had discussed the lease and recommended approval of the renewal at its July 15, 2014 meeting.]

Mike Anglin – one of the two city council ex officio members of PAC – recommended that commissioners watch the Community Television Network video from the Aug. 18 council meeting, regarding the discussion of the Fuller Park parking lease. “Because I believe the council sent it back to PAC to take a second look at it – that’s how I interpreted it,” he said. [The discussion begins at roughly the 2:53:43 minute mark.]

Christopher Taylor, the other city councilmember on PAC, characterized the council action as “a straight postponement” – not a vote to refer the item back to PAC. [The parliamentary procedure used by the council contrasted with the one used by the council to deal with Taylor's June 16 Liberty Plaza resolution – which was a vote "to refer."] Taylor added that council was interested in hearing if PAC has any further thoughts on the use of the site for parking.

Anglin said he thought the council was clearly sending it back to PAC.

Smith said he’d forward the council minutes to PAC after they are approved, “because I am not clear, after today, myself.” He didn’t think there was a vote on it, but he’d rely on the minutes.

The council’s Aug. 18 deliberations lasted about five minutes. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) suggested that if the council postponed action, he’d ask that PAC review the lease’s implications on city planning documents, such as the Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked what would be an appropriate amount of time for PAC to do that, and he asked when PAC met next. Taylor replied that PAC met the next day – on Aug. 19. Hieftje then said: “Ok, maybe we should give them until the first meeting in October – because then they would meet twice before our next meeting.” Taylor replied: “Fair enough.” Taylor also noted that PAC had reviewed the lease renewal already, “but certainly if there’s a particular question that council is interested in, then we can certainly address that.”

Eaton said it was his understanding that PAC’s previous discussion of the lease had been brief. Mike Anglin described PAC as having a “quite lengthy discussion” about one aspect of the lease – a section of the lease titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use.” Anglin noted that some PAC members wanted to be clear that they were not endorsing a train station in that location. He said he’d like to send it back to PAC so that they could eliminate any mention of a future use. The mention of a possible future use seemed inappropriate to him, since the council hasn’t made any decision about that.

The council then unanimously voted to postpone action on the lease renewal.

Communications & Commentary: Committee Reports

Karen Levin reported that the dog park subcommittee would be bringing its work to PAC in September. It’s a guide for establishing new dog parks and improving existing ones, she said.

David Santacroce gave an update on the subcommittee that’s developing recommendations related to smoking regulations in the park. They’ve met with an expert from the University of Michigan, he said, and their intent is to bring forward recommendations to PAC in September. The recommendations will include a list of parks in which smoking should be banned.

Communications & Commentary: World Peace Day

Alan Haber spoke about World Peace Day on Sunday, Sept. 21. It was started by the United Nations in 1982 on the third Tuesday in September, coincident with the annual opening of the UN General Assembly session. In 2001, the UN changed the day to be Sept. 21 each year. “This is celebrated all over the world and as a peace person, I would certainly want to see it celebrated here,” Haber said.

Alan Haber.

He hoped there would be a place to come together in this town to talk about what people can do to address the conflicts in our world. The day could also be used to inaugurate a park on the Library Lane lot, he said, “as a peaceful place.”

It’s within that framework, Haber said, that it seemed to him appropriate for the park advisory commission to give the idea an endorsement or imprimatur of some sort, “as indeed the DDA has.” [It's not clear what action Haber was referring to regarding the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which oversees the Library Lane underground parking structure.] He hoped the parks and recreation staff could help in some way – such as using the city’s liability insurance policy to cover the event. Whatever PAC did collectively, he hoped commissioners would come “and bring that peaceful part of yourself, and let’s elevate consciousness and activism.”

Haber also spoke on the same topic at the final opportunity for public commentary. Noting that PAC had discussed the importance of programming earlier in the meeting, Haber said this would be an example of community-initiated programming. He’d like to see World Peace Day become an ongoing part of the city’s calendar. He hoped the city would co-sponsor it, along with the DDA, and would allow the event to use the city’s omnibus liability insurance policy.

He thought a skating rink would also be a good programming idea for the Library Lane site.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Missy Stults.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow. The city council has designated 12,000 square feet of that lot, on the west side along the South Fifth Avenue, as a future park.

Regarding feedback on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, PAC unanimously passed a resolution to form a subcommittee to study issues related to those urban parks, and to allocate or obtain resources to oversee programming there for up to a year. Based on that effort, the subcommittee would analyze the outcome and deliver recommendations to council next year – no later than October 2015. This resolution, drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl, had been emailed to commissioners earlier in the day but was not available to the public prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Aug. 19, 2014 Liberty Plaza resolution]

Regarding the fee waiver, PAC voted unanimously to extend the waiver through October 2015 – coordinating with the subcommittee work on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

Liberty Plaza: Feedback to City Council

After July 15, PAC called a special meeting for Aug. 5 to begin their discussion on providing feedback to the city council on Liberty Plaza. Commissioners continued that discussion on Aug. 19, focused on PAC’s newly crafted resolution. It responded to a city council resolution that had been considered at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting. That council resolution had been brought forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – as well as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The original version of Taylor’s resolution would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

But after nearly an hour of debate on June 16, the council voted to refer the resolution to PAC instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broadened the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the proposed resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. Taylor’s resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

Taylor’s resolution came in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp.

Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations among councilmembers on June 16, 2014 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on the resolution on Liberty Plaza. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. The day after the council met, PAC’s regular monthly meeting, on June 17, was canceled.

PAC had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which were completed last year. The council accepted PAC’s recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

PAC’s discussion on Aug. 19 was informed in part by a packet of material provided to commissioners at their Aug. 5 special meeting, which The Chronicle was not able to attend, because it was the date of primary elections. [.pdf of Aug. 5 Liberty Plaza packet] The materials included a memo with background and a bulleted list of issues related to Liberty Plaza, a list of potential ideas to address these issues, and suggestions for next steps.

