From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners had debated the proposed revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session. Some of the same issues were raised during the Feb. 20 discussion, which was relatively brief.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” The intent is to prevent undue influence on the commission, and to avoid the possibility of legal action against the city.

Other revisions affect speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued if an item is postponed.

In other action, commissioners recommended rezoning a parcel on the city’s north side to public land (PL). The 2.2-acre site at 3301 Traverwood Drive, donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. It was originally zoned R4D (multi-family dwelling) and had been part of a larger site that’s being developed with an apartment complex.

During communications, Kirk Westphal reported on a project that the environmental commission is working on: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Westphal also distributed a copy of a resolution recently passed by the city’s energy commission. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. Westphal indicated that the planning commission’s executive committee would be discussing it. The energy commission would like a supporting resolution from the planning commission.

Commissioners also heard from two Skyline High School students, who spoke during public commentary as part of a class assignment. They talked about the importance of the Huron River and of the Huron River Watershed Council‘s River Up project. The planning commission’s work plan includes looking at how to implement recommendations from city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force.

Revisions to Bylaws

Revisions to the bylaws of the planning commission were on the Feb. 20 agenda. The changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission, and public hearings. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed revisions at start of Feb. 20 meeting]

In giving the staff report, planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that the issue of public hearings had emerged last fall, when a public hearing for revisions to downtown zoning had continued over several meetings.  The issue about whether the same person could speak multiple times during the same public hearing – even if that hearing was held during different meetings – had been debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, 2013, during the middle of a public hearing on the downtown zoning changes.

Subsequently, a proposed revision related to this issue in the bylaws was brought forward by commissioner Jeremy Peters on Nov. 6, 2013, but no vote was taken.

On Feb. 20, Rampson reviewed the sections that were affected by the proposed revisions. She noted that the bylaws, if approved, would allow the commission to waive the limitation on speaking turns and allow the public hearing to carry over to the next meeting.

Here’s the draft proposed at the beginning of the Feb. 20 discussion [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

Article VIII Public Hearings

…

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within this section. The Chair may extend the speaking time further at his/her discretion.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Regarding the other bylaws change related to interactions with councilmembers, Rampson reminded commissioners that this proposed revision had been suggested following a discussion at the commission’s Feb. 4, 2014 working session.

The revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Councilmember’s term in office.

No one spoke during the Feb. 20 public hearing on these proposed revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Public Hearings

Bonnie Bona said she struggled with the proposed revisions to both sections, but particularly with the section related to public hearings, “mostly because I didn’t want to give any perception of tightening or restricting public input.” But based on the commission’s previous discussions, she agreed with the need to create consistency with the city council’s practice.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

She also liked the fact that the revisions put in writing that the commission can waive the restriction and allow people to speak more than once during the same public hearing. That’s been the practice of the commission, she noted, but it hasn’t been written down. She thought the changes were clarifying and would offer guidance for future commissions.

Jeremy Peters told commissioners that the whole idea behind these revisions was to provide clarity and to match what happens at city council meetings, though he thought that the planning commission bylaws would now be clearer than the council rules. He said he wasn’t trying to force through these changes, and he didn’t have a strong opinion about them. He was just hoping to add clarity.

Sabra Briere read aloud from a portion of the staff memo accompanying the proposed revisions: ”The proposed changes clarify that public hearing speaking time is limited to a total of 3 minutes (or 5 minutes for registered organizations) for an item, with the opportunity for the commission to waive the limitation via a majority vote. This would allow for the commission to maximize discussion time on certain postponed items, but still allow for public commentary in situations where a petition or proposal has changed from the time of the original public hearing.”

Briere said she took that as a goal statement, to allow people to speak again if a petition has significantly changed. But she noted that when she read the proposed revisions for Section 5, she was having a hard time reconciling that with the goal statement – because Section 5 states that a person can’t speak again at the same public hearing.

Peters thought the last sentence in Section 3, which allows the commission to waive its rules, would address Briere’s concerns. He had proposed Section 5 to clarify when a public hearing begins and when it ends – because that hadn’t been clear in either the planning commission’s bylaws or the city council rules.

Kirk Westphal said the fact that Section 5 comes after Section 3 seems to undo the waiving of rules.

So Peters then proposed an amendment, to remove the last sentence of Section 3 and move it into a new, separate Section 6. He originally proposed that the new Section 6 would apply to the entire Article VIII of the bylaws, but accepted a friendly amendment offered by Briere to limit its application to Sections 3 and 5.

Section 6: The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment creating a new Section 6.

Westphal noted that during public hearings, the commission will need to be mindful that if an agenda item is postponed and the public hearing is carried over, the commission will need to provide the public with notice that they’ll have the option of speaking again at a future meeting.

Commissioners then voted on these revised bylaws, as amended:

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Section 6. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on public hearing revisions: Commissioners unanimously approved these revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Councilmember Interactions

Commissioners had debated at some length the proposed bylaws revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session, discussing the issue of council interactions. The Feb. 20 discussion was relatively brief.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Jeremy Peters thought it was best for city councilmembers to manage their own conflicts of interest, and to avoid the legal issues that might arise from jumping in front of the city’s due process. The change prevents the city from the possibility of being sued, he said, so he supported the proposed revisions.

Sabra Briere said she had tried to come up with a situation in which the proposed Section 9 would be a problem, but she couldn’t come up with one. She could imagine that a situation might occur at the city’s historic district commission, where someone might want to come and present their case. But HDC operates much more independently of council than some other boards or commissions, she said, even though HDC members are also appointed by the council.

She couldn’t recall a time when a single-family homeowner came to the planning commission with a petition. It had occurred at the zoning board of appeals, but not the planning commission. Typically, items that come before the planning commission are brought forward by developers of large parcels, she said.

“I’m looking for the unintended consequences of this [bylaws] change,” she said. Briere asked whether any other commissioners or staff could recall the kind of situation that she had described. No one offered any examples.

Kirk Westphal cited a hypothetical situation in which a councilmember might request a rezoning, and would have to be recused from voting on the issue at council. So should they be given the opportunity to speak to the planning commission? He could imagine such a scenario, and wondered if the bylaws should include some kind of “release valve” to allow commissioners to waive the rule.

Diane Giannola recalled the HDC bylaws, saying that if you serve on the HDC, you can’t be a petitioner in front of that body. She drew a comparison to city councilmembers, saying they wouldn’t be able to bring a petition to the planning commission as long as they serve on the council.

Giannola was referring to Section 8 of the HDC bylaws [.pdf of HDC bylaws] :

Section 8. A Commissioner shall not be heard before the Commission as an applicant, representative of an applicant, or as a party interested in an application during the Commissioner’s term of office.

Regarding petitions to the planning commission, Briere responded that there were other options – for example, your spouse or lawyer could bring forward a petition. “It’s just that you the councilmember may not appear in front of the planning commission representing yourself on an issue that’s to be determined by the planning commission.” She could imagine a situation in which someone who is a developer is elected to the council. In that case, any petitions from the person would require representation by an architect, attorney, or someone else on the development team.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that many years ago, the mayor of Ann Arbor at that time was a developer – it was so long ago that “I think there were Republicans on the council at that time,” she quipped. [She was referring to Lou Belcher, a Republican who served as mayor from 1978 to 1985.] His projects came before the planning commission, but Rampson couldn’t recall whether he addressed the commission in those instances.

Peters agreed that the option exists for a councilmember to be represented by someone else, if an item that involves them comes before the planning commission. He hoped that councilmembers would choose not to come before the commission anyway, even if the bylaws didn’t explicitly ban it. But this change would make the rules straightforward and clear, he said.

The vote was then taken on this revised section:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

Outcome: The revisions to planning commission bylaws on council interactions were unanimously approved. Any changes to the bylaws are also subject to review by the city attorney’s office and approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Rezoning Donated Land

The Feb. 20 agenda included a resolution recommending that the city council rezone land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. The recommendation is to rezone it as public land.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline, south of Stapp Nature Area.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit, gave the staff report. She noted that city staff have recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land spans from Traverwood Drive and to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. The land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement, Ryan said. Staff is working to determine the exact route.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land), Ryan noted. This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Rezoning Donated Land: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters applauded Bill Martin for donating the land, saying that he hoped others would be receptive to doing this kind of thing in the future.

Bonnie Bona asked when the PROS plan will be updated. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, is close to starting the next review and update. The state requires that the plan be updated every five years, in order for the city to be eligible for state funds.

Bona noted that people are sensitive to the fact that PL does not mean that it’s definitely parkland. Rampson replied that it’s very clear the land is being donated as parkland.

Outcome: Planning commissioners recommended rezoning the parcel to public land. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Two students from Skyline High School, who are part of the school’s communication, media and public policy magnet, spoke during the first opportunity for public commentary, as part of a class assignment.

Sahr Yazdani, a student from Skyline High School, spoke during public commentary at the planning commission’s Feb. 20, 2014 meeting.

Sahr Yazdani said she wanted to give a speech about the Huron River Watershed Council. She recalled kayaking on the Huron River as a child, and noted that many others have similar experiences. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have an organization like the HRWC, which works hard to protect the river, she said. The organization has established programs to combat the devastating effects of harmful elements in the river, like phosphorus and e coli.

Yazdani highlighted the River Up program, which includes clean-up as well as recreational activities, and encourages communities along the river to make it a destination. It’s important to support River Up, she said.

Daniel Schorin continued speaking on this topic, calling the Huron River a tremendous resource. But we need to ask if we’re using the river to its full potential, he said. That’s where the “build up” component of the River Up program comes into play. In order to transform the river corridor into the center of the Ann Arbor community, the city needs to build development facing the river, not away from it. This means constructing trails, playgrounds, offices, hotels and other infrastructure facing the banks of the river, he said.

Other communities like Milford, Dexter and Flat Rock have already stated their commitment to making the Huron River a highlight of their downtown plans, with parks, buildings and festivals along the river, he said. And projects like the Huron River Art Trail will help attract tourists and stimulate the local economy.

As the city plans for new infrastructure, Schorin asked that they consider facing it toward the river, “so we can make the Huron River the forefront of the community once again.”

Communications & Commentary: North Main/Huron River Corridor

Sabra Briere reported that she’s recently had several conversations with people concerned about North Main Street and the Huron River. She noted that the high school students during public commentary had talked about River Up, including the view that new construction should be turned toward the river.

The concerns that she’s heard are about the report by the North Main Huron River corridor task force, and questions about when the planning commission is going to look at whether the parcels in that area are properly zoned. She’s heard from three different people who are interested in new developments along that corridor, and they’re interested in what kind of zoning might be put in place.

Briere said she knew the commission had a lot on its plate, but she wanted to bring up the topic as a reminder.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the project is on the commission’s work plan. She said commissioners have given higher priority to zoning revisions for the downtown and R4C districts, as well as a review of the citizens participation ordinance. [Planning commissioners had most recently discussed their work plan at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session.]

Rampson said the commission’s master planning committee could start taking a look at the North Main Huron River task force recommendations. The first step would be to take a detailed inventory of the parcels along that corridor, including the size and characteristics of each parcel. That information would be helpful in determining appropriate zoning, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told commissioners that the Burton Commons project will hold a citizen participation meeting for the proposed apartment project on Wednesday, March 5 from 6-8 p.m. in the Pittsfield Elementary School library, 2543 Pittsfield Blvd. The proposal – 80 apartments in five buildings, plus a clubhouse – would be located at 2559-2825 Burton Road, on the east side of Burton north of Packard. A previously approved site plan is in effect, but the developer now is proposing an addition to the plan – a sound wall that runs the entire length of the east property line, between US-23 and the apartment buildings. Because the sound wall will impact natural features, it will come forward to the planning commission for review.

