From left: Bernie Lugauer and Bob Buckler of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor talk with Christopher Taylor, an ex officio member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

After a presentation on Jan. 28, commissioners recommended that the city apply for a state Dept. of Natural Resources grant to help fund the remainder of the work, which is estimated to cost $500,000.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that although there are about 80 playgrounds in Ann Arbor, none are universally accessible. It’s a “huge shortcoming” for the parks system, he said. The exact location within Gallup Park hasn’t been determined, but the playground would be about 5,000 square feet and exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The design and equipment is intended to create environments that can be used by all people, with features like ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people using wheelchairs.

Two Rotary representatives attended the Jan. 28 meeting to help describe the club’s role in the project. Bob Buckler, a Rotary director and co-chair of the group’s centennial committee, told commissioners that in general the Rotary’s primary focus is on supporting children, by funding scholarships, Washtenaw Success By Six and other programs. That’s why the universal access playground is so appealing as a way to celebrate Rotary’s centennial, he said. Buckler indicated that fundraising for this project has already begun. The grand opening is expected to be on Labor Day in 2016.

In other action on Jan. 28, commissioners approved the location for new tennis courts at Windemere Park – a project that’s been in the works for about two years. The location has been somewhat controversial among neighbors, and prompted a review of the previously selected site. The current courts have deteriorated and are in a location where it’s unsuitable to rebuild.

Also on Jan. 28, PAC recommended the purchase of two vans to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades.

The meeting marked a transition of members on PAC. It was the first meeting for David Santacroce, who was appointed by the city council last year to replace Julie Grand. And it was the final meeting for Jen Geer, who has resigned after less than a year on the commission. Paige Morrison was appointed by the council on Feb. 3 to fill the remainder of Geer’s term – through May 19, 2016.

Universal Access Playground

At its Jan. 28 meeting, PAC considered a resolution recommending that the city apply for a state Dept. of Natural Resources grant to help fund a “universal access” playground at Gallup Park.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, gave a special presentation on the universal access playground at Gallup Park, funded in part with a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to celebrate the club’s centennial anniversary in 2016.

Bob Buckler and Bernie Lugauer of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor.

Smith told commissioners that the city has 80 playgrounds, but none of them have universal access. “It’s really a great shortcoming in the parks system,” he said. Such playgrounds aim to exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and strive to be as inclusive as possible. The design is intended to create environments that can be used by all people.

The design and equipment for this type of playground is more expensive. The playground will include ramps, color-contrasting structures, wider bridges and walkways, and playground equipment that makes it easier for people with wheelchairs to use, for example.

Smith then introduced Bob Buckler, a Rotary board director and co-chairman of the club’s centennial committee, along with Bernie Lugauer. Buckler described Rotary as the largest service organization in the world, primarily focused on humanitarian projects. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor is one of the largest clubs, he added – it’s the largest club in Michigan, and the 32nd largest Rotary club in the world, with 350 members. [There are several Rotary clubs in this area. The Rotary Club of Ann Arbor holds its weekly meetings at the Michigan Union.]

Buckler told commissioners that the club’s focus in this community is the children of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. Support includes scholarships to Washtenaw Community College, and funding for Washtenaw Success By Six and other programs.

In 2016, the Ann Arbor club will be 100 years old, Buckler said, and they’ve been trying to figure out an appropriate gift back to the community on this occasion. They evaluated many options, he said. Describing their relationship with Colin Smith as a “godsend,” Buckler said they came up with a project that will be great for the community and all children, and something that Rotary members will be incredibly proud of. The club is committing $250,000 and has already started fundraising for it, he said. He hoped commissioners would endorse it and provide input to make it the best playground possible.

Smith continued his presentation, describing the values that Rotary and the city’s parks and recreation system share: community service and the goal of enhancing quality of life.

He noted that an ADA playground complies with minimum accessibility standards as established by the Americans with Disabilities Act – that is, it meets the letter of the law. But universal access playgrounds go further, with the goal of being usable by all people. It’s one of the elements highlighted in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, he noted.

Design elements include a playground surface that’s level with the entire perimeter of the playground, so that people can access the playground easily. The surface is made out of material that’s uniform, and that’s easy for someone with a wheelchair or a walker to use. Ramps are used to provide access to different levels of the play structures. Equipment is designed to be used for multiple purposes, including platforms to help transfer children from wheelchairs, for example. Paths and bridges are wide enough to accommodate a child in a wheelchair and a caregiver. Interactive play elements are at ground level, using high-contrasting colors for people with poor eyesight.

One aspect of this kind of playground that’s often overlooked, Smith said, is that it doesn’t just provide access to children, but can also be used by parents who are in a wheelchair or have other accessibility needs.

It was the last meeting for Jen Geer, who resigned after less than a year through her three-year term.

The parks staff is recommending that the playground be located at Gallup Park because it’s a popular regional park, attracting people from beyond Ann Arbor. “Having a playground like this there paints Ann Arbor in a very good light,” Smith said. In addition, an existing playground by the children’s pond isn’t in good shape, he noted, and it needs to be replaced. That replacement is already included as a potential project in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). The location of the new playground within the park, which would be about twice the size of the existing one, is yet to be determined.

The total cost of the 5,000-square-foot playground is estimated at $500,000 – including the design, construction, equipment and landscaping. “It’s not an inexpensive project, by any stretch of the imagination,” Smith said.

In addition to the Rotary funding, the city would contribute $100,000 to the project. It’s hoped that some of the remaining $150,000 funding would be provided by a grant from the state’s Dept. of Natural Resources grants management program. The project would be attractive for a grant because it would provide universal access in a heavily used park. Smith noted that PAC would be voting on a recommendation to apply for a grant later in the meeting. Although no amount has yet been specified, Smith said it’s likely that the grant application will be for the balance of the project – $150,000.

Outlining the potential timeline, Smith noted that the deadline for the current grant cycle is April 1, 2014. This year would be spent on public input, design and approval, with city council approval of a construction contract targeted for 2015, and groundbreaking in the spring of 2016. The new playground is anticipated to be open by Labor Day of 2016.

Smith also described several ways that the city could recognize the Rotary club for its contribution, including the possibility of naming the playground, and installing plaques to indicate how the playground was funded.

Universal Access Playground: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson suggested that the playground structure itself could perhaps be designed to incorporate the word “Rotary” into it. He observed that this type of playground might lead to more demand for ADA parking nearby, and he’d be supportive of that. It’s something to be sensitive to as the project moves forward, he said.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson, who also serves on the board of the Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Jackson also wanted to be prepared to maintain the playground for use all year, even during the winter months. Colin Smith reported that the city is hiring a playground safety inspector. He said it’s not unusual to see children using playgrounds in the winter.

Bob Galardi wondered who’d be in control of this project, after all of the funding is in place. Smith replied that this project is analogous to the Ann Arbor skatepark that’s now under construction at Veterans Memorial Park. It’s located in a city park and becomes city property, even though much of the funding comes from various non-city sources. The city will oversee the public engagement, design and construction.

Karen Levin asked about other playgrounds at Gallup Park. There is another playground located at the canoe/kayak livery, Smith said, on the opposite end of the park.

Several commissioners thanked the Rotary for helping the city with this project.

Regarding PAC’s resolution on the grant application, Smith noted that the process works like this: Staff will come to PAC to ask for a recommendation to submit the application, then that recommendation is forwarded to the city council for approval.

Alan Jackson noted that the resolution is specific to the DNR grant. He suggested amending it to recommend support for applying for other funding in general. Galardi wondered if it was important to identify a specific source. Smith indicated that it would be preferable to have separate resolutions for each grant application.

Smith noted that the application for a grant can have implications on public policy – that’s why grants require council approval. As a hypothetical – and he stressed that this was indeed a hypothetical case – if city staff applied for a grant to remove the Argo Dam and the grant were awarded, that would have policy implications that are the purview of the city council.

Galardi agreed, saying the city doesn’t want “grants gone wild.” He moved the resolution recommending that the city apply for the DNR grant.

Outcome: The recommendation to apply for the DNR grant to help fund a universal access playground passed unanimously.

Windemere Park Tennis Courts

Commissioners were asked to approve a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads.

Recommended new location for new Windemere Park tennis courts. (Image included in Jan. 28, 2014 meeting packet for the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.)

The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

In 2012, city staff held two public meetings to seek input on options for locating the new courts. The option recommended by staff – to locate the courts to the east of the current location – was one that a majority of residents at a public meeting on Oct. 8, 2012 had favored. That location was ultimately recommended by PAC at its Oct. 16, 2012 meeting.

The cost of the project was estimated at around $100,000. Bids were expected to be solicited, with construction to take place in the summer of 2013.

However, some neighbors subsequently raised concerns about the option that was recommended by PAC – Option 4 of the four options that were considered. It had been a compromise proposal, moving the tennis courts closer to the center of the existing open space at the park, farther away from homes around the perimeter of the park, compared to other options.

Because of those concerns, staff held off on construction of the new tennis courts and have been talking with residents about other alternatives. Residents conducted an online Doodle poll comparing the option that was recommended by PAC to one of the other options – Option 1, located slightly further to the north – that had been rejected. Lobbying for Option 1 at a PAC meeting on Nov. 19, 2013 were several residents – including representatives of the Earhart Knolls and Glacier Highlands homeowners associations. Ward 2 Ann Arbor city councilmember Jane Lumm also attended that meeting and advocated for Option 1, on behalf of residents.

There was not universal agreement, however, so additional input was sought, including a survey on Ann Arbor Open City Hall. The parks staff also held another public meeting on Jan. 15, 2014, which was attended by about two dozen residents, several park advisory commissioners and some city councilmembers. At that meeting, yet another option – labeled Option 1A – was brought forward. It shifted the location in Option 1 slightly to the north and east, and changed the location of the path entering the courts.

Windemere Park Tennis Courts: Public Commentary

Rita Benn reminded commissioners that she had spoken to PAC last year, when they made the decision to hold a third public meeting regarding the location of tennis courts at Windemere Park. [The PAC meeting that Benn mentioned took place on Nov. 19, 2013.]

Rita Benn, a resident who lives near Windemere Park, talks with Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager.

Benn said that several city councilmembers, PAC members and community members attended the public meeting on Jan. 15, 2014 at the Gallup Park meeting room. She praised Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, for maintaining calm and presenting the information.

After hearing all the information, Benn still supported Option 4, which was the compromise made at the previous public meeting – on Oct. 8, 2012. A major contention had been that children would be playing in a different direction, she said – north/south, instead of east/west. There were no safety issues, however, she noted, and she hoped that the commission would recommend Option 4.

Benn also referred to Option 1A, which was introduced at the Jan. 15, 2014 public forum. It would move the location of the tennis courts further away from her property, but it wouldn’t be as aesthetically pleasing as Option 4, she said.

Regardless of the option that PAC recommends, Benn said, she hoped they would include a recommendation for landscaping around the tennis courts. It would also be good to have landscaping for the site of the current tennis courts, she added, so that the area won’t be an eyesore after those courts are removed.

Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association and Jeff Alson, a member of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association, had previously addressed PAC during the Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, in support of Option 1. They also attended the Jan. 28 meeting but did not address the commission during public commentary. City councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who also had advocated for Option 1 on Nov. 19, attended the Jan. 28 meeting but did not speak formally to commissioners.

Windemere Park Tennis Courts: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, gave a report about the Jan. 15 public forum that was held on this issue. At that forum, Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, had reviewed the four options that had been considered, as well as an overview of the project’s history. About 25 community members attended, Krapohl said, as well as himself, Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson from PAC. Attending from city council were Christopher Taylor, who serves as one of two ex officio members of PAC, and both Ward 2 council representatives – Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm. The park is located in Ward 2.

From left: Jeff Alson of the Glacier Highlands Homeowners Association and Ed Weiss of the Earhart Knolls Homeowners Association. Sitting behind them is city councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Krapohl said the group had a good discussion about the pros and cons of all four options. [.pdf of options] Options 2 and 3 weren’t seen as desirable, he said. Option 1 was modified during the forum to shift the location slightly to the northeast, and move the entrance into the courts from the west to the east side. [That new location was labeled Option 1A.] The project would include “enhanced landscaping,” he said, to provide more cover between the courts and nearby houses.

Alan Jackson noted that Option 1A had been introduced at the Jan. 15 forum for the first time – and that kind of last-minute option had been a problem at the previous public meetings. He hoped there had been enough time for Option 1A to be reviewed by the community.

The resolution considered by PAC included a statement that this project should be no more than 10-20% above normal reconstruction costs. Responding to a query from Bob Galardi, Smith noted that the commission’s meeting packet included a lot of information about soil borings and other tests related to the different site options. All of the potential sites are suitable for tennis courts, he said, so it’s expected that the construction bids would be within normal reconstruction costs. However, until the city actually receives the bids, he added, it’s not possible to say for sure. Parks planner Amy Kuras noted that the cost will be somewhat higher than normal, because of plans to include storm drains.

Ingrid Ault said the Jan. 15 public forum included discussion of the orientation of the tennis courts. The orientation needs to be north/south, so that the players aren’t looking into the sun. There was also discussion of how the soccer fields in Windemere Park are oriented from east to west, she said. Jackson added that the discussion also touched on how to keep the largest possible contiguous piece of property available for other uses, like baseball, soccer and Frisbee.

Ault reported that the owner of the home located closest to the tennis courts in Option 1A did not attend the Jan. 15 public forum.

Ingrid Ault and Graydon Krapohl, chair and vice chair of PAC.

Regarding the site where the current tennis courts will be removed, Krapohl noted that it’s in a location that was previously a pond, so it will take a few years to seed. Kuras added that she’s looking at doing some soil stabilization at the old site, as well as regrading the site and putting in drain tile.

Smith summarized results from a survey that the city conducted about this project, using Ann Arbor Open City Hall. [.pdf of survey responses] Of the 95 respondents, 68 (about 70%) preferred Option 1. Ault noted that Option 1A wasn’t included in the survey, because the survey occurred prior to the Jan. 15 forum when that option was presented as an alternative.

Jackson said the main difference between Option 1 and Option 1A is the entrance. He also thought that 1A offered better screening for the neighbors, and mitigates some of the problems for nearby homes. It also has the merit of preserving a large portion of the park for other uses, he said.

Ault noted that the Jan. 15 public forum discussion included talk about windscreens. Smith replied that there are different views about such screens. The only tennis courts in the city’s parks system that use windscreens are at Veterans Memorial Park. Players tend to like them, he said, but screens are “less preferable” for people who live nearby, because of the aesthetics.

Ault told commissioners that part of this discussion should include how the park is used overall, because the objection they’d heard about Option 4 was that it put the courts in the middle of a large field, which would disrupt soccer, baseball, pick-up football and other play. Krapohl described it as a community park, where kids have a safe place to play.

Galardi noted that Option 1A seemed to be the best solution. “We know that there’s a demand for tennis – otherwise, people wouldn’t be clamoring to have this fixed,” he said. There aren’t a lot of tennis courts in that part of town, he added.

Galardi then formally proposed selecting Option 1A for the new tennis courts.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve Option 1A for new tennis courts at Windemere Park. David Santacroce abstained.

Jackson asked staff to inform PAC if there’s any delay in implementing this project.

Van Purchase

Commissioners were asked to recommend purchasing two 15-seat GMC Savana passenger vans from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County for a total of $50,212.

Bob Galardi of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. Between 2012 and 2013, the city saw a 22% increase in rentals. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. “There were some very long waits last year,” Smith said, and it’s something that the parks and recreation staff hope to improve.

They don’t plan to increase the number of canoes or kayaks, he added. Rather, it’s to increase the service for the current capacity, and to improve day-to-day operations.

