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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane

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

PAC chair Ingrid Ault.

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAC member Paige Morrison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

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

PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAC member Karen Levin.

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

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

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

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

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

PAC member Alan Jackson.

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion – Amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

Christopher Taylor suggested the following wording for a resolution:

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

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

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

There was no additional discussion.

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

Election of Officers

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

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

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

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

There were no competing nominations.

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

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

Paige Morrison was nominated as vice chair.

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

There were no competing nominations for vice chair.

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

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

Agreement for Engineering Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Committee Reports

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

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

Communications & Commentary: World Peace Day

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

Alan Haber.

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Missy Stults.

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza: Feedback to City Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza: Fee Waiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza

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

The commission also heard public commentary related to this area.

Liberty Plaza: Fee Waiver – Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza: Council Resolution – Background

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

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

Christopher Taylor at PAC’s July 15 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: July 15 Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty Plaza: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

No one objected.

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Fuller Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuller Park: Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary about Fuller Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuller Park: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Levin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missy Stults.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Santacroce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mack Pool

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

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools.

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

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

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

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

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

Programs include:

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

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

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

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

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

Mack Pool: Commission Discussion

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

PAC member Paige Morrison.

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

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

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

Manager’s Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From left: Tina Rosselle, Becky Gajewski, Erika Pratt. All three are city staff who are involved in volunteer and outreach efforts for the parks & recreation unit. (Photos by the writer.)

But the council followed up at its April 7 meeting by considering a total of four resolutions on the Library Lane site – including the reconsideration of the two March 17 resolutions. At the end of the April 7 meeting, a portion of the site was still reserved for an urban park, and the city administrator was still directed to hire a broker to list the property for sale. A vote on how to use the proceeds of a possible sale was put off until June. For more details on the council’s April 7 actions, see Chronicle coverage: “Council Wrangles on Library Lot – Proceeds, Process.”

On March 17, the city council had passed two resolutions regarding the site: (1) reserving a portion of the west side, along South Fifth Avenue, as the site for an urban public park; and (2) directing the city administrator to hire a broker to explore the sale of development rights on that site. The council’s meeting, which adjourned at about 1 a.m., included debate that lasted more than 2.5 hours on the future of this city-owned property, located north of the downtown library.

The following day, at PAC’s March 18 meeting, commissioners were briefed by the two councilmembers who also serve on PAC as ex officio members: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Anglin, who had co-sponsored the park resolution along with Jack Eaton (Ward 4), told commissioners that he’d been comfortable with both resolutions, and that he had voted for both of them.

Anglin said he hoped PAC would now start working on guidelines for developing a portion of the site, and to make sure all stakeholders are well-represented. “Feelings were hurt last night,” he said, “and so now we’re in damage control, and we’re also in the idea of further discourse. And we need to do that.” There needs to be a real dialogue, including the library, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, PAC and others in the community, he said – all stakeholders need to help decide what to do as a town.

For his part, Taylor pointed out that the council’s urban park resolution doesn’t actually ask PAC to do anything. The “resolved” clauses make no mention of PAC. He said he didn’t know the rationale for that – whether it was an attempt to go around PAC, or whether there’s an expectation that PAC will be brought in. “There’s a measure of uncertainty there,” Taylor said, so PAC’s role is unclear.

Taylor also noted that there’s complete consensus on the idea that there will be public space on the Library Lane parcel, to which the public has full access. “There is not complete consensus on who owns that element of the parcel,” he added. “Nor, I think, is there complete consensus on who will maintain and provide security for that part of the parcel.”

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, noted that the commission had developed recommendations for downtown parks, adding that it was “very disappointing to feel that we weren’t listened to” as the council resolution was developed. If that had happened, she added, “we wouldn’t have hurt feelings.”

Though Anglin had supported the council’s March 17 actions, subsequently – at the council’s April 7 meeting – he co-sponsored another resolution that would have delayed hiring a broker until additional public process had been undertaken, including the possibility of reserving the entire site for a park. After a 40-minute debate and a recess to discuss a possible compromise, the council unanimously voted down that resolution – though it could be brought back for future consideration.

Anglin also supported another action on April 7, which passed, that increased the amount reserved for a park to 12,000 square feet, along the entire west side of the South Fifth Avenue parcel. Previously, the council had indicated a range for the space – between 6,500 and 12,000 square feet, with a northern boundary to be determined. A range, instead of 12,000 square feet, had been the result of an amendment made at the council table on March 17. During deliberations on April 7, Anglin said he hoped for an even larger park at the site.

PAC’s March 18 meeting agenda also included a resolution to recommend that the city apply for a grant to help renovate the Gallup Park pathway, which is part of the countywide Border-to-Border Trail. The grant application is to the federal transportation alternatives program (TAP), which is administered in this region by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and statewide by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). At its April 7 meeting, the city council authorized the grant application.

Also on March 18, Dave Borneman, parks and recreation deputy manager, gave an overview of volunteer efforts within the parks, recreation facilities and natural areas, and talked about how people in the community can participate. Ault encouraged others to volunteer, saying she’s taken part in the frog and toad survey for the past couple of years. “I’ve gone to places that I didn’t really know existed,” she said. “And I can tell you what a spring peeper and a leopard frog sound like.”

Park at Library Lane

PAC’s March 18 meeting occurred the day following a city council meeting when councilmembers took action that directly affected the parks system and PAC. The council had engaged in a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure for an urban public park. That resolution passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). The council also passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to explore selling development rights to the Library Lane surface.

Regarding a park at Library Lane, the council resolution’s key resolved clause from March 17 stated:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

Prior to the council’s action on this proposal, Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy had presented the plan to PAC at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

At PAC’s March 18 meeting, Ingrid Ault – who chairs the commission – reported that she and parks and recreation manager Colin Smith had attended the March 17 council session, which lasted until about 1 a.m. She noted that councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin, who serve as ex officio members of PAC, had also attended.

Park at Library Lane: Council Update

Ault asked Anglin, who had co-sponsored the March 17 council resolution, to provide an update on the council action. Anglin urged PAC members to watch the council discussion on video. [A link to Community Television Network's recording of that meeting is online. The Library Lane discussion begins at about the 43-minute mark. A report on council deliberations also is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.]

Mike Anglin, who serves on both city council and PAC.

Anglin said there had been “quite a bit of dialogue.” He reported that a group has been advocating for the city to designate the entire top of the underground parking structure as a park. [That group is the Library Green Conservancy.] “As in a democracy, we compromise,” Anglin said. “This is the compromise.”

About $56 million was spent on the underground parking garage, Anglin noted, “and we have to get something out of it.” So the council wanted to have the opportunity to define some of the surface space for a park, he said, as well as space for development.

“Unfortunately, things get convoluted and difficult,” Anglin said. “It’s like a difficult math problem. There’s probably many solutions but many different ways to get there.”

Anglin said that supporters have known for a long time that they had the six votes to pass this resolution. They wanted to both set some of the land aside for the public, as well as develop part of that site, he said. “This is the result of that compromise, I believe.” He said he was comfortable with the result, and that he voted both for designating a park and for moving forward with development [by hiring a broker].

Anglin said he hoped PAC would now start working on guidelines for developing a portion of the site, and that all stakeholders are well-represented. “Feelings were hurt last night,” he said, referring to the March 17 council meeting. “And so now we’re in damage control, and we’re also in the idea of further discourse. And we need to do that.” There needs to be a real dialogue, including the library, DDA, PAC and the community. All stakeholders need to help decide what to do as a town, he said.

The council resolution wasn’t directing PAC to do a specific task, Anglin said. Rather it was saying “here’s the land – what do you think?” he told commissioners. He suggested having activities on the site to get a response about how the site might be used. There had been a couple of attempts to do this last year, Anglin noted – someone put a temporary lawn there, he said, with food so that passers-by could stop. But it hadn’t been well-advertised, he added, and it wasn’t sponsored by the parks, “so it was very difficult for the community to get totally behind it.”

Anglin thought the March 17 council resolution had been a good compromise, with most interests addressed. “At least we know what we have to do now for further dialogue,” he said, adding that he was confident they could do this and overcome any problems they might have. Some people say that this proposal has bypassed PAC’s authority, he continued, adding that’s one way to look at it. But elected officials have the ability to act independently, Anglin said, “and that’s what a group did.”

Christopher Taylor, who serves on both city council and on PAC.

Christopher Taylor, who had voted against the March 17 resolution, also described the council’s action. He stressed that it wasn’t accurate to call the council’s resolution about brokerage services a “sale.” There’s been no decision made to develop the site, he said, and the resolution simply gave direction to retain a broker to explore development on the site.

Taylor pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library board had weighed in with what the board had described as an unprecedented action, he said. The AADL board voted to request that the council reject the resolution about designating part of the site as a public park. [The AADL board took that vote at its March 17, 2014 meeting – the same night as the council's meeting. AADL director Josie Parker attended the council meeting and read aloud the board's resolution.]

The council’s resolution about the public park had been amended during the March 17 meeting, Taylor noted. It originally designated the entire west side – 12,000 square feet – as a park. But the resolution that ultimately passed gave a span of between 6,500 to 12,000 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined. [That amendment was reversed at the council's April 7 meeting, supported by Anglin and opposed by Taylor. The area designated is now 12,000 square feet. Taylor called the council's action on April 7 "borderline contemptuous of the library's position.]

The request to designate the site as a park in the city’s parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan had been pulled out of the March 17 resolution, Taylor said. That means it would not yet be designated as a park in terms of the city’s master plan.

Taylor said that in his view, the amendments improved the March 17 resolution, but he still voted against it – citing the library board’s request and PAC’s “discomfort.” Ultimately, everyone wants the site to be active, useful and successful, he said, with open space somewhere on the site.

Taylor also pointed out that the resolution doesn’t ask PAC to do anything. The “resolved” clauses make no mention of PAC. He said he didn’t know the rationale for that – whether it’s an attempt to go around PAC, or whether there’s an expectation that PAC will be brought in. “There’s a measure of uncertainty there,” he said, so PAC’s role is unclear.

Ault reported that she had attended the council’s March 17 meeting and had spoken during public commentary to reiterate issues that had been discussed at PAC’s Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, following Hathaway’s presentation to PAC. She said she equated the council’s action to buying a wedding dress before you’ve gone out on a date. The council resolution was making decisions about a process that should be inclusive of both partners, she said – the council and PAC.

Park at Library Lane: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson said he wasn’t sure what PAC was supposed to do now. It wasn’t clear whether PAC should engage in any work to move this forward. He said he’s happy to help if that’s what council wants, and if councilmembers will listen to what PAC has to say.