Rampson also reminded commissioners that they’d met with a property owner at a September 2013 working session, regarding a proposal to build an indoor/outdoor tennis facility. That project is now moving forward, and the owner will hold a citizen participation meeting in the next few weeks.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental & Energy Commissions

As the planning commission’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, Kirk Westphal reported on a project from that group: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – said that environmental commissioner Susan Hutton is taking the lead on this project. She is trying to raise $10,000 in order to give out grants of $2,000 – one grant in each of the city’s five wards. The likely fiduciary is the nonprofit Ann Arbor Awesome. Naud said the effort is modeled on some small neighborhood grant programs in Seattle.

On Feb. 20, Westphal also gave commissioners copies of a resolution that the energy commission recently passed, and which the environmental commission will be taking a look at too. He said the planning commission’s executive committee will be discussing it. He did not mention the topic.

A copy of the handout was obtained by The Chronicle after the meeting. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. [.pdf of resolution]

The one resolved clause states:

Resolved, City of Ann Arbor Energy Commission recommends that the Ann Arbor City Council direct the City Administrator to restore the second position as an FTE (full time equivalent) to create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets, reduce our community GHG emissions, provide economic benefit to our community and help to preserve our quality of life.

Communications & Commentary: Minutes

The Feb. 20 agenda included approval of planning commission minutes from last year – for the Nov. 19 and Dec. 3 meetings – as well as for the special meeting on Jan. 14, 2014.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, reported that she’s heard concerns during public commentary time at city council that minutes of many city boards and commissions are very late getting to the council. [Minutes from the city's various boards, commissions and committees are attached to city council agendas.]

Briere encouraged that minutes of the planning commission be done in a timely fashion.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Ken Clein, Paras Parekh, Wendy Woods.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Kris Olsson, a watershed ecologist with the Huron River Watershed Council, at the Feb. 6, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

The aim of the project is to map, prioritize and encourage protection of the remaining natural areas in the Huron River watershed. The entire watershed covers about 994,000 acres. Of that about 247,000 acres are in the bioreserve. More than 1,700 sites have been mapped as potential natural areas.

The Ann Arbor greenbelt program is one of several partners in the project. Olsson told commissioners that the HRWC hopes this data is used to help land preservation programs like the greenbelt make informed decisions about how to protect natural areas.

Also during the Feb. 6 meeting, Ginny Trocchio – who provides staff support for the greenbelt program – briefed commissioners on the screening and scoring criteria used to review potential acquisitions for the greenbelt program. She reviewed characteristics that result in higher scores for property. For example, sites that receive higher scores have 3-4 natural features (stream corridors, woodlots or rare species), are located within 1 mile of the Ann Arbor city limits, and are located within a township or village that has passed a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) ordinance.

Trocchio also reported that work on the greenbelt program’s new landowner registry is continuing.

The 90-minute meeting included a closed session lasting about 30 minutes. No votes were taken on potential land deals after commissioners emerged from closed session.

Bioreserve Project

Kris Olsson, a watershed ecologist with the Huron River Watershed Council, gave a special presentation to GAC about the HRWC’s bioreserve project. In introducing Olsson, GAC chair Catherine Riseng noted that they both also serve on the Washtenaw County natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), which helps oversee the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Olsson began by giving an overview of HRWC. It’s a membership organization, which includes individuals and entities like the city of Ann Arbor. [GAC member Jennifer Fike is HRWC's finance manager.] The nonprofit was started as a council of governments in 1965 under state legislation designed to protect the Huron River and its tributaries, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. She encouraged commissioners to look at HRWC’s website for a full description of its projects, programs and services.

Detail of a Huron River Watershed Council bioreserve map, indicating areas of high priority (blue), medium priority (green) and low priority (yellow). Image links to .pdf file of complete map.

One of those projects is the bioreserve. The city’s greenbelt program is one of several partners in the bioreserve project, Olsson explained, along with all of the land conservancies in the watershed, the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, and other groups. The aim of the project is to map, prioritize and encourage protection of the remaining natural areas in the Huron River watershed. For this purpose, HRWC looked at properties larger than 10 acres, including forest, wetlands and grasslands. This type of land is sometimes referred to as a region’s “green” infrastructure,” she noted.

Olsson reviewed the list of benefits that natural areas provide to the watershed, including help in cooling and filtering runoff, providing a water supply, controlling erosion, managing stormwater and regulating climate. The Huron River is the cleanest urban river in southeast Michigan, she noted, and that’s because there’s still a fair amount of natural area in the watershed. “The more natural areas we have, the better,” Olsson said.

Over the years, watersheds in general have become more developed. As of 2000, 43% of the land in the Huron River watershed was open space, 26% was agricultural, and 31% was developed. But in the next 20 years, 40% of the remaining open space is expected to be developed, Olsson said. Master plans and zoning ordinances in most communities don’t designate space for natural areas, and almost all natural areas are in private ownership and designated for some other use, such as residential or commercial development. And because current trends favor low density, she said, that means development consumes a lot of space per person.

In the Huron River watershed, trends include fragmentation of natural areas, loss of wetlands, and the loss of particular kinds of natural features, including oak barrens, prairies and wooded wetlands. Those are the kinds of areas that HRWC is prioritizing for protection.

Catherine Riseng, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission.

HRWC’s key messages, Olsson told commissioners, are: (1) encourage higher density development where infrastructure already exists; and (2) preserve natural areas so they can continue to provide the ecological services necessary to maintain quality of water, air, land, and life.

One purpose of the bioreserve project is to assess the remaining natural areas. Limited resources mean that not all natural areas can be protected, Olsson said, so a detailed inventory of the areas will help in determining which parcels should be preserved.

To do that, HRWC started with aerial photos in 2000, and used those to delineate areas that were forests, grasslands, wetlands – anything that could be defined as a natural area. The process used GIS (geographic information systems), and Olsson noted that GAC member Shannon Brines had been involved in this process. [Brines is manager of the Environmental Spacial Analysis (ESA) lab at the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment.]

The process determined that there were more than 1,700 sites mapped as potential natural areas. The entire watershed is about 994,000 acres, and of that about 247,000 acres are in the bioreserve. Using GIS data, these areas were ranked on 15 criteria, including total size, the size of the core area, topographic and geological diversity, and remnants of endangered “plant communities.”

Olsson noted that a lot of the criteria to prioritize the bioreserve are also used in prioritizing the greenbelt’s preservation efforts.

Priority bioreserve sites in the Huron River watershed.

After HRWC created the GIS map, they started doing field assessments of some of these natural areas to get more information that will help conservancies and other programs – like Ann Arbor’s greenbelt – make decisions about which parcels to preserve. Olsson described the process of doing the assessments, which relies on trained volunteers. Information from that assessment – including a plant checklist, a description of invasive species and other details – is entered into a database, from which a report is generated. That report is then distributed to conservancies and other land preservation programs.

So far, HRWC has trained 249 volunteers and assessed 274 properties. Reports based on this data have helped preserve about 200 acres of land, Olsson said. Another five properties with a total of 547 acres are being evaluated now.

Olsson told commissioners that the HRWC hopes this data is used for “strategery” – helping land preservation programs make informed decisions about how to protect natural areas. Programs in Ann Arbor Township, Scio Township and Webster Township in particular have used the information, she said. [GAC member Jean Cares is also a member of the Webster Township farmland and open space board.]

Bioreserve Project: Commission Discussion

John Ramsburgh asked whether HRWC ever revisits the original bioreserve map. Kris Olsson replied that they’re looking at adding to the map – using historical photos to determine what land has not been plowed in the past. If it’s unplowed, there’s a strong chance that it will have a better seedbed.

John Ramsburgh.

In terms of updating the map’s boundaries, Olsson said it took a lot of work to do the original mapping, so an update would only likely occur if there were an automated way to do it.

Ramsburgh also asked for the source of the information that 40% of the remaining open space is expected to be developed in the next 20 years. Olsson said that came from the 2000 land use data generated by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG).

Ramsburgh also wanted to know what relationships HRWC had developed at the University of Michigan. [Ramsburgh is a development officer with UM’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. Commissioners Shannon Brines and Catherine Riseng also work for UM, and developer Peter Allen is an adjunct faculty member at UM's Ross School of Business.]

In addition to the GAC connections, Olsson mentioned naturalist Tony Reznicek, and Bob Grece, director of UM’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum, who was director of Olsson’s masters project.

Responding to another query from Ramsburgh, Olsson said that HRWC does offer internships, though there are none currently available for the bioreserve project.

Greenbelt Scoring Criteria

Dovetailing with the bioreserve presentation, Ginny Trocchio – who provides staff support for the greenbelt program – briefed commissioners on the screening and scoring criteria used to review potential greenbelt acquisitions, primarily through the purchase of development rights (PDR). [.pdf of scoring criteria]

There are two sets of criteria that differ only slightly – one for agricultural land, and another for open space/natural areas. Some properties are a mixture of both, but the predominant feature is chosen for scoring purposes, Trocchio said.

For both types of land, there are three major scoring categories:

• Land characteristics, such as soil type, parcel size and road frontage.
• Context, including how the land relates to adjacent or nearby properties.
• Acquisition considerations, such as whether there are matching funds available.

Trocchio reviewed details in each of these categories for both agricultural land and natural areas.

Archer Christian asked Trocchio who determined how each of these categories were weighted, and how that determination was made. Trocchio replied that she wasn’t involved in the program when the scoring mechanism was originally developed. Her understanding is that during the commission’s first year, they wanted to create the criteria before accepting applications. So the city hired a consultant to help develop that scoring mechanism. [The 30-year millage that supports the greenbelt program was passed by voters in 2003, and GAC was formed in 2004.]

Shannon Brines.

Trocchio noted that at different points since then, some additional criteria have been added. For example, the criterion awarding points if a property is located within an agricultural preservation district was added after the original criteria were developed. When the greenbelt program began, most townships didn’t have this kind of district, Trocchio explained. At one point, the state considered creating a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) program. One criteria to be eligible for state grants would have been that townships have an area designated as an agricultural preservation district. Even though the state PDR program didn’t materialize, most township master plans have been updated to include those districts, Trocchio said.

Christian wondered if the original members of the greenbelt advisory commission expected that the scoring would be revisited at any point. Trocchio said she didn’t know. [No original members of GAC remain on the commission. The last two original members – Dan Ezekiel and Laura Rubin – were term limited and cycled off the commission in 2013.]

Trocchio highlighted other criteria. Some examples of characteristics that result in higher scores for property include:

• Has 3-4 natural features (stream corridors, woodlots or rare species).
• Located within 1 mile of the Ann Arbor city limits.
• Located within a township or village that has passed a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) ordinance.
• 90% or more of the property’s perimeter is open space.
• Located adjacent to more than one protected property.
• Provides “broad, sweeping view from publicly accessible sites,” or has unique or historical features.
• Contains a Huron River tributary or is located along the river.
• Has 3 or more possible sources of matching funds.
• Landowner is willing to contribute 20% or more of the appraised value of development rights.

Most of the applications to the greenbelt program receive between 40-60% of the possible points, Trocchio said. Several recent applications have scored higher, mainly because of points awarded for being adjacent to protected land. That’s because more land is protected now than when the program first started, she noted.

Trocchio concluded by noting that information about this scoring system is on the greenbelt program’s website.

Staff Report

Ginny Trocchio also gave a brief staff report during the Feb. 6 meeting.

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who provides staff support to the city’s greenbelt program.

She reported that Congress finally passed a farm bill, that was due to be signed by President Barack Obama the following day in East Lansing.

As anticipated, the bill combined different conservation easement programs into one program, she said. That includes the farm & ranchland protection program (FRPP), the grassland reserve program and the wetland reserve program. [The city's greenbelt program has received millions of dollars in FRPP matching funds over the past decade.]

In terms of continued funding, it’s expected to be fairly high for the next five years, Trocchio said – between $400 million to $500 million annually through 2017. It’s a good thing for the greenbelt program that there will be federal funding available, she said.