One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. “It served the city well, but it is now unwell,” Smith quipped. The other van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

The new vans will be purchased out of the FY 2014 parks and recreation services general fund budget, following operational savings that have freed up funds for this purchase. According to parks staff, the purchase follows guidelines of the city’s “green fleet policy” to reduce the amount of fuel used and to pay a premium for “greener” vehicles.

Alan Jackson noted that there have been complaints about parking in the Argo Park area, and he hoped that the additional van would help with that. Smith reported that there will be another public meeting regarding the shortage of parking in that area. He noted that the increased number of vans isn’t intended to address that issue, although it might have a slight beneficial impact. “It’s not a cure, by any means,” Smith said.

Outcome: PAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the purchase. The item will require approval by the city council.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Jan. 28 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that the season’s extreme cold weather had resulted in the temporary closing of the Buhr Park outdoor ice arena. [It was subsequently re-opened.] He’d been concerned about the well-being of staff and users when temperatures are so low. Some indoor swimming lessons had also been canceled, in line with cancellations by the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

He highlighted upcoming events in February, including the start of registration for summer day camps on Feb. 1, and “Dive-in Movie” at Mack indoor pool on Feb. 1 – a showing of “Despicable Me 2.”

Smith also noted that the effort to select public art for Argo Cascades has been “restarted.” Julie Grand had served as the PAC representative on that selection committee, but her term ended last year.

Regarding the city’s grant application last year to the state Dept. of Natural Resources for 721 N. Main, Smith reported that the city was not awarded that grant. He wasn’t sure what next steps would be taken regarding funding for that site.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin reported on the work of the dog park subcommittee, saying that the group is developing a formal document that will include a mission statement, goals, and history, as well as procedures for setting up new dog parks and maintaining existing ones. Subcommittee members are contacting other cities and gathering as much information as possible, she said. The next subcommittee meeting was set for Feb. 6.

Communications & Commentary: Transitions

Ingrid Ault, the chair of PAC, noted that there are some transition of membership on the commission. A new commissioner, David Santacroce, was attending his first meeting on Jan. 28 after being appointed by the city council on Nov. 7, 2013 to replace Julie Grand. He had not attended PAC’s Nov. 19 meeting, and the commission’s December meeting was canceled.

David Santacroce, the newest member of PAC. In the background is commissioner Karen Levin.

Santacroce is a law professor at the University of Michigan, and he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year on a report with recommendations for the corridor.

Ault also noted that it would be the last meeting for Jen Geer, who was resigning from PAC. Ault thanked Geer for her service. Geer had been appointed to the commission on May 20, 2013. At the council’s Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, Paige Morrison was appointed to fill the remainder of Geer’s term – through May 19, 2016.

Finally, Ault reported that a new representative from the Ann Arbor Rec & Ed’s recreation advisory commission still hasn’t been appointed. The previous long-time RAC representative, Tim Berla, was not reappointed last fall. That appointment is made by RAC.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, David Santacroce, Jen Geer, 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, Feb. 25, 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.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The other van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

The new vans will be purchased out of the FY 2014 parks & recreation services general fund budget, following operational savings that have freed up funds for this purchase. According to parks staff, the purchase follows guidelines of the city’s “green fleet policy” to reduce the amount of fuel used and to pay a premium for “greener” vehicles. The purchase will require final approval by the city council.

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

Rendering of “Bucket Cascade” proposal by Mags Harries and Lajos Heder. It’s one of two finalists for public art at the city’s Argo Cascades.

Commissioners were briefed about the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which will now be integral to the public art program. AAPAC and city staff will identify projects in the CIP that might be candidates for public art “enhancements” – if the council agrees and provides additional funding for that purpose. It’s a change from the previous Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated earlier this year.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, attended AAPAC’s meeting and described a decision-making matrix that’s used to help city staff prioritize capital projects. AAPAC plans to use that matrix as a model for developing its own method of prioritizing potential public art projects.

Commissioners also briefly discussed four possible capital projects that might include public art enhancements, including an enclosure of the farmers market, and a retaining wall to be built as part of a Stadium Boulevard reconstruction.

Some of these issues will likely be picked up during a retreat that’s set for Nov. 20. The idea of a retreat was proposed by one of the newer commissioners, Ashlee Arder, as a way to get to know each other better, as well as to discuss the creation of AAPAC’s annual plan, which is due to the council in early 2014. Arder also hopes to assemble a “curated team” from different sectors of the community, to help AAPAC develop ideas for fostering public art as well as the broader creative sector.

Also at their most recent meeting, commissioners acted on a specific project that’s already underway. They authorized applying for a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan to fund a public art project in the Arbor Oaks/Bryant neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s southeast side. But they tabled another proposal – for artwork at the roundabout on South State and Ellsworth – until their February 2014 meeting, allowing time for commissioners to see how it might fit into an overall public art plan.

Updates were provided during the meeting on several other projects, including the Coleman Jewett memorial at the farmers market, finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades, and a plan to add an artistic element to the city’s new bike share program.

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

Deb Gosselin, who manages the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), attended AAPAC’s meeting on Oct. 23 to review the CIP process. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019] She had previously briefed the commission at its Feb. 27, 2013 meeting, prior to changes in the way that the public art program is funded. Since then, the city council has eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism. That happened at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Deb Gosselin, who manages the city’s capital improvements plan, attended the Oct. 23 AAPAC meeting.

Now, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, streets and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. More than 300 projects are part of the CIP, including both projects that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified.

The document must be approved by the city’s planning commission, not the city council. The planning commission approved the most recent CIP at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. The city council then uses the CIP in its budget planning process.

In her Oct. 23 briefing, Gosselin noted that the CIP schedule now affects when the city makes decisions about public art. She told commissioners that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had looked through the CIP to find projects where it might be appropriate to incorporate public art.

Gosselin reviewed the CIP process, and described the decision-making matrix that’s used to help city staff prioritize capital projects. [.pdf of CIP prioritization matrix] She said the matrix is a tool that AAPAC might want to modify and use for its own decision-making on projects that might incorporate public art. Seagraves indicated he’d work with Gosselin to draft a similar matrix for AAPAC.

In theory, virtually any of the capital projects in the CIP could incorporate public art, Gosselin said. To do that, AAPAC would first need to identify a project in the CIP and request that it be enhanced, she explained. Although the planning commission is charged with approving the CIP, the city council is the entity that approves the budget for specific projects.

For capital projects that the city council has already funded for fiscal 2014 and 2015, it’s too late to build a public art enhancement into the budget. However, Gosselin noted that AAPAC could decide to use funds from the previous Percent for Art program that are unspent, and apply those funds toward capital projects that are already underway.

Beyond that, now is the time for AAPAC to look at items in the CIP starting in fiscal 2016, as projects that could potentially be enhanced with public art. In AAPAC’s annual report that’s due to the city council in early 2014, commissioners should flag projects that commissioners would like for the city to enhance, Gosselin said. AAPAC should also identify a specific budget amount that would need to be added to the project, in order to cover the public art enhancement and maintenance. That budget enhancement requires city council approval.

The lead time also helps managers of capital projects to work with designers and artists from the very early stages, she noted.

Summary chart of projects in the 2014-2019 Ann Arbor capital improvements plan (CIP).

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP): AAPAC Discussion

Connie Brown wondered about setting a public art enhancement budget at such an early stage, when it might be difficult to know how much is required. How much flexibility would there be to increase the amount at a later date? Deb Gosselin acknowledged that since this process of incorporating public art is new, it’s a bit hard to know how it will work. She thought there will likely be some flexibility, but the public art estimated budget needs to be as close as possible to the actual amount. “You’re in essence saying ‘Give me a budget and I’ll figure out what to do with it later,’” Gosselin said.

Connie Brown.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, noted that it’s not unusual for a capital project’s budget to change dramatically, from the time it’s first entered into the CIP to the time the budget is approved by the council. If the project is slated for Year 6 of the CIP – that is, six years in the future – it’s not as critical for the budget to be as precise.

For projects in which public art is part of the design process, Gosselin explained that the public art budget would be incorporated into a project’s construction contract, which would require city council approval. But if the artwork is conceived of as a standalone piece, it might have its own separate budget, with separate council approval.

Hupy described two approval thresholds: (1) when a capital project is approved, with an estimated budget; and (2) when a specific construction contract is approved for that project. “That is where the final release of money comes from,” he said.

John Kotarski wondered whether it would be appropriate to suggest a specific genre of public art when AAPAC recommends an enhancement – like a mural or street stamping. Hupy replied that it depends on the timeframe. A more general suggestion would work for projects that are in Year 6 of the CIP, he said. But for projects that are closer to being built – in Years 1 or 2 – then AAPAC should be more specific about what it would like to do and how much it would cost.

Seagraves then presented four projects from the CIP from fiscal 2016 and beyond that he had identified as having potential for public art enhancements. The budgets in the CIP do not yet include amounts for public art:

• Farmers Market enclosure ($90,000). Possible public art incorporated into design.
• Stadium Boulevard reconstruction from Hutchins to Kipke, including sidewalks ($3.84 million). Possible artwork on new retaining wall.
• Springwater subdivision street reconstruction ($2.18 million). Possible standalone artwork.
• Annual sidewalk repair program, citywide ($9 million): Possible sidewalk stamps.

Seagraves plans to meet with managers for these projects, to get more details about what the projects will entail.

Ashlee Arder clarified with Gosselin that any public art budget would be added to these existing budgets. Gosselin noted that some capital projects might have multiple funding sources, which means that public art enhancements might also draw from multiple funding sources. Hupy cautioned that some projects have a funding “twist” in that they might be funded in part with federal, state or county dollars. “And they will say no to art – that’s not their purpose,” he said.

Gosselin noted that capital projects for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission are now being listed in the city’s CIP. The AAHC has several large projects on the horizon, and Gosselin reported that AAHC director Jennifer Hall had made a point of saying she’d welcome public art added to those, if possible. This might be a case where AAPAC could solicit private funding for a project, Gosselin said. [For background on the AAHC effort, see Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

South State Roundabout

On the agenda was an item to approve the budget for a public art project at the roundabout at South State Street and Ellsworth. The proposed budget was between $70,000 to $100,000 using funds that remain from the now-defunct Percent for Art program, tied to street projects. [.pdf of roundabout public art proposal]

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

This project had been previously approved but then suspended by AAPAC several months ago, because commissioners had wanted to coordinate it with the city’s South State Street corridor plan. [By way of background, both the planning commission and city council subsequently approved the South State Street corridor plan to be added to the city's master plan. The council took that action on June 15, 2013.]

Connie Brown said she didn’t feel like she could make a decision on this project right now. She wanted to evaluate it in concert with other projects that AAPAC is considering, rather than take a piecemeal approach. Because AAPAC would be looking at long-term projects in the CIP, Brown proposed holding off on a decision about the roundabout until the broader context was clearer.

John Kotarski said he tended to agree with Brown, but he thought that it might take a longer time to put together the broader context. He said he felt comfortable moving forward with this project, because the proposal contained the level of detail that he had asked for. He thought AAPAC should start moving forward with some of these projects.

Commissioners discussed whether they could reverse their decision, if they approved it now but later decided that there were other projects that should take priority.

Brown wondered what the impetus was for doing it now. Bob Miller replied that it was brought to AAPAC as a project and it was “smiled upon.” Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, pointed out that construction of the roundabout was finished, and it’s “not going to pick up and move anywhere in the next six months or six years.” He indicated that AAPAC could take some time to make a decision.

Marsha Chamberlin weighed in, saying that if AAPAC takes two or three months to develop its prioritization matrix, modeled after the CIP matrix, then they’ll have a more objective, defensible way of approaching the selection of projects.

After further discussion, Kotarski moved to table the roundabout item until AAPAC’s February 2014 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table the item until their February 2014 meeting.

Grant for Arbor Oaks Public Art

Commissioners were asked to approve the application of a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan. It would fund a public art project in the Arbor Oaks/Bryant neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s southeast side. [.pdf of draft grant proposal]

Marsha Chamberlin.

By way of background, at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved setting up an exploratory task force for possible artwork in the Arbor Oaks Park, located in the Bryant neighborhood on the city’s southeast side. [.pdf of Arbor Oaks intake form] Task force members include public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Nick Zagar; Derek Miller, deputy director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN); and CAN board member David Jones, as well as local residents.

The task force has met twice. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the ideas being discussed all focus on having some kind of community project with a lot of involvement from residents, similar to the approach taken for the mural in Allmendinger Park.

The problem, he noted, is funding. There is currently no clear funding source from the city, but a grant is available from the community foundation. The deadline to apply is Nov. 15.

Marsha Chamberlin expressed some concern about the time it would take to write the grant application. She noted that Seagraves was being asked to do a lot, and his position is only part-time. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, indicated that the Arbor Oaks project was a very valuable investment in a part of the community that some people view as underserved.

Chamberlin replied that she wasn’t against the project, but she wanted commissioners to be aware of how Seagraves is allocating his time. Hupy suggested that other city staff could help Seagraves complete the application.

Responding to a query from Connie Brown, Seagraves reported that no matching funds are required from AAPAC.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve application for the $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan.

AAPAC Retreat

Ashlee Arder, who was appointed to AAPAC in March of 2013, put forward a proposal to schedule a retreat. The purpose would be to create a forum for commissioners to get to know each other better, as well as to discuss the creation of AAPAC’s annual plan.

John Kotarski and Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners were supportive of this proposal. The discussion focused on whether to have a facilitator and how formal it should be. Arder said she’d conceived it to be relatively informal, but she could see the advantage of having a facilitator. This idea is to share each commissioner’s skill sets and personal interests, and tie those into the goals of AAPAC. “Let’s get together and figure out what we’re doing and who we are,” she said.

There was also discussion about a venue, with Arder advocating to hold it at a location other than AAPAC’s usual meeting spot – which is a basement conference room at city hall. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, reminded commissioners that the retreat would need to be posted and held in a place that’s accessible to the public, in order to comply with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set a retreat for Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 4:30 p.m. at a location to be determined.

Outreach Committee

Ashlee Arder also proposed creating a community engagement committee to develop strategies for program participation, resident input and public art education.

John Kotarski contended that AAPAC already has an outreach committee that was created at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting. Some commissioners, including Arder, Connie Brown and Marsha Chamberlin, said they didn’t realize such a committee existed. [According to both the minutes of that meeting and The Chronicle's report, commissioners on June 26 voted to appoint Kotarski to the role of community outreach and engagement, and Chamberlin to the role of media relations. From The Chronicle's report: "During the June 26 meeting, commissioners also voted on appointments related to outreach – making John Kotarski responsible for community outreach and engagement, and Marsha Chamberlin for media relations. Those roles were not defined, and do not appear to be connected to existing AAPAC committees."]

Kotarski urged Arder to join the outreach committee, and asked her to withdraw her resolution. She agreed, and talked about the kind of work she hoped to do, which in part involves bringing together a “curated team” from different sectors of the community to develop ideas for fostering public art as well as the broader creative sector. She intends to bring forward a formal proposal about this effort at a future meeting.

Outcome: Arder withdrew her resolution to create a community engagement committee.

Project Updates

Several other projects were discussed briefly during the Oct. 23 meeting, by way of updates. These projects were either already in progress when the city council temporarily halted spending on public art late last year, or don’t use Percent for Art funds. Here are some highlights.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin gave an update on a community project called Canoe Imagine Art. At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to participate in the project, but did not commit to providing any funding at that time. On Sept. 25, commissioners voted to contribute $10,000 to the project. [.pdf of project intake form]

The project will use 30 old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which 10 artists and 20 community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council.

On Oct. 23, Chamberlin reported that the city attorney’s office had requested that she stop promoting the project until a legal review is completed of the application process for artists. She expressed some frustration that the project’s momentum had come to a “screeching halt.”