Also included were PAC’s downtown parks recommendations, and a summary of previous work related to downtown parks, such as results from surveys conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street study and by PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee. It also included case studies from downtown parks in four other communities: Director Park in Portland, Oregon; Arcadia Creek Festival Place in Kalamazoo; Campus Marius Park in Detroit; and Katz Plaza in Pittsburgh.

The Aug. 19 discussion also included comments from Matthew Altruda, who programs the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series at Liberty Plaza. Ault had invited Altruda to the meeting to describe that effort, which is widely cited as a successful use of Liberty Plaza.

The resolution drafted by Ault recommended that the city allocate or obtain resources to oversee programming of Liberty Plaza and Library Lane for up to one year, in order to answer the following questions:

Determine costs for ongoing dedicated resources (human, material and financial) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that a key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.

Determine the success of programming efforts and how the currently designed spaces function in support of that programming. What worked and didn’t work?

Determine at the end of the study if issues long associated with Liberty Plaza are a function of design or the absence of sustained and meaningful programming, or a combination of both.

If shortcomings are design-related, does it warrant a partial or complete redesign based on the outcomes of the study?

Determine what role adjacent and nearby properties (public and private) have along with other downtown neighbors with regard to Liberty Plaza in determining key stakeholders for ongoing discussions.

The resolution will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Liberty Plaza: Fee Waiver

Also on Aug. 19, commissioners unanimously approved an extension of the Liberty Plaza fee waiver through October 2015 – a date coordinated with the subcommittee’s work on Liberty Plaza.

By way of background, a year ago the city council voted to waive fees for use of Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Divisions streets. The waiver was for a one-year trial period, through July 1, 2014.

The waiver had been recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting. It came in response to a situation that arose earlier that spring when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

The goal of the waiver was to attract additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza.” A key “whereas” clause of the 2013 council resolution stated: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Later in the year, on Nov. 18, 2013, the council approved ordinance revisions to allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses any park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance was revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.”

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

Santacroce is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. Before his appointment to PAC in November 2013, he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which last year delivered its report to the council on recommendations for that corridor.

Paige Morrison was elected vice chair. Each vote was conducted by “secret ballot” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. The one-year terms begin Sept. 1.

Typically, the current vice chair is nominated and elected as chair. However, PAC’s vice chair – Graydon Krapohl – is running unopposed for a city council seat in Ward 4. He won the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, also unopposed, and will appear on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election. Krapohl told The Chronicle that he plans to step down from PAC after the November election, but is interested in being appointed as one of the two city council ex officio members. Those positions are currently held by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Taylor won the Aug. 5 Democratic mayoral primary, and faces independent Bryan Kelly in November.

Ault is planning to resign her position on PAC later this year, as she is moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She says she is currently commuting there from Ann Arbor, but plans to move.

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

Former park advisory commissioner Gwen Nystuen and former planning commissioner Eric Lipson of the Library Green Conservancy spoke during public commentary. They advocated for integrated planning of public space in the Library Block, which includes Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site. (Photos by the writer.)

An existing lease to the University of Michigan expires on Aug. 31, 2014. PAC recommended that the city renew the lease for two years, with an additional two-year option for renewal beyond that. Annual revenue will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget.

The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

Three people spoke during public commentary regarding Fuller Park, though most of their focus was on the possibility of locating a train station at that site, which they opposed.

Responding to concerns raised during public commentary, commissioners discussed and ultimately amended the recommendation, adding a whereas clause that stated the “resolution does not commit PAC to support or oppose the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

The July 15 agenda also included two items related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The existing fee waiver, which had been in place for a year, expired on July 1. The feedback to the city council related to action at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting, which took place after a contentious debate over a resolution co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor, who also serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

On July 15, the commission also heard public commentary related to this area, as Library Green Conservancy members advocated for PAC to consider the entire block – both Liberty Plaza and Library Lane – when making recommendations to the council.

But because three PAC members were absent, chair Ingrid Ault suggested that the two items be put off until more commissioners could participate in a discussion. Absent on July 15 were PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl, Alan Jackson, and Bob Galardi, who also serves as chair of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board.

There was no formal vote to postpone, but it’s likely that the items will appear on PAC’s Aug. 19 agenda. That date falls after the Aug. 5 primary elections. Krapohl, a Democrat, is the only candidate running for Ward 4 city council. Christopher Taylor – a councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – is one of four Democrats running for mayor.

During the July 15 meeting, PAC also received a briefing on activities at Mack Pool, the city’s only indoor pool. Although the city had considered closing it just a few years ago, new programming has resulted in increased revenues for that facility.

Liberty Plaza

Two items appeared on the July 15 agenda related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The commission also heard public commentary related to this area.

Liberty Plaza: Fee Waiver – Background

By way of background on the fee waiver, a year ago the city council voted to waive fees for use of Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Divisions streets. The waiver was for a one-year trial period, through July 1, 2014.

Looking down the steps into Liberty Plaza, at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty.

The waiver had been recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting. It came in response to a situation that arose earlier that spring when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

The goal of the waiver was to attract additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza.” A key “whereas” clause of the 2013 council resolution stated: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Later in the year, on Nov. 18, 2013, the council approved ordinance revisions to allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses any park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance was revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.”

The July 15, 2014 PAC agenda did not include a staff recommendation or draft resolution related to the fee waiver. The meeting packet contained copies of the resolution approved by PAC in June 2013 and by the city council later that year.

Liberty Plaza: Council Resolution – Background

The July 15 PAC agenda also included a slot to discuss the city council resolution that had been passed at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting.

That council resolution had been brought forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – as well as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The original version would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Christopher Taylor at PAC’s July 15 meeting.

But after nearly an hour of debate, the council voted to refer the resolution to PAC instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broadened the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the proposed resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. The resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution came in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp.

Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations among councilmembers on June 16, 2014 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on the resolution on Liberty Plaza. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. The day after the council met, PAC’s regular monthly meeting, on June 17, was canceled.

PAC had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which were completed last year. The council accepted PAC’s recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: PAC’s April 15 Meeting

The last time members of PAC had a discussion about Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site was on April 15, 2014, when they discussed the council resolution that had been passed on April 7. That’s the resolution designating a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. [CTN video of PAC's April 15, 2014 meeting – the Library Lane park discussion beings at roughly the 1:42 minute mark]

The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow. The city council has designated 12,000 square feet of that lot, on the west side along the South Fifth Avenue, as a future park.

During PAC’s April 15 discussion, which lasted about 30 minutes, councilmember Mike Anglin – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC and who supports a Library Lane public space – told commissioners that the council didn’t give direction to PAC, but he thought that PAC should take initiative. PAC should start coming up with ideas about how a park at Library Lane should be designed, he said – who should be involved, how the meetings should be held, and how the process should be handled. He urged commissioners to watch the council’s April 14 deliberations, saying “that’s about the only way to truly understand what happened … because discussions take strange directions.”

It would be a real task to develop the city’s “first urban park,” he said. “The field, to me, is kind of open,” but there is direction to move forward. “There’s all sorts of … language going around and a lot of words being expressed, but there’s still a lot of room for discussion.” Anglin said he was confident that the community is intelligent enough to figure it out, though it might take a long time.

Another factor is that the council directed the city administrator to hire a broker for the possible sale of development rights on a portion of the Library Lane site.

Anglin told commissioners on April 15 that PAC should take the initiative, but there shouldn’t be a “stacked deck” with a pre-determined outcome. “If we do that, the process will die immediately – it’ll be dead on arrival.” A stacked deck is when the process is conducted “with all your cronies,” he said. Instead, it needs to be inclusive, with people that will likely disagree. He said he knew the library, for example, would come with some strong opinions.

David Santacroce, who was appointed to PAC in November 2013, told Anglin that he’d read the recommendation from PAC about downtown parks, and was confused about what’s expected of PAC now. “It seems like a re-do of the same work,” Santacroce said. “I don’t understand what’s supposed to be different about this public engagement and this downtown study that didn’t happen in the last go-around.” Was the council looking for more specifics about what kind of park should go there?

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said there’s a tendency to “remember what was said last.” Much of the recent discussion had been on the size of a park at Library Lane, and whether the city administrator should retain a broker, he said. But when PAC’s downtown park subcommittee had solicited feedback in 2013, they got over 1,600 survey responses and provided a lot of information, he noted. Smith thought it would be valuable to remind people about that, and to take another look at the public feedback from those surveys. There’s a lot of information about what residents would like to see in a downtown park. “We’ve got a pulse on that,” Smith said. [.pdf of downtown park survey results]

Anglin said he’s always felt that the major stakeholders are the library, the city, and maybe a developer. Some councilmembers think the developer should take care of and pay for a park. There are also “background people” who are privately saying that they would pay for a park, he said. “The game is not over yet.” So in that context, Anglin added, the community needs to have a discussion about “what do you want your town to be like in the downtown?”

Library Lane is a small two-way street that runs between South Fifth and Division, north of the downtown library – the brick building in the background. The street was built as part of the city-owned underground parking structure.

Anglin indicated that the Ann Arbor District Library might come up with a plan to build a new downtown library, which might include the Library Lane park area. The city made a major investment in that site, he said – maybe more than $56 million. The design of a park might include a couple of fountains, he said, or a band shell, a place to play chess, a rose garden and trees. He said that Argo Cascades “was never in the plan,” but that’s been a success. “If we build something and we’re not pleased with it, it can come out,” he added. The city has land and an opportunity for an urban park next to the library, where more people go than anyplace else in town, he said.

Graydon Krapohl said the question of a vision for the downtown is bigger than PAC’s role. Krapohl agreed that there’s already a lot of good information in the downtown park subcommittee’s report that was provided to council. It’s premature to have PAC develop ideas for a park without knowing what a developer might do or what kind of development might be there, he said. After a developer is involved, then PAC would have a role, he said. But it would be a waste of time and money to work on a design before that.

Krapohl thought that by setting the Library Lane’s park size at 12,000 square feet, it might have eliminated some potential interest in developing the property.

Krapohl also noted that the downtown park subcommittee worked for eight months to develop recommendations, which the full commission approved. He pointed out that Anglin was the only councilmember who didn’t vote to support that report at the council meeting. Anglin hadn’t provided any input or guidance to PAC about how the recommendations should have been shaped, Krapohl said.

Ingrid Ault said she’d been frustrated by the “blatant ignoring” of two key components in those recommendations – the point that funding needs to be identified, and if funding comes from the parks and recreation budget, what’s the impact on other programs? She also thought that council was ignoring placemaking principles that had been identified in the recommendations. “You’re asking us to design some kind of a park in an area that we know, based on best practices, won’t do well,” she said. “For me, that was really quite frustrating.”

Missy Stults agreed with Ault and Krapohl. She suggested returning to the downtown park subcommittee’s survey of residents, and draw out some of the main themes from respondents. But she agreed that PAC’s role right now shouldn’t extend beyond that.

Anglin responded, saying he’s well aware that the city doesn’t protect the citizens’ property “as much as we do the developers’ property.” The Library Lane site is the public’s property, and he wanted that discussion to occur. If it were already a park, then of course PAC would be involved in planning it, he said.

Regarding PAC’s recommendations for downtown parks, Anglin said he objected to the recommendation for development, because the community hadn’t said they wanted development there.

Santacroce then asked whether Anglin wanted additional input on whether there should be any development on the Library Lane site. Anglin indicated that he objected to the assumption that the lot would need to be developed, in order to recoup the city’s investment in the infrastructure there. He said that when the library ultimately builds a new downtown library, “it will be a spectacular work of art, if you will, and a community resource that we can all be proud of – as we are today.”