Trocchio reported that work is moving forward on the greenbelt’s new registry program. A brochure was designed and is being printed. A one-page agreement letter for landowners to sign has been vetted by the city attorney’s office. She said she’ll be working with commissioners Catherine Riseng and Shannon Brines – GAC’s chair and vice chair, respectively – to develop a summary of the registry program to send to city council as an information item.

By way of background, the registry was part of an updated strategic plan that the commission approved at its April 4, 2013 meeting. From the updated strategic plan:

In addition, recognizing that over the next 3-5 years, the Greenbelt will likely shift in program focus and will not be able to acquire as many properties or easements annually, it is important that the Commission maintain contact with landowners in the Greenbelt District who may be interested in protecting their land in the future. Therefore, the Greenbelt will prioritize establishing a Greenbelt Registry Program.

A land registry program is a listing of the properties that contain “special” natural features or has remained in farmland open space that landowners have voluntarily agreed to protect. This is an oral non-binding agreement between the City of Ann Arbor and the landowner. The landowner can end at any time, and the agreement does not affect the deed. The landowners agree to monitor and protect specific features of the property and notify the City if the landowner is planning on selling the property or if major threats have occurred.

The purpose of the land registry is to identify significant parcels of land and, through voluntary agreements with landowners, take the first step toward protection of the land’s natural resources. Furthermore, a land registry program recognizes landowners for protecting significant open space/natural features. Ultimately, these lands could be protected permanently through a conservation easement.

The landowner, by voluntarily agreeing to register their land, agrees to the following:

• Protect the land to the best of their ability
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any significant changes they are planning or any natural changes that have occurred.
• Notify the City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Staff of any intent to sell the property.

Land Acquisition

Most meetings of the greenbelt advisory commission include a closed session to discuss possible land acquisitions. The topic of land acquisition is one allowed as an exemption by the Michigan Open Meetings Act for a closed session. On Feb. 6, commissioners met in a closed session that lasted about 30 minutes. There was no action item when they emerged, and the meeting was adjourned.

Next meeting: Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] The meetings are open to the public and include two opportunities for public commentary.

Present: Shannon Brines, Jean Cares, Archer Christian, Jennifer Fike, John Ramsburgh, Catherine Riseng, Christopher Taylor. Staff: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Peter Allen, Stephanie Buttrey.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, and Deb Gosselin, who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). Gosselin attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to talk about the CIP process, which the commission is using as a planning tool for future public art projects. (Photos by the writer.)

Sabra Briere, who’s one of five city councilmembers on the committee, updated AAPAC on possible revisions to the city’s public art ordinance, as well as more general recommendations that are being prepared for the full council. Those proposed changes are likely to include eliminating the Percent for Art funding mechanism, creating a structure to solicit private donations and grants to support public art, directing staff to “bake in” artwork and architectural enhancements as part of overall city capital projects, and providing more administrative support – perhaps by contracting out those services.

AAPAC members had questions about the possible new approach, including questions about the commission’s own role. Briere advised them to continue working on existing projects that are funded through the Percent for Art approach, but noted that they should focus on future opportunities that don’t rely on Percent for Art funds.

The council committee continues to meet, and will eventually deliver recommendations and draft ordinance changes to the full council. This Chronicle report includes highlights from the committee’s most recent meeting on March 1. The committee next meets on March 15, before the council’s March 18 meeting. A moratorium on spending unallocated Percent for Art dollars expires on April 1.

In other action at AAPAC’s February meeting, commissioners heard from Jason Frenzel, stewardship coordinator for the Huron River Watershed Council, about a project that would raise awareness of how the city’s stormdrain system connects to the river. The project is proposed in two stages, starting with a chalk art contest at the June 14 Green Fair, during which artists would draw images and messaging around stormdrains on Main Street.

Commissioners also discussed how to move forward with a proposed memorial to Coleman Jewett – a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private donor has already committed $5,000 to the memorial, but details are still being worked out about how to manage the project. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin indicated that she might call a special meeting in early March for commissioners to act on the proposal, which hasn’t formally been accepted by AAPAC. Update: The special meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, March 7 at 4:30 p.m. in the fifth-floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Other project updates were made via a written report from Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. The report stated that a task force has selected four artists as finalists for artwork on the East Stadium bridges, and they have been invited to an April 1 site visit/open house. The finalists are: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. The project has a budget of $400,000.

Only four commissioners attended the Feb. 27 meeting, and when one commissioner left early, the meeting was adjourned for lack of a quorum – before all agenda items were addressed. In part because of attendance issues, officer elections – which AAPAC bylaws state should happen in January – have not yet occurred. Ballots were mailed to commissioners last week, and results will be announced at AAPAC’s March 27 meeting. It’s expected that vice chair Malverne Winborne will be elected chair.

And although it was not discussed at the meeting, Cathy Gendron resigned from AAPAC in late February. She had been reappointed to AAPAC at the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting for a term through Jan. 20, 2016, but had not attended the commission’s January or February meetings.

Responding to a Chronicle query, Gendron stated in an email that she had agreed to stay on the commission through March, but would be unable to attend AAPAC meetings and decided to resign. ”It’s time for someone else to take my place.” There are now three vacancies on the nine-member commission.

Future of Ann Arbor’s Public Art Program

Ann Arbor’s public art program has been in limbo since Dec. 3, 2012, when the city council voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.

At that same Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, councilmembers appointed a council committee to review the public art program. Committee members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). They’ve been meeting regularly to work through possible revisions to the city’s public art ordinance, as well as to make more general recommendations about the program. [For background see Chronicle coverage: "City to Seek Feedback on Public Art Program," "Council's Public Art Committee Begins Work," as well as an update on the committee's work provided in the report of AAPAC's Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.]

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is part of a five-member council committee that’s preparing recommendations on changes to the city’s public art program. She attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to update commissioners on that work.

At the invitation of AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin, Briere attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to talk about the committee’s work and to answer questions from commissioners.

Briere told commissioners that there’s a real philosophical difference among councilmembers on the committee regarding the current Percent for Art program. [That program sets aside 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, for public art. It's been the primary funding mechanism since the council enacted the public art ordinance in 2007. (.pdf of current ordinance)]

One councilmember, Briere said, is firmly opposed to the Percent for Art approach, especially the idea of “pooling” funds. Another councilmember is firmly committed to the idea and believes that 1% is probably inadequate, Briere added. [Based on The Chronicle's observations of discussions at these council committee meetings, Briere was referring to Kunselman and Teall, respectively.] The other three councilmembers are trying to find a middle ground that achieves the goal of government support for art in public places, she said, but that doesn’t rely solely on restricted funds to do that.

[The issue of using restricted funds relates to using money that was originally designated for infrastructure like roads or utilities, and setting aside some of those funds for public art. Because the money is taken from restricted funds,  a thematic link must exist between the funding source and the public art expenditure. Although the ordinance doesn't use the term "nexus," this is the word commonly used by councilmembers to refer to the concept of connecting public art projects to their source of funding.]

Briere reported that the committee has discussed whether public art funding should be taken from the city’s general fund. But that approach would pit public art against other general fund services, like police and fire protection. This is one of many issues that the committee is thrashing through, she said.

There seems to be general consensus for having artwork “baked in” to capital projects. Instead of transferring out 1% of a project’s budget into a separate public art fund, the money would be included in the capital project’s budget with a directive to incorporate artistic elements or architectural enhancements into the design. This would make administering the public art program less administratively burdensome, according to city staff, and ensure that public art wouldn’t be an “add on” after the capital project is finished.

A draft of possible ordinance changes is being reviewed by the city attorney’s office, Briere said, and will eventually be “coughed out like a hairball on the rug.”

Future of Public Art Program: AAPAC’s Role

Connie Brown wondered what AAPAC’s role would be, if these kind of changes are enacted. Briere said the council has discovered that a bureaucratic burden was created by the current ordinance, so the goal is to lessen that burden, not increase it. Also, there’s a desire to focus on projects generated and supported by the community, she said, not by city government. By way of example, Briere cited a chalk art project being proposed by the Huron River Watershed Council, that doesn’t require city funding. [A report on that effort is provided later in this article.]

Briere noted that the public art program had been set up in a way that focused on Percent for Art funding. Because of that, it restricted AAPAC in ways that weren’t intended, she said. So in the revised ordinance, councilmembers want to include funding mechanisms for art that “grows out of the community.”

Marsha Chamberlin asked if there will be a “nexus test” – a reference to the requirement that artwork must link thematically to its funding source. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, responded: “If we do it right, it’s gone.” Chamberlin laughed, saying “Then let’s do it right!”

Briere advised commissioners to function as they are until the council provides further direction. She also encouraged them to focus on projects not funded by the Percent for Art mechanism – like the HRWC proposal, or a mural project at the farmers market, proposed by Linda Tenza at AAPAC’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting. Commissioners should talk about opportunities that won’t rely on Percent for Art funds, she said.

Another such project could be artwork in the parking structure at the new City Apartments, being built at First and Washington. Though located on the lower levels of the building, it will become part of the city’s public parking system, which is managed by the Ann Arbor DDA under contract with the city. Briere noted that public art was supposed to be part of that project, “but everybody forgot that.” Chamberlin recalled that AAPAC had discussed the project years ago, but not recently. [The last time it was brought up publicly was at AAPAC's October 2008 meeting, in connection with a possible partnership with the DDA. Chamberlin is the only current commissioner who was also serving at that time.]

Briere expressed sympathy for the commission, noting that it’s an all volunteer group that’s been asked to manage a lot. However, she also pointed out that other city boards and commissions are also made up of volunteers, often with heavy workloads. She recognized that the public art program has struggled with staff support, and said that the council committee on public art plans to recommend that more staff support would be appropriate. [The current public art administrator's position, held by Aaron Seagraves, is a part-time job.]

AAPAC will likely continue to work in an advisory capacity, Briere explained. They’ll identify projects in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) that should incorporate public art or architectural enhancements, but they can also recommend other projects for the city to support – for example, artwork at “gateway” locations in the city. The council might decide to fund such projects, or to provide partial funding in conjunction with private donations, grants or other sources.

Malverne Winborne noted that from the commission’s standpoint, they’ll again be in uncharted waters. Although there won’t be restrictions like the those imposed by the Percent for Art approach, there also won’t be consistent, predictable funding sources.

Craig Hupy, Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting.

John Kotarski expressed support for the changes, saying he felt AAPAC could serve well as an advisory group to facilitate projects. He didn’t think AAPAC should act as a gatekeeper, and felt that commissioners should advocate for as much community engagement as possible. He’d like people to come to AAPAC asking for advice, not permission.

Chamberlin and Winborne argued that being a gatekeeper had positive attributes, ensuring quality and safety, for example. Chamberlin gave the example of the proposal for murals at the farmers market, calling it an imaginative idea but adding, “I’m not anxious to see cucumbers painted by third-graders.”

Winborne pointed out that commissioners have a responsibility to the citizens of Ann Arbor, and there needs to be a thorough process to evaluate projects that will be located on city property. That process should apply to donated works, even if no city money is involved, he said. “We don’t want schlock.”

Connie Brown agreed, noting that AAPAC could also guide potential donors to private property owners that might be interested in artwork, if it’s deemed inappropriate for city property. Brown suggested that AAPAC will need to find a way to reconcile these differing views of its role.

Kotarski wondered how something like FestiFools would be evaluated, calling it a great civic project. Brown indicated that perhaps the puppet heads could be put on display as a collection – saying that might be an appropriate way for the city to support the event.

Future of Public Art Program: CIP and Annual Plan

Changes to the public art program were also part of a discussion related to AAPAC’s annual plan and the city’s capital improvement projects. Deb Gosselin, who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to review the CIP process. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019]

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. The document must be approved by the city’s planning commission, not the city council. The planning commission approved the most recent CIP at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. The city council then uses the CIP in its budget planning process.