As of Nov. 11, the project’s website includes this notice:

Submissions temporarily on hold
Do not use this site to submit a proposal for Canoe Imagine Art. Applications are on hold awaiting resolution by the City of Ann Arbor as to the best way to handle submissions to Canoe Imagine Art. If you plan to submit, enter your email below and we will notify you as to how to submit a proposal.

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

Two finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. came to town on Oct. 17 to present their conceptual designs to the selection task force and the public at city hall. The presentations were recorded by Community Television Network, and include feedback from the task force. [link to Rosen-Queralt CTN presentation] [link to Harries & Heder CTN presentation]

Rosen-Queralt is proposing artistic embellishments on the bridge railing, as well as a drinking fountain with similar embellishments. The proposal by Harries and Heder is called a “bucket cascade,” and would involve an interactive feature that allows people to operate pumps – using a pedal device on the bridge – that would draw up water from Argo Cascades and send it cascading back into the river.

Rendering of Bucket Cascades proposal by Mags Harries and Lajos Heder.

Rendering of proposal by Jann Rosen-Queralt for Argo Cascades bridge.

Task force members are John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon, Julie Grand, and Colin Smith. The project has a budget of $150,000.

There is currently a survey posted on A2 Open City Hall to solicit additional input.

Seagraves reported that John Kotarski and Bob Miller will be attending the meetings of other city boards and commissions to make presentations about these two proposals and to get feedback. The task force will then make a recommendation to AAPAC, which will in turn make a recommendation to the city council.

Marsha Chamberlin wondered how much difference it makes to do the kind of outreach that Kotarski and Miller are undertaking. They made a similar effort before the task force made a recommendation for the artwork at the East Stadium bridges.

Connie Brown explained that there’s a broader purpose – to help people understand the process, and to create opportunities to engage others in the city’s public art program. Kotarski recalled that when he and Miller attended a Ward 2 meeting, it started out fairly confrontational. But by the end, residents seemed to better understand the process and support it. He said the outreach will help enhance and support the task force’s decision.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

In early August, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery, who subsequently revised her proposal. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. A conference call with the artist was held on Sept. 6 with panel members to discuss the proposal. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The new design incorporates glass paneled louvers with tree images in three locations on and under the bridge, to connect the locations thematically. Widgery is still revising her design, according to Seagraves. It would need to be reviewed by AAPAC and get final approval by the city council.

Project Updates: Bike Share Program

Ashlee Arder reported that she’ll be working with the Clean Energy Coalition, the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to figure out how to incorporate an artistic element into the city’s new bike share stations. The CEC is managing the bike share program, with a targeted launch of April 2014.

Arder said she was hoping to learn more about the bike community, and to develop some partnerships for this project. In addition to bike stations on UM’s campus, potential stations in Ann Arbor could be located at: (1) Ashley & Liberty; (2) Fifth Avenue & Library Lane; (3) Liberty & Division; (4) Kerrytown, at Detroit & Fifth: and (5) South State & Hoover.

Project Updates: First & Kingsley Rain Garden

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden, to be located at the southeast corner of First & Kingsley. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] Wiener is continuing to finalize designs, for installation in the spring.

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into a new rain garden at that location, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

His proposal is for sculptures showing the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. The largest sculpture will be just under 8 feet tall, 20 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. Two of the fish will be large enough to serve as benches.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

Marsha Chamberlin gave a brief update on the memorial for Coleman Jewett. [.pdf of Jewett memorial intake form]

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept developing the memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project. The original proposal was for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as a fiduciary for fundraising. The plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze, at an estimated cost of $15,000 each.

The total budget is estimated to be $30,000 to $35,000. At AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to allocate $5,000 of AAPAC funds to help kick off the additional fundraising.

On Oct. 23, Chamberlin reported that she’d be going to the Ann Arbor farmers market on Saturday to meet with vendors and describe the project to them. Each stall would also be given a donation envelope, she said, in the hopes of raising funds from vendors for the project.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Devon Akmon, Malverne Winborne.

Next meeting: Instead of its regular monthly meeting, AAPAC has scheduled a retreat for Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

A drawing of Joshua Wiener’s proposed rain garden sculptures at First & Kingsley. (Image provided in the AAPAC Aug. 28, 2013 meeting packet.)

His proposal entails creating white metal images of five small mouth bass, in varying sizes, that appear to be emerging from the landscape and pointed toward the Huron River. Two of the sculptures will be large enough to serve as benches.

Because the artist’s contract of $23,380 is less than $25,000, it does not require city council approval. The sculptures would likely be installed during the spring of 2014.

Commissioners also received several updates during the meeting, and reviewed a new spreadsheet designed to track more effectively current and potential projects. [.xls file project tracker] Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that a selection panel picked Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass., as the artist for a major public art project on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. However, the panel is asking Widgery to revise her proposal before presenting it to AAPAC and the city council for approval. The project has a $400,000 total budget.

Other updates covered projects at Argo Cascades, the city’s wastewater treatment plant, Arbor Oaks Park, a memorial for Coleman Jewett at the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, and the “Canoe Imagine Art” community project. Additional potential projects were mentioned, including possible artwork for the new bike share program and the public skatepark, which is now under construction at Veterans Memorial Park.

Commissioners also viewed a short video produced by Ashlee Arder, one of the newest members of AAPAC. The intent is to promote the commission and the city’s public art program. The video is already available on YouTube, and Arder plans to post it on the commission’s website, Facebook page and Twitter account, @AAPublicArt.

The meeting was attended by six of the seven commissioners, including Marsha Chamberlin, who participated via conference call. There are two vacancies on the nine-member commission. At the city council’s Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, Devon Akmon was nominated to fill one of the vacancies. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. At its Sept. 3 meeting, the city council is expected to vote on Akmon’s confirmation to AAPAC .

No name has been put forward publicly for the second vacancy. One of the two vacancies resulted when Tony Derezinski was not reappointed. The other stemmed from Wiltrud Simbuerger’s resignation earlier this year. Her term would have ended Dec. 31, 2013.

First & Kingsley Rain Garden

Commissioners were asked to vote on Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden, to be located at the southeast corner of First & Kingsley. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget]

At AAPAC’s March 27, 2013 meeting, commissioners had selected the Denver artist to work with landscapers and incorporate public art into a new rain garden at that location, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

Wiener visited Ann Arbor on July 15 to present his design to the public. He gave a presentation at city hall, and attended the Townie Party to talk with community members about the project. His proposal is for sculptures showing the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. The largest sculpture will be just under 8 feet tall, 20 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. Two of the fish will be large enough to serve as benches.

From the artist’s statement:

The significance of water on this site is represented by having fish on the land. They are emerging to articulate how this rain garden is an extension of the river. The fish evoke water and the shape of their bodies creates waves that give an additional suggestion of water on the land. As the audience passes the piece, the fish will change positions in relation to one another. The sculpture will have a kinetic feel without any moving parts. The fish will appear to be swimming and the outline of their fins will create overlapping waves, adding to the feeling that water is moving on this site. The landscape and the art have been woven together. The plants will be placed in a way that conveys the surface of water with long flowing lines along the same orientation as the fish. There are also shapes in the landscape that suggest shadows of the fish.

Kingsley & First Rain Garden: Commission Discussion

At the Aug. 28 meeting, Bob Miller expressed surprise at some of the items included in the staff memo, which indicated that the artist would need to provide a plan for removing graffiti and proof that the sculptures would remain secure and permanent. Where did those items come from?

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, indicated that those were the result of questions raised by the task force that had recommended Wiener for the work. [Task force members are Connie Brown, Jerry Hancock, Claudette Stern, John Walters and Jeff Kahan.]

John Kotarski asked about the color of the fish sculptures. The artist had proposed white, but some members of the public had indicated a preference for cor-ten steel, which is a rusty brown. Cor-ten is a more expensive material, Kotarski noted, so that would have meant fewer fish sculptures, but the rusty brown color would stand out more in the winter.

Connie Brown reported that the task force had discussed this issue at some length, but opted to go with the artist’s preference. Miller said his only concern was about the maintenance of powder coating, which is the process that will be used to paint these sculptures. Brown replied that the artist has been directed to provide something that’s as maintenance-free as possible, with the understanding that every kind of artwork needs some kind of maintenance. Wiener will be developing a maintenance program for this work, she said.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, pointed out that because the artist’s contract is less than $25,000, it does not require approval by the city council. However, he recommended that AAPAC provide a formal communication to the council about the project.

Outcome: Commissioner unanimously approved Joshua Wiener’s schematic design for the rain garden sculptures.

Life after Percent for Art

Bob Miller, chair of the public art commission, reported that he and John Kotarski had been meeting with Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, to talk about how to move forward following the elimination of the city’s Percent for Art program earlier this summer.

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

From 2007 until this June, the city had funded public art through a Percent for Art mechanism, which set aside 1% of the budget for each of the city’s capital projects for public art – up to a cap of $250,000. However, at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council voted to eliminate the Percent for Art approach in favor of one that allows for discretionary incorporation of public art into a particular project.

Now, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

On Aug. 28, Miller described the conversations with city staff as positive, but noted that there’s no clear process in place. He hoped to invite Deb Gosselin, who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), to AAPAC’s Sept. 25 meeting. Gosselin had attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27, 2013 session to explain how the CIP process works.

Life after Percent for Art: Project Spreadsheet

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, passed out a new spreadsheet to use for tracking public art projects. [.xls file project tracker] The spreadsheet is divided into three categories: (1) projects that have already been approved under the former Percent for Art program, with funding identified; (2) potential projects, either using remaining Percent for Art funds or private funding; and (3) potential capital projects that could be “enhanced” with public art under the new public art program. About $840,000 in Percent for Art funds are unspent.

In the third category, the potential “enhanced” capital projects are in the pipeline for the fiscal year 2016 and beyond. The idea is to identify those projects early on, so that AAPAC can work with staff to incorporate public art into the design process. Examples of those potential projects include:

• Decorative “stamping” for new sidewalks.
• Decorative “street access” (manhole) covers.
• Stadium Boulevard reconstruction, from Hutchins to Kipke.
• Improvements at the intersection of Dhu Varren & Nixon.
• Detroit Street improvements.
• East Ellsworth reconstruction, from South State to Platt.
• South State Street improvements.
• Improvements at Cobblestone Farm and Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Projects that have already received preliminary approval from AAPAC, which could be funded with remaining Percent for Art funds, include a mural program, as well as artwork at the city’s new wastewater treatment plant, Arbor Oaks Park, the new roundabout at South State and Ellsworth, and the Forest Avenue plaza. A memorial for Coleman Jewett and a community project called “Canoe Imagine Art” also might be eligible for remaining Percent for Art funds, although the primary source of funding would be from private donors.

Seagraves also listed a range of other potential projects that have not yet received approval from AAPAC. Those include artwork at the Ann Arbor skatepark, which recently began construction, as well as art for the new bike share program, street and sidewalk stamping, utility boxes (signal control cabinets), fences (including a section next to new sidewalks along a stretch of Scio Church Road), and “permission walls” for graffiti.

For each project, the spreadsheet includes a traffic count at the closest intersection, to indicate how visible the location might be. Also indicated is the general geographical quadrant for each project’s location – for example, whether the project is in the southeast, central, north or west quadrant of the city.

Commissioners were supportive of the new approach. Connie Brown asked for information to be added about each project’s potential timeline.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Connie Brown.

Nick Zagar asked about the skatepark project. Brown reported that when initially approached, skatepark organizers were “not very receptive” to the idea of incorporating public art into the project’s design. “They might have a different mindset now,” she said. [The skatepark, to be located in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, broke ground earlier this month.]

Zagar thought it would be a great location for a “permission wall” – a place where graffiti is allowed. “It seems like it’ll be unpermissionedly tagged up anyway,” he said. Seagraves noted that if art is located in the skatepark, it would be the only public art so far that’s located west of Seventh Street.

Bob Miller suggested a “permission wall” out by Argo Cascades, pointing to the wall under the trestle there that currently is covered with graffiti.

Marsha Chamberlin said she was the impetus for this new spreadsheet, as a way to help push projects forward and allocate remaining Percent for Art funds. She noted that two projects she’s working on that are mostly funded with private donations – the Coleman Jewett memorial and the “Canoe Imagine Art” community project – would benefit from public art funding. If the city commits funds to such projects, she added, it’s easier to raise money from private donors. “Money upfront gets more money.”

She hoped that AAPAC could make some funding decisions soon. “Craig [Hupy] has been telling us since April that we need to pay attention to allocating those [Percent for Art] funds,” Chamberlin said.

John Kotarski reminded commissioners that there are constraints associated with Percent for Art funding. The Percent for Art mechanism set aside funds for public art that were originally designated for infrastructure like roads or utilities. Because the money was taken from restricted funds, a thematic or geographic link must exist between the funding source and the public art expenditure. “It’s just not money that we can allocate at will for something we’d like to see brought forward,” Kotarski said.

Chamberlin pointed out that the spreadsheet indicates what category of Percent for Art funding could be used for each project.

Miller said it might be possible to vote on funding allocations for some of these projects at AAPAC’s September meeting.

AAPAC Video

Ashlee Arder recently finished a short video to promote AAPAC and the city’s public art program. She had shot footage of commissioners at their June 26, 2013 meeting, as well as at their booth at the July Townie Party.

Screenshot from a video by Ann Arbor public art commissioner Ashlee Arder. The film is black and white, with spot color. This poster was part of AAPAC’s booth at the July 15 Townie Party. (Image links to the video on YouTube.)

Commissioners watched the roughly 2-minute video at the end of their Aug. 28 meeting. Arder plans to post it on the commission’s website, Facebook page and Twitter account, @AAPublicArt. It’s also posted on YouTube.

Commissioners also spent part of their Aug. 28 meeting watching a video presentation of national public art projects that have won awards from the Americans for the Arts. Marsha Chamberlin, who participated in the meeting via conference call, gave a brief introduction to describe the annual awards process. The presentation included the award-winning work Cloudbreak by Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass., who was recently selected by an AAPAC task force for a major public art project at the East Stadium bridges. [An update on that project is provided later in this article.]

Project Updates

Several projects were discussed briefly during the Aug. 28 meeting, by way of updates. Additional information was also included in a written report by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. [.pdf of Seagraves' report] These projects were either already in progress when the city council temporarily halted spending on public art late last year, or don’t use Percent for Art funds.

Here are some highlights.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

In early August, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's proposal]

Seagraves reported that the selection panel is providing feedback to Widgery and is asking that she revise her proposal before it’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. A conference call with the artist has been scheduled for Sept. 6 with panel members to discuss the proposal. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Revisions to her proposal are due by Oct. 4. Bob Miller reported that the selection panel is trying to focus her work on the connections between East Stadium Boulevard and South State Street, which runs below the bridge.

Seagraves indicated that Widgery’s revised proposal would likely be presented to some of the city’s boards and commissioners for feedback, before presentation to AAPAC. Connie Brown praised the outreach efforts that Bob Miller and John Kotarski have already undertaken for this project. They’ve made presentations to various groups, including the Ann Arbor District Library board and the park advisory commission, among others. The intent is to create community buy-in before a project is finalized.

Project Updates: Bike Share Program

Seagraves reported that he met with staff from the Clean Energy Coalition about a new bike share program that CEC is managing, with a targeted launch of April 2014. They talked about the possibility of including public art at the bike share station locations, he said, or possibly on the bikes as well. The CEC team is interested in drafting a proposal to present to AAPAC in the future, he said.

A detailed presentation about the program was made to the Ann Arbor District Library board on Aug. 19. See Chronicle coverage: “Library Board Briefed on Bike Share Program.”

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

Three finalists had been selected for artwork at the Argo Cascades, but one of them – Andy Dufford of Denver, Colo. – subsequently dropped out, Seagraves said. The remaining two finalists are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. [.pdf of staff memo on Argo Cascades public art]

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor’s public art commissioner.