Anglin said he didn’t have all the answers, but he thought the answers could come from the community. To him, it wasn’t political – he just liked the concept of having a community commons.

Krapohl again said it sounded like a broader discussion that PAC could participate in, but that it wasn’t PAC’s role to lead. That broader question is what do residents want downtown to be. That discussion would in turn provide guidance regarding the Library Lane site. Does the community want part of the site developed so that the city can reap the return of tax revenue for years to come? Or should it be a large park, that will have to be paid for some way?

The broader discussion needs to include businesses, Krapohl said, as well as the DDA, neighborhood associations, PAC, the planning commission, the environmental commission and others.

Santacroce asked whether the council resolution already called for a building on the Library Lane site. If so, then “isn’t this issue out of the barn already?” One of the resolved clauses from the April 7 resolution states:

RESOLVED, That the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

Anglin replied that developers would have to know what they’re getting, and the council has carved out 12,000 square feet for a park. It might take a long time, he said. Anglin also noted that he and other councilmembers simply want to discuss this issue with the community.

Smith noted that at the April 7 meeting, the council passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a broker for possible sale of development rights on the portion of the Library Lane site that’s not designated for a park. He pointed out that a different resolution, which would have stopped this process, was not approved by the council.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, Smith noted that there was also extensive outreach regarding a vision for downtown as part of the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. There’s a tremendous amount of information in that effort, too, he said. More time needs to be spent evaluating the existing information that’s already available.

Smith noted that some people in the community would rather not see any private development on the Library Lane site. There are others who view this as an opportunity for collaboration and compatibility between the private and public sectors, he said. Smith pointed to results from the downtown park subcommittee survey, in which about 70% of the 1,600 respondents preferred a public/private approach to funding. Those responses shouldn’t be forgotten, he said.

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: July 15 Public Commentary

At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to address the issue of a park at the Library Lane site.

Gwen Nystuen, a former park commissioner, said she was there to talk about the Library Lane site. In June, the city council had asked PAC to develop a conceptual design integrating Liberty Plaza and Library Green – or whatever it will be called, she said. The intent was that the two parks should complement each other and become successful urban design parks. It will be challenging, but worth it, Nystuen said. There’s no question that Ann Arbor needs public open space downtown, and it has the ability to make the parks exciting and attractive, she said.

Former PAC member Gwen Nystuen and Ward 5 city councilmember Mike Anglin, who serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

Nystuen showed two drawings by the Library Green Conservancy, illustrating how walkways could be developed. The drawings were taken from a 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman report that looked at development of the entire block. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] Nystuen pointed out that there are park acquisition funds that could be used to buy easements to make these paths possible.

She noted that there are several properties in that block that might be redeveloped, including the downtown library and credit union site. That means it’s important to plan for the pedestrian connections, she said. The downtown citizens advisory council has supported creating pathways to walk through the block from as many directions as possible. PAC’s own recommendations, she noted, state that “Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.”

Eric Lipson introduced himself as a 35-year resident of Ann Arbor and former city planning commissioner. He’s also a member of the Library Green Conservancy, which has been advocating for a public park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure. And he’s a member of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor, which is helping to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park. He’s happy and excited that PAC is looking at ways to design and improve Liberty Plaza. But it makes obvious sense to plan not just for Liberty Plaza, but also for the entire block – bounded by Fifth and Division, and William and Liberty. There are some areas with barriers to pedestrian flow at Liberty Plaza, such as steps, which discourage the plaza’s use by the general public and encourage use “by those seeking to take advantage of the privacy of the sunken cul-de-sacs,” he said.

Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy passes out materials before PAC’s July 15 meeting. In the background is Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

Effective approaches to planning of public open space look at ways to connect activity centers, like the Diag does. The vision of connected public spaces on the Library Lot has been endorsed many times, Lipson noted – by the 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman study, the 2005 Calthorpe, the survey done by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for its Connecting William Street project, and PAC’s own survey of public preferences for downtown parks. Lipson noted that last spring, mayor John Hieftje proposed a clearly defined pedestrian path that would connect Liberty Plaza with public open space on the Library Lot, and then continue on to the former Y lot and the city-owned lot at the corner of Main and William, next to Palio restaurant. “This makes all the sense in the world,” Lipson said.

Liberty Plaza is the logical collection point and gateway from Liberty Street to the library, credit union, bus station, and on to Main Street. Bringing walkways from Division and Liberty up to grade, along with improved lighting and signage, would go a long way to creating a constant pedestrian flow, improve handicapped access and deter illicit behavior, he said. Preserving mature trees will make their shade a welcome place to gather on hot days. A water feature would be wonderful – perhaps using water currently collected and stored under the Library Lane lot.

Connecting Liberty Plaza to the proposed Library Lot plaza will create numerous opportunities for activating both corners of that block and all of the “activity-generators” between and beyond that area. It’s an exciting opportunity for PAC to have a major impact on the vitality of the downtown, Lipson concluded. He hoped commissioners would take full advantage of it.

Liberty Plaza: Commission Discussion

When PAC reached the two Liberty Plaza items on its July 15 agenda – the fee waiver and the city council’s referral of the resolution on Liberty Plaza – chair Ingrid Ault suggested that the conversation should be postponed. She said that key PAC members were absent, who could offer insight: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

PAC chair Ingrid Ault and Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation.

Ault noted that Galardi is chair of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board. She pointed out that Krapohl is PAC’s vice chair and had participated in the downtown park subcommittee, though he wasn’t an official subcommittee member. And Jackson had been instrumental in that subcommittee’s work, she said. Ault thought it would be prudent to wait until those members were at the table, before having this discussion.

No one objected.

Ault asked PAC’s city council representatives – Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin – whether this would be an issue for the council. Both Taylor and Anglin indicated that it would not be a problem to wait.