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

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that while the resolution doesn’t specifically direct PAC to do anything, it does refer to the city. He read one of the “resolved” clauses: “Resolved, that the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;…”

It’s fair to suggest that in this context, Smith said, “the city” would include PAC and parks staff, along with many others. Smith noted that PAC has already weighed in on the issue of what makes downtown parks successful, and he didn’t think those recommendations had changed substantially. [PAC had passed a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.] Those recommendations would be conveyed to any eventual developer of the site, Smith said.

Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, thought that any action on the site would be premature until there’s a developer and some kind of site plan, to ensure that any kind of park would fit with what a developer was doing. It will be months until that might happen, he said, and any plans to develop a park before then would be “very premature.”

David Santacroce clarified with Taylor that the council resolution would result in the development rights being listed for sale. Taylor said that it didn’t mean the city would “pull the trigger” on a sale, however. “And the level of commitment to actually getting the deal done is open and in flux,” he said. “I think it’s fairly characterized as exploratory.”

Karen Levin indicated that a park couldn’t be developed without funding from development of the site. Taylor agreed, saying that anyone who purchased rights to the site would come forward with a proposal for the open space/park side of the parcel. After such a proposal is received, he added, he’d expect PAC to weigh in about whether the proposed open space met the criteria laid out in PAC’s downtown park recommendations.

Taylor said there’s complete consensus on the idea that there will be public space on the parcel, to which the public has full access. “There is not complete consensus on who owns that element of the parcel,” he added. “Nor, I think, is there complete consensus on who will maintain and provide security for that part of the parcel.”

Responding to a query from Jackson, Taylor said the plan is for the city to explore selling condominium rights to the site, but that the city would continue to own the parcel. Smith gave the example of Liberty Square [the former Tally Hall] as a condominium arrangement, where one of the units is the city’s parking structure. Other units are office condominiums, and there are common spaces as well.

Anglin said that it’s difficult “because this is the first urban park that we have.” [His remark caused some commissioners to exchange puzzled looks, given that there are other downtown sites designated as parks – most notably the nearby Liberty Plaza.] He said you could consider the Ann Arbor farmers market as a park. But it’s not on top of something else that the city owns, he noted. Anglin said it’s a process that will require a lot of attention.

Anglin pointed to the resolution’s second resolved clause as giving direction:

Resolved, that the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

The idea is to start to get a feel for what this spot might be used as, Anglin said. Councilmembers made some suggestions, he said, but were leaving it up to PAC to decide what kinds of things might occur on the space. Anglin pointed out that Alan Haber has suggested that it would be a great site for an ice-skating rink. The hope, Anglin said, is that groups would come forward to use the space for concerts or other activities. That’s the kind of thing that the city is inviting, he said.

PAC member Missy Stults.

The downtown library has 600,000 visitors each year, Anglin noted. At the council’s March 17 meeting, he said, the discussion “got a little bogged down in the negative parts associated with the library, perhaps.” But 600,000 is a lot of people with a lot of different needs, he said. The goal is to make a nexus there between the public and the library as a community-supported entity. “I think the possibilities are tremendously powerful there,” Anglin said. He cited swing dancing as a possibility.

Anglin indicated that the city has been caught in the “negativity of Liberty Plaza.” He described generally the history of that public plaza at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division, noting that originally, there was a business that opened up directly onto the plaza. It failed, he said, and “became something else.” There’s a question of “where do we push our problems with people who are in the streets a lot,” Anglin said. That’s a concern for PAC, he said, because “Liberty Plaza is one of our parks.”

Now, a portion of the Library Lane site is also part of the parks system, Anglin contended, adding that it’s because the council has designated it as part of the parks system.

Smith replied that the council action reserved a portion of the site for a park. But at the start of the day on March 17, he said, the city had 158 parks, and that hasn’t changed. The parks system isn’t responsible for that site yet. If the city reaches an agreement with a developer and the land is added to the PROS plan, then it becomes a park.

Missy Stults said this process seemed unprecedented, in terms of collaboration between the planning commission and PAC. Smith replied that it would require a lot of collaboration among a lot of groups. The parks and planning staff already work very well together, he said, so that’s a good partnership.

Levin said it sounded like programming and activities on that site would start almost immediately. How would that happen? she asked. Smith noted that the resolution indicates the parks staff should work with other groups, including the library and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, to encourage the use of the site for public activities. So that will be a responsibility that the parks staff takes on, he said. At some point, representatives from these groups will have to discuss how that happens. It might require permit requirements to be modified, for example.

This effort will take staff time and resources, Smith noted, depending on the level of activity. It doesn’t take as much to handle sporadic event requests, he said, but to do actual programming takes time.

Santacroce noted that the programming mentioned in the council resolution refers to a transition period. He also highlighted the tension between the use of the word “park” in a legal sense as a park owned by the city, and in the lay sense as a public space of some sort. Since the site was not added to the PROS plan, he said, that indicates that the word “park” is being used in the lay sense, and that there’s still a decision to be made about whether it will be a city park or a public space.

From left: PAC member Graydon Krapohl and Mike Anglin, a city councilmember who also serves on PAC.

Smith pointed out that one reason why a reference to adding the site to the PROS plan was removed from the resolution is because the council can’t unilaterally add it. The PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan, and there’s an extensive process required for amending it – including the need for approval from the planning commission. The process would take months, Smith explained.

Krapohl said it goes back to the development of the site. An eventual site plan would determine how that portion of the property is used – whether it’s green space or an urban plaza. He noted that if someone wanted to reserve the space for programming, they could do that now through the process that exists.

Anglin replied that PAC could start thinking about the discussion of public versus private. The distinction is pretty clear, he said. A developer might agree to certain conditions about keeping a space for the public, but years could pass and “people could forget totally what that commitment was,” he said. Since the public owns the city’s parks, he added, that gives parks a great deal of protection and versatility of use. That’s been seen at Liberty Plaza, Anglin said, where people have offered social services to those in need. That had been a new concept that PAC had dealt with, he noted.

Regarding how people might be encouraged to use the Library Lane site, Anglin suggested putting a sign there to advertise it. “There are groups that would come in from Chelsea, with their fiddlers and things of that sort, who would love a venue,” Anglin said. “There are people at the university who do swing dance, who would love this venue.” The council resolution is asking the community, with its creativity, to move forward with this, he said.

Anglin cited music at Liberty Plaza, saying he thought someone paid to have groups perform there. Smith clarified that Bank of Ann Arbor sponsors the Sonic Lunch summer concert series at Liberty Plaza, though he wasn’t sure if the groups that perform there are paid. [They are paid.]

Anglin also mentioned the Water Hill Music Fest, saying that groups from that neighborhood might also like Library Lane as a performance space. There are choral groups in the schools that would love a venue, he added, and plenty of musicians and other talented people. “I could see skits being put on there,” Anglin said. “I could see it being a place where someone who really wants to do something for little children comes on a Saturday morning and puts something out there.” So lots of kids and their parents would show up on a Saturday morning to enjoy the outside show, he said.

That’s the concept, Anglin continued. The idea of a commons is to be a place where people gather, he said, “and their own energy creates the source of things.”

Smith said the parks staff could use some advice from PAC. The staff now have an assignment to encourage the creative use of this Library Lane space, he noted. He reminded commissioners that last year, the city – acting on PAC’s recommendation – had waived rental fees at Liberty Plaza, to try to activate that space in a similar way. If a band approaches the parks staff and is looking for a place to perform, “which place do I sell?” Smith asked. It’s a bit of a conundrum, he added, and “it is a little bit of a head scratcher for me at the moment.”

Ingrid Ault, chair of PAC.

Taylor pointed out that the Library Lane surface currently has parking spaces there, which are under the control of the DDA by virtue of a parking agreement with the city. “That’s got to interface in here somehow,” he said.

Santacroce worried about the competition between the two sites – Library Lane and Liberty Plaza. Would programming be moved from Liberty Plaza to Library Lane?

Santacroce also noted that the difference between a city-owned park and a public space that’s owned by a developer “is zero, if we choose it to be zero.” The only difference could be that the city wouldn’t pay to maintain the space, he said. The same kinds of activities and events that have been described could still take place.

Jackson wanted direction from parks staff about what PAC should do next, saying it’s probably something that will be discussed again at future meetings.

Ault wrapped up the discussion. One of the things that’s been troubling about this process, she said, is that “we are now in damage control.” There are hurt feelings, she said. There are groups that feel they weren’t listened to – “and this is one of them,” she added, referring to PAC. She requested that Anglin and Taylor communicate PAC’s desires to other councilmembers, “and that you consider talking to us when crafting these kinds of resolutions.” She noted that everyone, including PAC, has agreed that there will be open space on that site. If PAC had been involved, it could have been a resolution that everyone bought into, she said.

Ault noted that last year, the downtown park subcommittee – which she chaired – worked hard to do outreach before developing its recommendations. Regarding development of the council resolution, she said, “it was very disappointing to feel that we weren’t listened to in that process.” If that had happened, “we wouldn’t have hurt feelings.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Park at Library Lane: April 7 Council Action

The issue of the Library Lane site was again the focus of action by city council during its April 7, 2014 meeting, which adjourned at 1:30 a.m. The result is that a significant portion of the surface – 12,000 square feet – is reserved as an urban park, and the property will be listed for sale without any delay for a public process. A decision on how to use the net proceeds of a potential sale of the land will be put off at least until June.

Anglin supported the April 7 action to set the size of the Library Lane park at 12,000 square feet, extending across the entire western border of the property on South Fifth Avenue. Taylor opposed that increase. Anglin also was a co-sponsor – along with Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – of a resolution that would have delayed listing the development rights on the property until additional public process was taken, including a community discussion about possibly designating the entire Library Lane surface as a park. That resolution was debated but ultimately voted down unanimously – though it might be brought back for consideration in the future.

Ault spoke to councilmembers during public commentary on April 7, saying that significant public process had already been done on this issue and asking “When will the madness stop?” She said a “special interest group” can’t take no for an answer, and she asked the council to “end the hamster wheel ride tonight.” Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy contacted The Chronicle during the April 7 council meeting, saying that while some members of the conservancy were certainly in favor of the resolution to delay listing the property, the group has not taken a position on it.

More details on the council’s debate to increase the square footage of a park is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the April 7 meeting. The live updates also cover deliberations on reconsidering the resolution about listing the Library Lane site for sale, and on a move to delay hiring a broker.

Grant for Gallup Park Pathway

PAC’s March 18 agenda included a resolution to recommend that the city apply for a grant to help renovate the Gallup Park pathway, which is part of the countywide Border-to-Border trail. The grant application is to the federal transportation alternatives program (TAP), which is administered in this region by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and statewide by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT).

Aerial view showing location of trail improvements at Gallup Park. (Links to larger image.)

Funds would be used to renovate the path from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The project also entails renovations to the large loop that encircles that portion of the park, totaling about 2 miles of trail. The application amount hasn’t yet been determined, but will likely be for $400,000 to $500,000. The entire project budget is in the $600,000 range, with likely about $200,000 in matching funds to come from the city’s parks and recreation maintenance and capital improvements millage.