The artists came to town in early August to meet with the public – including a presentation at the Workantile on Main Street, and a reception at Argo Cascades. John Kotarski reported that the artists had the chance to kayak through the cascades while they were here, as did he.

Proposals will be due in early October, with presentations by the artists during the week of Oct. 14, with a specific date to be determined.

AAPAC had approved a $150,000 total budget for the Argo Cascades project on April 25, 2012.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept a memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project. The original proposal was for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as a fiduciary for fundraising. The plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze, at an estimated cost of $15,000 each. Materials for fundraising are being developed. Marsha Chamberlin, who is taking the lead on this project, said about 300 personalized letters to potential donors will be sent out within the next week or so.

The next step will be to write a formal request for proposals (RFP) for doing the work.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin has been working on a canoe art project with other local organizations, called Canoe Imagine Art. The project will use old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which artists and community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC). Task force members are Chamberlin; Cheryl Saam, the city’s canoe livery supervisor; Shoshana Hurand of the Arts Alliance; Mary Kerr of the CVB; Maura Thomson of the MSAA; and Laura Rubin of HRWC.

Seagraves reported that a formal agreement has been reached between the city and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as fiduciary for the funds raised on this project. Fundraising materials are being developed.

Project Updates: Arbor Oaks Park

The first task force meeting for possible artwork in the Arbor Oaks Park is set for Sept. 5. At AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners approved setting up an exploratory task force for this project, located in the Bryant neighborhood on the city’s southeast side. Members include public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Nick Zagar; Derek Miller, deputy director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN); and CAN board member David Jones.

It’s being conceived of as a community art project, Seagraves reported.

Project Updates: Wastewater Treatment Plant

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had approached AAPAC earlier this year about the possibility of incorporating public art into the wastewater treatment project. The city is building a new wastewater treatment facility and renovating its existing facility in Ann Arbor Township, at 49 S. Dixboro Road. [.pdf of memo describing the wastewater treatment plant renovations]

Hupy had noted that of the remaining amount in the Percent for Art funds, much of it – about $448,000 – came from wastewater-related projects, and must be spent on public art with a “nexus” to wastewater.

John Kotarski is taking the lead on this project. He reported that he met recently with Hupy and Earl Kenzie, manager of the treatment plant. He’s also been in touch with the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum and University of Michigan, about possible participation in this project. The intent of any artwork would be to “train, teach, entertain and inspire,” he said.

Commissioners talked about the possibility of taking a field trip to the plant site, which is still under construction.

Project Updates: Fencing on Scio Church

At AAPAC’s June 26 meeting, Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, suggested a possible public art project related to fencing. The city is putting in sidewalks along a stretch of Scio Church Road, and will also be installing a fence there. The city staff was planning to install the kind of chain link fence that they usually use, but Hupy thought there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The construction work would likely occur next summer.

On Aug. 28, Marsha Chamberlin reported that she has collected about 30 examples of different fencing designs used in other municipalities. Bob Miller suggested that Chamberlin could present that information at AAPAC’s next meeting.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin (via conference call), John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, and Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

Absent: Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), assistant city attorney Mary Fales and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

After two postponements, the council gave initial approval to a set of changes to the ordinance that establishes the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The changes can be divided into those that affect board composition and those that relate to the computation of the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture.

The tax calculations have implications of roughly $1 million a year for the DDA and the taxing jurisdictions whose taxes are captured by the DDA. Those taxing jurisdictions include the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. The vote was 7-3, as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) voted no. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent. The final vote will likely come at the council’s April 15 meeting. Councilmembers are not obligated to vote the same way the second time around.

The council also wrapped up an issue that has appeared on its agenda for several meetings. At its March 18 meeting, the council had finally decided not to enact a moratorium on site plan applications in D1 (downtown core) zoning districts. Instead, the council had directed the planning commission to conduct a review of D1 zoning. But councilmembers had left open the question of the exact scope of work and the timeframe for its completion by planning commissioners. At the April 1 meeting, the council allowed the commission six months, until Oct. 1, to review the following: the appropriateness of D1 zoning on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; the residential premiums; the zoning for the University of Michigan Credit Union parking lot.

Other business was further delayed by the council. At the developer’s request, the council postponed for a second time the 413 E. Huron project, a proposed 14-story, 216-apartment building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets. That project will come back before the council at its April 15 meeting. A new public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan application was started on April 1 and will continue on April 15.

The council also postponed a second and final vote on changes to the city’s sign ordinance. The changes would prohibit any new billboards, and allow only a limited range of digital signs. That won’t come back before the council until May 6. Several people addressed the council during the public hearing. All of them worked for Adams Outdoor Advertising, and spoke in opposition to the changes. Because of the postponement, the council extended a moratorium on digital sign applications, which has now been in place for a year.

The council also extended a moratorium on spending of monies that have been set aside under the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. A revision to that ordinance, which would likely eliminate the public art set-aside but still allow for aesthetic elements to be built into a project, is expected to be brought forward in the next few weeks. The public art ordinance revisions are being crafted by a council committee that was tasked with that responsibility in December of 2012.

At its April 1 meeting, the council also approved contracts for renovations at the Gallup Park canoe livery, and the Argo and Geddes dams. In addition, the council approved a lease for additional parking in connection with the Argo Cascades.

Other business at the meeting included council approval of the notice to issue bonds for the city’s drinking water system. The council also authorized contracts in connection with street reconstruction and sidewalk repair work for the 2013 season.

DDA Ordinance

Several revisions to Chapter 7, a city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA), were on the council’s agenda, having been postponed twice previously. The council had postponed voting at its March 18, 2013 and March 4, 2013 meetings. [.pdf of DDA ordinance given initial approval on April 1]

The revisions considered by the council fell roughly into two categories: (1) those involving board composition and policies; and (2) calculation of tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the DDA district.

In the first category are: a new prohibition against non-mayoral elected officials serving on the DDA board except by agreement with the other taxing jurisdictions; term limits on DDA board members; and a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January.

An amendment to the ordinance changes offered by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) during the meeting was accepted as friendly. It was meant to assure a focus on the DDA’s support of housing. It stipulated that if tax increment financing is used as the financing method for an approved authority project, the project must meet one of the DDA’s adopted plan goals. Among those plan goals is support of housing. Lumm’s change provides the ability of the DDA to make investments in properties not just in the district, but also in neighborhoods near the district.

More significantly, among the proposed revisions to Chapter 7 are changes that are meant to clarify how the DDA’s TIF tax capture is calculated. The “increment” in a tax increment finance district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes – just on that initial increment – of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013, the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes that would otherwise have gone to those other entities.

The proposed ordinance revision would clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA. The result of the clarification to the Chapter 7 language would mean about $363,000 less TIF revenue for the DDA in FY 2014 – compared to the $3.933 million shown in the DDA’s adopted budget for that year. For FY 2015, the gap between the DDA’s budget and the projected TIF revenue – using the proposed clarifying change to Chapter 7 – is just $74,000.

However, the total increment in the district on which TIF is computed is expected to show significant growth. And under the proposed clarification of Chapter 7, that growth would result in a return of TIF money to other taxing jurisdictions – that would otherwise be captured by the DDA – totaling $931,000 each year for FY 2014-15. The city of Ann Arbor’s share of that would be roughly $559,000, of which $335,000 would go into the general fund. The city’s general fund includes the transit millage, so about $69,000 of that would be passed through to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

In the Chapter 7 ordinance language, the amount of TIF capture that’s returned to the other taxing jurisdictions is tied to growth in the valuation in the district. Under Chapter 7, if the actual rate of growth outpaces the growth rate that’s anticipated in the TIF plan, then at least half the excess amount is supposed to be returned to the other taxing authorities in the DDA district. In 2011, the DDA for the first time returned excess TIF capture to other authorities, when the existence of the Chapter 7 language was reportedly first noticed. At that time, the DDA made repayments of TIF monies to other authorities of around $400,000, which covered what was owed going back to 2003. When the DDA calculated the amounts owed in 2011, the city of Ann Arbor waived its roughly $700,000 share. Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position, contending that it had not needed to return the money it had repaid.

In 2011, the DDA used a year-to-year interpretation of the Chapter 7 language instead of computing the rate of growth against the base year in a cumulative fashion. That is a point that the Chapter 7 revisions would clarify. At the two previous meetings when the council had considered but postponed voting on the ordinance amendments, that specific point had not been addressed. But the substitute ordinance revision offered on April 1 clarified the current language in favor of the cumulative methodology.

The figures below come from the city of Ann Arbor’s financial services staff. Labels are The Chronicle’s.

MOST RECENT PROJECTIONS FOR TIF CAPTURE (in millions)
 FY 13   FY 14  FY 15
========================== 
 3.957   3.933  3.756  DDA Adopted Budget TIF Revenue
 3.957   4.501  4.613  Projected TIF, DDA View 
 3.957   3.570  3.682  Projected TIF, Clarified Ch. 7
          .568   .857  Budgeted vs Projected, DDA View
         (.363) (.074) Budgeted vs Projected, Clarified Ch. 7
==========================

ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM CLARIFIED CH. 7
 FY 13   FY 14  FY 15
========================== 
          .335   .335  City General Fund
          .223   .223  City Non-General Fund
          .559   .559  Total City

          .372   .372  Total AADL, WCC, WC
          .931   .931  Total

-

These projections do not include the additional tax capture that would result in future years from completion of City Apartments, 624 Church, 618 S. Main, or 413 E. Huron (assuming that it is approved).

DDA Ordinance: Task Force

During council communications time at the start of the meeting, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) reminded her colleagues that she’d announced at the previous meeting  – very late during the evening – that she would be bringing forward a resolution to establish a task force focused on the DDA. She had proposed the group’s specific assignment as conducting a strategic assessment of the priorities for economic development between the DDA and the city. After that, she’d had conversations with the DDA and had changed the scope of that initiative a bit. The focus would not just be the DDA but rather the idea of economic development – which would align the priorities of the city, the DDA and Ann Arbor SPARK. She was working with the city attorney’s office on the language of the resolution, she said, and is hoping to bring that resolution forward on April 15.

DDA Ordinance: Audit Committee Update

During council communications time at the start of the meeting, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) gave an update on the activities of the council’s audit committee. She said the committee did get answers to its questions via the city’s CFO. The auditor indicated that during the past year’s audit, the auditor did not review the DDA’s TIF capture for compliance with Chapter 7 of the city code. She found that “really troubling” because the DDA’s own 2003 renewal plan states that the TIF account has to be tested for compliance under the state of Michigan’s Downtown Development Authority Act. Secondly, Kailasapathy continued, the auditor’s own report on controls and compliance states that they tested the DDA’s financial statements for compliance – but when specifically asked if it was tested for Chapter 7 compliance, the answer was that it had not been. She indicated that she felt DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse, who handles the DDA’s finances, and city CFO Tom Crawford need to take up this issue. She stated that an audit has high standards, and if compliance with Chapter 7 has not been tested, then it needs to be tested. She ventured that it might be necessary to reissue the financial statements of the DDA.

Margie Teall (Ward 4), who chairs the audit committee, responded to comments made by Kailasapathy at the council’s March 18 meeting, when Kailasapathy noted that Teall had not been being willing to call a meeting. [A previous meeting of the audit committee was called by two of its members – Kailasapathy and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – which is a possibility under Robert's Rules. The other possibility is for a meeting to be called by the chair.] Teall contended she had always been willing to meet. But she was waiting until all the DDA staff could attend. [DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse was on medical leave.] Teall noted that the audit committee would be meeting with the DDA staff the following day, and pointed out that DDA staff had acknowledged the shortcomings, and said they’d be addressing them. Teall indicated that the response from the DDA staff to the questions they been asked was that they’re “on top of that.”

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations by saying that the item had appeared a couple of times previously on the council’s agenda and he hoped that this evening the council could finally get some discussion going, and take the initial vote at the first reading.

What he had done in cooperation with Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) – the co-sponsor on the proposed ordinance changes – was to put together a substitute version for the original. The substitute version reflects some changes that had been talked about “out in the community,” Kunselman explained. Some of those included the cumulative methodology for calculating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture.

In addition, the section on board composition is different in the substitute version. Rather than preventing any elected officials from serving on the DDA board, based on discussions with some of the members of the other taxing jurisdictions whose taxes the DDA captures, it had become apparent, Kunselman said, that anything the city was doing should be done in concert with the taxing jurisdictions. He then quoted from the revised substitute ordinance changes:

(1) Except for the Mayor as provided above or by mutual written agreement of the taxing jurisdictions levying taxes that are subject to capture by the authority, no public official of any taxing jurisdiction levying taxes that are subject to capture by the authority shall be eligible for appointment, whether in his or her official capacity or as an individual; and
(2) No member may serve more than 2 consecutive full terms.

Kunselman said he knew there had been a lot of information going around generated by the city staff and by the Ann Arbor DDA board members – talking to various groups to seek support for their position. His perspective on the issue, he said, was to focus on “keeping the DDA’s budget relatively whole, tightening up some of the administrative functions.” He felt it would become apparent that there are some elements of the state law which the Ann Arbor DDA’s financing plan doesn’t follow, but the proposed amendments would bring clarity to that. “We know that there is an issue with the clarity of the TIF methodology,” he said. He noted that the mayor had received a letter from one of the taxing jurisdictions [the Ann Arbor District Library] disagreeing with the method that had been used.

“If we allow these things to occur on our watch, then we are complicit to the fact that we’re ignoring what the law says,” Kunselman said. He then quoted from the state enabling legislation for DDAs:

The plan may provide for the use of part or all of the captured assessed value, but the portion intended to be used by the authority shall be clearly stated in the tax increment financing plan.

Kunselman ventured that everyone had seen the three columns that are included in the Ann Arbor DDAs financing plan – which show projections of growth labeled as pessimistic, realistic, and optimistic. For whatever reason, Kunselman said, the DDA board keeps approving a budget based on the optimistic version of the TIF financing plan. The realistic column is the one that is set in bold typeface, he noted. If it’s not clear, then Kunselman contended that it is not in compliance with the state law. That was his whole point in bringing the amendments forward. His point was to bring confidence back to the DDA. Responding to criticism about what Kunselman was actually trying to accomplish, he spoke directly to mayor John Hieftje: “Mayor, I have never asked for the dissolution of the DDA. And I’m certainly not about to now. I’m just trying to give our DDA institution some clarity, some confidence, and some trust in how it works on our behalf.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification about Kunselman’s effort to put the substitute ordinance amendments before the council for consideration. Hieftje checked with Kailasapathy that it would be acceptable to consider the substitute version. And with that the substitute amendments were before the council.

Hieftje ventured that councilmembers would have several questions for staff. He invited executive director of the Ann Arbor DDA Susan Pollay to the podium. Hieftje noted that the council had only recently received some answers to questions that had been posed by email. He began by reading off some of them from his laptop screen: Will the DDA continue to be able to make grant payments to the city for the courts and police building? Hieftje noted that the Ann Arbor DDA had awarded the city a grant to support the construction of the new Justice Center [aka police/courts building] – and he had seen the paperwork on that. [As a member of the DDA board, Hieftje voted for the $8 million grant, which was to be paid in roughly $0.5 million installments.]

He explained that the amount of the grant worked out to $508,000 a year. Hieftje then recited the history of how Washtenaw County had decided that the city needed to move the 15th District Court out of the county courthouse space. And a new building with a police station had been completed by the city [called the police/courts building, the Justice Center or the municipal center]. Hieftje characterized the situation as “the DDA stepping up to the plate.” Hieftje alluded to the fact that under the state statute, a public building in the downtown area was an eligible DDA project.

About the DDA resolution pledging the $8 million grant to support the construction of the new Justice Center, Hieftje told Pollay: “As I read that, though, that is a grant. And if the DDA felt that they had other uses for those funds, it would be at the discretion of the DDA to move those?” Pollay’s answer: “It is.”