There was no discussion of the specific meeting at which these issues would be re-introduced. The previous fee waiver for Liberty Plaza expired on July 1, 2014.

By way of additional background, the next scheduled meeting for PAC, on Aug. 19, will fall two weeks after the Aug. 5 primary election. Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, is the only candidate running for Ward 4 city council. Christopher Taylor is one of four Democrats running for mayor.

In addition, PAC chair Ingrid Ault is expected to resign her post later this year, as she is moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She has been commuting there from her residence in Ann Arbor.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Fuller Park

A resolution to recommend the possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park appeared on PAC’s July 15 agenda.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith said.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours during which UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

Fuller Park: Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary about Fuller Park.

From left: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler and George Gaston.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She was there to talk about Fuller Park and the potential location of a new train station. In looking at the lease agreement, there seems to be an assumption that the train station could go on the south side of Fuller Road, on a portion of Fuller Park. The city is going through an environmental review of potential sites, and the Sierra Club is concerned that the appropriate procedures are followed, she said. In particular, that means taking into account the Dept. of Transportation’s Section 4(F) requirements when one of the proposed sites involves city parkland. There’s a hope that PAC would be looking closely at the criteria that are being used to evaluate sites in that review process, she said.

When it comes to Fuller Park, the assessment should be looking at the impact on the park in its entirety, Shiffler stressed, not simply the portion of the site where a station might be located. If you look at projections of 10 Amtrak runs per day, plus an unknown number of commuter passengers – which could reach up to 500,000 a year – then the traffic impact along the Fuller Road corridor would be increased a lot, she said. It should be very clear what the impact might be on Fuller Pool and the rest of the park, such as the impact on air quality from idling trains and buses. She noted that a station could impact the Border-to-Border trail, which is intended to run through a portion of the park, as well as the entire Huron River valley.

Rita Mitchell said she’d been following the issues related to Fuller Park for a long time – since 2009, when there was proposal to build a large parking structure there. There’s been a parking lot of the site for more than 20 years, “but it was a park beforehand,” she noted, and it was one of the earliest parks in Ann Arbor along the river. It has history that some people haven’t seen, because they’re newcomers to Ann Arbor.

Mitchell said that part of Fuller Park could be returned a recreation area, or a place that could mirror the kinds of things that happen now in Gallup Park, which is often very crowded. As someone who’s a member of Protect Ann Arbor Parks, Mitchell asked PAC to consider the issues of protecting parkland, and to avoid the potential of turning it into a transportation center. If it could happen there, what would stop it from happening in any park?

Mitchell said it was disturbing to see an early termination clause in the lease agreement with UM. She hoped that PAC would study it carefully, possibly put it on the table for a while, and acknowledge that the public has not weighed in on a transportation center at that location. The environmental assessment for a train station is still going on, she noted, so it’s disturbing to see a transportation center referenced in a document that would be signed by the city.

George Gaston noted that he lived by Island Park, one of the oldest parks in the city. He came to speak in defense of Fuller Park, one of the chain of parks along the river assembled by Eli Gallup during his 38-year term as parks superintendent for the city. When Gallup assembled these properties, Gaston said, there were houses, farms, businesses and factories – it was not open, vacant land. There was a conscious effort to open up the riverside for public use, and “we would like to see it maintained for public use,” he said. The surface parking lot at Fuller Park (Lot A) was never intended to be permanent, Gaston said. At the time when the lease was first signed, PAC had considered it a temporary measure to provide parking as part of a swap while the UM Cancer Center was being built. Twenty years later, it’s still there.

If the city is intent on renewing this lease, Gaston said, he asked whether PAC has reviewed the figures involved. There’s another parking lot at Riverside Park that the university leases from the city, and there’s a great disparity between what UM pays there compared to the Fuller Park lot, he said. The city needs to decide whether it should be subsidizing parking for the university or should the city be getting full value from the lease. The university charges its departments as well as individuals for the parking permits, he noted. It’s still parkland, would be nice to be used for the Border-to-Border trail. There isn’t enough parking for the parks now, Gaston concluded.

Fuller Park: Commission Discussion

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, responded to some of the issues raised during public commentary. He said that he and other staff are very concerned about making sure that whatever happens with the train station is done in an open and transparent way. That’s why Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and the consultant on this project addressed PAC earlier this year to give an update, Smith said. He and park planner Amy Kuras are involved in that process, to evaluate the potential sites for a station. That work is ongoing, and any recommendations will be brought to PAC for review.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager.

Smith pointed out that the PAC meeting packet had included both a proposed new lease as well as a copy of the 2012 lease agreement. [.pdf of proposed 2014 lease] [.pdf of 2012 lease]

Smith noted that the 2012 lease, which was the same one that had been in place since 2009, had a section on page 3 that was titled “Early Termination/Potential Rail Station and Local Connector.” It specifically addressed the project that was called the Fuller Road Station.

The reality, Smith said, is that this agreement isn’t about the train station. It’s a lease agreement between two parties for the use of a parking lot, while recognizing what’s going on in the community, he added. “It is possible, if the public decides and council decides, that this could become something else. And as such, it seems both kind of a courtesy and a standard business practice to let the people who you’re going into a lease with know that there may be a change,” he said, and to clarify how it would be addressed.

So this is nothing new, Smith concluded. The change between the 2014 lease and the prior lease is the title of that section, which is now titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use.” That section states:

City reserves the right to terminate this Lease for use of all or a portion of the site to facilitate public transportation with 12 months advance written notification to University. Termination under this provision will be automatically effective on the date specified in the notice and City shall have no further obligation to University under this Lease except that if the 12-month notice period occurs so as to cross annual payment periods (i.e. for example: notice period June- May/annual payment period September-August), University shall be entitled to a rebate of that portion of the annual payment applicable to the months after the termination date.