Gosselin described it as a “moving document,” with more than 300 projects. It includes projects that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. She told commissioners that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had looked through CIP to find those where it might be appropriate to incorporate public art.

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor’s public art administrator.

The CIP has been important to AAPAC because funding for the Percent for Art program has come from the city’s capital projects – with 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, being set aside for public art. And even though it now appears that the Percent for Art funding approach could be eliminated, the goal will still likely be to start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Seagraves reported that he had identified 30 projects in the CIP as having longer-term potential. [.pdf of long-term capital projects for possible public art] He had also identified a smaller list of 12 projects that AAPAC might consider for inclusion in its annual plan for fiscal 2014. [.pdf of FY 2014 CIP projects for possible public art] Those near-term CIP projects include the replacement of street lights along Main Street, the creation of a park at 721 N. Main, and renovations at the wastewater treatment plant, among others.

Commissioners didn’t discuss either these potential CIP projects or the public art annual plan in detail. The plan is due to be submitted to the city council on April 1 and would cover activities that AAPAC intends to pursue in fiscal year 2014, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.

Even though the program’s future is unclear, commissioners have been advised to move ahead with their work on projects that have already been approved for funding, as well as with general planning efforts.

Seagraves recommended that commissioners email him with feedback and suggestions for the annual plan, so that he can prepare a draft for AAPAC’s March 27 meeting.

Outcome: This was not a voting item, and no action was taken.

Future of Public Art Program: Council Committee

Two days after AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting, the five-member city council committee on public art met to continue their work on possible revisions to two city ordinances that affect the public art program – Chapter 8 (organization of boards and commissions) and Chapter 24 (public art).

The 90-minute discussion focused on draft revisions that will be reviewed by the city attorney’s office. Councilmembers were continuing the work based on draft ordinance revisions and a memo of recommendations originally presented at the group’s Feb. 14 meeting. [.pdf of Feb. 14 draft revisions and memo, prior to most recent revisions]

The March 1 session was attended by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin and Shoshana Hurand, program manager at the Arts Alliance. Also attending the meeting were Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford; Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator; and Christopher Frost, assistant city attorney.

Based on draft revisions, the Percent for Art funding mechanism would be eliminated. After current funds in that program are spent, the city’s public art fund “would cease to exist,” Crawford said.

Ann Arbor city councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Sally Petersen at a Feb. 14, 2013 meeting of the council’s public art committee.

Instead, funding for public art projects likely would be handled in multiple ways. It would be included as part of individual capital projects – “baked in” to a project as part of its budget, to pay for architectural enhancements or artwork. The hope is also to raise money through private donations and grants, which would be deposited in an existing “pass-through” account for public art that’s administered by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF).

At the March 1 council committee meeting, Chamberlin reported that AAACF charges a management fee of about 1-2%, but the infrastructure for managing private donations and other non-city funds is already set up. The account had been originally created before the city’s public art ordinance was enacted. Chamberlin noted that the pass-through account is different from the endowment accounts that AAACF also manages, which are more restrictive in terms of how and when funding can be withdrawn.

The city’s possible new approach to funding has implications for how to pay for a public art administrator. Currently, the part-time position is paid for out of Percent for Art funds, because the administrator works on projects related to projects that are funded by the Percent for Art mechanism. At previous council committee meetings, the idea had been floated to use remaining Percent for Art funds as “seed money” for a full-time public art administrator, until new funding sources are identified. But on March 1, Crawford said that wasn’t possible – because of the “nexus” requirement that Percent for Art expenditures be linked thematically to their fund of origin. He said one of the most difficult challenges in this transition will be to find a reliable funding source to pay for administration of the public art program.

Crawford also cited the difficulty of involving a city employee in private fundraising – as well as other restrictions that would be placed on city expenditures. For example, city funds couldn’t be used to pay for alcohol at a fundraising event. He discussed the possibility of contracting with an outside entity to administer the public art program, similar to the contract that the city has with The Conservation Fund, a nonprofit that manages the city’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs. This approach would provide more flexibility, he said.

Briere mentioned the nonprofit Arts Alliance, headquartered in Ann Arbor, as a possible entity that could handle such a contract. Shoshana Hurand, program manager for the alliance, indicated that they’d be willing to discuss the possibility, if that’s the direction that the city wants to head. She noted that the alliance has been contracted to work on public art planning for the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, using funding received through a more general grant from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development. The alliance is also working with a donor who’s interested in public art projects for downtown Ann Arbor, she said, so the group is already involved in efforts related to public art within the city.

Teall supported exploring this approach, noting that the alliance – and its previous president, Tamara Real – had been involved in the initial stages of setting up the city’s public art program. The idea of contracting with that organization for administrative services was appealing, she said. She added that it would be important to retain transparency, if that’s the approach the city takes. She pointed out, as full disclosure, that Hurand is her neighbor and a co-founder of FestiFools.

FestiFools also came up in the context of a discussion about performance art. Committee members have struggled to define performance art, and their views differed on the use of city funds to support it. One of the criticisms of the Percent for Art approach is that it does not allow for funding of temporary art like exhibits or installations, events, or performance art. The current draft revisions have eliminated reference to performance art, but would include the ability to fund either temporary or permanent art.

Teall wanted to leave the door open for flexibility, but noted that dealing with temporary art could be an administrative nightmare. Chamberlin suggested that temporary art could be defined as existing at least three months, giving the example of Patrick Dougherty’s large woven stick sculptures that were installed temporarily on the University of Michigan campus several years ago. She said even if temporary art isn’t defined in the ordinance, it would make sense to have an administrative policy about it.

FestiFools – an annual parade down Main Street featuring large papier-mâché puppets – would be considered temporary art, Hurand said. She cautioned against being too restrictive in defining the term, and noted that there are a variety of experiential opportunities that the city might want to support – like the kind of thing that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival brings to town. If one of the city’s goals is to use public art for place-making, she said, then these kinds of things should at least be considered, whether they last one day, one month or three months.

The committee’s next meeting is set for Friday, March 15 at 11:30 a.m. at city hall. After that, there’s only one regular meeting of the full city council – on Monday, March 18 – before the moratorium on Percent for Art spending expires. That happens on April 1, unless it’s extended by the council.

It’s expected that the recommendations and draft ordinance changes brought forward by the committee to the full council will be further amended during council deliberations.

Huron River Awareness Project

Jason Frenzel, stewardship coordinator for the Huron River Watershed Council, attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting along with Jennifer Lawson, water resources manager for the city of Ann Arbor. They came to talk about a project that would raise awareness of how the city’s stormdrain system connects to the river.

Jennifer Lawson, water resources manager for the city of Ann Arbor, and Jason Frenzel, stewardship coordinator for the Huron River Watershed Council.

The idea has been done in other communities, Frenzel said: A competition to draw images and messages on the street around stormdrains, highlighting connections to the river. The Ann Arbor project is proposed in two stages, starting with a chalk art contest at the June 14 Green Fair on Main Street. Artists would use chalk art to draw images around the stormdrains along Main Street between Huron and William, with the winner selected by people who attend the fair. Frenzel said that local artist David Zinn, known for his chalk art installations, is willing to help as a consultant, and mayor John Hieftje has also indicated support.

The second phase of the project would entail working with neighborhoods, as part of HRWC’s stormdrain awareness program, to create chalk drawings around street stormdrains throughout the city, on a volunteer basis. The intent is for artists from phase 1 to help guide the work by neighborhood volunteers.

Expenses would be paid for at least in part out of the city’s stormwater fund, which includes money for educational efforts. There’s potential for funding from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as well. [.pdf of AAPAC intake form for this project]

Frenzel joked that he hoped to get “emotional support” from commissioners, as well as help in spreading the word to solicit artists through AAPAC’s network. The effort might also include some staff time from Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Huron River Awareness Project: Commission Discussion

Commissioners generally expressed enthusiasm for the project. John Kotarski suggested that AAPAC endorse it, but Marsha Chamberlin reminded him that the commission doesn’t do endorsements. [After a lengthy discussion at its July 25, 2012 meeting, AAPAC passed a resolution stating that the commission would not make endorsements. Kotarski had cast the lone dissenting vote.]

Malverne Winborne pointed out that Kotarski could endorse the project as an individual, but the commission had decided that it wasn’t appropriate for the group to make official endorsements. There was a consensus at the Feb. 27 meeting, however, that AAPAC could partner with HRWC in this effort.

Connie Brown wondered how much time Seagraves could spare for the work. She noted that his is a part-time position. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, told commissioners that any additional hours that Seagraves might spend on this project could be paid for from the stormwater fund.

Matt Utsunomiya, one of three Skyline High School students who were attending the meeting as part of a class assignment, suggested that artists could draw outlines that kids could color in with chalk, as a way to encourage more participation. Frenzel gave him a business card, and Winborne jokingly cautioned Utsunomiya that when you come up with an idea, “you own it.”

Outcome: No formal vote was taken, but commissioners reached consensus to partner with HRWC on this project.

Memorial for Coleman Jewett

Near the end of the meeting, John Kotarski mentioned an email sent by Marsha Chamberlin with her thoughts on how to proceed with a proposed memorial to Coleman Jewett. [.pdf of Chamberlin's email] The proposal that’s been floated in the community is to create a bronze Adirondack chair, to be located in the Ann Arbor farmers market where Jewett, a long-time local educator who died in January, sold furniture after he retired. A private donor has already committed $5,000 to the project.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners John Kotarski and Connie Brown.

Kotarski said his understanding is that Sarah Gay is willing to take on many of the issues that Chamberlin raised in her email. [Gay is an arts administrator who grew up in Ann Arbor. She has attended some of the meetings of the Ann Arbor city council committee that's working on revisions to the city's public art program.] He said Gay has already taken action, including talking with some councilmembers about the memorial project.

Chamberlin pointed out that Gay is taking action at Kotarski’s “instigation.” He acknowledged that he had talked to Gay about it, but said she was eager to take it on and has already talked to Jewett’s family, the Ann Arbor DDA, and the city’s parks staff, which oversees the market.

When Chamberlin replied that AAPAC still needs to consider whether to accept this as a project, Kotarski said he wasn’t sure they needed to do that. He didn’t want the commission to become an impediment. Chamberlin countered that she didn’t think AAPAC was being an impediment, but it’s necessary to bring the project through AAPAC’s formal process in order to solicit donations, she said. The funds would be held in an account managed by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

At this point Malverne Winborne, on the advice of city councilmember Sabra Briere, moved to adjourn the meeting, as there was no longer a quorum. [Connie Brown had left before the discussion began, leaving only three AAPAC members at the meeting.]

After adjournment, the discussion continued. Chamberlin indicated that after AAPAC accepts the project, they can contact Gay about managing it on a pro bono basis. Winborne supported that approach, noting that it’s important to follow the process that commissioners have set up, and it takes discipline to do that. He said he doesn’t want to be a bureaucrat, but does take his role as commissioner seriously.

Kotarski argued that bureaucracy is fine, as long as it serves a purpose. He said his understanding is that Chamberlin will contact Gay and let her know what to do next. Chamberlin responded that it’s not up to Gay to do anything, and Winborne noted that he didn’t even know who she is.

Chamberlin pointed out that there’s a lot of sentiment to move ahead on this, but that the horse got ahead of the cart. She said she had already been meeting with the community foundation, when the foundation was also being contacted by Gay – it had been confusing and uncoordinated.

Kotarski replied that if Chamberlin wanted Gay to stop working on this, all she had to do was to tell Gay that.