Hieftje moved on to the topic of the other activities: What other aspects of the DDA’s activities would be impacted by the ordinance change? He indicated that the DDA had identified various things. Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked about the impact on affordable housing grants.

Pollay indicated that whether such grants would continue would depend on the budget. She said the DDA was just finishing a period where a significant amount of construction had taken place, and fund balances are approaching their minimum, she said. The housing fund is now at zero, she reported. In the next two-year budget, recently adopted by the board, the DDA is anticipating transferring some additional money into the housing fund. But that depends on revenues, she said, which would determine whether there would be sufficient money to make those housing funds transfers. An upcoming grant is planned for the Village Green City Apartments project, which will have four units of affordable housing – with “affordable” defined as accessible to residents with incomes at 60% of the average median income or below. That grant would exhaust all of the housing fund balance, Pollay said.

Depending on whether the ordinance is enacted, she continued, the housing fund balance could be restored or not. At that point, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she had emailed everyone a note in the last 15 minutes related to Teall’s question. She was suggesting an amendment to the ordinance changes to address the concern that Teall had expressed. She had sent the amendment at 8:10 p.m., she said. Not all councilmembers had received Lumm’s message. So she sent the message again.

The amendment was eventually accepted later as friendly by Kunselman and Kailasapathy. With italics indicating additions and strike-through indicating deletions compared to the original version, Lumm’s amendment read as follows:

(4) Development Plan Projects: In identifying, approving, and financing possible projects to meet the goals of the plan, the authority shall comply with the following:

If tax increment financing is used as the financing method for an approved authority project, the project must be meet one of the adopted development plan goals specifically allowed under Act 197 and directly benefit properties within the downtown development district or near-downtown neighborhoods.

While Lumm sorted out the email issue, Hieftje followed up with more questions for Pollay.

He confirmed with Pollay that the Library Lane underground parking garage was the largest project that the DDA had ever undertaken. It was anticipated, Hieftje said, that the Library Lane project would have a significant impact on the TIF fund, and on the TIF fund balance as a consequence of that major construction project. But he ventured it was anticipated that in the future there would be additional revenues generated by new developments in the downtown, and that those additional TIF capture revenues would be used to replenish the DDA’s fund balances and prepare for future projects. Pollay confirmed for Hieftje: “That is all correct.” Hieftje added, “That’s the way I remembered it as well.”

Kunselman followed up with a question for the city attorney’s office: How much of the TIF can be kept in savings, if state law requires – and the city’s own Chapter 7 states – that surplus funds should be paid back to the taxing jurisdictions? We’ve heard that there is $2 million worth of TIF money sitting in the DDA’s account, Kunselman said, and we know that $4 million worth of TIF was transferred to the parking fund. It seemed to him that there was a lot of TIF money sitting in an account. He then quoted from the state statute:

The authority shall expend the tax increment revenues received for the development program only pursuant to the tax increment financing plan. Surplus funds shall revert proportionately to the respective taxing bodies.

And the city’s Chapter 7 indicates that if the rate of growth in the tax valuation within the DDA district exceeded a certain rate, then money has to be returned to the taxing jurisdictions, Kunselman said. He reiterated the Ann Arbor District Library’s disagreement with the DDA’s method of calculating the excess TIF capture. He returned to the issue of the three different columns of estimates in the TIF plan – and the DDA’s practice of using the optimistic column as opposed to the realistic column. “Where do we stand on the issue of state law on this issue of surplus?” Kunselman asked the city attorney.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that her understanding of the DDA’s position is that there currently is not a surplus – that the funds are encumbered, either in reserves or for actual expenses. If there were a surplus, she continued, it would be applied based on Chapter 7, and distributed according to state law. She understood Kunselman’s intent to clarify the language of the ordinance, as involving the application of a specific element of Appendix C (the realistic approach) and the use of a cumulative method.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1). In the background is Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Briere indicated she was not clear about what the word “surplus” means. When the city deals with its budget, she continued, they try to balance anticipated revenues against the anticipated expenditures. But in any given year the city might end up with money that’s transferred into the fund balance. That fund balance is then used perhaps in a subsequent year. When Kunselman talks about surplus dollars, does that refer to the same situation? she asked. Or is he talking about money that falls outside of the “interesting calculation” that is supposed to be done? What she thought of as fund balance had been described by Kunselman as surplus. “What does surplus mean?” she asked.

Fales noted that the state’s DDA statute does not define the word “surplus.” So you would apply normal principles to define it, which would be funds that are not required for immediate expenses or anticipated expenses – because that’s usually what surplus means, Fales told Briere. Briere asked if that meant for a given year or for a longer period – say if someone anticipated that they would be spending funds in three years. Fales said that the report the DDA is required to do is for specific information on an annual basis. On an annual basis, the DDA could identify encumbered funds, she said.

Kailasapathy indicated she felt there was some confusion, because what Kunselman was talking about is fund balance – which is a balance sheet item. But the TIF refund described in Chapter 7 actually has to do with the revenue income level, she explained. So if you take in revenue at a certain level, and if there is excess, then you have to refund some of it. She asked Fales if Fales agreed that this was a point of confusion. She asked Fales to confirm that the refund is actually based on revenue, not on the balance sheet. “I think that’s true,” Fales said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated she had a question for DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt. She recalled a conversation that the two of them had in September 2012 when they had first met. She wanted to make sure that she had the correct assumption in mind. She remembered expressing some concern to Hewitt about TIF being used to pay down the parking garage bonds. “I believe you assured me that at the end of fiscal year 2014-15, that TIF transfers for the parking garage bond payments would no longer happen.”

Hewitt indicated he thought that was correct, but thought it could be a year later than that. After some consultation with Susan Pollay and Joe Morehouse, Hewitt indicated that the TIF transfers to support the parking fund payments would continue past fiscal year 2015 for another year. Petersen asked if that was in the DDA’s three-year or five-year budget. Hewitt indicated that the budget for the DDA is adopted two years at a time. Beyond that, Hewitt said, the DDA uses a 10-year plan, which is a planning document, not a budget document.

Petersen got confirmation that the bonds in question are bonds the city has issued on behalf of the DDA. Hewitt took the opportunity to address the impact of the proposed ordinance change, which would strike one of the paragraphs that describes bond obligations. “The funds that we’re talking about being returned to the city, are only after the debt service has been satisfied,” Hewitt contended. He described the debt service of the DDA as being around $7 million a year. Petersen clarified with Hewitt that the bonds in question are not DDA bonds but rather city bonds. Hewitt allowed that they are city bonds, but the DDA has pledged its revenues to pay the debt service on the bonds.

Petersen indicated that she felt it was debt service on the DDA’s own bonds that is a “disqualifying condition” laid out in the ordinance, not debt service on the city’s bonds. She wanted to know if debt service on the city bonds would count as a disqualifying condition for the refund if the bonds are city bonds versus DDA bonds. City CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city staff had spent a fair amount of time looking at that provision of the Chapter 7 ordinance: “It’s not very clear, it’s very confusing,” he said. The city’s interpretation is that it was not just restricted to DDA bonds but also included city bonds. Crawford indicated that there are still some DDA bonds that are being paid off and also some bonds that the city has issued on behalf of the DDA. “But it’s not real clear in the language,” he allowed.

Susan Pollay brought the DDA’s outside counsel, Jerry Lax, to the podium. Lax ventured that no one would say anything that provides crystal clarity, but as he understood the state-enabling legislation for DDAs, it specifically authorizes city bonds to be used for the kind of purposes that the DDA fulfills, and specifically authorizes the pledging of DDA funds for the repayment of those bonds. And the statute specifically allows for TIF funds for that purpose, he said. What Chapter 7 provides, Lax continued, is a provision that indicates money is not to be returned to the taxing authorities while there were debt obligations to be paid.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and assistant city attorney Mary Fales.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) admitted to being confused. She quoted out the paragraph about payment into bond reserve funds. It’s not clear exactly what that means, she said. She felt it might be interpreted as just a guide to say: Make sure you pay the debt service. Or it might mean that no refund should be made if the debt service is greater than the TIF capture. She noted that currently the amount paid by the DDA in debt service is far in excess of the TIF revenue, but she pointed out that parking revenues are also used for debt service.

Lumm also observed that the DDA has “flip-flopped” on the question. In 2011, the DDA had made refunds, she noted. But later in 2011, the DDA changed its position and said that it should not have made the refunds, and changed its interpretation of the ordinance.

Lax allowed that it’s understandable why Lumm would raise that point of the DDA changing its position on the ordinance. “Frankly, I think the answer might be a little more simple than it otherwise would appear, which is the initial repayment of monies to other taxing jurisdictions, I think, was simply made erroneously. And I think if you read the entire language of Chapter 7, it’s clear that those did not have to be made.” Lax allowed that there was some confusion about the ordinance language, but he felt there were some things that were moderately clear. One of the things that’s moderately clear is that the state statute does contemplate the use of city bonds to fund DDA projects. He returned to his point that the initial repayments were erroneous. Chapter 7 of the city ordinance is “a touch clearer than people might be suggesting,” Lax contended.

Kunselman asked Lax if the DDA has to put all TIF revenue toward debt. His understanding was that the DDA had put all of its 2012 TIF capture toward payment of parking bonds. Other grants have been paid out of parking revenues. In FY 2011, according to the DDA’s audit, Kunselman continued, the DDA had collected $3.4 million in TIF and the DDA’s expenditures had shown $3.3 million in grants. So almost no money went to pay parking structure debt in 2011, Kunselman said. But under Lax’s interpretation, Kunselman ventured, all TIF first goes toward debt.

Lax disputed Kunselman’s paraphrase of what Lax had said. Lax said he’d simply indicated that under the state statute, TIF funds are available for repayment of debt. Lax said the statute doesn’t say that repayment of debt must be the top priority, or that all of the TIF must be used in that way, or that a certain percentage of it must be used in that way. The state statute says only that the TIF funds are among the DDA assets that can be used for repayment of debt, Lax said. In any given year, if a budgetary decision is made to use TIF funds for specific statutorily-authorized purposes, Lax continued, he thought the statute contemplates that those kinds of decisions are within the judgment of the DDA.

Kunselman came back to the point that before a rebate is given to any of the taxing jurisdictions, on Lax’s interpretation, the DDA has to pay debt. Lax replied that the TIF funds are not being put away into some kind of lockbox, but rather they are being budgeted for authorized purposes.

Pollay added that the kind of projects the DDA undertakes are not annual projects. The projects that the DDA takes on are large capital improvement projects. The Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project took seven years, she said – to be fully planned, to get city council support, to fund, and finally to implement it. If the DDA takes on large projects like that, which was a $7 million capital improvement project, the DDA has to have the ability to have a fund balance sufficient to be able to make the minimum 15% down payment that’s required if a bond is issued – under the city’s own rules. So the DDA in its history has followed a pattern of increasing its fund balances and then depleting them when it takes on capital improvement projects. The DDA is about to begin that cycle again, she said. It takes several years to go through a cycle, she said.

Hieftje asked Pollay what DDA projects would have to be put aside and could not be completed if the ordinance changes were approved. It’s difficult to know, Pollay said. It’s her understanding that in fiscal year 2014, $373,000 would be removed from what the DDA had budgeted for that year. And the year after, there would be another roughly $80,000 less. That would likely impact the DDA’s ability to respond to projects that are “teed up” that the DDA had hoped to take on, she said. The most immediate one was to complete the curb ramp replacements downtown. The DDA and the city share an obligation to complete those repairs. The DDA has taken on the lion’s share of those in the downtown area, she said, but some remain to be done.

The other project the DDA feels is also pretty critical is replacing streetlights on Main Street, Pollay said – because they have reached the end of their useful life. Unfortunately, she added, it’s a very expensive project. The estimate includes replacing the globe lights – which are a signature design element for the Main Street area – and that will amount to around $650,000. The DDA had hoped it could begin to pledge some of their dollars to the city’s public services area to see that streetlight replacement project done this year, Pollay indicated. But that would have to be put off for this year, if the ordinance changes were enacted, Pollay said.

While those two projects were part of the short-term impact, Pollay said the long-term impact goes back to the fund balances. The DDA had just begun developing plans for its next big projects, Pollay said. With a TIF reduction, it would be many more years before the DDA could take on any really significant large project. “And I mean years,” she said, “We just would not have the funds available.” The parking rates have been raised, Pollay continued, and the DDA felt that they were currently at the upper end of where they should be. So there really are no other sources of revenue other than TIF revenues.

Hieftje asked Tom Crawford for confirmation that the ordinance change would put $277,000 back in the general fund. That’s after subtracting the amount that’s passed through to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He asked what the impact would be if the DDA exercised its “discretion” to rescind the $508,000 grant for the police/courts building. Hieftje calculated that would have a negative impact of over $200,000 on the city’s general fund. Crawford confirmed that if the DDA were to not pay the installment of the $8 million grant that the DDA had previously approved, it would create a deficit in the city’s general fund. “I can understand why they might do that given that $559,000 was already coming to the city,” Hieftje said.

Lumm indicated that she figured this meant the city would need to pick up the expenses that the DDA had been covering. Briere noted that the calculations as done under the ordinance revisions would result in roughly an additional $70,000 being paid to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. But the DDA already provides a grant to the AATA to subsidize go!passes for $479,000, plus additional funds for transit service on Packard Road and Washtenaw Avenue. She asked Pollay if the ordinance revisions would affect the DDA’s funding of the AATA’s services. Pollay noted that the DDA board had recently approved the AATA grant for fiscal year 2014. So she did not feel that there would be an immediate impact. That would be subject to budgetary considerations in the future.

Briere then turned to the topic of where DDA TIF revenue could be invested. One of the ordinance amendments defines it to be strictly within the boundaries of the DDA district. She asked if that was in any way related to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the amount of money that the AATA receives from the DDA. Susan Pollay explained that parking revenue had been used since the beginning of the DDA’s subsidy for transportation services – because the DDA believes that the parking structures and the bus system are all part of a transportation system. She did not believe that this would be impacted by the proposed ordinance amendments. What would be impacted are those projects that are paid for with TIF revenue. She referenced the state statute:

An authority shall be a public body corporate which may sue and be sued in any court of this state. An authority possesses all the powers necessary to carry out the purpose of its incorporation. The enumeration of a power in this act shall not be construed as a limitation upon the general powers of an authority.

Pollay appealed to that passage as the justification for spending TIF revenue on investments that are physically located outside the geographic boundary of the DDA TIF district. She was not sure which projects the DDA was currently undertaking that would be excluded by the revised Chapter 7 language. “We have not been informed,” Pollay said. [The proposed ordinance amendments were revised through Lumm's friendly amendment to allow for investments in near-downtown neighborhoods.]

Kailasapathy referred to numbers that had been provided by the city’s financial staff. Those figures indicated that since the early 2000s, TIF revenues to the DDA have gone up 91%. She ventured it would be difficult to find another city fund where revenues had gone up by as much as 91%. Looking at the four years between 2010 and 2013, she noted that the parking fund debt service went from 5% to 45%, to 59%, and then a “staggering” 87% for fiscal year 2013. She felt there was a big mismatch. On the one hand, there is a doubling of revenues from TIF. But almost all of it is being spent on one objective – parking. “It almost looks like you could have been a parking authority,” she observed. She ventured that what had tilted the balance was the Library Lane underground parking garage.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Kailasapathy alluded to the specter Hieftje had raised about the $508,000 police/courts building grant and Briere’s implied concerned that the DDA might cease funding of AATA services. Kailasapathy characterized them as “disaster scenarios,” but she noted that in the next fiscal year there would be a $300,000 reduction [actually estimated at $363,000] compared to what the DDA had budgeted, and the year after that it would actually start to grow, she continued. So the ordinance revisions would not actually reduce the TIF revenue to the DDA into the future. Instead it would simply cap the rate of growth of net TIF revenues, she pointed out. She ventured that when you grow too fast, or when revenue comes in too fast, development is not a thoughtful process. It becomes lopsided, she cautioned.