Upon initiating formal planning for construction of a new commuter rail station, relocating the Ann Arbor Amtrak intercity passenger station or developing a local connector service contemplating use of a part, or all, of Lot A, City shall notify University of such planning considerations. Notification shall be in writing and will include information regarding University input in City’s planning process. City will work cooperatively with University while considering enhancing transportation service to this location. The planning process will assure both parties’ interests are included in all considerations. It is recognized that provision of high capacity public mass transportation service to this site is intended to increase access and mobility resulting in a decrease in the need for surface parking by University. Notwithstanding the above, it is understood by the parties that participation by University in the planning process does not negate or otherwise impact City’s right to terminate this Lease for the reason stated.

Karen Levin asked why there needs to be any mention of “transportation use.” Why can’t the lease simply mention the early termination option? “It seems like that’s what there’s a concern about,” she said. Why is there a need to be so specific? Early termination could result from something else, she noted.

Smith replied that the section is included as a recognition of what’s going on in the community, a conversation that’s essentially running parallel with the lease and that includes the same property.

Levin was concerned that the section makes it appear that PAC is indirectly endorsing a train station at that location.

Karen Levin.

David Santacroce said that if he were in the university’s position, he wouldn’t want to sign a lease “where you could willy-nilly cancel it for any reason.” So having a specific reason gives the university some comfort in the negotiation process, he said.

Smith noted that the section prior to that includes standard default/termination language, allowing either party to terminate under certain conditions.

The section titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use” in the 2014 proposed lease is actually somewhat shorter and less specific than the 2012 version, he noted.

Missy Stults told Smith that she picked up from public commentary the sense that the use of Fuller Park land as a parking lot was intended to be temporary. She asked him to talk about that history, and whether there’s been any discussion about reverting it to parkland.

Smith replied that the lot on the south side of Fuller Road, Lot A, has been a parking lot leased to the university for 21 years. The other lots have been leased since 2009. In terms of needs for additional parkland space at that location, “it’s not something I’ve had a strong call for,” he said. It wasn’t clear how all of the space would be used for the Border-to-Border trail, for example. During the summer months in the evenings, most of the parking is used for park activities – including the pool and soccer fields. So “I would certainly be hesitant to remove parking for park use,” Smith said.

Levin again expressed concern about the language in the agreement. She thought the lease made it appear that the train station would be located there, and she hoped there was a way to indicate that it was only a possibility.

Smith noted that the language has been in the lease for about six years, and it hasn’t caused a “great deal of heartache.” But if it would make commissioners feel more comfortable, he said, he could contact the university and see if it’s important that the language remain. If it’s removed, he added, he didn’t think it changed things very much. The environmental assessment for a train station’s potential new location will continue, he noted. The lease “doesn’t have the strength to determine that this is the site for a station. This doesn’t do that at all.”

Christopher Taylor weighed in, saying that “the obligations that the language creates are predicated upon, or rather spring from when the thing occurs.” As a consequence, the agreement has to talk about the thing occurring, he said, in order to describe what happens after it occurs. Taylor said it’s like the heading could be “If A Large Number of Things Fall Into Place Such That A Station Is Proposed And Planned At This Location,” then the following things would happen. He said the lease lists what would need to happen if all those things occur, but “it doesn’t push it, I don’t think.” It doesn’t predispose the city or university to do certain things, Taylor continued, “it’s just a contingency.”

Missy Stults.

Mike Anglin asked whether commissioners would be amenable to stating that the passage of this recommendation in no way supports a decision to move forward with the train station. It would indicate that this isn’t an endorsement of a train station location, he said, but simply addressing the needs that the park system has for this revenue. PAC is not endorsing any railroad station in parkland, he said – “period.” Nor is PAC not endorsing, he noted.

Santacroce said he didn’t read the lease as an endorsement. But at some point, PAC might decide that it does want to endorse a train station at that location. To include language stating that it’s not an endorsement or a refusal to endorse “all feels to me a little bit wrought.” The proposed agreement struck him as just good planning for the future. He understood the concerns, but thought that the debate over the train station “is a whole different subject, and this doesn’t speak to it at all – other than giving the city an option, at some point.”

Anglin pointed out that the lease requires council approval. He urged that some caveat be included, in order to secure that approval.

Stults clarified with Smith that the city attorney’s office had already reviewed the lease. She wondered if adding the word “if” would provide some assurance, inserted into this sentence: “If upon initiating formal planning for construction of a new commuter rail station …” She asked the two attorneys who serve on PAC – Santacroce and Taylor – what they thought.

Santacroce indicated that it was awkward, because “clearly some legal minds already thought about the construction of this,” and he was hesitant to change it.

Taylor said he already read the language as constituting a “condition precedent upon initiating formal planning when that thing occurs.” He added: “That thing is not going to occur without a large, full, transparent conversation – if ever.” If he were drafting the lease, he would have no problem inserting “if” into the agreement. However, “I don’t know that it’s our role to wordsmith it,” he added.

Taylor indicated that if PAC passed the recommendation, it would be important for him and Anglin to communicate to the council that the recommendation “is entirely silent as to whether or not a station at this location is wise or foolish.”

Smith pointed out that the “if” is implied in the first paragraph of that section: “City reserves the right to terminate this Lease for use of all or a portion of the site to facilitate public transportation with 12 months advance written notification to University.” He also described the kind of input that he and Kuras were providing for the environmental assessment, noting that they’ll continue to be involved in that effort.

David Santacroce.

Santacroce noted that PAC is being asked to do is to recommend that the city sign the lease. Ultimately, the council will decide. And as long as it’s communicated clearly that PAC isn’t taking a position on the use of the park for a train station, he was comfortable with this resolution.

Anglin then pointed out that all parkland is considered public land, and “subject to transportation use.”