In describing the project, park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that it’s being undertaken in conjunction with a major “universal access” playground that’s being developed at Gallup, using a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor. For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: “Rotary to Fund Universal Access Playground.”

Kuras also noted that the University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens is putting in a grant application for a new non-motorized path along Dixboro Road from Plymouth to Geddes. That trail will connect very well to the Gallup Park pathway, she said. [The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission is also contributing to these trails. At its March 11, 2014 meeting, the WCPARC approved a $250,000 grant to Ann Arbor Township for trail in that area.]

The application will next be considered by the city council at its April 7 meeting. The deadline to apply for the current round of funding is April 21.

Grant for Gallup Park Pathway: Commission Discussion

Bob Galardi said he’s ridden along that trail often, and it’s in need of fixing up. When would the project begin, assume that the city gets it? he asked. Kuras indicated that the work would likely be done in 2015-2016.

Alan Jackson clarified with Kuras that there isn’t a specific plan that needs approval at this point – it’s just the grant application that PAC is addressing.

Outcome: PAC recommended that the city apply for the grant to build trail improvements. The city council subsequently authorized the application at its April 7 meeting.

Volunteerism in the Parks

Dave Borneman, parks and recreation deputy manager, oversees the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program and volunteer efforts for the entire parks & recreation department. He briefed commissioners on volunteerism in the parks.

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program.

Borneman began by introducing three other staff members: Tina Rosselle, NAP’s volunteer and outreach coordinator; Becky Gajewski, NAP stewardship specialist; and Erika Pratt, the city’s Give 365 volunteer and outreach coordinator.

Giving an historical overview, Borneman noted that volunteer programs began with NAP in 1993, starting with individual work days that led to a park stewardship program. Park stewards are dedicated long-term volunteers for the natural areas within specific parks, typically near where they live.

A few years later, the city’s Adopt-a-Park program was created, focusing not just on natural area issues, but on the broader needs of the city’s 158 parks. In turn, that led to several other programs, including a citizen pruner program, to help residents take care of trees within the parks; and Adopt-a-Median for traffic islands and medians within the city.

More recently, the Give 365 program was started to help formalize volunteers for a range of programs and activities, including volunteer opportunities at the city’s recreation facilities.

Borneman also noted that volunteers are used in taking inventories of salamanders, frogs and toads, mudpuppies, and breeding birds. Those activities will be happening this spring, he said, “to help us see what’s living in the parks.” Volunteers help with controlled burns, community outreach, office work, research projects, and photo monitoring, to get visual documentation of how the parks change over the years. Volunteers also help translate newsletters into different languages, including Japanese. “We’re trying to broaden our message to get to a lot of folks that we haven’t traditionally gotten to,” he said.

The largest number of NAP volunteer hours are logged working on control of invasive plant species, followed by trail work, Borneman reported.

NAP has been located at the Leslie Science & Nature Center for about 20 years, but is relocating to an office on Huron River Drive that will bring all staff – including the volunteer coordinators – under the same roof, Borneman said. The office will be located in a recently donated house near the South Pond Nature Area off of Huron River Drive. More details are in NAP’s spring newsletter, he said.

Borneman noted that there were lots of ways to connect with the NAP and parks volunteer programs, including Facebook and Twitter. He also described activities of Give 365, which is more focused on recreation facilities. Give 365 has Facebook and Twitter accounts too, as well as a presence on Pinterest.

Volunteerism in the Parks: Commission Discussion

Bob Galardi asked about plantings in traffic islands and medians. Is there any thought to putting in plants that attract honey bees? Borneman replied that plantings take into account several factors, including what types of plants will grow in a particular site. Some sites are “pretty inhospitable,” he noted.

PAC members Bob Galardi and Paige Morrison.

In those locations, the staff try to choose plants that will be colorful and not too tall. There is a growing movement to attract native pollinators, Borneman said, including honey bees and bumblebees.

Tina Rosselle, NAP’s volunteer and outreach coordinator, said planting native flora to attract bees is definitely something NAP is thinking about. But she indicated that planting such things in traffic islands might not be the best idea, since the bees or butterflies would have to fly across traffic.

Christopher Taylor said he was glad there was a focus on the height of plants in medians and traffic islands. Last year on Liberty, sunflowers were planted, he said. They looked beautiful, but got a little obstructive.

Alan Jackson wondered how NAP prioritizes its activities. He asked if there was a mission that guided the work. Yes, Borneman replied. With 158 parks and over 1,200 acres of natural areas, the staff can’t possible get out to all the sites – even with a corps of volunteers. Over the past 20 years, NAP has done a lot of inventory work, he said, to identify areas that are high-quality native forest remnants, for example, compared to sites that might have less quality native flora. That helped in doing a priority ranking of all the city’s parkland acreage. The staff schedules most of its work in those higher-priority sites, Borneman said. However, volunteer preferences also play a role, he added.

Ingrid Ault encouraged others in the community to volunteer, saying she’s taken part in the frog and toad survey for the past couple of years. “I’ve gone to places that I didn’t really know existed,” she said. “And I can tell you what a spring peeper and a leopard frog sound like.” It’s very rewarding, she said.

More information about volunteering is on NAP’s website.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

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

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 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.

View looking north toward the city-owned Library Lot, taken from the fourth floor of the Ann Arbor District Library building. (Photos by the writer.)

The idea for a new park was among several recommendations approved by the commission at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, to be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The AADL was specifically mentioned in the Library Lot recommendation: “In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.”

AADL director Josie Parker stressed that neither she nor board president Prue Rosenthal had indicated that the library is in any way capable of advising the city regarding security and safety of a park. They had attended a meeting of the downtown park subcommittee, she said, and had related the library’s experiences regarding a range of security issues at the downtown building. Parker reported that so far in 2013, the library has made police requests to its downtown building on average every 3.5 days.

Trustees generally expressed caution and noted that many questions remained about whether a downtown park at that location would be viable, without adequate oversight and additional development. Parker planned to relay the board’s concerns to the park advisory commission.

Another major item of discussion at the Oct. 21 meeting related to Pittsfield Township’s proposed State Street corridor improvement authority (CIA). Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates were on hand to answer questions, as was CIA board member Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America. Trustees asked a range of questions, covering other financing options, the process for receiving federal funds, and the procedure for opting out of this new tax increment financing (TIF) authority.

If the board decides that AADL will opt out, a resolution would need to be passed. Taxing entities have a 60-day period in which to make an opt-out decision. That period began with an Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board, and will end in early December. The only AADL board meeting currently scheduled before then is on Nov. 11.

In its one main action item on Oct. 21, the board authorized a $40,000 adjustment to AADL’s 2013-14 budget to cover costs of repairs and testing of the downtown library roof. The adjustment transfers $40,000 from the library’s fund balance to the repair and maintenance line item. According to the most recent financial report, the library had a fund balance of $8.03 million as of Sept. 30, 2013.

During her director’s report, Parker highlighted some of the niche services that the library provides – such as hosting a Minecraft server and a recent Oculus Rift Hackathon. She said she wanted the board to think about the things that go beyond just lending books – services that are important to some but completely irrelevant to others. “The combination of it all is what makes the Ann Arbor District Library the amazing library system that we all know it is,” Parker said. “It’s the sum of all these parts, not one aspect or service.”

During committee reports, Nancy Kaplan noted that the communications committee hopes to receive a report later this month from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review. The consultants were hired earlier this year to conduct a communications audit for the library – a move that’s been criticized by some residents who believe the work is positioning AADL for another bond proposal to build a new downtown library.

For the first time in several months, no one spoke during public commentary at the board meeting.

Library Lot Park

Added to the agenda at the start of the Oct. 21 meeting was an item to discuss recent recommendations made by the city’s park advisory commission.

From left: AADL board president Prue Rosenthal and director Josie Parker.

By way of background, a subcommittee of the commission has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. They delivered a set of recommendations to the full commission at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting. After minor amendments, the commission approved those recommendations, which will be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of full subcommittee report]

The eight recommendations of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

Specifically, that recommendation states:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

At the AADL board’s Oct. 21 meeting, director Josie Parker told trustees that she had asked for this agenda item to be added, because she thought that the park advisory commission report warranted a statement from the library. Earlier this year, Parker and board president Prue Rosenthal had been invited to attend a subcommittee meeting. They had shared that the downtown library employs four full-time security staff to deal with issues related to security, drug use, alcohol use, loitering and aggressive behavior between patrons, Parker said. No one has been aggressive to the staff to date, she added.

Parker and Rosenthal had told the subcommittee that they had concerns about adding a large open space adjacent to the downtown library. They also said that in concept, it sounds like a park would complement the library, but without continuous security, a high level of maintenance, and continuous programming, they were concerned that the space would “create a venue for behavioral issues we currently experience on a daily basis at the library,” Parker told the board. “We stand by that statement today.”

Parker reported that so far in 2013, the library makes police requests to its downtown building on average every 3.5 days. “That is relatively frequent,” she said.

While she appreciates the interest that the park commission is showing for the public library, Parker stressed that she and Rosenthal did not intend to indicate that the AADL is in any way capable of advising the city regarding security and safety of a park.

Barbara Murphy referred to a different section of the report that discusses problems with the Library Lot site. It states:

Placemaking principles raise a number of concerns regarding the Library Lot site. Currently, the space is poorly activated, facing the backs of buildings on Liberty, William and Division Streets, Fifth Street traffic, and the windowless side of the Library. This lack of eyes on the space raises a number of concerns regarding safety and the promotion of positive behavior. A sizeable park space in this location would require significant financial investment for enhanced security, daily maintenance, and staff dedicated to year-round programming.

The subcommittee’s own comments about the site lay out all the problems, Murphy noted. “It’s almost as if they’re saying it would be a good idea, but we can’t do it for all these reasons.”

Parker said she couldn’t speak for anyone at the city, but she wanted to make it very clear that she and Rosenthal did not intend to give the impression that the library would be able to give advice on safety and security in a public park.

Margaret Leary observed that there was a lot she could say about this report, but she wanted to keep her remarks focused on the library. In the past, when the library has been involved with discussions about the underground parking structure, library officials have clearly said that what should be located at the site is a very active, completely developed set of activities that would generate a lot of street traffic, 24/7. It needs to be controlled by someone – whether the police or the property owner – but it should be well taken care of, Leary said. To designate it as a park “seems to be putting the cart before the horse” before resolving the question of what else will be located there, she said.

Leary also wanted to know what the police experiences are in Liberty Plaza – the existing park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. Why isn’t the city fixing Liberty Plaza before developing a new park? How much will a new park cost, and who’ll pay for it? Which existing parks will suffer if resources are shifted to a new park? “I just think there are a lot of questions,” Leary said.