Officer Elections, Vacancies

At the end of the Feb. 27 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin told commissioners that they’d be receiving a ballot by mail to vote for AAPAC officers. AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January, by secret ballot. From the bylaws:

Article VI Officers
Section 1. The officers of AAPAC shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The officers shall be elected by secret ballot each year from among the voting members of AAPAC. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term by a majority of the voting members currently serving on AAPAC. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms in one office. The term of the officers shall run from the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January to the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January of the following year. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

But when the agenda item was reached at AAPAC’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting, only four commissioners remained at the meeting, so no vote was taken.

At the Feb. 27 meeting, Kotarski said his understanding was that the vice chair would become chair. Chamberlin replied that it’s not written into the bylaws, but in the past, commissioners have felt that it’s a good idea for the vice chair to become chair. She reported that Malverne Winborne, AAPAC’s vice chair, had agreed to be chair, if elected, and that Bob Miller had indicated a willingness to serve as vice chair. Miller did not attend the Feb. 27 meeting.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – stated that the election results would be announced at AAPAC’s March 27 meeting.

Seagraves also confirmed via email that Cathy Gendron had resigned from AAPAC earlier in the week. There are now three vacancies on the nine-member commission. According to city records, Gendron had served two full terms. She was first appointed to the Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) in 2007. CAPP was the predecessor to AAPAC. She was then reappointed to AAPAC in 2010 for a term ending on Dec. 31, 2012. Most recently, she had been reappointed to AAPAC at the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting for a third term through Jan. 20, 2016, but she had not attended the commission’s Jan. 23 meeting.

In response to a Chronicle email, Gendron wrote that she previously had agree to stay on the commission through March of 2013, but would be unable to attend AAPAC meetings and had decided to resign. ”It’s time for someone else to take my place.”

Project Updates

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, provided updates in a written report. [.pdf of administrator's report] The items were not discussed during the meeting. Here are some highlights from the report:

• Justice Center: The Ed Carpenter glass hanging sculpture in the lobby of this building, next to city hall at the corner of Huron and Fifth, is set to be installed starting May 25, during Memorial Day weekend. About 20% of the project’s $150,000 budget is being paid to entities in the Ann Arbor region, according to Seagraves’ report.
• East Stadium Bridge: A task force has selected four artists as finalists for artwork on the East Stadium bridge, and have been invited to an April 1 site visit/open house. Those artists are: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. The project has a budget of $400,000.
• Rain Garden: Two finalists are being interviewed in early March for artwork in the city rain garden at First and Kingsley. A recommendation from the task force will be brought to AAPAC’s March 27 meeting for approval. The names of the two finalists have not been released.
• DIA Inside|Out: Installation on the Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out program artwork will begin on March 29 at these locations: Justice Center (Fifth & Huron); downtown fire station (Fifth & Ann); Lena (Main & Liberty); Kerrytown Market & Shops (Fourth & Kingsley); Sculpture Plaza (Fourth & Catherine); Zingerman’s Deli (Detroit & Kingsley); and the Liberty Street alley near Main Street.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the fourth floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

A view looking upstream at the Huron River from the Broadway Bridge, toward the section of the proposed whitewater feature. On the left is environmental remediation work on the DTE/MichCon property. (Photo by D. Askins.)

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager, informed the park advisory commissioners about the opposition at PAC’s Sept. 18, 2012 meeting, describing the news as “not especially positive.” Other letters filed against the project were from the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

The project requires a permit from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) because it affects the Huron River, a state waterway. The project was originally approved by the Ann Arbor city council in 2010, as part of a larger effort that included building the Argo Dam bypass, which wrapped up earlier this year. Subsequent to that council approval, DTE Energy offered to pay for and oversee the whitewater aspect, to coordinate it with environmental remediation work that’s taking place on property it owns along that stretch of the river, just downstream of Argo Dam.

DTE is the applicant for the whitewater permit, although the company is working closely with the city on the project. The city is interested in acquiring the DTE property along the Huron after remediation is completed – and it’s hoped that the company might gift it to the city as a park.

Smith told PAC members that the EPA objection – because it comes from a federal environmental oversight agency – has triggered a process that might stop the project. The EPA filed its letter on Aug. 15. From that date, the MDEQ has 90 days [until Nov. 13] to resolve the EPA’s concerns with the applicant.

The EPA’s letter from Tinka Hyde, director of the agency’s water division, states that the project could significantly degrade the Huron River by inhibiting fish passage and increasing the water velocity, which in turn could affect sediment flow and degrade the stability of that section of the river. Another concern cited is that the project could constrain public use of the river. Because of these issues, the EPA believes the project does not comply with the federal Clean Water Act. [.pdf of EPA letter]

Similar concerns were cited in the other letters of objection. Additional issues raised include water quality concerns that could affect the health of those using the whitewater area, who might come in contact with E.coli in the river; and exacerbated flow problems during drought periods. [U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services letter] [DNR fisheries division letter and additional attachments] [HRWC letter]

The DNR fisheries letter – signed by Jeffery Braunscheidel, senior fisheries biologist – also alludes to the contentious “dam in/dam out” debate involving Argo Dam. Structures used to create the whitewater are in essence dams, he stated, and the division does not support new dam construction. “Planning should provide for a naturally functioning system below Argo Dam as history has made clear that, at some point in time, the Argo Dam will be modified or removed. Impediments should not be constructed in the river that the public will again be asked to address.”

But it’s the EPA’s objection that carries the most weight. If the EPA does not withdraw its objection and the MDEQ still decides to grant the permit, then DTE would also need to seek a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before the project can move forward.

At PAC’s Sept. 18 meeting, Smith told commissioners that the EPA letter was “somewhat surprising.” It’s unusual for the federal agency to weigh in on a relatively small project like this. He did not speculate on why the EPA got involved, but said that staff with the city and DTE had met with MDEQ earlier in the day to make sure they understood the objections. The design had already been modified to respond to concerns that the MDEQ had previously raised, he said, adding that the staff will try to do everything they can to move the project forward.

The objections from the Huron River Watershed Council are less surprising. The Ann Arbor-based nonprofit, which works to protect and improve the Huron River and its tributaries, was an advocate for removing the Argo Dam when that issue was debated by city council in 2009. [Background on that topic is included in Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Revisits Huron River Report."]

Schematic showing location of the planned whitewater amenity in the Huron River, upstream from where the Argo Cascades enters into the river.  (Image links to .pdf of slide presentation made at a March 12, 2012 Ann Arbor city council working session, with higher resolution images.)

Part of the context for the dam in/dam out question related to MDEQ’s concerns about toe drains in the earthen embankment adjacent to the concrete and steel dam, which separates the headrace from the river. The dispute with the state over how to deal with the toe drains at Argo Dam was ultimately resolved when the city council approved a $1,168,170 project at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting to build a bypass that replaced the headrace and eliminated the portage previously required by canoeists and kayakers. That project – the Argo Cascades – was finished earlier this year.

The $1.168 million included $180,000 for the whitewater feature, to be designed by Gary Lacy of Boulder, Colo., and built by TSP Environmental, a Livonia firm – the team that designed and built the Argo Cascades.

In mid-2011, DTE proposed paying for the project but delaying its construction until after the company finished remediating the land next to the Huron River immediately across from the cascades, on the south side of the river. DTE had hoped to secure a permit for the whitewater project this summer. It has already begun environmental remediation work at the site.

The letter of objection from HRWC is signed by its executive director, Laura Rubin, and deputy director Elizabeth Riggs. The letter raises a range of concerns, including the project’s affect on flow rate. From the letter:

The documented flow problems at Argo Dam and the Argo Cascades … during a low flow period highlight, at best, the challenges of multiple-use resource management and, at worst, the desiccation of Michigan rivers when recreational use is prioritized at the expense of other uses, namely shared natural resources. This problem will be exacerbated if the proposed structures are built . Moreover, a likely unintended consequence of the structures being built will be City leaders and staff finding they have to choose one whitewater feature over the other when flows are insufficient to keep both recreation features open.

For Chronicle coverage of the flow-rate issue, see ”How Low Can Argo Flow Go?”

The majority of concerns cited in the HRWC letter relate to potential problems caused by the installation of two structures in the river that are necessary to create the whitewater effect. From the letter:

1. Whitewater structures can impact stream hydrology and hydraulics. Low-flow dams/weirs incorporated into certain whitewater structures reduce channel width by up to 90 percent, creating velocity barriers to organism passage and potentially increasing shear stress on down stream bed and banks.

2. These narrow weirs can create stagnant pools that strand aquatic organisms and raise water temperature.

3. Many whitewater structures are ” low head” dams and have similar effects of a low head dam. Dams interfere with sediment transport by creating sediment deposition zones in the pools between structures, which in turn may eliminate preferred fish habitat, interfere with down stream drifting of macroinvertebrates, and lower dissolved oxygen concentrations. Whitewater structures may also interfere with the transport of small and large organic materials. Organic material transport plays a crucial role in stream health, from fallen leaves that are food for macroinvertebrates to large woody debris that provides sediment retention in stream channels and cover for fish.

4. Whitewater structures can create passage barriers or stranding hazards for fish and other aquatic organisms due to a combination of high water velocities, inadequate water depths, high vertical drops, turbulence, and lack of space for resting cover. The measured velocities over current white water structures are greater than the known velocity capabilities of most of the native fish species present in Michigan rivers.

5. The porous streambed and banks in rivers are essential habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates – macroinvertebrates such as the state threatened freshwater mussel species that was positively identified in this section of the Huron River on July 25, 2012 by ecologists with the University of Michigan and HRWC. Additionally, this habitat functions to exchange water between the ground and river, assist in nutrient and carbon assimilation, and moderate river temperatures. Grouted whitewater structures eliminate habitats in the spaces between rocks and block the interplay between the river, land, and groundwater.

6. The proposed whitewater structures include large rocks, benches, terraces, or viewing platforms, which can displace riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation contributes to the health of the river by providing shade, bank stabilization, large woody debris, and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Riparian vegetation also improves water quality by removing excess nutrients, preventing sedimentation from bank erosion, and lowering water temperature. Whitewater structures also increase the amount of rock in the stream or riparian corridor, which can increase water temperatures.

Upon receiving news from Smith about the letters of objection, park commissioners had only a few clarificational questions, though several members spoke to him about it immediately after the meeting adjourned. PAC had previously recommended approval of the whitewater feature, as part of the overall dam bypass project. That vote took place in October 2010 – there has been considerable turnover on the commission since that time.

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

Matt Naud, Ann Arbor's environmental coordinator, moderated a panel discussion on resource management – the topic of the first in a series of four sustainability forums, all to be held at the Ann Arbor District Library. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the first of four public forums, and part of a broader sustainability initiative that started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project’s main goal is to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. Other goals include improving access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work has been guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: Park, planning, energy and environmental. Many of those members attended the Jan. 12 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The topics of the forums reflect four general themes that have been identified to shape the sustainability framework: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The Jan. 12 panel on resource management was moderated by Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator. Panelists included Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council (and a member of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission); Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program; Tom McMurtrie, Ann Arbor’s solid waste coordinator, who oversees the city’s recycling program; and Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, also participated by giving an overview of sustainability issues and challenges that local governments face. [The university has its own sustainability initiative, including broad goals announced by president Mary Sue Coleman last fall.]

The Jan. 12 forum also included opportunities for questions and comments from the audience. That commentary covered a wide range of topics, from concerns over Fuller Road Station and potential uses for the Library Lot, to suggestions for improving the city’s recycling and composting programs. Even the issue of Argo Dam was raised. The controversy over whether to remove the dam spiked in 2010, but abated after the city council didn’t vote on the question, thereby making a de facto decision to keep the dam in place.

Naud said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum had proven him wrong. The city is interested in hearing from residents, he said: What sustainability issues are important? How would people like to be engaged in these community discussions?

The forum was videotaped by AADL staff and will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Sustainability & Resource Management: Setting the Stage

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, began the panel presentation by saying that he’d been asked to talk about the big picture concepts related to these themes, and challenges that local governments face in dealing with them. He emphasized that the concept of sustainability encompasses more than just the environment, but that this first forum would focus on environmental issues.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, and a member of the Huron River Watershed Council executive committee.