Levin again suggested adding something to the resolution to address the concern that had been raised during public commentary. Smith said he understood her position, but he wondered whether it would be “cleaner” for councilmembers to simply share PAC’s conversation about this issue with the rest of council – rather than adding a resolved clause that doesn’t have anything to do with the business at hand. He noted that it wouldn’t be an issue if the current agreement didn’t expire until next year. The expiration just happened to coincide with the environmental assessment for a train station location.

Stults wondered if PAC ever communicated to council by attaching a memo or cover letter with its resolution. Smith replied: “You may do whatever you want when it comes to communicating with council.” He thought council would welcome feedback on this, with the resolution or additional communication.

Santacroce suggested adding a resolved clause: “Whereas by this resolution, PAC takes no position on any potential use of this land at this time.” This is about appearances, he said, and although he doesn’t read it that way, some people could interpret the termination language as a threat. He’s hesitant to change the lease itself, because of the logistics involved – it would have to go back to the city attorney’s office and the UM general counsel’s office. “They’ll be spending money, we’ll be spending money – it just seems like a waste of effort that could go elsewhere.”

Anglin characterized it as a controversial issue. If he were drafting the lease, he’d strike all language out of the agreement that mentioned the possible transportation or any future use. There’s been a community conversation and it’s down to two sites, he said, “so it’s getting near decision time.” He didn’t think PAC’s job was to reflect “on what is going on out there. It’s not affecting this lease in any shape or form – unless there’s some legal things going on” regarding land use or other constraints. He thought the dialogue would still be going on for at least two more years.

Anglin said the city had a lot of other parking agreements with UM, and those don’t mention anything like this. “Rather than confuse it and muddy some waters in pro or con, it’s best to just pull back and say we’re just leasing it,” he said. It was just a suggestion, he added, but he thought there would be some councilmembers who’d share that opinion.

Smith replied that you could see it both ways. One could argue that it’s more transparent to mention the possible transportation use as part of the lease agreement, he said, compared to leaving it out. “It’s obviously perceived otherwise by some, too,” he added.

Santacroce thought it made simple business sense to leave the section in the lease, even if the possibility of putting a transportation center there is remote. He didn’t want to get involved in a discussion about whether it should be located there, but it would be foolhardy for the city not to include that option.

Taylor then proposed adding a whereas clause to the resolution: “Whereas this resolution does not commit PAC to support or reject the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

Other commissioners indicated support for adding that clause to their resolution.

As the discussion wrapped up, Smith also responded to another concern raised during public commentary – about the amount being charged for the Fuller Park lots, compared to parking at Riverside Park. At Riverside, a handful of spaces are leased to the university off of Canal Street. Those spots do bring in more per spot, he noted. The university rents those spots as “Blue” parking permits. The spots at Fuller Park are “Yellow” permits. The university issues those Yellow permits for $153 per year. There are roughly 450 spots at Fuller, but the university doesn’t have access to those lots at all times, he noted. [.pdf of UM parking permit fees]

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended approval of the lease renewal. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Mack Pool

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools, made a presentation to PAC about the past season at Mack indoor pool, and a look ahead at things to come. [.pdf of Hurn's presentation]

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools.

By way of background, in April 2009 former city administrator Roger Fraser had proposed either closing Mack Pool or turning it over to the Ann Arbor Public Schools, as a way to help balance the city’s budget in the face of declining revenues. Supporters of the pool mobilized to come up with ideas for cutting expenses and increasing pool revenues. Ultimately, the city council voted for a budget that included keeping the pool. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force Floats Ways to Save Mack Pool“; “More Options for Ann Arbor’s Mack Pool“; and “Ann Arbor Budget: Formal Commencement.”

At PAC’s July 15 meeting, Hurn began by describing the features of the pool, which is located inside the AAPS school Ann Arbor Open. The pool is shared, and used by the school in the morning and by the public in the very early mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends.

It’s the city’s only indoor pool – a six-lane, 25 yard pool with an attached 30-foot by 45-foot toddler area. It employs 15-18 seasonal workers. Last season, there were over 67,000 visits to the pool.

In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the pool was budgeted for revenue of $119,000 but brought in more than that – $159,000. That was due to new programming and different ways of using the pool space and time, Hurn said. The new program also resulted in higher-than-budgeted expenses, she noted – about $29,000 over budget. Now that the new programs have been started, the intent is to help those grow to increase the revenue while keeping expenses stable.

The staff is trying to create as many new opportunities for using the pool as possible, Hurn explained. Having more people exposed to swimming means the community is healthier, and that there’s support for keeping Mack Pool open.

Programs include:

• Group swim lessons, with 299 participants in 2013-14 compared to 246 the previous year. The staff is looking at offering more classes at different skill levels.
• Private, one-on-one swim lessons, with 237 participants in 2013-14 compared to 110 a year ago.
• Masters swim sessions, with 384 registered pass holders and 383 drop-in swimmers. The previous year, there were 283 pass holders.
• A youth swim team – the Mack Manta Rays – was a new addition in the 2013-14 season, and was very successful, Hurn said. There were 183 registered swimmers over two sessions. They compete against teams in Chelsea, Dexter, Ypsilanti and other municipalities.
• Water aerobics had 63 participants, and is another program that the staff hopes to grow.
• Log rolling was new in the 2013-14 season, and was a huge hit, Hurn said. An initial demonstration by representatives of Keylog Rolling resulted in Hurn buying one of the logs and using it for special events, for workshops and private parties. Hurn hopes to someday form a competitive team.

In addition to these programs, Mack Pool also offers special events, including monthly “Splash Days” and four “Dive-In” movie nights, when families can bring their flotation devices to watch a children’s film. The most popular one was “Frozen,” Hurn said. It’s something that’s being carried over to the city’s outdoor pools as well.

Hurn also described training that’s provided to pool staff, including re-certification courses for CPR and lifeguarding. They also offer Red Cross lifeguard certification courses to the public now, too.