She added that she couldn’t find an answer in the report to the question of whether there should be more downtown parks. There wasn’t much of an analysis of that question, she said, unless you count the 1,608 people – out of the roughly 116,000 residents of Ann Arbor – who responded to a survey “that was only known about by people who wanted a park there, pretty much.” The survey appears to be the basis for the entire recommendation, Leary said, when in fact there are a lot of other ways that opinions could have been gathered.

AADL trustee Barbara Murphy.

Jan Barney Newman said she couldn’t agree more with Leary, and that she didn’t know how to respond – other than to state that the library isn’t equipped to give advice regarding park security. Newman said she had talked to one of her neighbors who had been very enthusiastic about a park at the Library Lot site. But when Newman enumerated the problems that could likely occur, she said her neighbor changed her mind. Newman joked that unfortunately, she couldn’t talk to all 1,608 people who took the survey. The board needs to figure out how to communicate that this isn’t a productive use of the space, she said.

Nancy Kaplan said the report indicated that a downtown park should be publicly and privately financed, with buildings around it to have eyes on the site. There’s definitely concern that the responsibility for safety and well-being, and things like the use of bathrooms, should not belong to the library, she said. “This report is a start, but it’s only a start – and it raises many, many questions.”

A lot of work needs to be done, Kaplan added, but a large percentage of people who took the survey did indicate they’d like to see a downtown park.

Newman responded, saying that the idea for Library Lot had been to develop it, with a park as part of a development. “It was not to have a park, then hope that you could find a commercial entity to be responsible for it,” she said. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

Kaplan felt it should happen at the same time – with development as part of any park on the site.

Rebecca Head said she didn’t see the recommendations as being strong. The park commission did the best that they could, she said, but she feared that people would cherry-pick exactly the recommendation that they wanted – rather than to take the set of recommendations and caveats as a whole. “It’s not clear here,” she said.

Murphy thought the report wasn’t asking the library for security advice, but was just acknowledging that the library should be consulted as part of the planning process, whenever that might happen. She added that she wasn’t worried about anything happening soon. “It’s Ann Arbor,” she said.

Rosenthal thought the recommendations were ambiguous, “and I think it’s fair enough on our part to be wary of it.”

Leary pointed out that it’s not the library’s responsibility to figure out how to plan a park on that site. She wasn’t sure it was good for AADL staff to spend time on it “because it’s not our problem.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Parker indicated that she’d be contacting Ingrid Ault, chair of the park advisory commission who also chaired the downtown park subcommittee, to communicate the board’s reaction to this report.

Pittsfield State Street Corridor Improvement Authority

Craig Lyon, director of utilities and municipal services for Pittsfield Township, and Dick Carlisle of Carlisle Wortman Associates attended the Oct. 21 meeting to answer questions about the township’s proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Street, south of Ann Arbor. They had made a presentation about the project at the board’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The CIA would entail capturing a percentage of taxes from several local entities, including the Ann Arbor District Library.

The new authority is expected to help fund roughly $30 million in improvements on State Street over 20 years, roughly between Ellsworth Road and Michigan Avenue. The intent is to create a four-lane boulevard with a median, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways.

The library’s Pittsfield branch is located in the township, and a portion of the AADL district is included in the northern part of the proposed CIA. Under the CIA’s tax increment financing (TIF) plan, 50% of the increase in taxable value would be captured over a 20-year period to fund the CIA projects. The captured taxes would otherwise go to the entities that levy those taxes. Currently, AADL receives about $8,536 in taxes from taxpayers in the proposed CIA boundaries.

Dick Carlisle, a planning consultant for Pittsfield Township, and Claudia Kretschmer of Gym America. Kretschmer also serves on the board of the State Street corridor improvement authority.

In introducing the topic on Oct. 21, AADL director Josie Parker reported that she attended a recent CIA board meeting as well as the Oct. 9 public hearing held by the Pittsfield Township board of trustees. That hearing started the 60-day period during which taxing authorities in the proposed CIA have the opportunity to opt out.

Lyon introduced a CIA board member who also attended the Oct. 21 meeting: Claudia Kretschmer, founder and co-owner of Gym America. Kretschmer described Gym America, located at 4611 Platt Road, as a gymnastics school that has been in business for 34 years. They’re looking to expand and move to a location on Hines Drive off State Street. The school currently has about 700 students with another 200 on a waiting list. So they expect about 900 to 1,000 students when they open their new facility, she said.

The school will add a lot of traffic to State Street, she said, and the bulk of their business is at 4:30-5 p.m. Kretschmer noted that a lot of instructors are University of Michigan students, who would be able to ride the bus to Gym America when it’s located on State Street, after improvements are made. She also highlighted the competitions that are held by the school, which draw even more people to that area. The competitions are typically held at Saline High School.

Barbara Murphy asked if Gym America would be moving to Hines Drive if the CIA didn’t happen. It’s definitely a factor in choosing that location, Kretschmer replied. They haven’t yet closed the deal, she said. Other options include less expensive property in a more industrial location. No matter what, the school will expand, she said. They’ve been asked to consider locating to the Jackson Road area, and there’s more land available on that side of town, she said. But they want to stay in Pittsfield Township, because they’ve invested a lot in that community.

Lyon said that township officials have been asked why they need a TIF. He described it as a regional effort. The students who attend Gym America, for example, aren’t only coming from Pittsfield Township, he noted. They’re coming from all around Washtenaw County and beyond. Carlisle added that Kretschmer’s experience isn’t unique. In the State Street area, there are 40 companies that employ about 5,000 people. That’s a significant employment based for local residents, he said.

“We’ve been presenting this as a road project, but it’s really much more than that,” Carlisle said. “It’s really an economic development project that’s being facilitated by the improvement of road infrastructure.” He noted that improvements along the Jackson Road corridor in Scio Township brought a great deal of economic development to the township, school district and county at large – a more than 300% increase in taxable value since 1990. That’s the same thing that Pittsfield Township is trying to do, he said.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Opting Out

Jan Barney Newman asked if all the other taxing authorities have decided whether to be involved. [The jurisdictions that collect taxes within the CIA boundaries are: Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (metro parks), Washtenaw Community College, Saline District Library, and Ann Arbor District Library.]

None of the other entities have dropped out, Carlisle replied. He noted that the county board of commissioners gave initial approval to join the CIA at their Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, with a final vote expected on Nov. 6. The WCC board hasn’t made a decision, Lyon reported, and will be discussing it at their first meeting in November.

Josie Parker asked how the formal opt-out process works. Carlisle said that passing a board resolution would be sufficient. That must be done with 60 days, starting with the Oct. 9 public hearing. So the last day to opt out would be Dec. 9.

Margaret Leary wondered what the Saline District Library has decided to do. Carlisle reported that the library board hasn’t made a formal opt-out decision at this point.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Funding Options

Nancy Kaplan wondered what other funding options are available. Lyon characterized other options as “few and far between.” A city like Ann Arbor receives Act 51 funds, which are generated by the state’s gas tax. Townships don’t receive those funds, he said. Townships rely solely on the county road commission.

AADL trustee Margaret Leary.

For major expansion projects like the State Street effort – increasing from two lanes to four lanes, adding bike lanes and pedestrian amenities – the federal government gets involved, which would generally fund 80% of the project, along with a 20% local match. Pittsfield Township approached the road commission and asked if the road commission’s Act 51 dollars could be used for a local match, Lyon said. But the road commission decided not to participate.

In 2005, the state legislature created the CIA as a mechanism for funding regional projects like the State Street improvements, Lyon explained.

Kaplan said she understood that Walmart had paid for road improvements near its new store in Pittsfield Township. Has there been any thought of asking companies that will directly benefit from these improvements to kick in? Lyon noted that one reason why the CIA improvements aren’t going all the way to Michigan Avenue is that improvements there have already been made. The road commission required traffic studies from both Walmart and Costco, located on Ellsworth, and ultimately required those businesses to make improvements in the road infrastructure. Costco, for example, was required to fund a portion of the roundabout at State and Ellsworth. Looking ahead, traffic studies for new development will continue to be required, he said, and that might result in additional road improvement funding.

Carlisle noted that the township isn’t trying to attract retail businesses along the State Street corridor. Companies like Walmart and Costco are looking for locations near population centers, and are generally willing to pay a reasonable amount to get their projects at those sites. But the kinds of businesses in the corridor are those that are being recruited by other Michigan communities and states, he said – research, industrial and high-tech companies that could easily go somewhere else, if the environment is more attractive. So other forms of financing, like a special assessment district (SAD), would be a disincentive for companies to locate there, he said. It would also be difficult to use a SAD because you have to prove that the cost is proportional to the benefits that a particular parcel receives. Another factor is that many parcels – about 40% of the corridor – are currently vacant, he noted.

The library would benefit from improvements to the taxable value of land in the corridor, Carlisle pointed out, while not having to provide additional services – because the development would not be primarily residential. “It’s a potential windfall for some of the special taxing jurisdictions, such as libraries and county parks,” he said.

Leary wondered why a bond couldn’t be used to fund the project. Carlisle noted that there has to be a way to pay off the bond. The township wouldn’t be able to take out a general obligation bond, he said, because it wouldn’t make sense for them “to pay the whole freight.” Leary questioned that response: “They wouldn’t do it? Or it wouldn’t make sense?” It’s doubtful that the township could do it, Carlisle replied – because the township likely wouldn’t have the resources to bond against its general obligations.

However, when the CIA is in place, there might be the opportunity to bond against TIF revenues, he said. But it would need to be structured to ensure that the bonds could be paid off.

Parker posed a scenario in which TIF funding occurs, but the federal funding isn’t secured. Would the township bond against the TIF in anticipation of federal funding? Lyon said the current approach is to make the improvements in a phased approach over 20 years, using the TIF funds that are available, with a construction phase every 5-7 years. Bonding would make the overall expense of this project much greater, he pointed out, because of additional interest costs. So even with low-interest bonds of 3-4%, you’d end up spending almost double the cost of the project. Limiting the bonding is a preferred approach, he said.

Parker wondered when the township will know whether the federal funding is being awarded. Lyon said the township recently received approval from the state for a FONSI (finding of no significant impact). Carlisle explained that this means the federal government has signed off on an environmental assessment, which found that these proposed improvements won’t affect the environment. “That’s a huge step toward securing federal road funding,” he said. It’s not a slam-dunk, he added, but it’s now in the queue for funding.

A view showing the northern portion of the proposed corridor improvement authority (CIA) for State Road in Pittsfield Township, starting at the I-94 interchange. The red parcels indicate land that’s developed. Yellow parcels are undeveloped land. (Image links to .pdf file showing entire corridor boundaries.)

Lyon reported that when the township applies for federal funds, it will be asked about the revenue source for local matching funds. That’s when it will be important to show that the township has a CIA structure in place and money in the bank, he said. Securing federal funds could happen quickly, or it could take several years, he noted.