Kailasapathy asked Pollay to explain why the DDA’s percentage allocation to parking structure debt had increased so much, even while TIF revenue had increased. Pollay noted that the DDA had predicted, and it has come true, that the tax base for all of the taxing authorities had grown, even though the TIF capture by the DDA had also grown. The DDA receives only 17% of all taxes that are collected downtown, Pollay said. She noted that the city staff had indicated the city’s tax levy in the downtown district in the early 1980s was about $1.3 million. This year the city is receiving $4.1 million, Pollay said.

Pollay contended that all of the taxing authorities are seeing the benefit of their tax base growing. Pollay described how it had been a policy choice back in the 1960s that the downtown would not have zoning for parking, and that the parking system would be public. The DDA had inherited a very deteriorated public parking system, Pollay said, and it had replaced or rebuilt six of the current city parking structures. Parking is a fundamental part of how businesses are able to bring in customers and their employees to the city.

As an economic development strategy, the DDA had also invested money in other things. So while Kailasapathy had characterized the DDA as a “parking authority,” Pollay felt it was because the DDA did a very good job at that – and it’s a fundamental tool that the community of businesses relies on. She listed off some of the parking structures: Ann and Ashley, Liberty Square, First and Washington, Library Lane. Parking is something the DDA has supported since its inception. Pollay responded to a follow-up remark from Kailasapathy by listing through some of the non-parking activities that the DDA undertakes. She mentioned grants for affordable housing and for energy improvements, as well as transportation grants.

Pollay continued by saying you don’t think of the DDA as the agency responsible for it, but as you walk on downtown sidewalks, many of them have been improved by the DDA. Hundreds of trees have been installed, along with benches, bike racks, and alley improvements. The DDA has played a part in helping the city sell city-owned property – mentioning specifically the First and Washington sale [where City Apartments is being built]. She hoped the DDA would be able to support the city on the sale of the former Y lot. She characterized the activities of the DDA as fairly broad. Parking is certainly part of what the DDA does, but it’s not the only part, she concluded.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) mentioned that city CFO Tom Crawford had recollected that the original 1982 TIF plan had been based on an estimated 5% annual growth of taxable value. The current renewal plan is based on estimated growth of around 3%. Warpehoski asked Pollay if that matched her recollection. Pollay indicated that she did not think that the first plan had a cap. The second plan from 2003 was an attempt to reflect the actual growth that the district had seen to that point, she said.

Kunselman asked which projects were included in the city financial staff’s revised estimates. The answer the council had received from the city’s financial services staff was that the bulk of the increased TIF had come from The Landmark (601 S. Forest), The Varsity (on East Washington) and Zaragon West (at Thompson & William). Kunselman followed up by getting confirmation from Crawford that the TIF capture generated for Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington had not been included in the city’s estimates. Crawford told Kunselman that the forecast that was before the council for fiscal year 2014 includes all newly constructed and complete buildings – plus buildings that were under construction. Crawford explained that at the end of each calendar year, the assessors require property owners to pay taxes on partially complete buildings – so that is included in the forecast of TIF revenue provided by the city’s financial staff.

However, Crawford continued, when projections had been made for fiscal year 2015, the financial staff did not attempt to figure out what developments were possibly coming on line. Crawford had done a more traditional forecast of 3% growth, which the DDA uses for planning, because that’s what it’s been over time. So the forecast provided to the council for FY 2015 did not include Village Green’s City Apartments project. There are so many factors that can come in, Crawford said, that “I’d hate to give you only the good news and not some of the offsetting bad news, so we were somewhat conservative in FY 2015.”

Crawford and Kunselman engaged in some additional back-and-forth over the City Apartment’s project. Crawford said he did not think there was a measurable material value of the new project at the end of the calendar year 2012 – as much of the work being done at that point was digging a hole, he said. But Kunselman ventured that now it has several floors that have been constructed. Crawford allowed that if it were to be assessed today, it would have a value.

Kunselman concluded that the numbers that had been provided by city staff – showing a forecast in FY 2015 with a slight deficit to the DDA’s adopted budget for that year – would need to be revised. Crawford allowed that if he were asked a year from now about what he thought of FY 2015, he would say that the DDA could be expecting some additional TIF revenue from the Village Green City Apartments project. Kunselman ventured that if this ordinance amendment were to pass, the DDA would only see a reduction in its TIF revenues just this year. Crawford characterized Kunselman’s conclusion as a “reasonable possibility.”

Petersen said she felt the ordinance amendments did a good job clarifying and improving accountability – for example, with respect to filing the annual TIF report and setting forth how the TIF is calculated.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Petersen indicated that her initial concern was the apparent nearly $1 million “hit” the DDA would be taking in the first year – because she did not want to pull the rug out from under the DDA. But the staff’s answer to the questions that councilmembers had asked was that compared to the DDA’s adopted budget, there would only be a reduction by about one-third as much [$363,000]. She’d contemplated the possibility that Year 1 of implementation of the clarified calculations could be delayed until FY 2015, but she didn’t think that would help much. Her point was that there’s not as much of a “hit” in Year 1 as they’d originally thought.

She was also trying to understand how the DDA was able to absorb a $3 million hit in FY 2012-2013 – when the DDA had doubled capital costs compared to its budget. To Petersen, the budget was “fungible” enough that it was able to absorb a $3 million hit, and the $363,000 shortfall was only 10% of that.

Pollay explained that the difference in the budget was attributable to the timing of completing the Library Lane underground garage and the Fifth and Division streetscape project. The budget is not fungible, Pollay said – it’s a matter of tapping the fund balances. Responding to a question from Petersen, Pollay said that the DDA’s TIF fund balance is anticipated to be $840,000 at the end of FY 2014. [Across all of its funds, the DDA has budgeted in a way that leaves nearly $5 million in fund balance – an amount that includes money set aside for parking structure maintenance – at the end of FY 2014.] Petersen observed that the figure is still more than $363,000.

Pollay offered that it’s confusing because the total amount “that would be taken from the DDA” would be more than $931,000. Compared to the revenue that the DDA had budgeted, Pollay allowed it was only $363,000 less – but that was because the DDA didn’t know there would be additional TIF capture beyond what they’d budgeted.

Warpehoski raised a question about whether the additional increment provided by new projects would actually result in more TIF revenue to the DDA – given the nature of the cap as defined in the clarified calculations. Some back-and-forth between Warpehoski and Crawford determined that Warpehoski had misunderstood one of the lines in the chart. The cap on the DDA’s TIF revenue would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015 and would increase 3% each year from that point – which is an amount that the DDA would likely receive, assuming that Village Green completes the construction of City Apartments and other projects that are expected to be built are, in fact, built.

Warpehoski then got clarification that under the substituted ordinance revisions, an elected official could serve on the DDA board only with the agreement of all, not just some, of the other taxing jurisdictions.

Briere said she tended only to be interested in policy. And one of the points of policy deals with term limits. There are already some time limits – that the terms are four years. She wondered why all boards and commissions don’t have uniform restrictions. She wondered why there needed to be a special policy for the DDA board.

Lumm ventured that the council seemed ready for a vote.

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations – Final Comments

Hieftje then began his final remarks on the topic. He said that over the last several years, the city had worked very well with the DDA and that’s worked out very well. In the past, when the city has had any issues with the DDA, Hieftje said, they’ve sat down and talked with the DDA, and that’s turned out very well. Since it was established, the DDA has made a tremendous contribution to affordable housing, Hieftje said. This time around, Hieftje continued, the issue should have been approached by starting a conversation with the DDA’s partnership’s committee. Instead, he said, the council had launched a fairly aggressive ordinance change “against” the DDA “without sitting down to talk to them.” He said that it could have been handled in a much better way.

Hieftje responded to the idea that the possibility of the DDA rescinding the $8 million grant for the police/courts building was only a threat. He contended that to him it was “perfectly logical” that if the DDA, which was anticipating an increase of $991,000 in TIF revenue, instead saw $559,000 being returned to the city, then it would be reasonable to say that the city did not need the $508,000 annual installment towards the $8 million grant. Hieftje claimed that if you start to look at the numbers, the revisions to the ordinance would mean there’s a $231,000 deficit to the general city’s general fund. [This would depend on the DDA breaching its obligation to pay the $508,000 annual installment on the police/courts grant.]

Hieftje also noted that $300,000 has been set aside in the DDA’s budget as a way possibly to pay for police in the downtown. That would increase the number of police officers in the city, which was an expressed goal of some councilmembers, he pointed out. Hieftje was also concerned that this would reduce revenue to the DDA at exactly the point when the DDA is trying to rebuild its fund balances.

Hieftje said he couldn’t figure out why the council had started down this road – except for political reasons. He reviewed his basic points, which were that the DDA had been excellent partners, and he didn’t see a good bottom line for the city. The city should have sat down and talked with the DDA about this issue, Hieftje said. [Representatives of the other taxing authorities met with the DDA as a group in the summer of 2011 to discuss the issue. But they did not pursue that conversation – which some in attendance expected would result in either an ordinance change or a memorandum of understanding among the taxing jurisdictions.]

Kunselman responded to Hieftje’s remarks by saying he appreciated Hieftje’s defense of the DDA, but it was not Kunselman’s intent to sit there and “bash” the DDA. Part of the issue, Kunselman said, is about bringing revenue to the city and the other taxing jurisdictions, who need those additional tax dollars. He said he didn’t think the DDA knows how to spend tax dollars better than Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College or the Ann Arbor District Library.

Responding to the idea that the DDA might provide a grant to fund police officers in the downtown, Kunselman dismissed the idea that the city would hire police officers based on a year-to-year grant. That was especially true, Kunselman said, if the DDA could simply exercise discretion to rescind its grants, as Hieftje had claimed was possible. Adopting the ordinance revisions is all about new tax dollars, Kunselman pointed out. All of the projections that the council had seen basically keep the DDA whole, for the most part. He allowed that in the next year, there could be a couple hundred thousand dollars less for the DDA compared to what the DDA had budgeted. But he pointed out that in years past the DDA had taken hits and been able to absorb them.

The DDA is the only agency that has not had a reduction in its budget, Kunselman said. When he hears about what wonderful work the DDA does, he questioned how well the DDA actually managed the parking system – given that debt associated with the system was substantially subsidized with TIF revenue. “Out the other end” of the public parking system, Kunselman said, comes $3.1 million of revenue to the city of Ann Arbor. Before the DDA existed, there was a big concern about the public parking system being a “cash cow” for the city – and at that time there was not even a TIF subsidy. He described the hourly cost for parking as including a “surcharge” of an extra 17%, due to the terms of the city’s contract with the DDA. He questioned whether that was consistent with the case law on the definition of taxes and fees – the Bolt decision.

Kunselman said he’d tried to approach the issue delicately, so that the DDA’s budget was left whole and so that the DDA wouldn’t take a hit to their funds. Other than the light pole and sidewalk ramp project, Kunselman said, there weren’t other projects that the DDA would not be able to complete, based on what the council had been told.

Kunselman said Hieftje was trying to make the issue into some sort of “Kunselman against the DDA,” but it’s not, he said. Instead, it’s about bringing trust and confidence back to the DDA as an institution.

Kunselman briefly addressed the question of term limits for DDA board members, which are part of the set of ordinance revisions. There are term limits for the park advisory commission, he said. The existing DDA board members had apparently not read the law about filing the annual TIF report. He concluded that the DDA board needed new blood and new eyes.

He returned then to the question of how the TIF capture is calculated, wondering why Hieftje had voted year after year to approve a budget using the optimistic projection in the TIF plan. “Why don’t you [Hieftje] answer that for all the citizens of Ann Arbor?”

Kunselman wound up his remarks by noting that the ordinance changes were being considered by the council at a first reading. He hoped councilmembers would support the changes at least to get them to the second reading. He told his council colleagues that if they wanted to give the DDA a $931,000 increase in revenue, they could do that. Or they could support some of those dollars coming back to city. It’s recurring revenue to the city, money that can be used to hire firefighters and police officers. He asked his council colleagues if they wanted to make public safety a priority or parking: “You make the choice.”

Responding to Kunselman’s characterization of his effort as delicate, Margie Teall (Ward 4) ventured that delicate is in the eyes of the beholder. She wished that Kunselman had chosen to bring the issue forward in a more collaborative way.

Teall felt like the DDA is being penalized for doing a really great job. The DDA is what’s responsible for making it possible to attract new tax dollars, she said. The DDA has been a good partner in maintaining infrastructure. She appealed to the notion that a “rising tide can lift all boats.” She wouldn’t support the ordinance changes, she said.

Petersen also wished the approach Kunselman had taken had been more collaborative, but she indicated she wanted to separate out the political from the pragmatic issues. In the long term, she felt that the DDA had done good work and expected that the DDA will continue to do good things, and would expect the TIF fund to grow even more. What the ordinance amendments do is provide clarity, she said. While she wished the approach had been more collaborative, she thought it would help strengthen the DDA in the long term.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) literally rolled up her sleeves before the April 1 meeting started.

Lumm indicated she’d support the ordinance changes at first reading. She presented her support framed by her concept of what a DDA should be. She believed downtown vibrancy is important to any city’s health and she felt a strong, autonomous DDA is an important tool for achieving that. She did not agree with those who said the city should not have a DDA at all. She’d been around before the DDA had taken over the public parking system, and stated that the DDA had done a very good job on that. But she did believe the city needed a strong, independent DDA. Over the last decade it had evolved from an independent, autonomous body supporting the downtown to an extension of the city council. Lumm did not think that was or is in the city’s best interest. The DDA funds selected city projects and programs – outside the regular budget process. However, a decision about whether to use $0.5 million for the police/courts building or to hire police officers is the kind of decision that should be made inside the regular budget process, Lumm said.

In support of an independent DDA, she’s highly supportive of the ordinance changes related to board governance. She preferred the original set of amendments on elected officials. She supported those elements of the ordinance changes that define TIF capture. She was not wedded to enactment of the clarified calculations beginning for the current tax year, but felt it was important to implement the ordinance change fairly and expeditiously.

Responding in part to the criticism against Kunselman that his approach had been inappropriate, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) observed that Kunselman had talked about the issue for at least a year – starting by asking for a budget amendment last year. [That budget amendment failed.] Anglin acknowledged the partnership the city has with the DDA. He did not think that the ordinance amendments by any means crippled the DDA.

Warpehoski said he’d been wrestling over this issue. When he saw the Fiat dealership or other new projects were built outside the DDA district, he liked all that “TIF capture” it provided. [Warpehoski likely meant something more along the lines of "ordinary taxes not subject to TIF capture."] That was important for the city to be able to provide services to residents, he said. But when he looked at the numbers, he contended that 10 years ago, the city received roughly 17% of all the tax revenue in the DDA district, and even now the city receives about 17% of the revenue, even with the DDA’s TIF capture. He concluded that the city is coming out pretty well. There are all the other ways the city has come out ahead, he said – including the $8 million police/courts grant and the 17% of gross revenues from the public parking system. So if the “problem” is getting revenue, he was having trouble understanding that. The existing arrangement was working out fairly well, he thought.

As far as the optimistic, realistic and pessimistic projections in the TIF plan, Warpehoski felt this was similar to the way his organization [Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice] puts together its budget. So he understood why, from a budget planning perspective, the realistic numbers would be used, but he did not understand why that would be the basis for a cap. He raised the point that before the 2003 renewal plan, the projected growth in the TIF plan had been roughly 5% per year, whereas the 2003 renewal plan was roughly 3%. If the 5% had been brought forward with the 2003 renewal plan, then the cap under the cumulative methodology would be well above the amount of TIF received by the DDA.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

On the question of term limits, Warpehoski did not feel that term limits have worked well in Lansing. He called term limits “mandatory inexperience.” Sitting next to one of the most veteran councilmembers, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), he saw the value of experience. While he understood the desire to reach for the money, he could not support the ordinance amendments.