Norton gave a brief overview of possible ways to think about attributes of a clean environment, related to topics that would be discussed by panelists. For air and water quality, it’s important that those resources are unpolluted, available in sufficient quantity, and that residents have adequate access. Viable ecosystems are one way to provide clean air and water, he said. Ecosystems provide filtering functions, and are a source of biodiversity – we suffer if we homogenize our environmental base, he said. Ecosystems also provide an aesthetic quality, making places pleasant to live.

Regarding responsible resource use, Norton pointed to the three Rs: Reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycling is good, he said, but reuse is better and reducing is the best approach to responsible resource use. It’s also important to think about the waste stream, and how waste can be used as input for new systems. Composting is one example of that.

Norton then outlined four challenges that local governments face when dealing with these issues. The first is factual uncertainty. The world is complex, and there is a great amount of scientific uncertainty. That gives people ammunition to argue against environmental protection, he said. There’s uncertainty over when a substance becomes pollution, for example. Carbon dioxide or arsenic are common elements – at what amounts do those elements become pollutants? Another uncertainty relates to resource depletion. The environment is a resilient receptor, Norton said – it can take a lot of shock to its system. But at what point does disruption and depletion of resources become too great? That uncertainty makes it difficult for government to act, he said.

Moral disagreements are another challenge for governments, Norton said. Is nature a form of sacred life, or just toilet paper on a stump? Should nature be preserved at the expense of jobs? And who gets to decide? Norton said he tells his students that if you have a collaborative planning process, you’ll encounter a plurality of values. That’s a challenge.

Capacity problems – both legal and financial – are also an issue, Norton said. Local governments are creatures of the state, he said, and can only do what the state enables them to do by law. A lot of local officials are reticent to undertake proactive environmental protection, but they have a lot more capacity to act than they think, he contended.

Regarding fiscal capacity, Norton noted that financial resources are highly strained, and there’s a sentiment that local governments can’t afford this “sustainability stuff.” But Norton argued that energy efficiency, for example, is often less expensive in the long term, though it usually requires a higher upfront investment. He encouraged officials to make decisions based on a longer timeframe.

The final challenge Norton cited is a category he called “unhappy propensities” – localism, parochialism and inertia. Localism is the attitude that “we get to decide,” he said. Parochialism is the belief that if something is happening outside of our borders, we don’t need to worry about it. That works if the problems are downstream, but not so much if it’s an upstream problem headed our way.

Then there’s the challenge of inertia: We’ve always done it this way, so why change? Norton noted that sustainability is a different way of looking at things, and that means change. Ann Arbor is stepping out in front of other communities, Norton said, and is pushing these boundaries. He encouraged a broader perspective, looking at decisions as they fit into a bigger system.

Water Resources: Protecting the Huron River

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, began by describing the history of HRWC. The nonprofit was founded in 1965 by 17 communities along the Huron River who were concerned about protecting this water resource. They knew they couldn’t just look at it from the perspective of where the river flowed through their individual jurisdictions.

Sometimes people overlook the value of the watershed, Rubin said. In addition to providing drinking water, the river also is an asset for recreation, property values, wildlife habitat and stormwater control. The watershed – including the Huron River and its tributaries – is arguably the region’s largest natural feature.

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The Huron River is the only river in southeast Michigan that’s a state-designated “natural river.” The designation affords the river special protections, she said, related to development and vegetation. The watershed also is protected by strong local and regional regulations and partnerships, Rubin said, citing the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority as one example.

The watershed offers a wealth of recreational and fishing opportunities, Rubin said, and provides a habitat to threatened and endangered wildlife, including the northern madtom, the snuffbox mussel, the prairie fringed orchid, the least shrew, and the massasauga rattlesnake.

But although the Huron River is the cleanest urban river in Michigan, she said, there are also problems. Many sections are classified as “impaired,” based on the inability to meet certain uses, like swimming or fishing, as laid out in the federal Clean Water Act. Two major problems are excess levels of phosphorus and E. coli – a problem that’s especially common in urban areas, Rubin said. Sources for E. coli include animal and human feces, which can be discharged into the river from wastewater or sewer overflow during storms.

Other problems causing the impaired classification relate to sediment, erratic flows, low dissolved oxygen, mercury and PCBs.

Rubin outlined several broader threats to the area’s water resources. The region, sandwiched between the urban areas of Detroit and Lansing, has lost many of its natural areas, she said. Ann Arbor itself has become more urbanized, which has contributed to the loss of habitat, as well as to pollution, warmer temperatures and erratic flows.

Hydrologic changes are another threat. The river has 97 documented dams, Rubin said, and this changes flow patterns tremendously. It leads to the loss of wetlands, causes sedimentation, and alters the way that the ecosystem functions.

Rubin also identified “non-point” source pollution as a threat to the watershed. As rain falls onto roofs, into gutters, and onto roads, it collects pollutants that eventually flow into the river. That’s the No. 1 cause of water pollution in the U.S., she said.

A variety of tools are used to address these issues, Rubin said, including watershed-wide partnerships, data that’s collected and analyzed, advocacy and education. Due to efforts by the watershed council and the University of Michigan, the Huron is one of the best studied rivers in Michigan, she said.

The watershed council pushes people to do more to protect the river, Rubin said. Staff and volunteers work on water-quality monitoring, for example, as well as an adopt-a-stream program, which includes data collection and experiential learning.

There’s value in having “eyes on the river,” Rubin concluded. Among other things, it enables the long-term tracking of trends, and provides a scientific basis to advocate for local and state protection policies.

Following Rubin’s presentation, Matt Naud asked the audience a trivia question: How many cities use the Huron River for their drinking water? Just one – Ann Arbor, he said. That’s why the city cares about its upstream partners.

Solid Waste: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, began by saying that recycling is one of the most effective things that people can do to reduce their carbon footprint. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified Ann Arbor as one of the nation’s top recycling communities, he said. So how did the city get to this point?

From left: Kerry Gray, Ann Arbor's urban forest & natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program; and Tom McMurtrie, solid waste coordinator.

In the 1970s, the city brought curbside recycling to every home in the city, McMurtrie said. Back then, recycling required more work – residents had to separate green glass from brown glass, cardboard from newspapers. It reminded him of a favorite New Yorker cartoon: “Recycling in Hell.”

In 1991 the city introduced two-stream recycling. And every multi-family building was added, which doubled participation. The city built a sorting facility at the location of the current drop-off site.

Then in 2010, McMurtrie said, the city moved to another level of recycling: single stream. New plastics were added to the list of recyclables, and new carts with radio-frequency tags were deployed, which allowed single-family homes to record their recycling and be eligible for a rewards program.

In mid-2010, a $3.5 million overhaul was completed to the city’s materials recovery facility – known as the MRF (pronounced “murf”)– at 4150 Platt Road. Overall tonnages of recyclables have tripled, he said, with materials coming from as far away as Toledo and Lansing. Four new hybrid recycling trucks were purchased, which use less fuel.  Four more hybrid trucks will likely be added in 2012, he said.

McMurtrie also pointed to the concepts of “reduce” and “reuse.” His suggestions included shopping for fresh food at the farmers market, where less packaging is used, and using reusable bags whenever possible. About two years ago, the city also added the option of including food waste in its composting program, he noted. Every pound of food or yard waste that’s composted greatly reduces the burden on landfills, he said.

Showing images extracted from a core boring taken at the closed Ann Arbor landfill, McMurtrie noted that most materials in the landfill haven’t decomposed.

McMurtrie concluded by saying that the city is working on an update of its five-year solid waste plan, and he encouraged residents to participate by giving their input. The first meeting will be held on Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 from 4-6 p.m. in the 4th floor conference room in Larcom City Hall, 301 E. Huron. The meeting is open to the public.

Urban Forest Management

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator, said that until recently, the city didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of its urban forest resources. In 2009, city staff finished an updated tree inventory, cataloging location and maintenance needs, among other things. The city has 42,776 street trees, 6,923 park trees (in mowed areas), and 7,269 potential street planting locations, she said.

Maintenance needs were also inventoried, with 1,642 trees identified as priority removals and 3,424 trees that needed priority pruning. An additional 43,271 trees needed routine pruning, and 1,362 stumps needed to be removed.

In 2010, the city completed an evaluation of its urban tree canopy, Gray reported. The canopy covers nearly 33% of the city. Of that, 46% is located in residential areas, 23.7% is in the city-owned right-of-way, and 22% is in recreational areas, such as parks. Compared to other cities, Ann Arbor’s tree canopy is average, she said.

Chart of tree diversity in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Gray addressed the issue of tree diversity, and said the city discourages the planting of maple trees, which account for 37% of the public tree population. ”Plant something other than a maple – that’s my take-away message,” she said.

Ann Arbor’s urban forest is a tremendous asset, Gray said. Public trees provide an estimated annual $2.8 million in benefits related to energy, property values, stormwater control, air quality and other benefits.

But in the past, there hasn’t been a management plan for the urban forest, unlike the city’s other assets, Gray said. So in 2010, city staff began developing an asset management plan, with the goal of maintaining the urban forest and maximizing its benefits. The city is doing a lot of public engagement related to this plan, she said – more information is online at a2.gov/urbanforestry.

Matt Naud added a coda to Gray’s presentation, noting that the city lost about 10,000 city street trees that were attacked by the emerald ash borer several years ago. The city spent over $2 million just to remove the trees, he said, and that doesn’t count what it cost residents for tree removal on private property. That’s why tree diversity is important – you don’t know what’s coming next, he said.

Natural Area Preservation

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP) began his comments by showing a slide of the Furstenberg Nature Area – it’s the image he sees when he closes his eyes to think about the topic of sustainability, because it integrates the built environment with the native landscape.

NAP straddles the line between providing services for people, he said, and empowering them to preserve natural features in the city’s parkland and on their own property. He read NAP’s mission statement: “To protect and restore Ann Arbor’s natural areas and foster an environmental ethic among its citizens.”

Ann Arbor resident David Diephuis, center, talks with urban forester Kerry Gray, left, and Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program.

A lot of sustainability practices are based on history, Tallant said, specifically what occurred prior to European settlement. He quoted from the 1836 land survey notes of John M. Gordon, who described the land between Ann Arbor and Dixboro: “Oaks of the circumference of 9-15 feet abound in the forests… White Oak and Burr Oak at intervals of 30-40 feet with an undergrowth 5-6’ high which has the appearance of being annually burnt down as I am informed it is.”

The history of the land is really important when thinking about how to move into the future, Tallant said. He showed a slide of the types of vegetation on land in the Ann Arbor area prior to settlement, and noted that much of the area had been covered by a mixed-oak or oak-hickory forests, with wetlands along the river. It wasn’t a monoculture, he noted, but rather a mixed environment, depending on topography, hydrology, soil type and other factors.

NAP facilitates restoration work in all of the city parks and natural areas, Tallant said. Their work includes conducting controlled burns, taking detailed inventories of the plants and animals within the city, and knowing what’s occurring in the landscape. They also do invasive species control, he said – when you see someone walking along with an orange-colored bag full of garlic mustard, they’re restoring the land so that its biodiversity isn’t diminished. That work helps create a resilient ecosystem, he said.

Outreach, Education

Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission, said he hoped that the previous speakers had given the audience an idea of the extraordinary things that Ann Arbor is doing related to sustainability. Residents should be very proud, he said.

Graham explained that the original “Ann’s arbor” was a grove of large burr oak trees – the “children” of those early oaks are obvious in the area near St. Andrew’s Church, he said, north of city hall. Underneath those oaks were roughly 300 species of plants that the native Indians burned every year.