Parker asked what would be a reasonable time to wait for federal funding, before deciding to dissolve the CIA and refund the TIF money to the taxing jurisdictions. Lyon said that if nothing is done in the first 10 years, township officials will have to look at why the project isn’t moving forward. But all indicators show that the funding will likely be available, he said.

Carlisle felt there was a lot of momentum for this project. Ann Arbor SPARK has endorsed it, and the road commission has made a major commitment – even though it isn’t investing directly, he said. The roundabout at State and Ellsworth was essentially the first phase of this project, he said. Carlisle added that he’d be very surprised if they didn’t have at least initial funding lined up in 5-6 years.

Lyon noted that an annual report will be provided to the CIA board, the township board of trustees, and to each taxing jurisdiction. So each year they’ll review the status of the work.

Leary wondered if the state enabling legislation put any limit on the time that can pass before securing federal funding. Not beyond the sunset date in the plan, Carlisle said – a 20-year timeframe, through 2033.

Parker said the AADL’s concern is that the plan could result in the township banking TIF funds for 20 years, even if the road improvements don’t occur.

Lyon said he’s never seen a project like this not get funded. Carlisle added that the township could provide assurance that they will apply for federal funding. If the library board is looking for next steps in terms of providing federal funding, the township could provide that, he said. But they can’t provide assurances about when the funding might be secured.

Pittsfield State Street CIA: Board Discussion – Other Issues

Leary wondered how this project would be coordinated with Ann Arbor South State Street corridor plan, which was recently added to the city’s master plan. [.pdf of State Street corridor plan] Carlisle and Lyon indicated that aspects of the work – such as non-motorized paths – will line up with similar improvements in Ann Arbor’s portion of State Street. The township and city coordinate regularly, Carlisle said. He noted that there are coordinated planning provisions under Michigan law that require the sharing of planning documents. The two jurisdictions are also among the four entities that are working on Washtenaw Avenue improvements. Lyon reported that the roundabout at State and Ellsworth required coordination among Pittsfield Township, Ann Arbor and the county road commission.

Kaplan cited Carlisle’s comments about the increase in taxable value along Jackson Road. She wondered what Pittsfield Township was expecting. Lyon replied that the township is estimating a 250% increase in taxable value. The Jackson Road corridor improvements resulted in a 375% increase. All of the Pittsfield Township projections have been conservative, he said. Carlisle added that you don’t want to over-promise and under-deliver.

Kaplan also asked about tax abatements that are given to some businesses in Pittsfield Township. She noted that she had attended the township board meeting when the public hearing was held, and other agenda items included awarding tax abatements. Carlisle confirmed that when abatements are awarded, that results in less money for the CIA. He said this is a discussion that the township officials are having – the impact of abatements on the CIA. “It would ultimately be counterproductive for this,” he said.

Rebecca Head asked about the Ann Arbor airport: Would that contribute to the CIA? Lyon noted that the airport isn’t part of the CIA because as public land, no property taxes are paid on that property.

Barbara Murphy noted that there’s been a lot of talk about expanding the airport. How would that impact the plans for the CIA? Carlisle didn’t think it would be an issue, in part because it’s not possible to expand the airport toward State Street, where the CIA boundaries would be affected.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

2013-14 Budget Adjustment

The AADL board was asked to authorize a $40,000 adjustment to AADL’s 2013-14 budget to cover costs of repairs and testing of the downtown library roof.

The adjustment transfers $40,000 from the library’s fund balance to the repair and maintenance line item. According to the most recent financial report, the library had a fund balance of $8.03 million as of Sept. 30, 2013. The line item for repairs and maintenance that was approved as part of the 2013-14 was $302,000 for the entire fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013. The board approved the budget at its May 6, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 2013-14 budget summary]

AADL trustee Jan Barney Newman.

Ken Nieman, AADL’s associate director of finance, HR and operations, reminded the board that during budget discussions, they’d talked about using reserves for any big projects that might emerge during the year. It would be possible to pay for it out of the current budgeted line item for repair and maintenance, he said, but later in the year the library would likely deplete that budgeted amount and need to return to the board for a budget adjustment anyway.

Three repairs need to be completed before the winter, he said. The canopy over the entryway needs work, as does the roof that transitions between the second and third floors. Also, some metal work needs to be done on the atrium over the stairwell. The contractor would return in the spring to do more work, including tests to check the condition of the entire roof.

In response to a question from Prue Rosenthal, Nieman said the roof over the newest portion of the building was put on in 1990. Portions over other parts of the building are likely older. Margaret Leary said she thought it made sense to do the work now.

Repair and maintenance of the downtown facility has been an issue at recent meetings. At the board’s meeting on Aug. 19, 2013, Leary reported that the board’s facilities committee had given AADL director Josie Parker the go-ahead to get cost estimates for renovating the entry of the downtown library, including replacement of the front doors. It’s not yet clear if the project would require board approval.

The library board and administration had hoped to build a new downtown library, but a bond proposal to fund that project was defeated by voters in November 2012.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the budget adjustment.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the September 2013 financial statements included in the board packet. [.pdf of financial statements]

The unrestricted cash balance was $14.6 million as of Sept. 30, 2013. By the end of September, the library had received 81.7% ($9.353 million) of its budgeted tax receipts. [The library's fiscal year starts July 1. Summer property taxes are collected in July.] The fund balance at the end of September was $8.03 million.

Nine items are currently over budget, Nieman reported, mostly due to large payments made during the first quarter of the fiscal year. The items are expected to come back in line with budgeted amounts by the end of the fiscal year. The over-budget line items are: (1) employment costs related to merit increases paid in July; (2) purchased services; (3) utilities; (4) communications, for an annual Internet-related payment; (5) software; (6) building rental – for summer taxes and common area maintenance (CAM) charges at the Westgate branch; (7) copier/printer maintenance; (8) supplies, for new self-check stations; and (9) circulation supplies.

It was generally a normal month, he concluded.

There was one clarificational question, but otherwise no board discussion on this item.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Committee Reports

The board has six committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, and executive. Three brief committee reports were made during the Oct. 21 board meeting.

Committee Reports: Communications

Nancy Kaplan said the communications committee would be meeting next week, and hoped to have a report from Allerton-Hill Consulting to review.

Committee Reports: Executive

Prue Rosenthal, AADL board president, reported that the executive committee met “to discuss some of the issues that have been going on around the library, and we did not come to any particular conclusions and we will continue to discuss them and come back to you in November.” She did not elaborate.

Committee Reports: Policy

Barbara Murphy told the board that the policy committee met earlier this month. The staff had reviewed the policy manual and prepared a list of updates and proposed changes. It was a long meeting, she said, and the committee reviewed the staff’s suggestions. Staff members will now be incorporating the committee’s feedback into a new draft, which the committee will review at its next meeting.

Prue Rosenthal and Nancy Kaplan praised the staff for its work on this project. Kaplan said she was struck by the library’s generosity, as reflected in its policies.

Director’s Report

AADL director Josie Parker gave highlights from her written report. [.pdf of October director's report] She noted that she’d met with a group of people earlier in the day and it was mentioned that the library has a Minecraft server. For people who know about Minecraft, “it’s a really big deal,” she noted. The library does a lot of things that fall into that category, Parker added – things that unique and discrete groups really appreciate and identify with. That’s part of what makes the library as good as it is, she said, but it’s also part of the problem, in that not everyone knows everything that happens at AADL.

The Ann Arbor District Library board got an update on services for educators and students from associate director Celeste Choate, who is standing at the podium.

Parker said she thought about this when she read the first sentence of her director’s report: “The Oculus Rift Hackathon was held on the weekend of October 11-13th.” Three months ago, Parker said, she didn’t know what an Oculus Rift Hackathon meant. She wanted the board to think about these things that are important to some and completely irrelevant to others. “The combination of it all is what makes the Ann Arbor District Library the amazing library system that we all know it is. It’s the sum of all these parts, not one aspect or service.” Usually most people think about the library’s main service as the lending of books, Parker said. AADL still does that, she added, but there are so many other things as well.

Parker explained that Oculus Rift is a virtual reality game that requires wearing a head-mounted device. She likened it to the Star Trek holodeck. Prue Rosenthal asked if anyone could play it. In the absence of Eli Neiburger – AADL’s associate director of IT and product development who was in New Zealand – the questions were fielded by Kip DeGraaf of the library’s IT staff. He described Oculus Rift as a way of interacting with other games. Tim Grimes, AADL’s manager of community relations and marketing, explained that the hackathon entailed people developing new programs for this virtual reality system.

Board members asked several more questions about Minecraft. The library’s server is limited to creation activities, not war or violence, Parker said. People are challenged “to create an Ann Arbor that they’d like to live in.” She told board members that if they’d like to experience it, that could be arranged. Rosenthal reported that her son is taking her grandson to a Minecraft conference later this month.

Margaret Leary asked whether the use of the Minecraft server shows up in the AADL’s monthly statistics report. DeGraaf replied that those statistics haven’t yet been incorporated into the report. Leary wondered whether the virtual Ann Arbor being created by Minecraft would be of interest to local policymakers.

Other aspects of Parker’s report included ways that AADL interacts with University of Michigan students, and a presentation that Mariah Cherem made at EarthFest 2013. Parker also reported that a recent presentation made by Sherlonya Turner at the Michigan Library Association is receiving positive feedback. Also receiving a positive response was an MLA presentation by Celeste Choate about medical research and information.

The library also recently hosted an event with Bill Minutaglio, author of “Dallas 1963″ about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Parker reported that a man who attended the event had been in the honor guard that stood with JFK’s coffin. The event was well-attended, she said.

AADL Educational Services

The meeting concluded with a presentation about the range of AADL services for educators and students.

Sherlonya Turner, manager of youth and adult services and collections.

Celeste Choate – associate director of services, collections and access – noted that the library issues library cards to educators of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District and Ann Arbor Public Schools instructors who don’t live within the AADL district. You can also get a card if you’re a tutor, with a letter from your tutoring agency. She talked about the types of outreach that’s done to contact educators about this service. There are 24 cards issued to tutors, and 99 cards for non-resident instructors.

The library tries to attract educators through some of AADL’s new collections, Choate said. Those include digital microscopes, dinosaur kits, and musical instruments.

Sherlonya Turner, manager of youth and adult services and collections, talked to the board about the annual second-grade visit program, which has been taking place for many years. In 2012, 1,278 second-grade students from AAPS and charter schools came to the library. The Friends of the Library subsidizes the cost of busing students for this program. As a result, AADL gave out over 500 library cards.

The library staff also goes out into the schools every May to promote AADL’s summer game. In 2012, the staff visited 18 of 21 elementary schools, as well as all five AAPS middle schools and four private schools. There are also a variety of other outreach programs, Turner said. In addition, the staff develops curated lists of reading materials for students, and provides homework services like Brainfuse, which is offered online, as well as on-site tutors.