Hieftje returned to the point that it could have been handled in a much better way. He wouldn’t support it because of the bottom line. He again raised the specter of a $231,000 general fund deficit for the city. He wouldn’t say that sometime in the future, the DDA’s TIF couldn’t be reconsidered, and he felt it could be done in a collaborative way. Hieftje allowed that he’s long said that the DDA is an “arm of the city,” but that he felt he could see the DDA taking action to rescind the police/courts grant.

Briere said that as a person who didn’t do all that well in math, she struggled with the issue. She was always looking for the unintended consequence. Every time she looked at the issue more closely, it seemed to become less clear. She allowed that looking logically at the 2003 TIF plan, it’s the figures in the “realistic” column that should be considered. She indicated that she was interested in having more concrete projections 10 years into the future.

Briere said it’s difficult to separate the political from the financial changes. She wished there had been a more collaborative effort. She’d heard Kunselman say that the impact would only be for one year, but she did not understand that. Briere indicated that her vote that night would depend on watching the votes of those who voted before she did. [Based on the sequence of the roll call, Briere had a clear indication that it would pass at first reading before casting her own vote.]

Higgins called the discussion an extremely interesting conversation. She felt the DDA does a very good job. She felt the DDA had been very good stewards – and nothing she’d heard that night takes away from that. On the question of whether the ordinance amendments had been brought forward in a collaborative process, she allowed that the best route is not always the one that’s taken. She appreciated the fact that new councilmembers with new skill sets were looking at the issue, and it made her step back and look at this too. There were some aspects she agreed with and some aspects that give her pause. She said she’d vote yes on first reading. But she was not saying that she’d vote for it on second reading.

Outcome: The vote was 7-3, as Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent. The initial approval was supported by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Voting against it were mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

In order to be enacted, the changes will need to receive approval from the council at a subsequent meeting, following a public hearing, now scheduled for April 15.

D1 Zoning Review

On the council’s agenda was a resolution setting the scope of work and a timeline for direction given at its March 18, 2013 meeting – that the city’s planning commission should review zoning in the D1 (downtown core) zoning district.

Here are the specific areas of inquiry the planning commission is supposed to address, as set forth in the resolved clause:

RESOLVED, That City Council requests the City Planning Commission to specifically address these issues:
(i) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and S. State and the south side of William Street between S. Main and Fourth Avenue;
(ii) whether the D1 residential FAR premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and
(iii) consider a parcel on the south side of Ann St. adjacent to north of city hall that is currently zoned D1 to be rezoned to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood; and

RESOLVED, That City Council requests that Planning Commission complete its review and report to the City Council by October 1, 2013.

The three points of inquiry are similar in spirit, but different in their details, from those put forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s March 18 meeting. At that meeting, the council had deliberated on the question of whether to give the planning commission direction to conduct the D1 review and to impose a moratorium on the D1 site plans.

The orange-ish area denotes an area zoned as D2 (interface). Darker red areas, including the UM Credit Union parcel (pink arrow), are zoned D1 (downtown core). The red line denotes the boundary of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

At its March 18 session, the council decided to delete the mention of a moratorium from their resolution and to include a promise to define by April 1 the scope of the planning commission’s review and a timeframe for its work.

The first point of inquiry adopted by the council on April 1 differs from that offered on March 18 by omitting mention of historic districts – although the appropriateness of D1 zoning will almost certainly include the relation of D1-zoned areas to historic districts.

The second point of inquiry – about residential FAR (floor area ratio) premiums – had been proposed by Taylor on March 18.

The third point of inquiry is new. The parcel in question is the surface parking lot currently owned by the University of Michigan Credit Union, formerly owned by the now defunct Ann Arbor News.

D1 Zoning Review: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had talked about the content of the ordinance. Higgins had needed to leave the council meeting early, Briere said. The resolution provides additional guidance to the planning commission and sets a clear deadline, she said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) expressed some desire that environmental incentives also be included in the review, but he’d concluded that keeping things focused in the resolution as it was written is an appropriate way to move forward.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know how the planning commission would view its responsibility: Would the planning commission feel it had the latitude to consider broader issues? City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Lumm she felt that the commission would initially consider just those issues in the written scope of the resolution and work toward making the Oct. 1 deadline. To the extent that there was time to do so, the planning commission might consider other issues. Responding to a specific question from Lumm about whether six months was enough time, Rampson indicated she thought it was doable. Rampson added that having targeted action is helpful.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed some concern about the timeframe but said he was glad the planning commission meetings would be televised. Briere, who serves as the city council appointee to the planning commission, told Anglin that the matter would be referred by the commission to its ordinance revisions committee – which met in a way that was noticed to the public and open to the public, but not televised. That committee would make recommendations to the planning commission, and the planning commission would hold a public hearing and give a recommendation to the city council. But she indicated that there would not be a discussion of the topic at every planning commission meeting between now and Oct. 1.

Responding to a question from Anglin, Rampson indicated that the ordinance revisions committee provided an opportunity for public comment at the end of its meetings, usually in an informal way.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was surprised that people were continuing to invest in student-only housing projects, saying that those buildings with 4-5 bedrooms seemed targeted for the student market. He said that Village Green’s City Apartment project, now under construction at First and Washington, was reporting a lot of demand for its 1-2 bedroom units. So he was in favor of making an adjustment to the kind of residential premiums that are offered.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took the opportunity to ask about the lack of an update on the R4C zoning revisions that have been studied for a very long time now. Rampson indicated that the advisory committee had taken additional time. Some back-and-forth established that Oct. 1 was really a firm deadline. Briere pointed out that there’s significant difference between the resolution that the council was considering for D1 review and the R4C study – in that the council had appointed a group of citizens for the R4C work, which made recommendations to the ordinance revisions committee of the planning commission. Now, what the council is doing had the practical effect of forwarding the matter directly to the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee. [The draft recommendations for R4C zoning changes will be on the planning commission's April 16 agenda. See recent Chronicle coverage: "R4C Draft Readied for Planning Commission."]

Lumm reiterated the fact that she wanted to make sure the council’s direction was not unnecessarily restrictive.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution on D1 zoning review.

413 E. Huron

On April 1 the council’s agenda included a resolution on the site plan application for 413 E. Huron – a proposed 14-story, 216-apartment building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets.

A new public hearing on the project was started at the April 1 meeting, and held open so that it can resume on April 15. The council first considered the 413 E. Huron site plan at its March 18, 2013 meeting. The new public hearing was the subject of extended discussion by the council.

413 E. Huron: Public Hearing

The council’s vote on the approval of the minutes from previous meetings is typically perfunctory. However, the council’s interest in giving the public additional opportunities to weigh in on the 413 E. Huron site plan resulted in extended conversation about approving the minutes from the council’s March 18, 2013 meeting. On the public hearing, the draft of the minutes, which the council was asked to consider, read as follows:

There being no further comment, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.

Held and Closed

The minutes are based on the fact that mayor John Hieftje said the public hearing was closed, when no one else wanted to speak.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) observed that the minutes indicated the public hearing had been held and closed. However, at the point in the meeting when the council voted to postpone the site plan, Higgins said, “We should have then asked to make sure that the public hearing stayed open – as we’ve often done in the past. So I’d like to correct the minutes so that the public hearing would have remained open. It’s been the practice that we’ve had to do that.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that if the minutes are a reflection of what actually occurred at the meeting, she didn’t think it was possible to “correct” the minutes, but she allowed it was possible she might be mistaken about that. City attorney Stephen Postema stated it’s clear that the public hearing needs to go forward in some manner – whether it’s by re-opening it or by some other means. He indicated that one way to accomplish a re-opening would be to reconsider the decision to postpone. Higgins was right about the fact that in the past the re-opening of a hearing has been done at the time of the council’s vote on the item, Postema said. He felt the best way to approach it was to have a new public hearing.

Hieftje got confirmation that the city attorney’s recommendation was to have another public hearing.

Briere wanted to clarify that if it’s a new public hearing, those people who spoke previously can speak at the new public hearing. [If a public hearing is continued, from one council meeting to the next, the council does not typically allow for people who spoke at the first meeting to speak again at the second meeting – because it's the same public hearing that had merely been continued.]

Briere reiterated that the council should just accept the minutes as written. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked how the process should have happened. She ventured that the reason the council was in this “predicament” was that when the council voted to postpone consideration of the 413 E. Huron site plan, the public hearing was not re-opened so it could be held open for the next meeting. Hieftje confirmed that Petersen’s understanding was correct.

Higgins added that Hieftje would usually say so at the start of the public hearing if he thinks there was any chance the council would postpone a decision. Hieftje said he’d state something like that only if he thought a postponement was likely – and Hieftje contended he didn’t have any idea the council would postpone 413 E. Huron site plan on March 18.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald talked with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) before the April 1 meeting.

Higgins questioned whether the new public hearing meant that the council would be considering a brand new site plan. Postema stated that there’s a new public hearing only because the original public hearing hadn’t been held open in the same way it was done in the past. To the extent the site plan has been changed, Postema continued, assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald had recommended that it go back and be treated as a new public hearing at this time.

Higgins stated that she disagreed with the approach of a new public hearing. She felt a new process was being developed for this particular site plan. She said she wouldn’t push it, but felt the council needs to be cognizant of the issue. Hieftje asked Higgins if she was amenable to approving the March 18 minutes and accepting a motion to start a new public hearing later. Higgins said that’s what she thought they’d already decided to do.

When the council reached the public hearing on 413 E. Huron on its agenda, Hieftje indicated that he fully expected that it would be postponed, and that the public hearing would be continued on April 15 if it were to be postponed. No one spoke at the public hearing.

However, during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Kermit Schlansker commented on what he called a “furor over construction of an apartment complex on Huron Street.” The knowledge that houses will eventually have to be torn town and that people will have to learn to live in apartment buildings in order to save energy is an argument on the side of the apartments, he said. But the city could take a great step toward sustainability by specifying that all new buildings must use a heating system that is at least partially renewable. That could take the form of solar panels on the roof, a solar boiler, a cogeneration system, and an engine-driven heat pump. Eventually, Schlansker said, we will have to use both co-manufactured and solar boilers as heating systems. The easiest choice, he explained would be an engine-driven heat pump, with a cogeneration backup. We have to use every possible trick to ensure our future, he said.

413 E. Huron: Council Deliberations

During the scant deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) took the opportunity to tell representatives of the developer who were in the audience that she felt the changes that had been made so far – on 8,000 square feet out of 270,000 for the entire project – were about a 3% improvement. She wanted them to understand “what universe” she was coming from.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the postponement of the 413 E. Huron site plan until its April 15 meeting.

Outdoor Sign Ordinance

On the council’s agenda was final approval of changes to the city’s sign ordinance – to allow for only a limited type of digital signs. Also considered was an extension of a council-enacted moratorium on applications for digital signs, which was set to expire on April 11, 2013.

Billboards on West Liberty Street at First, near the edge of downtown Ann Arbor, looking east. (Photo illustration by The Chronicle.)

If enacted, the changes would mean that a limited type of digital signs would be allowed in the city. But the effect of the proposed ordinance changes would be that no billboards would be permitted – although the existing 28 billboards in the city would be allowed to remain as non-conforming signs. Existing billboards would not be allowed to be retrofitted for digital displays. The council had given initial approval of the changes at its March 18, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of proposed outdoor advertising ordinance]

Under the proposed ordinance changes, new billboards – signs with an area greater than 200 square feet – could not be constructed. And existing signs of that size could not have electronic features added to allow for changeable text or images.

The existing sign ordinance does not allow for any changeable text, except for “noncommercial information which requires periodic change” – like time and temperature. So the proposed changes to the ordinance would allow for changeable portions of a sign, subject to the limitation that the changeable portion of the sign not be more than half the area of any sign and no more than 30 square feet per sign and 15 square feet per sign face. Additional limitations would prevent flashing and scrolling – by not allowing changes to content more often than 15 minutes. The proposed ordinance language states:

Changeable copy shall not and shall not appear to flash, undulate, pulse, blink, expand, contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, or otherwise move.

The proposed ordinance restrictions on dynamic elements of signs were motivated in part – based on remarks of city planning manager Wendy Rampson at the council’s March 18 meeting – by the perception that these elements are a distraction to motorists. That argument has been countered by Adams Outdoor Advertising in written communication to the city by citing studies that conclude any distraction does not cause a greater rate of traffic accidents.

The proposed ordinance changes would place a maximum brightness of any illuminated sign, including those that are digital/electronic: 5,000 nits during the day and 100 nits at night, and in no case greater than 0.1 foot-candles above the already existing amount of light at a residential property line. One nit is defined as one candela per square meter. A candela is about the amount of light produced by a common tallow candle.

By way of comparison, an iPhone 5 display is reported to have a brightness of about 500 nits.

The moratorium on digital signs was first enacted for 180 days at the council’s April 17, 2012 meeting. And the city council had extended the moratorium for an additional 180 days at its Oct. 1, 2012 meeting.

Falling under the moratorium are “billboards commonly referred to as ‘electronic message centers,’ ‘electronic message boards,’ ‘changeable electronic variable message signs,’ or any billboard containing LEDs, LCDs, plasma displays, or any similar technology to project an illuminated image that can be caused to move or change, or to appear to move or change, by a method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, including by digital or electronic input.”

Outdoor Sign Ordinance: Public Hearing

Mayor John Hieftje indicated he thought it was highly likely that the vote would be postponed. This led to considerable hesitation on the part of several people who had planned to speak. If they assumed the council would postpone, expecting to be able to speak at the continued public hearing when the council took up the matter again, but the council wound up voting that evening, they’d have forfeited their opportunity to be heard before the vote.

Karolina Shillenn introduced herself as the real estate representative for Adams Outdoor. She told the council that Adams had three objectives that night. First, she asked that the council postpone the vote so that an opportunity could be provided to convey relevant information to the council, saying “Billboards are our business.” Second, she asked that the council maintain the current ordinance requirements, which cap the total number of billboards at 30. There are currently 28 billboards within the city, she pointed out. In addition, she asked that the council maintain the current 350-square-foot size limit. She showed the council an example of a current billboard for the Y, pointing out that it features a city planner on it. The third request she made was for the council to regulate digital signs at the 350-square-foot size, instead of prohibiting digital signs at that size.

Dan Law introduced himself as sales manager at Adams Outdoor. The business of Adams is all about helping local businesses and helping the local economy, he said. It’s difficult to reach customers when there is not a daily newspaper and the airwaves are overcrowded, he said. Billboards offer a nonintrusive way to reach people, he told the council. He takes his responsibility for managing eight account representatives very seriously. Based on what those reps tell him, there is a high demand for billboards and a high demand for digital. The current ordinance allows only 30 billboards, he pointed out. He asked that the council include in the new ordinance an ability for businesses to have a voice, via digital technology. He showed the council examples of billboards for the University of Michigan Credit Union and other local businesses.

Shannon Flowerday introduced herself as the art director at Adams Outdoor. She described the process of creating a visually appealing and successful billboard, comparing the process of design to creating a painting. She described the “rectangle campaign,” which is a way for nonprofits to advertise at no cost.

Dan Martell introduced himself as operations manager at Adams Outdoor. He talked about the physical implementation of the billboards. He described how a design for one advertiser had been printed on vinyl and it had not stretched properly. So Adams Outdoor had gone out several times to re-stretch the vinyl, he said. They were out working in all kinds of weather and were always monitoring the structures to make sure the lights are working and that the overall appearance is aesthetically pleasing.