Regarding maintenance, Hurn reported that a large roof repair project is being completed this summer. A new pool cover was purchased to help reducing heating costs. That made a big difference, she said, especially coupled with thermal curtains that were hung during the winter. The pool pump was also rebuilt.

Looking ahead, Hurn described efforts to grow the use of Mack Pool, including more evening group swim lessons, more private lessons, and a wider variety of party packages

Mack Pool: Commission Discussion

Paige Morrison asked about the expansion of private parties, and wondered how many hours per week the pool would be available for that.

PAC member Paige Morrison.

Gayle Hurn said that most people are looking to book parties on the weekends. The pool closes to the public at 6 p.m., so a private dive-in movie party could be scheduled after that. She noted that private birthday parties are also booked during the pool’s general swim time on Saturdays, and use only a portion of the pool.

Ingrid Ault thanked Hurn for her work and enthusiasm, and pledged to learn how to log roll.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, praised Hurn for her work. It’s her first year in that position, and has brought energy and enthusiasm as reflected in new programming. Smith also complimented deputy parks & recreation manager Jeff Straw, who supervises Hurn. Smith noted that Straw gives the staff latitude to try new ideas, even ones that seem a little “out there.”

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, provided several updates. He noted that the city’s fiscal year ended on June 30, 2014. Typically a detailed year-end financial report would be provided at the July meeting, but Bob Galardi – chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee – couldn’t attend the July 15 meeting.

As a quick preview, Smith said, the parks and recreation unit exceeded its revenue budget for the year. The budget had called for $3.729 million in revenues, but actual revenues were about $3.81 million for the year. Revenues were up for the canoe liveries and Mack Pool.

The expenditure budget was $5.273 million, and actual expenditures were slightly lower – $5.186 million. He noted that more bills for the year will be arriving, so the final amount for expenditures could be higher. A more detailed update will be presented to PAC at its August meeting.

Smith also reported that the first meeting had been held for a subcommittee to discuss smoking in the parks. He thought the group would have something to report to PAC in August.

Responding to a query from Ingrid Ault, Smith said that on the weekends, University of Michigan is allowing the city to use its surface parking near the Kellogg Eye Center, near Argo Pond. There’ve been 80-100 cars parked there each weekend day. A shuttle comes by to take people to the canoe livery, or it’s within walking distance, he said. The arrangement has reduced complaints about parking in the neighborhood near Argo Pond. UM is not charging the city for the parking use, he said.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

If the parcels are available for sale, the council has also requested that the park advisory commission review the two properties and advise the city council by  Oct. 1, 2014 about whether they are desirable for city purchase using parkland acquisition funds and private contributions.

Originally on the agenda was just an item related to the Burton Road property, brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). During the meeting, the resolution was amended – at the request of Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – to include the Glendale property. The deliberations that led to the amendment and that resulted in the final wording of the resolution are reflected in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

The Burton Road property is the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

Kunselman had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution for the Burton Road property. The idea would be to use funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Aerial view of proposed Glendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The Glendale property is the site of a proposed development that was just recently in front of the city planning commission on July 1, 2014, but postponed. That meeting drew 22 speakers at the public hearing on the project, nearly all in opposition to it.

The plan calls for removing two vacant single-family houses and building six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning – R4B (multi-family residential) – up to 39 units would be allowed by right. Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

The amendment put forward by Warpehoski to include the 312 Glendale parcel in Kunselman’s resolution indicated that the estimated land value of the 2.64-acre parcel is $345,200.

On the combined resolution for both the Burton Road and the Glendale parcels, the vote was 8-2, with dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) was absent due to illness.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

According to a staff memo, the city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with an additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks & recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Three people spoke during public commentary regarding Fuller Park, though most of their focus was on the possibility of locating a train station at that site.

Responding to concerns raised during public commentary, commissioners discussed and ultimately amended the recommendation, adding a whereas clause that stated the “resolution does not commit PAC to support or oppose the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

PAC’s recommendation was unanimous and will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where PAC holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow.

The resolution considered by the council would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…” The resolution was sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

But after nearly an hour of debate, the council voted to refer the resolution to the park advisory commission instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broaden the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments] Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) cited the fact that under parliamentary rules, a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend, so the council voted on the referral before the vote to amend.

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. The resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations on June 16 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on this resolution. Taylor, one of the resolution’s co-sponsors, serves as an ex-officio member of PAC. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy.

PAC meets monthly, but its June 17 meeting has been canceled. The group had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which they completed last year. The council accepted the recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The agreement would be for CAN to continue operating the city’s Bryant and Northside Community Centers, which the nonprofit has been managing since 2008. The proposed amount is not to exceed $130,000 annually – an increase of $25,000 from the current agreement. The higher amount is included in the FY 2015 general fund budget for parks and recreation that the city council approved on May 19. According to a staff memo, the higher amount will address increases in fixed costs and “assist in retaining quality staff that is at the core of the services that CAN provides.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The staff memo also noted that a request for proposals (RFP) was not issued for this work, because CAN has been the sole respondent to the previous two RFPs and the city is satisfied with its work.

During the May 20 meeting, CAN received praise for their work from several commissioners and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. CAN executive director Joan Doughty and deputy director Derrick Miller were on hand to answer questions. Part of the discussion focused on CAN’s exemption from the city’s living wage requirement, which the city council granted in 2012 for a three-year period through Nov. 8, 2015. Doughty noted that the exemption was sought in part because CAN was paying a living wage to part-time employees who were high school or university students, which limited the nonprofit from paying higher wages to full-time workers. She also pointed out that the city parks and recreation unit isn’t required to pay the living wage to its seasonal workers.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

The value of the contract is $205,055 plus a 10% construction contingency of $20,506. That brings the project’s total budget to $225,561. Renosys was the lowest of two bidders. Natare Corp. submitted a bid of $211,965.

The work will be done in the fall, so the summer swimming season won’t be disrupted. Funding is available from the approved FY2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo]

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

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.