Terry Soave, manager of outreach and neighborhood services, talked about outreach to non-traditional students. AAPS adult education offers free GED classes at the Mallets Creek library branch, for example. Numbers are increasing, from 48 students in 2010-11 to 57 students in 2012-13.

Soave also described the Widening Advancements for Youth (WAY) program, an online public high school program. Part of the requirement is that students have to attend an on-site learning lab a minimum of two days a week, and AADL’s downtown library serves as one of the two locations in Washtenaw County for these labs.

The final program that Soave highlighted is called Library Songsters, coordinated by Ira Lax. It brings together local musicians – including Mr. B and Peter Madcat Ruth – with students who collaborate to write a song related to a theme that’s being studied in the schools. The presentation concluded with a video of fifth-grade students at Lawton Elementary who were studying core democratic values. They worked with their music teacher, Cynthia Page-Bogen, and musician Joe Reilly on a song about democracy.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal. Also AADL director Josie Parker.

Absent: Ed Surovell.

Next meeting: Monday, Nov. 11, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out 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!

From left: Bill Higgins, Harry Sheehan and Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 Ann Arbor city councilmember. Sheehan is environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, and gave an update on the Upper Malletts Creek stormwater management project. Higgins lives in the neighborhood that’s the focus of the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The report of the downtown parks subcommittee includes several broad recommendations based on feedback gathered over the past few months, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation calls for developing a park or open space on top of the city-owned Library Lot underground parking structure, adjacent to the downtown library.

A park at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, a small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. That connection offers flexibility, because the lane can be closed off for events to temporarily increase the size of a park or open space at that location.

Commissioners discussed and made some minor amendments to the subcommittee’s recommendations, which they then unanimously voted to approve. Most of the discussion focused on the Library Lot site. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Also on Oct. 15, Harry Sheehan briefed PAC about how a stormwater management project for Upper Malletts Creek might impact three city parks: Eisenhower, Churchill Downs and Lawton. The project, overseen by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, is still in the planning phase. It’s intended to help control flooding in a neighborhood that’s roughly bounded by I-94, Scio Church Road and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, on the city’s southwest side.

Park planner Amy Kuras updated commissioners on capital projects throughout the parks system, highlighting projects that were completed this summer as well as work that’s ongoing, like construction of the Ann Arbor skatepark.

Missy Stults, PAC’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported that the commission has developed a work plan with strategies that are mostly tied to the city’s sustainability framework and climate action plan. For example, the plan includes work to promote re-useable water bottles and to discourage the use of plastic water bottles. One idea is to develop an app that would show people where to get public water, including water fountains in city parks. Tying in with that work plan item, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – reported said the city is looking to replace several water fountains at parks and recreation facilities with fountains that indicate how many plastic bottles have been saved by people using the water fountains. He noted that similar fountains are used at the University of Michigan.

Oct. 15 was the final meeting for Julie Grand, who is term limited after serving six years on PAC. Grand, who served on the downtown parks subcommittee, thanked commissioners for passing the recommendations, saying “it’s a great way to go out.”

Downtown Parks Recommendation

A group that’s been meeting since early 2013 – to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park – delivered a set of recommendations at the Oct. 15 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

Ingrid Ault, who chaired the downtown parks subcommittee, began the presentation by reviewing the genesis of this effort. This subcommittee – Ault, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin – has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. Ault noted that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan also identified a desire for downtown open space.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

In addition to conducting research, inventorying existing downtown and near-downtown parks, and holding focus groups and public forums, some subcommittee members also attended a “placemaking” seminar in Lansing, held by the Michigan Parks & Recreation Association.

Ingrid Ault, chair of the park advisory commission, also chaired PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee.

Ault said that placemaking principles helped guide the recommendations. Examples she cited include places that have surrounding “active uses” with high pedestrian traffic and good visibility, places that promote activities that the community desires, and that are easily accessible and flexible. Spaces also need to feel safe and comfortable, she said.

Julie Grand continued the presentation, reviewing results of a survey conducted by the subcommittee that yielded more than 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] The subcommittee recommendations were based in part on that feedback. Grand noted that most respondents lived in the 48103 zip code area, which might reflect proximity to the downtown or that residents there just like to take surveys, she quipped.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

The subcommittee’s eight recommendations, as amended during the meeting, are as follows [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

1. The development of any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences. The most commonly expressed community-based priorities include: a central location; sufficient size for passive recreation/community gatherings; shade; and natural features.

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

3. Any new downtown park should enliven the downtown, complement existing parks and development, and serve the community desire for a central gathering space.

4. Any additional downtown park space should not come at the expense of the quality or maintenance of Ann Arbor’s existing parks. Downtown parks are expected to be more costly to develop and maintain. Further, existing downtown parks are not currently utilized to their potential. Given the limits of current parks funding, the development of new parks should not be approved without an identified funding source for capital development, ongoing maintenance, and programming.

5. Significant capital/structural improvements to Liberty Plaza should only be made in concert with the adjacent property owner. Short-term efforts should continue to focus on smaller-scale incremental changes (removal of shrubbery) and programming opportunities (fee waiver). Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between the Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.

6. The downtown could benefit from the addition of small “pocket” parks and flexible spaces. The City should work with potential developers of city-owned properties to identify opportunities, create, and maintain privately funded, but publicly accessible open spaces. (e.g., the Y and Kline lots). As a part of this effort, staff should develop recommendations for how development contributions can better serve to provide and improve downtown passive recreational opportunities, including proposals such as flex space (parklets), streetscape improvements, and public art.

7. The public process for downtown parks and open space does not end with these recommendations. Any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities.

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

The Library Green Conservancy has been advocating for a park atop the Library Lot, but conservancy members envision a much larger footprint than the one proposed by the Connecting William Street report. During deliberations on Oct. 15, it emerged that the subcommittee hoped for more than the minimum size of 5,000 square feet that was mentioned for a park or open space on that site in the Connecting William Street report.

The subcommittee’s report also described the input received from several groups that gave feedback about possible downtown parks, including from Library Green Conservancy members and officials of the Ann Arbor District Library. The AADL’s downtown building is adjacent to the Library Lot. From the report:

The AADL representatives shared issues they have experienced with security, drugs, and loitering both inside and outside of the downtown library branch. They shared that they employ four full time security guards to deal with these issues, and have concerns about adding a large public open space outside of their building. Although in concept a park sounds like it would complement the library and its programs, without continuous security, high level of maintenance and continuous programming, there was concern that the space would create another venue for the behavioral issues they experience on a daily basis at the library and at Liberty Plaza.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” “Survey Drafted for Downtown Parks,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Library Lot

Christopher Taylor, an ex officio, non-voting member of PAC who serves on the city council, kicked off the discussion by asking about the Library Lot recommendation. He asked whether the proposal includes Fifth Avenue access to the parcel. Julie Grand replied that she intentionally made that recommendation vague. In writing up the recommendations, she didn’t feel comfortable making it more specific, because she felt there should be a conversation about it at PAC. She noted that in the Connecting William Street plan, there’s the idea of potentially opening up any open space on Library Lot more on the Fifth Avenue side.

Christopher Taylor, an Ann Arbor city councilmember and ex officio member of the park advisory commission.

Taylor pointed out that there’s always been open space anticipated in the plan for the top of the Library Lot, and that the heavy foundation of the underground parking structure was created with the idea that part of the surface would be open space, as well as development that would have access to Fifth Avenue from the north side of the Library Lot parcel. He asked whether that plan is consistent with the subcommittee’s recommendations.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, read a related recommendation for the Library Lot site in the Connecting William Street plan: “Must have a plaza/open space on site. (Minimally, develop the 5,000-square-foot intended plaza/park space.) Could expand plaza space north along Fifth Avenue (up to 12,000 sq. ft.) at the developer’s/City’s discretion.” [.pdf of Connecting William Street report]

Smith said that as a departure point for PAC’s discussion about size, the subcommittee felt it should be no smaller than 5,000 square feet. Beyond that, it’s worth discussion by PAC, he said.

Grand noted that the most important point was that any open space should connect to Library Lane, so that the lane could be temporarily closed off and used as flexible space for events.

Alan Jackson said the subcommittee didn’t want to constrain the creativity that might occur later in terms of how the site is developed. Nor did they have the ability to assess things like the structural limitations of the site, he noted. The subcommittee’s intent is to identify the kind of open space that is needed, and the general size, he said.

Karen Levin emphasized that the subcommittee’s task was to look at all of the potential downtown open spaces. Most of the other spaces had greater limitations, and that’s why the subcommittee decided that the Library Lot was the best site in terms of placemaking principles. The next step would be to design the open space, “which was not our task,” she said.

Taylor asked subcommittee members to talk about placemaking principles as applied to the current built environment around the Library Lot.

Ault replied that there are already some best practices in place. The Ann Arbor District Library, for example, already draws over 600,000 visitors to that location – adjacent to the Library Lot – every year, “so that’s huge,” she said. But placemaking principles would call for having eyes on a park at that location 24/7, she added, and for having a reason to stop and use the space rather than traveling through it. That’s the part that’s critical, but not currently in place, she said. There’s a bus station across the street, and two restaurants – Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden – nearby. But neither of those restaurants face the Library Lot, she noted, and they are separated by an alley.

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

Smith added that the majority of buildings and businesses that surround the Library Lot currently face away from that site, not toward it. Grand added that urban open space is different from neighborhood parks, and successful open space includes things like having at least three sides of active use facing the space. Right now, she added, the Library Lot has zero active sides. If placemaking principles aren’t part of designing an urban park or open space, then it can actually detract from the downtown experience, she said, rather than enhance it.

In terms of developing the Library Lot site, Jackson stressed that a key feature should be to have the development relate to the open space on the site. Mike Anglin recalled that when the city was deciding where to locate a new courts and police facility, the Library Lot site was considered. But opponents argued that having a municipal facility there would create dead space at night, he said. [The Justice Center was eventually built next to city hall, at Fifth and Huron.]

Now, Anglin said, the Library Lot area is pretty active at night. He was encouraged that the subcommittee recommended the Library Lot for a new park or open space. He said the parks millage and the library millage “go hand in hand – we love both of them.” Last year, the library “took a really bad hit,” he said – a reference to the failed bond proposal that would have funded a new downtown library.

Now, Anglin said, the library can work with the city in helping design the Library Lot space.

Taylor said what he’s heard is that placemaking principles would recommend three sides of active use, but this location has none. Also, his understanding was that “material development” on the site and adjacent to the site is critical for the success of any open space at this location.

Smith affirmed Taylor’s understanding, saying that those sentiments are expressed in recommendation (8). The subcommittee wants to see open space on the Library Lot site, but the property needs to be developed to some level before that space will be successful. An opportunity might exist to include language in any development agreement about including open space, as well as long-term care of it, Smith said.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Liberty Plaza

Missy Stults asked about recommendation (4), which indicated that existing downtown parks aren’t currently used to their maximum potential. She wondered whether the subcommittee had discussed how to remedy that.