Mitchell Gasche introduced himself as real estate manager at Adams Outdoor. He routinely deals with federal, state and local regulation, he said. Adams Outdoor encourages regulation, but is against prohibition. The proposed ordinance changes take away their rights, he said. While the current ordinance has a limit of 30 sign faces, and the limit has not been reached since 1994, there’s no need to take away the two additional billboards that could be allowed in addition to the existing 28 billboards.

He noted that digital technology for signs is regulated at the federal, state and local levels as well. Use of digital technology has been allowed at the federal level since 1996, he said, and prohibited flash, scroll or animation. He noted that Adams had sent to the council three studies on the possible distractions to drivers posed by digital signs. They’re safety neutral, he concluded. He asked that Adams Outdoor be included as part of the process. Two weeks is not long enough to deal with the proposed ordinance changes, he said. [The two-week timeframe is the time between the council's initial approval and the final vote, which was before the council at the April 1 meeting.]

Hieftje stated that the public hearing would be continued if the ordinance revision were to be postponed.

Outdoor Sign Ordinance: Council Deliberations

The council took an initial voice vote on postponement that appeared to have succeeded unanimously. But then a question arose about the date of the postponement. And that re-opened the door to deliberations on the question.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that she was not a big fan of billboards – digital or otherwise. She understands that it impacts sign businesses and has an indirect impact on businesses that use them. She supported the postponement, saying that although the city has had a year to review the issue during the period of the postponement, those who are impacted by the ordinance change had to deal with the issue in the timeframe of just two weeks. She wanted to make sure they had time to raise concerns before the final vote. A postponement also gives time to consider suggestions and consider revisions. She noted that it would be necessary to extend the temporary moratorium on digital signs. Lumm reiterated that she’s generally supportive of the ordinance revisions, but those who are impacted should have an opportunity to be heard.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) also indicated she was in favor of postponement. She felt there’s a real economic development issue. She also felt there was a certain irony to prohibiting digital sign technology at the same time the city is trying to promote the idea of a tech campus downtown.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was concerned that a two-week postponement is not the right timeline. She asked if councilmembers would consider a different timeframe. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he might support a different timeframe, but he wanted to know what the mechanism would be for people to provide their input. Higgins stated that she felt the input would be provided to city staff.

After some back and forth – in light of the fact that the moratorium appeared on the agenda later in the meeting with an extension until July 1 – the council settled on May 6 as the date it would take up the sign ordinance again. That came over the dissent of Higgins, who appeared to be in favor of a longer postponement.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the second vote on the ordinance revisions until May 6, 2013, over the dissent of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Later in the meeting, the council voted to extend that moratorium on digital sign applications until July 1, 2013. According to the resolution approved by the council, the purpose of postponing a decision on the ordinance amendment and extending the moratorium was to allow for additional time to review the proposed amendments and to “gather input from the public and interested parties, and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of city residents.”

Outdoor Sign Ordinance: Coda

During council communications time at the conclusion of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated most of the signs were located in Ward 5, the ward he represents. Given the timeframe, he would likely not be able to see the process through himself – because his wife is due to give birth at the end of May. He indicated an interest in seeing the issue continue to receive attention from staff and the council.

Public Art Spending Moratorium

On the council’s April 1 agenda was the extension of a temporary halt to spending money that’s set aside under the city’s Percent for Art ordinance.

The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets be set aside for public art. Originally set to run through April 1, 2013, the temporary halt on spending – except on projects already in the works – is to be extended until May 31. The three projects currently in the works are installations for East Stadium Bridges, a rain garden on Kingsley Street, and Argo Cascades.

The council had originally enacted the moratorium on spending at its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting. The action came in the context of a failed millage proposal in November 2012, which was meant to provide an alternative funding mechanism to the Percent for Art approach. The millage proposal was put forward in part in response to objections that voters had not explicitly approved the Percent for Art mechanism, which taps all capital funds – even those deriving from fees and millages designated for other purposes.

At the Dec. 3 meeting, a committee consisting of Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was appointed to recommend amendments to the city’s public art ordinance.

The committee has met several times and has made recommendations on revisions to the ordinance. However, the committee is not yet ready to convey its final recommendations to the full council.

Based on previous Chronicle coverage, the main recommendation would be to eliminate in the ordinance any reference to a specific percentage for art in a capital project budget. And art funds would not be pooled as they are now – which entails setting aside money from projects into which it would be difficult to incorporate public art. Under the approach likely to be recommended by the committee, city staff would work to determine whether a specific capital improvement project should have enhanced design features “baked in” to a project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

Another likely recommendation is to encourage an outside organization to solicit funds for specific community‐generated public art projects. Such funds would go into a dedicated fund for public art.

The committee is likely to recommend an increase in the employment level of its public art administrator to more than half-time – whether that is a contract employee or a direct hire. The current public art administrator’s job, held by Aaron Seagraves, is a part-time position.

The committee is also likely to recommend evaluating the changes in the ordinance after three years.

The extension of the moratorium was introduced to the council by Sabra Briere, who’s been working on the council committee. She reported that the city attorney’s office had told her it would take another 30 days, and the extension until May 31 was meant to ensure that there would be sufficient time for the two votes the council would be required to take.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve extending the suspension of public art spending.

Gallup Park Accessibility Work

The council was asked to approve a $512,180 contract with Construction Solutions Inc. for improvements at the Gallup Park canoe livery.

The Ann Arbor park advisory commission had recommended the contract award at its March 19, 2013 meeting. The project budget includes a 10% construction contingency, bringing the total cost to $563,398.

Schematic of the proposed Gallup Park canoe livery improvements.

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

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

The project will be funded in part through a $300,000 grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, with matching funds from the FY 2013 park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

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

During the scant council deliberations, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) noted that the work had been very well received by the city’s disability commission – on which she serves.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract for Gallup Park improvements.

Dam Work at Argo, Geddes

On the council’s agenda was the award of a $295,530 contract to Gerace Construction Co. for repair work and repainting at Argo and Geddes dams, as well as site improvements around Argo Dam.

The contract had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

Gerace, based in Midland, submitted the lowest of four qualified bids for this work. Other bidders were Anlaan Corp. ($354,050); E&L Construction ($457,989); and Spence Brothers ($797,000). According to a staff memo, the work entails “repair and repainting of gear housings, lift equipment, tainter gate structural steel, miscellaneous concrete repair, and minor site improvements. Site improvements include addition of riprap and constructing a path to portage around Argo Dam.”

At PAC’s meeting, Brian Steglitz, an engineer with the city, indicated that the work is being done in response to feedback from state regulators. The two dams are inspected every three years by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

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

At the council’s April 1 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned the idea of paying for the repairs only out of the parks millage, but were content to leave the question open for future discussion.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract for the dam repairs.

Longshore Parking for Argo Livery

Having been postponed from its previous meeting on March 18, 2013, the council was asked to approve a $3,000 lease to accommodate overflow parking for the Argo canoe livery.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had asked that the item be separated out from the consent agenda on March 18. Briere had heard concerns that the lot is not very well-graded and that there’s a lot of runoff. She had wondered if there was a way for the city to enforce maintenance of the lot through the lease.

The lease had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 26, 2013 meeting. The lease of the parking lot at 416 Longshore Drive – with about 40 spaces – will cover Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from May 25 to Sept. 2, 2013, with an option to renew administratively for two successive one-year periods.

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

At the council’s April 1 meeting, Briere indicated that it was not feasible to enforce through the contract the kind of improvements that would be necessary to manage stormwater better.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the lease for the parking lot.

Summer 2013 Street, Sidewalk Contracts

The council was asked to approve a contract for street resurfacing in Ann Arbor – with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. in the amount of $3,583,944. The council has also approved two contracts in connection with the city’s 2013 ramp and sidewalk repair project – a $748,576 contract with Doan Construction Company and a $207,350 contract with Precision Concrete Cutting.

The work will occur in the spring and summer of 2013.

2013 Ann Arbor street resurfacing program.

The city has a ramp and sidewalk repair program in place that is meant to repair deficient sidewalks (not install new sidewalks) throughout the city over a five-year period – which is the duration of a 1/8 mill tax approved by voters in 2011. Each year about 20% of the city is covered by the repair program.

The contract with Precision Concrete Cutting reflects the city’s interest – where feasible – in slicing off portions of sidewalks that have “vaulted,” to restore the surface to horizontal. Slicing is more cost effective than removing and re-pouring.

The streets to be resurfaced include the following.

• State Street: Oakbrook to Eisenhower (April – June)
• Barton: Pontiac to Plymouth (August – October)
• Sorrento: King George to end (April – May)
• Alley “Benjamin”: Sybil to Benjamin (May – June)
• Alley “Mary”: Benjamin to Hoover (May – June)
• Franklin: Stadium to Hutchins (June – July)
• Hiscock: Brooks to Spring (June – July)
• Arbana: Mark Hannah to Huron (July – August)
• Mark Hannah: Arbana to Arbana (July – August)
• Waldenwood: Earhart to Penberton (July – August)
• Birch Hollow: Tacoma to Stone School (August – September)
• Penberton & adjacent courts: Waldenwood to Waldenwood (TBD)
• Sulgrave Place: Barrister to end (TBD)

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, Depot Street (Main to Carey) was included as part of the original bid package. However, the storm sewer within Depot Street – based on early indications from the Allen Creek Railroad berm opening feasibility study – could be impacted by possible solutions related to a railroad berm opening. So other local streets will be substituted for Depot Street this year.

During council deliberations, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that some of the curb ramps on the work schedule were upgrades to existing ramps, when some locations didn’t have ramps at all. He wanted to weigh the benefit of that in the future.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported that a woman had fallen on a sidewalk and cracked her knee. If there’s a lawsuit, he said, the sidewalks should be repaired immediately, even if it’s not the city’s fault.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got an explanation from city staff on the areas of work to be covered with the sidewalk work.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the street resurfacing and sidewalk repair contracts.

Drinking Water Bond Notice

The council was asked to approve the publication of a notice of intent to issue water supply system revenue bonds totaling $18.5 million to pay for additions and improvements to the city’s water supply system.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the first in the series of bonds is expected to be for around $3.8 million and will be sold directly to the Michigan Finance Authority as part of its Drinking Water Revolving Fund program. The bonds will be paid solely from revenues to Ann Arbor’s drinking water system.

During the brief council deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) got some clarification on the interest rates from city CFO Tom Crawford. Crawford indicated that for a question about some maximums, he would need to talk to the city’s bond counsel.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the publication of a notice of intent to issue revenue bonds.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Library Lane Ice-Skating Rink

Stewart Gordon gave the council an update on the status of an initiative to install a temporary ice-skating rink on the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. The rink would use synthetic ice. He reported that he’d done a long interview with the woman who runs the ice rink at the Hancock Building in Chicago. He summarized the information he’d obtained from that interview for the council. The material is durable and skateable. The size of the rink is very important, he said. Children like it but it’s too small for adults, he said. At the Hancock Building a liability waiver is signed, but no accidents or claims had been made in the course of three seasons.

Shoe storage is provided as well as a place to change into skates, Gordon reported. Sharpening skates is important, he noted, and the Hancock Building staff have been trained to do skate blade sharpening during slower periods. Negative features include the fact that the specific product that had been chosen in Chicago requires that a lubricating gel be applied twice a week. He described it as a “nasty, messy, hands-and-knees” process. Other products don’t require that kind of maintenance, because the lubricant is impregnated in the plastic, he said. So that’s the kind of product that would be used in Ann Arbor.

A final point he made is that unless it’s large enough to skate on comfortably, the rink becomes a one-time novelty. At this point, the city of Chicago has installed two ice rinks downtown – so the clientele for the synthetic ice rink is gradually declining. Gordon told the council that his group was ready to work with the city’s park advisory commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [Gordon and Alan Haber had made a presentation on this project at the park advisory commission's March 19, 2013 meeting.]

Comm/Comm: Park Advisory Commission Update

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) urged people to watch the March 19, 2013 meeting of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC). [Anglin serves as one of two ex officio, non-voting city council appointees to PAC. The other council representative to PAC is Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).] He highlighted two presentations from city staff that were worth hearing: one on the city’s golf courses, and the other on the canoe liveries. Anglin expressed praise for the parks staff.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) followed up on Anglin’s remarks, adding praise of his own. He’d noticed some illegal dumping in a neighborhood park and notified park staff. They’d been responsive, he said.

Comm/Comm: North Main Task Force

During communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave a brief update on the activities of the North Main/Huron River task force. The group has been meeting every three weeks as a whole, and has formed four subcommittees, which have met in addition to the full task force. The draft recommendations were presented at a meeting of the full task force on the previous Wednesday [March 27], she reported. The recommendations will now be compiled and organized and looked at again before a meeting on April 17. A draft reported is expected by the beginning of May. The group expects to hold a public meeting on May 22 and again in June. The full report is due by the end of July. She was pleased with cooperation that had been displayed during the task force’s work. She hoped the final report would reflect short-term and long-term recommendations to the council.

Comm/Comm: Unwanted Newspapers/Circulars

During communications time at the start of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that a lot of people seem to complain about unwanted advertising circulars being delivered to their premises – like the AnnArbor.com Express. He ventured that council veterans around the table had likely heard this before. He asked them to “indulge a newbie.” [Warpehoski was first elected in November 2012.] He described the various aspects of the issue – from environmental concerns to public safety. A stack of such circulars that accumulate while someone is away could send the message “rob this place, nobody’s paying attention,” he said. He knew that city attorney has looked at the issue before. He asked other councilmembers to let him know what they’d been hearing about the issue. [An attempt to revise the city ordinance on handbills and unwanted newspapers put forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) in late 2011 got little traction on the council.]

Comm/Comm: Urban Core Transit

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that on March 28 there’d been a robust discussion of governance and financing for improved or expanded transit in the “urban core” communities – attended by a number of elected officials from Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Pittsfield Township, as well as several other nearby jurisdictions. The meeting was hosted by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Kunselman wanted to let everybody know they were making some headway. Attending the meeting besides Kunselman from the Ann Arbor city council included: mayor John Hieftje; Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5); Sabra Briere (Ward 1); and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). [See: "Costs, Services Floated for Urban Core Transit"]

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services

At the start of the meeting during public commentary reserved time, Thomas Partridge called on the council to fund affordable housing and transportation for those who need it – the most vulnerable among us. As Partridge often does, he called on mayor John Hieftje to step aside and resign or face future recall. On the day after the annual celebration of the most significant holiday in Christendom, Partridge said, it was time for us to unite as Christian Democrats for progress on issues the city has long neglected.

Partridge also addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting.

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

Absent: Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Monday, April 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Park Dog Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Park Dog Park: Staff Response

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

Downtown Parks

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

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

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

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

Downtown Parks: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Downtown Parks: Skating Rink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Parks: Skating Rink – Commission Discussion

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

Ingrid Ault of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Parks: March 26 Committee Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DTE Easement at Riverside Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DTE Easement at Riverside Park: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

Gallup Park Renovations

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

Schematic of the proposed Gallup Park canoe livery improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

Gallup Park Renovations: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on Argo, Gallup Canoe Liveries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on Argo, Gallup Canoe Liveries: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Dam Repairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dam Repairs: Commission Discussion

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

From left: Park commissioners Tim Berla and Graydon Krapohl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golf Courses Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golf Courses Update: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

Communications: Recreation Advisory Commission

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

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

Absent: Bob Galardi, Missy Stults.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had asked that the item be separated out from the consent agenda. Briere had heard concerns that the lot is not very well-graded and that there’s a lot of runoff. She wondered if there was a way for the city to enforce maintenance of the lot through the lease.

At the council’s April 1 meeting, Briere indicated that it was not feasible to enforce through the contract the kind of improvements that would be necessary to manage stormwater better.

The lease had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 26, 2013 meeting. The lease of the parking lot at 416 Longshore Drive – with about 40 spaces – will cover Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from May 25 to Sept. 2, 2013, with an option to renew administratively for two successive one-year periods.

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

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