Just a few decades ago, there were no regulations related to landmark trees, Graham noted. Controversies in the 1970s and ’80s, when development resulted in the removal of many of those trees, led to changes in Chapter 62 of the city code – what’s known as the natural features ordinance, Graham said. Ann Arbor stepped up courageously, he said, and added a natural features standard that must be met in order to gain site plan approval for any development.

What are natural features? Graham asked. His list includes woodlands, native forest fragments, some wetlands, waterways, and floodplains. Related to native forest fragments, Graham said there’s an idea hatching to develop a stewardship program, similar to the city’s natural area preservation program. The new program would look at native forest fragments in all parts of the city, including the University of Michigan and private land – the fabric of natural features knits itself across the city, he said. The plan would be to do outreach and education, so that property owners would know what’s in their back yards.

The children of trees that existed in the 1820s won’t last without help, Graham said. “Come join us in this endeavor.”

Questions & Comments

During the last portion of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Recycling

Question: Why doesn’t the city’s recycling program accept No. 3 plastics or biodegradable materials?

Tom McMurtrie noted that No. 3 plastics – made from polyvinyl chloride – are a significant contaminant if mixed with other plastics. The city needed to be responsible, he said, and fortunately there aren’t a lot of No. 3 products in the waste stream.

As for biodegradables, McMurtrie said that’s been a challenging issue. On the surface, it looks like a good idea, he said. However, research shows that biodegradable products break down into very small particulates that aren’t necessarily good for the environment. Most of the particulates are petroleum-based, he said, and end up staying in the environment in that form. The other issue is that if those particulates end up in the recycling stream, they act as contaminants.

Question: Are there plans to eventually accept post-consumer food waste? And how much contamination ends up in the compost stream?

McMurtrie fielded this question too, inviting the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update. This issue of post-consumer food waste will be explored, although there are some repercussions around that issue, he said. Regarding contamination in the compost stream, that hasn’t been a problem, McMurtrie said. The city switched to a private operator about a year ago, and it’s worked out well, he said. [At its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved contracting with WeCare Organics to operate the city's composting facility.]

Question: If reducing waste is really the goal, how will incentives be built into the program to achieve that goal? There are incentives to recycle, but how can the city encourage reduction?

McMurtrie called this a great question, and said that a simplistic approach might be to use a graduated fee system for trash collection – to charge more for large trash containers, and less for smaller ones. The city is already doing that to some extent, he said. Households that use 96-gallon trash containers pay a fee each year – $38 – while there’s no fee for 64-gallon or 32-gallon containers. Perhaps the city could incentivize more in that area.

Jeanine Palms asked city staff about whether there are plans to give incentives to residents for reducing their waste, not simply for recycling it.

Jeanine Palms, who had asked the original question, wondered if there was any way to charge for the actual amount of waste that a household produced. McMurtrie replied that it’s an option, but that city council has been hesitant to take that approach. It risks becoming a kind of regressive tax on low-income people with large families, he said.

Dick Norton weighed in, saying that the answer depends on what you want to reduce. Palms’ question and McMurtrie’s answer had focused on trash, he said, but there are other things that people consume, like energy, water and land. Urban planners try to design cities to create greater density and transportation systems so that people can live more compactly. The ways that cities are built out impacts how much people consume, he said.

Norton also pointed to research on the impact of monetizing behavior. One study looked at a daycare center, which started charging parents who showed up late to pick up their kids. The intent was to create a disincentive for people, and to eliminate the late pick-ups. But instead, more people started showing up late, Norton said. When a monetary amount was attached to that behavior, people decided it was worth the amount charged. So incentives can result in perverse outcomes, he noted.

We have to start changing our cultural expectations, Norton continued. We have to stop thinking about living the big life, then throwing it away later. And that’s a tougher nut to crack, he said.

Chris Graham pointed to another thing that could be reduced: Turf grass. The amount of energy, pollutants, time and effort that’s spent on maintaining lawns in the city is counterproductive when trying to achieve sustainability, he said.

Laura Rubin addressed the question from the perspective of water resources. She noted that the city has a graduated water rate structure, so that heavier users pay more. The Huron River Watershed Council have been holding focus groups on the issue of water conservation. Because water is plentiful in the Great Lakes region, the issue of saving water isn’t always compelling. It’s better to tie the issue to energy conservation, she said.

When people talk about reasons why they might want to save water, the knee-jerk answer is to save money, Rubin noted. But when asked, no one in the focus groups could report what their water bill is, she said. Rubin concluded by noting that while our culture seems to be driven by money and economics, other motivations are often at play.

Matt Naud pointed out that information on water consumption per household is available on the city’s website. Residents can get a lot of data about their water usage by typing in their address and water bill account number, he said.

Comment: Portland, Oregon, has mandated that residents compost their food waste – that’s a direction that Ann Arbor should be headed. Currently, compost pick-up in Ann Arbor runs from April through December. I still eat fruits and vegetables in the winter – compost pick-up should be year-round.

Matt Naud encouraged the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update, saying that this type of feedback is exactly the kind of thing the city needs to hear.

Question: I live in an apartment in order to be environmentally sound. When will food compost pick-up be available for multiple family dwellings? I now take my food scraps to friends who live outside the city and raise chickens. So there’s no lack of motivation.

Matt Naud again suggested that this kind of feedback would be useful for the city’s solid waste plan update. Tom McMurtrie said that most multi-family buildings can get compost carts. Requests can be made by calling 99-GREEN.

Questions & Comment: Air Quality – Fuller Road Station

Question: The proposed Fuller Road Station will be a parking structure with almost 1,000 spaces that will bring 1,000 cars into an area near Fuller Pool and Fuller Park. It seems like this will affect the air quality along the Fuller Road corridor and the Huron River. It’s already a heavily used traffic corridor with a lot of emissions, and it seems like Fuller Road Station would really change the quality of air.

Matt Naud said he wasn’t sure if a formal air-quality study has been completed for the Fuller Road Station project. He offered to contact Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and find out what’s being done or what the plan is.

Questions & Comment: Water Quality – Argo Dam

Comment: I was really surprised to see the number of dams along the Huron River. Fred Pearce wrote a book called “When the Rivers Run Dry.” He has almost nothing good to say about dams.

Laura Rubin noted that there are 97 documented dams along the Huron River – until recently there were 98, but one was removed in Dexter. Beyond that, there are at least 50 other dams that the Huron River Watershed Council has discovered while taking inventory for a new dam management tool it’s developing. A lot of the dams are connected to aging infrastructure, she noted – used at former wastewater treatment plants, or to generate electricity. Some dams have been retired from their original uses. Some are just piles of rubble.

Dams are very detrimental from an environmental point of view, Rubin said, but socially they can be very successful. They can have recreational value. For the Huron River, flood control isn’t a problem, so dams aren’t generally needed for that purpose, she said. A lot of river systems and social systems have been engineered, she noted, and it’s hard to change that mentality.

Dick Norton said the issue highlights the fact that “green” and “nature” don’t have the same meaning for everyone. Norton, who’s on the executive committee of the Huron River Watershed Council, noted that the council was involved in discussions about whether to remove Argo Dam, and it had been painful. [The watershed council advocated for dam removal.] A lot of people who would typically be on the same side of an environmental issue were on different sides of the Argo Dam issue, because they valued natural resources in different ways, he said. The debate was emblematic of issues that society struggles with, he added. Norton said he sympathizes with local officials, who get hammered by people on various sides of an issue.

Questions & Comment: Public Outreach

Comment: I’ve been a townie since 1967 – and have been to a lot of the concerts that are in the posters hanging around the room. [The concert posters were part of a retrospective organized by the Ann Arbor District Library called "Freeing John Sinclair."] Outreach needs to go much further.

My neighborhood is concerned about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume, and about property values. Very few of my neighbors are paying attention to other issues that were mentioned tonight. They don’t want taxes to go up, or property values to do down, and they don’t want to pay more for a trash cart. They need to understand sustainability issues in ways that make sense to them. I’d like to see more outreach.

Matt Naud acknowledged that outreach is a challenge. Funding for this kind of effort is one issue – many people who work on sustainability issues are funded by grants, and “that’s not sustainable,” he said.

Questions & Comment: Land Use, Natural Areas – Library Lot

Question: Will the city have a public conversation about the future use for the top of the new underground parking structure – the Library Lot? A lot of people would like to see a park or green space there. Is the city going to ask for ideas from the public?

Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city councilmember.

Matt Naud asked city councilmember Sabra Briere – the only elected city official who attended the forum – to comment.

Briere noted that early last fall, at the city council’s direction, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority began to explore alternate uses of  the five city-owned parcels in downtown Ann Arbor. Those parcels include the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue north of William; the former YMCA lot north of William between Fourth and Fifth avenues; the Palio lot at the northeast corner of Main and William; the Kline lot on Ashley north of William; and the bottom floor of the parking structure at Fourth and William.

This is a plan that hasn’t been developed yet, so no one can say what will happen, she said, but part of the plan will be to solicit public input. In the near term, she said, the Library Lot will be a surface parking lot, with trees planted. That’s not the long-term plan, she said. However, Briere added, no one knows how long the near-term will last.

Dick Norton commented that there’s a need to see how to make urban environments more green, but it’s also important to worry about maintaining farmland outside of the city. Development should go into already developed cities – it’s important to think about how to accommodate more people in urban areas so that large tracts of farmland and forest can be preserved outside of cities. It’s a difficult trade-off, he noted, especially because different jurisdictions are involved, and different perspectives. Residents of the city don’t want it to change and grow bigger, while farmers don’t want to be told that they can’t sell their land for development – in many cases, that’s their retirement plan.

But if the city wants to reduce energy and preserve farmland, turning the Library Lot into open space probably isn’t the best use for it. The site should probably be put to a more urban use, Norton said. It’s something to think about.

Matt Naud noted that at one of the future sustainability sessions, the city’s greenbelt program will likely be included. [Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council is a member of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, which oversees the greenbelt program. The program, funded by a 30-year millage, preserves farmland and open space outside of the city by acquiring property development rights.]

Comment: Some years ago, we dug out the grass on our lawn extension and replanted it with native plants – and we were ticketed by the city. The city needs to straighten out that disconnect.

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural areas preservation program applauded the planting of native plants in the easement. Some residents are putting in rain gardens or bioswales, which is great, he said. But the key point, he said, relates to public safety. If the plantings obstruct the view – of pedestrians using a crosswalk, for example – that’s a problem. That’s why the city enforces height restrictions on plants in the easement, he said. The thing to remember is “the right plant for the right place.” [The height restriction limits vegetation to an average height of 36 inches above the road surface.]

Questions & Comments: Future Forums

Question: It was interesting to hear about what the city is doing, but this forum didn’t match my expectations. I thought you’d have more opportunities for asking questions and engaging in dialogue. As I decide whether to attend future sessions, I wonder if the format will be the same?

This is an experiment, Matt Naud said. The first forum was intended to give people a taste of what the city is doing toward sustainability in different areas – city staff are never quite sure how much information is getting out, he said. The question is whether to hold longer sessions, to give the public more time to ask questions and give commentary, or to hold smaller focus sessions that take a deeper dive into these issues.

Naud said the city staff would like to hear what kind of format would be most effective – feedback forms were provided at the forum. Basically, if people want a certain kind of meeting and will attend it, the city will hold it, he said.

Naud said he’s held public meetings about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane issue and only a dozen people would come. It’s hard to know what issues will draw a turnout. He said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum has proven him wrong, he said. The city wants to know how people prefer to give feedback, and how this discussion should move forward, Naud said.