Ingrid Ault replied that the subcommittee had discussed the issue, and had specifically looked at Liberty Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. Some improvements have already been made, she noted, such as removing tall shrubbery to increase visibility, and installing a sensory garden. The activation of the space is important, with the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch being a “perfect example” of that, Ault said. The fee waiver for using Liberty Plaza – which was recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting, and subsequently approved by council – is another way the city is trying to improve the space, she added.

Map from PAC’s subcommittee report showing locations of sites that were examined as possible new downtown parks.

Colin Smith noted that the general recommendations of the subcommittee are a good departure point for activities that PAC will be undertaking in the future. That includes developing recommendations for the budget, he said. A recurring theme is that to make spaces successful, it requires programming – and that requires people and effort. “It doesn’t just happen,” Smith said.

Karen Levin noted that one of the positives for putting a new park or open space on the Library Lot is that potential exists for a connection to Liberty Plaza. Ault pointed out that the Kempf House Museum is also in that area, adjacent to Liberty Plaza.

Bob Galardi said he didn’t think the city has yet realized the full potential of the fee waiver. No one has yet approached the city to put in a month-long art installation, for example. That fee waiver is something in the offing to help the plaza, he said. Smith noted that a musician had reserved the plaza for a performance recently, using the fee waiver.

Stults reported that the environmental commission’s work plan includes a recommendation to work with neighborhoods, as something that’s critical for building more resilient, stable communities. All neighborhoods have parks, so there’s a very interesting connection to be made, she said. Stults plans to make a budget recommendation to fund a park programmer, to make sure that all neighborhood parks are activated in a way that builds community and a sense of place.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Amendments

At the suggestion of Christopher Taylor, one change was made to the second recommendation – adding the word “necessary”:

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

All other changes focused on the final recommendation (8) about the specific Library Lot site. The original recommendation stated:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study. However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot. Adjacent development, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

Taylor pressed to include language that acknowledged the need for development on the Library Lot, not just on adjacent sites. He also suggested adding the word “density” to the phrase “accompanying increases in activity” so that it would read “accompanying increases in activity and density.”

Alan Jackson wasn’t sure the word “density” captured what the subcommittee intended. Taylor described the word as a proxy for “more people doing more things” downtown, and he thought it was consistent with what the subcommittee was recommending. However, there was little enthusiasm among commissioners for adding the word, with the sense that it was restrictive because it typically refers to residential development.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi.

Julie Grand said the subcommittee recognized the need for development on that space in order to activate the area. They also didn’t want to ignore the real investment in infrastructure that had been made to support a building on the Library Lot site, she said. “I think those are two very strong reasons to support development on it,” she added.

Bob Galardi didn’t want the recommendations to go forward without including a mention of development. If something isn’t built on that site that faces the open space area, “that is a real problem, at least for me,” he said. The library will draw people past the site, he noted, but a mixed-use development could draw people into the space.

There was some discussion about the size of the open space, with consensus that it should exceed the minimum 5,000 square feet that was recommended in the Connecting William Street report. By way of comparison, Smith reported that Liberty Plaza is nearly 12,000 square feet, while Sculpture Plaza is slightly smaller than 5,000 square feet. Beyond indicating a desire to exceed a minimum amount of space, Smith didn’t think it was necessary to make a specific size recommendation. What really matters is the quality of the design, he said.

Taylor made some suggestions for changes, including a mention of the city’s investment in infrastructure and adding a reference to density. He noted that as an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, he was not in a position to move amendments himself.

After additional back-and-forth about possible wording, commissioners ultimately agreed to several friendly amendments in the eighth recommendation [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the downtown parks subcommittee report and recommendations, as amended. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Upper Mallets Creek Project

Harry Sheehan – environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner – briefed commissioners about how a broad stormwater management project for Upper Malletts Creek might impact three city parks: Eisenhower, Churchill Downs and Lawton.

After the March 15, 2012 major storm in this region, he said, coupled with chronic flooding problems in this neighborhood, the water resources commissioner’s office – in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor – began to look at potential stormwater management solutions. The area is roughly bounded by I-94, Scio Church Road, and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, on the city’s southwest side.

The Upper Malletts Stormwater Conveyance Study has tentatively identified three major projects to help manage stormwater and control flooding. Two of those projects would affect local parks:

• Building two stormwater detention basins along the north and south ends of Eisenhower and Churchill Downs parks, which are connected. These basins – covering about 2.5 acres – would help manage the stormwater flow from the north along Scio Church Road and from the drainage area west of I-94. (Eisenhower Park is located along I-94, just south of Scio Church Road. Churchill Downs Park is a 1.18-acre neighborhood park located between a residential area and I-94.) Estimated cost: $1.7 million.
• Building a large underground detention basin at the north end of Lawton Park, which is located on Mershon between Delaware and Scio Church. The basin would manage storm flows from both north and south of Scio Church. Existing park amenities – including the baseball/softball diamond – would be replaced and upgraded. Estimated cost: $4.125 million

A third project, which would not involve a city park, entails building a detention basin north of Scio Church Road and east of Seventh Street, on property south of Pioneer High School that’s owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. That piece would cost an estimated $1 million and cover about 2.8 acres.

The total project would cost about $10 million, Sheehan said – $2 million for design and $8 million for construction.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates in black the March 15, 2012 flooded areas. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The overall project would require city council approval, and it’s not yet clear when a proposal will be brought forward. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, characterized Sheehan’s presentation to PAC as informational, given the potential impact on some parks. When funding is secured, the commission would be briefed on a more detailed plan and would be asked for a recommendation to be forwarded to the city council.

For additional background on stormwater management in this area, as well as related issues, see Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”

Sheehan told commissioners that at public meetings held about the project, residents seemed generally positive. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner who attended the most recent forum, said she had expected it to be a contentious meeting. People generally were relieved to see someone there from the city’s parks staff, she said, and generally it was a positive meeting.

Upper Mallets Creek Project: Commission Discussion

Missy Stults asked if the project is looking at projections for future storm events, to make sure that the stormwater management system will be able to handle the potential impact of climate change.

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner.

Harry Sheehan replied that the study entailed looking at several different storm events. In Ann Arbor, the March 2012 storm was extremely localized to this neighborhood. In contrast, earlier this year when there was heavy flooding along the Miller Avenue corridor, he’d driven down the Upper Malletts Creek neighborhood and it was fairly dry. The impact of climate change makes these storm events more intense over a shorter period of time, he noted.

What makes stormwater management more challenging is that the ground is generally saturated in the spring when these types of intense storms typically occur, Sheehan said, and there will likely be more of this due to global warming.

Julie Grand asked for more information about the impact on parks, noting that Lawton Park is located near an elementary school.

Amy Kuras reported that at Lawton Park, the biggest impact will be on the open field, which would be taken out of use during construction. Afterward, it won’t change the use of the park because it’s an underground detention basin.

At Churchill Downs Park, the paths, basketball court and playground would be removed for construction. However, Kuras said, those facilities are ready to be replaced anyway.

In response to a question from Graydon Krapohl, Sheehan explained that if approved, construction likely would happen in the fall of 2014 and finish up in the spring – but no specific year has yet been determined for the project. Kuras added that for the sports field, it would be seeded in the fall after construction, then probably reseeded again in the early spring.

Alan Jackson said he’d gone to one of the meetings, and that it would be helpful to show park commissioners where exactly these projects would occur in the parks. He agreed with the assessment that there seemed to be a lot of positive feedback from residents, though there were concerns about work that would be done in close proximity to Lawton Elementary.

Christopher Taylor asked about the cost, wondering how much of the $10 million is for the parks compared to stormwater, and whether grant funding might be available. Sheehan replied that the project would likely use two of the state funding sources that the county has used in the past for similar projects. The project would pay for any replacement due to disruption in the parks.

Kuras added that if the parks system wanted to do improvements that went beyond the replacement of existing parks facilities, then the city would pay for that.

Mike Anglin said he noticed that the Spicer Group did the analysis for this project. He wondered if Sheehan had records of where the major flooding has occurred, and how close that flooding is to the city’s parks. Sheehan replied that the office of the county’s water resources commissioner has compiled that information, but not necessarily in a readily searchable way.

Sheehan said the outcome of a stormwater calibration study that’s being done now would be useful in graphically representing previous flooding so that future improvements and the impact on reducing that flooding could be shown.

Anglin said he’s hearing that residents don’t want to report when there’s flooding in their homes, because that has financial implications regarding insurance, he noted. He wondered if there was a way of doing some kind of “secret recording” because it seems like the city needs the data. Sheehan told Anglin he’d get a response on that question from the city’s systems planning unit.

Anglin said he’d like to continue to look for possible land acquisition in the city’s watersheds, adding that the city should “buy them, as fast as we can.” The city can’t afford to keep doing projects like this stormwater management work, he said, nor can the city afford the drop in property values that results from people leaving the community because of potential flooding.

Praising Sheehan and others who’ve been working on this issue, Anglin said the city needs to get the word out that they’re working “aggressively” on the problem.

Taylor said he noticed that there doesn’t seem to be work planned for the area east of Seventh Street. He wondered if there are any plans for that neighborhood. Sheehan replied that they looked at that area, but when the analysis was done, doing stormwater detention in that area provided only very limited benefit. The project would require that pipe running underneath Seventh to be replaced, to create a clearer flow path for the water, Sheehan said, but that’s the only thing planned at this point.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Upper Mallets Creek Project: Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Bill Higgins addressed the commission during public commentary. He said he lived south of Scio Church Road, near Pioneer Woods and Greenview Park. Residents are concerned about the appearance of the woods after the work is done. He said he knows it’s not a city park, but somehow the school system needs to get involved in the design process. Scio Church Road is a “disaster,” he said, and now the city is putting money into it for sanitary sewer, water problems, sidewalks and gutters. [See Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”]

Higgins wondered how many of the commissioners had visited Eisenhower Park, especially on the north side, which fronts Scio Church Road. People have to bypass the park and walk along the road to get to the bridge over I-94 – to get to the Ice Cube and Pittsfield branch library. That park could be enhanced and developed, and it would be good for the city to start looking at that possibility, he said. There could even be a small parking lot put in there, he said. Very little attention has ever been paid to people who live south of Scio Church Road, he noted. Higgins said he personally has “waterfront property” occasionally, so he’s very interested in the proposed impounds. Unless all of the impounds are built, “it won’t work,” he concluded.

Capital Projects Update

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that in the late fall or early winter, staff will typically give an update to PAC about projects that have been worked on during the construction season. On Oct. 15, the presentation was given by park planner Amy Kuras.

Highlights from her report:

• In Esch Park – a roughly 4.5-acre neighborhood park located near Packard Road – asphalt paths were replaced with concrete and a new pathway to the play area was constructed to provide barrier free access. The basketball court was reconfigured and replaced, landscaping was added, and several pieces of playground equipment were replaced.
• The first phase of a major renovation at Gallup Park‘s livery and dock area is finished. The second phase started on Labor Day and will continue until the weather gets bad. It will include entry road improvements and separating the service drive from the pedestrian path. The project is funded in part by a $300,000 state grant.
• Work is underway at the urban plaza next to the Forest Avenue parking structure in the South University area – known as “Transformer” Plaza, because there are several utility transformer boxes located there. As part of the site plan approval process for the Landmark and Zaragon II apartment complexes in that area, developers were asked to make donations to the parks system. That funding is being used to improve the plaza, Kuras said. The project – repaving the plaza with colored, patterned concrete – was done in conjunction with street improvements to Forest Avenue this summer.
• A major donation had been made to the city for landscaping in the parks, so that funding was spent to “spruce up” the entrances to several recreational facilities, Kuras said, including Bryant and Northside community center, the senior center near Burns Park, the ice arena at Buhr Park, the golf courses, and the rain garden at Gallup.
• Roofs were replaced at Mack pool and Veterans ice arena.
• Ballfields were renovated at West Park, Veterans Memorial Park, and Southeast Area Park.
• Work continues on the skatepark in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. Kuras described the partnership of the city, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, as well as funding from the state. Here’s a short video clip provided by the parks staff of workers recently applying “shotcrete” to one of the bowls.

Capital Projects Update: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked whether the solar panels on the roof of the Veterans ice arena were re-used. Amy Kuras said she met with members of the city’s energy commission and energy staff, to try to figure out what to do with the panels. About a third to a half of the panels no longer function. In addition, the previous installation of the panels is believed to have contributed to the roof leakage, she said. So the staff will continue to work on that issue, but at this point the panels are being stored outside of the building.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, commended Kuras for her work on these projects, as well as other staff, including Jeff Straw, Matt Warba and Nicole Woodward.

Ingrid Ault said she’s been hearing “unbelievably positive” feedback from residents about these improvements, and it’s exciting to see.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Environmental Commission Work Plan

Missy Stults, PAC’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported that the commission has developed a work plan with about 10 strategies that are mostly tied to the city’s sustainability framework and climate action plan. [.pdf of environmental commission's work plan] The plan includes work to promote re-useable water bottles and to discourage the use of plastic water bottles. So the idea is to develop an app that would show people where to get public water, including water fountains in city parks. There’s also work to map the city’s vulnerability to climate change, she said, such as flooding.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Missy Stults and Karen Levin.

Stults also said there’s a community visioning process underway to understand what a resilient Ann Arbor would look like. It includes how the city would bounce back from events that impact residents, she noted, but also how the city can “bounce forward” and prepare for the future. This will be about an 18-24 month process. In a related item, she reported that the city council recently approved applying to be designated as one of 100 Resilient Cities by the Rockefeller Foundation.

There are also preliminary discussions about how to handle smoking in the city’s parks, Stults said. It was an issue that one of the city councilmembers who serves on the commission has raised, because it had been raised by constituents. [Two councilmembers – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) serve on the environmental commission.]

The commission is also looking at recommending a resolution to the city council advocating to ban fracking in the city.

Tying in with the work plan item regarding water use, Colin Smith reported said the city is looking to replace several water fountains at parks and recreation facilities with f0untains that indicate how many plastic bottles have been saved by people using the fountain. He noted that the city took the idea from similar fountains used at the University of Michigan.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, noted that councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recently brought forward a resolution to the council regarding the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He felt the environmental commission should always keep that situation in mind, even though it’s embarrassing to the city. You can’t control the weather, he said, but you can probably control this issue with sustained interest.

Anglin said “we’re about to replace a judge who has been responsible for the administration of this for years. He’s going to resign, and we have the chance to appoint a new judge, who may be assigned to this.” [Anglin seemed to be referring to Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court, who oversees a consent judgment between the state and Pall Corp. However, circuit court judges are elected, not appointed – unless they resign mid-term. Because of his age, Shelton will be ineligible for re-election when his term ends next year. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old. However, Shelton has not indicated that he will be resigning before the end of his term.]

No one likes to hear that there’s something bad in the community that people should be paying attention to, Anglin said. But the fact is that a mature society faces these issues, he said. There’s a group that’s hoping to vet the judges who might handle this case, Anglin said. That will have an impact on the judge who will ultimately handle this, he added, “because once they’re in, you can’t vet them. You can’t say anything about cases that they’ll handle. But we have a lot to say now.”

Anglin indicated that it’s important to appoint a judge who’s an environmentalist and who’ll enforce regulations. “What we have to do is get a strong set of marching orders that everybody agrees to, from the governor down,” to look at best practices. He noted that the city of Ann Arbor handles 1,4 dioxane at the former landfill, located at Platt and Ellsworth. The technology to do this is available, he said.

Anglin hoped the Ann Arbor city council would appoint at least three councilmembers to an oversight group, including someone from Wards 1 and 5, which are the wards most affected by the Pall Gelman plume, he said. They could look at what can be done and how to move forward. That’s something the environmental commission can explore, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park Update

Karen Levin, chair of PAC’s dog park subcommittee, reported that the group has now held two public forums, with a lot of good feedback. The subcommittee will be using that feedback, along with survey responses, to continue evaluating possible sites for a new dog park. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] [.xls file of dog park survey results]

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that on Wednesday, Oct. 23 there will be an appreciation potluck for volunteers of the city’s natural area preservation program. It will be held at Cobblestone Farm at 2781 Packard Road from 6:30-9:30 p.m.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to Julie Grand

The Oct. 15 meeting was the last one for Julie Grand, PAC’s former chair who is term limited after serving six years. Ingrid Ault, who was elected chair to replace Grand at PAC’s Sept. 17 meeting, called her “an amazing force” for the commission. Ault thanked Grand for her work.

Oct. 15 was the last PAC meeting for Julie Grand, who is term limited.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that Grand’s service on PAC almost exactly parallels his own tenure as manager. He said they’ve worked well and collaboratively on several projects, and have seen many improvements over the years. The parks staff have appreciated working with Grand and the support she’s provided to the city’s parks system, he said.

Grand recalled that people would ask her why she attended so many meetings. It’s actually been a pleasure the entire time, she said. That’s because PAC supports a service that the community is really engaged with, Grand said. The parks staff is phenomenal, and the city is fortunate to have that.

She noted that there’s been a transition on PAC, as she’s watched old members leave and new members arrive. Before the new members were appointed, she’d felt a lot of stress, she reported, and had been a “bug in the mayor’s ear” for about a year, urging him to find good appointments. So she’s relieved now that she sees the commission will be left in such good hands.

She told new commissioners that they were fortunate, because in past years PAC had to focus on budget cuts. Now, from that foundation the commissioners can build on it and work on new policies to improve the existing system, she said, without having to make cuts every year.

Grand thanked commissioners for passing the recommendations on downtown parks, saying “it’s a great way to go out.”

She received a round of applause from staff and commissioners, who after the meeting took Grand out to Arbor Brewing Company for a farewell celebration.

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

Absent: Tim Berla.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

The eight recommendations of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. [.pdf of full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s eight recommendations, as amended during the meeting, are as follows [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

1. The development of any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences. The most commonly expressed community-based priorities include: a central location; sufficient size for passive recreation/community gatherings; shade; and natural features.

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

3. Any new downtown park should enliven the downtown, complement existing parks and development, and serve the community desire for a central gathering space.

4. Any additional downtown park space should not come at the expense of the quality or maintenance of Ann Arbor’s existing parks. Downtown parks are expected to be more costly to develop and maintain. Further, existing downtown parks are not currently utilized to their potential. Given the limits of current parks funding, the development of new parks should not be approved without an identified funding source for capital development, ongoing maintenance, and programming.

5. Significant capital/structural improvements to Liberty Plaza should only be made in concert with the adjacent property owner. Short-term efforts should continue to focus on smaller-scale incremental changes (removal of shrubbery) and programming opportunities (fee waiver). Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between the Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.

6. The downtown could benefit from the addition of small “pocket” parks and flexible spaces. The City should work with potential developers of city-owned properties to identify opportunities, create, and maintain privately funded, but publicly accessible open spaces. (e.g., the Y and Kline lots). As a part of this effort, staff should develop recommendations for how development contributions can better serve to provide and improve downtown passive recreational opportunities, including proposals such as flex space (parklets), streetscape improvements, and public art.

7. The public process for downtown parks and open space does not end with these recommendations. Any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities.

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

This subcommittee – Ingrid Ault, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin – has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. In addition to focus groups and public forums, the subcommittee conducted a survey that yielded more than 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] Their recommendations were based in part on that feedback.

The Library Green Conservancy has been advocating for a park atop the Library Lot, but conservancy members envision a much larger footprint than the one proposed by PAC’s subcommittee. During deliberations on Oct. 15, it emerged that the subcommittee hoped for more than the minimum size of 5,000 square feet that was mentioned for a park or open space on that site in the Connecting William Street report.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” “Survey Drafted for Downtown Parks,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park Fee Waiver for Charities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Park Fee Waiver for Charities: Public Commentary

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

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

Land Acquisition Annual Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Levin, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner.

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Survey Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officer Elections

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Recreation Advisory Commission

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

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

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At a subcommittee meeting on Sept. 3, members discussed the presentation and format for the Sept. 9 forum, which will include a review of responses from an online survey conducted this summer. [.pdf of survey responses, a 110-page document] [.pdf of slide presentation showing survey results]

Highlights from the survey, which received about 1,600 responses, include:

• 76.2% of respondents believe Ann Arbor would benefit from more downtown parks/open spaces.
• Activities and features that are viewed as most important in a downtown park or open space include a place to relax, read and people-watch; a landscaped/green space; a place with shade; food vendors; and free wireless Internet access.
• 67.8% supported paying for any new park or open space through a combination of public and private funding.
• In ranking most desirable and least desirable options for a downtown park, the top of the Library Lane parking lot on South Fifth Avenue was ranked as the most desirable spot, with 721 N. Main ranked as the least desirable.

The results include more than 600 responses to a prompt for open-ended comments.

The Sept. 9 forum will include a presentation by subcommittee members and staff, as well as time for conversations at several “stations” representing different downtown park options. A second forum will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 18 from 7-8:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron. More information is on the subcommittee’s website.

Originally, the committee had hoped to deliver recommendations to the full park advisory commission by August. It’s possible that they’ll have a report prepared by PAC’s Oct. 15 meeting, according to Ingrid Ault, who chairs the subcommittee.

This subcommittee has been meeting since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer to assess the city’s downtown parks. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, which focused on recommendations for development of five city-own lots in the downtown. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Survey Drafted for Input on Downtown Parks,” “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” and “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.