Future Forums

Three more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• Feb. 9, 2012: Land Use and Access – including transportation designs, infrastructure, land uses, built environment, and public spaces.
• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

River Up! Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ypsilanti area projects include:

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

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

RiverUp! – Commissioner Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor Skatepark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban Forest Management Plan

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

Parks Budget Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications: Argo Dam, Fuller Road Station, Dog Parks

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

Communications: Argo Dam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications: Fuller Road Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications: Feldman Trust

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

Communications: Dog Parks

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

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

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

Communications: Leslie Science & Nature Center

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

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

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

Absent: Doug Chapman

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

Piezometer installed in mid-September along the earthen berm separating the Argo Dam headrace from the river. (Photo by the writer)

But those speakers were supported by the presence of almost two dozen others who attended the regular Sunday evening affair, to make clear that they also supported a resolution on the dam – which was added to Monday’s Oct. 19 agenda on Friday, Oct. 16.

Monday’s resolution, which is sponsored by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Sandi Smith (Ward 1), expresses the intent of city council to keep the dam in place. [Text of the resolution]

At caucus, one of the voices of dissent on the resolution belonged to Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council. She told the three councilmembers present – Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – that there’d been an expectation that the city council would follow the example of the city’s Park Advisory Commission and the Environmental Commission by holding a formal public hearing on the vote.

The resolution on Monday’s agenda does not include a public hearing.

After the caucus concluded, Rubin told The Chronicle that the expectation of a city council public hearing was based on a hearing that had been planned for July 6, 2009, but that was canceled when the council decided to ask the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for more time to decide. We had a look at The Chronicle archives to verify that contention.

Other caucus topics addressed by residents included a crosswalk to be installed at the intersection of Waldenwood and Penberton drives and a request for an update on the East Stadium bridges. Council will consider a resolution on Monday to follow the advice of an outside engineering consultant to proceed with removal of bridge beams supporting the southern lanes, which are currently closed to traffic.

Was a City Council Public Hearing Planned for Argo?

The Ann Arbor city council agenda for July 6, 2009 does not reflect a public hearing on Argo. But if the public hearing had been canceled before the agenda was initially posted, there would be no record of that on the document. So, to determine if there’d been discussion of a July 6, 2009 public hearing, we submitted a query on The Chronicle’s recently upgraded search tool – which uses Google Custom Search: “July 6 ” Argo.

That yielded  references by two different city staff members at two different public meetings. From The Chronicle write-up of an Energy Commission meeting in June, “Hydropower at Argo Dam?“:

[Matt] Naud [environmental coordinator for the city] characterized his presentation to commissioners as “food for thought.” He outlined a timeline for next steps that includes a working session on Argo that city council will hold an hour prior to its June 15 meeting, starting at 6 p.m. (The council meeting starts at 7 p.m.) Council will hold a public hearing on whether to keep or remove the dam at its July 6 meeting, he said [emphasis added].

And here’s a comment added to an article on an Environmental Commission meeting in May,”City Council to Weigh Mixed Advice on Dam“:

Of possible interest to commenters on this article is this announcement by the city’s director of community services, Jayne Miller, at yesterday evening’s [June 1, 2009] city council: The June 15 council meeting will be preceded by a work session on the Argo dam issue. That work session is scheduled for 6-7 p.m.

Miller also indicated that council’s formal public hearing on the Argo dam issue is currently planned for July 6, 2009 [emphasis added].

At its June 15 work session, the city council opted to ask the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for additional time to decide the fate of Argo Dam, so the public hearing and vote were put off. In early August the MDEQ gave the city of Ann Arbor a response to its request for more time: Close the headrace and dewater it by November. In September, city staff developed a plan to respond – which included the possibility of contesting the MDEQ order, something that’s now begun, with the law firm Bodman engaged by the city as legal counsel.

The earthen embankment at Argo sloping upward from left to right. The river is to the left; the headrace waters held back by the embankment are to the right. (Photo by the writer)

Older History and Background

Before diving in to developments of the last month or so, it’s worth reviewing very briefly how the city came to this point. Where did the idea come from to remove the dam, and who wants it to stay? The possibility of removing the dam has been attached historically to maintenance issues associated with the earthen berm adjacent to the concrete and steel structure, both of which the MDEQ subsumes under the term “Argo Dam.” [For the sake of coherent discourse, it's worth maintaining a distinction between "earthen berm" and "concrete and steel structure" when only one of those is intended.]

The idea of removing Argo Dam and returning the section of the Huron River between Barton Dam and Geddes Dam to a more natural riverine state has been supported by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources on grounds of water quality and quality of the fishery. Locally, the Huron River Watershed Council has supported removal of Argo Dam for environmental reasons.

If around $300,000 needed to be invested in the repair of toe drains in the earthen embankment, the thought was: Why not contemplate the removal of Argo Dam to avoid any future maintenance costs, plus reap environmental benefits? But that view was challenged. In addition to disputing the merits of the environmental arguments, local opposition also focused on the benefit of Argo Pond to the rowing community – high school and college teams, as well as individual rowers, use the pond heavily.

As Sunday’s night’s caucus demonstrated, however, opposition to the removal of Argo Dam is not limited to the rowing community. Mark Hodesh, owner of Downtown Home & Garden, also appeared at caucus to oppose the dam’s removal: “I really like that pond!” he said. Hodesh recalled that his parents took him to swim there in the ’40s and ’50s and that it served as a northern gateway to the city.

A timeline on Argo Dam from previous Chronicle coverage: “MDEQ to Ann Arbor: Close  Argo Millrace“:

• 2001 Inspection report from MDEQ notes problem with toe drains in earthen embankment.
• Nov. 18, 2004 A letter from the MDEQ references the 2001 inspection report that first pointed out problems with toe drains: “The inspection report for the Argo Dam identifies problems that may threaten its safety. Specifically, the toe drains along the downstream side of the raceway canal embankment are failing. The toe drain failure is complicated by the dense growth of trees and brush on the raceway embankment and by the inability to block the flow of water into the raceway during an emergency. The toe drain system should be repaired immediately, and a means of blocking flow into the raceway canal should be devised as soon as possible.”
• March 2006 The city’s Environmental Commission creates the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) committee
• Sept. 12, 2007 The assessment of the dam’s condition and recommendations in the dam safety report includes: “The principal spillway and main embankment of the Argo Dam are in good condition. However, the headrace embankment is in poor condition. The dam has adequate spillway capacity to pass the design flood. The following recommended actions are listed by priority. (1.) Submit a copy of the contingency plan to block off flow from the millrace by February 29, 2008. (2.) Remove overhanging and dead trees from the headrace embankment by July 31, 2008. …”
• Dec. 26, 2007 A letter from the DEQ includes the following: “The headrace embankment of the Argo Dam is in poor condition, and the toe drains are not totally functional. This has been described in past reports, and you have received a permit to perform repairs to the toe drain system. It is our understanding that this work has not been done yet, and discussion is ongoing regarding the future disposition of the dam.”
• March 24, 2008 A letter from the DEQ includes the following: “One of the recommendations of this report was that a contingency plan be developed to rapidly shut off flow to the headrace in the event of concerns over the headrace. You provide this contingency plan to this office in your letter of February 21, 2008. The contingency plan lacks detail on how an actual or impending failure of the headrace embankment would be determined. … [P]lease be reminded that this headrace contingency plan is intended to be a short term plan to alleviate potential impacts caused by a headrace embankment failure. It does not address the significant structural concerns with the headrace embankment.”
• January-February 2009 City staff conduct a series of public meetings. [Chronicle coverage of a public meeting at Forsythe Middle School.]
• April 28, 2009 The final version of HRIMP report is finished. Key conclusion: “The decision at the Argo area comes down to one of community preference. Both options will require significant investment of capital and operation and maintenance dollars in addition to staff time.”
• May 19, 2009 The city’s Park Advisory Commission recommends on a narrow 1-vote margin to retain the Argo Dam. [Chronicle coverage of PAC Argo Dam discussion.]
• May 28, 2009 The city’s Environmental Commission recommends removal of the dam. [Chronicle coverage of EC Argo Dam discussion.]
• June 15, 2009 At a work session conducted by the city council, the apparent consensus was that staff should be directed to identify questions that would need to be studied for dam-in and dam-out scenarios and to ask DEQ for additional time.
• July 16, 2009 Ann Arbor sends a letter to MDEQ outlining specific areas of study for the dam-in and dam-out options, and asks for an extension of the deadline until April 2010.
• Aug. 6, 2009 MDEQ sends a letter in reply granting the extension, but ordering the closure and dewatering of the headrace.

Additional Chronicle coverage: “Huron River of Data” and “Dam Questions Dominate Caucus.”

More Recent History: Ann Arbor’s Response to the MDEQ

At their Sept. 8 regular meeting, the city council received an update from city staff on their planned strategy for responding to the MDEQ order, which includes closing the headrace, dewatering it, and making a decision on the dam-in/dam-out question by spring 2010. There’s a December 2010 deadline for repairs if the city makes a dam-in decision, or a December 2012 deadline for removal if the city opts for dam-out.

During her Sept. 8 update, Sue McCormick, director of public services, conveyed a fairly defensive posture with respect to the MDEQ order. The MDEQ had, she said, inappropriately conflated two separate issues: (i) the technical issues with respect to public safety, and (ii) the longer-term fate of the Argo Dam. She cast doubt on the urgency with which the toe drains needed repair, saying that of the 30 toe drains, the 10 that were visible were in good shape.

In her briefing, McCormick said that city staff intended to request a meeting with the MDEQ to resolve the technical issues in dispute, and if they were not able to convince the MDEQ to revise its order, they planned to file a contested case – which is a formal appeal.

The city has now submitted at least the initial filings for that appeal and has retained Bodman as legal counsel for that purpose.

Schematic provided by Joe O'Neal, whose construction company built the concrete and steel dam, showing a possibility for a redesign of the headrace embankment. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is expected to suggest amendments to the Argo Dam resolution that would explicitly mention the possibility of a redesigned embankment that would eliminate the need for a portage. (Image links to higher resolution file)

One of the ways that McCormick said they hoped to convince the MDEQ that the earthen berm was not in danger of failing due to the toe drains was to ask Stantec – an engineering firm that the city uses for support services – to install piezometers (test wells) on the berm to measure the water pressures at a cost of around $20,000. [City council will be considering a resolution on Monday to award a professional services contract in the amount of $250,000 to Stantec to cover a wide range of future services.] Key would be to convince the MDEQ to consider any data from the piezometers as relevant to the technical discussion.

On Sept. 17, the city began installing piezometers. [Chronicle Stopped.Watched item: "Argo"]

The city’s webpage on Argo Dam chronicles the outcome of those initial meetings with the MDEQ, which took place Sept. 24, 2009. Salient in that report is the MDEQ’s agreement with the city’s position that if the condition of the toe drains could be addressed through some other means – like a redesign of the berm to give a continuous flow for canoeists down the headrace, eliminating the portage – then no timeline for a dam-in/dam-out decision needed to be enforced:

MDEQ indicated that they included item #4 in the order (item #4 says removal must be complete by 2012) as recognition that in the event the City chooses dam removal as the alternative offered to address the embankment deficiency, they wanted a date certain for dam removal to occur. MDEQ agreed that if the deficiency is addressed in another manner, there is no deadline for a decision on dam removal or any subsequent required schedule for dam removal [emphasis added].

Why a Decision Now?

At Sunday’s caucus, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who is one of three sponsors of the resolution to be considered on Monday night, defended the Friday addition of the Argo Dam item as within the council’s protocols. In response to the suggestion that some other councilmembers might not have known about the resolution, he cited the late addition of a resolution to appoint a historic district commitee, which he had not known about until it appeared on the agenda the day of the council’s meeting. [Chronicle coverage of the meeting: "Demolition Moratorium for Two Block Area"]

Rapundalo also explicitly rejected the speculation that the timing of the resolution was motivated by anything other than the fact that there was no definitive scientific evidence that the dam needed to be removed, and that there was an interest in the city resolving its dispute with the MDEQ in a fiscally responsible way. Filing contested orders was not, he said, a good way for two government agencies to resolve their issues.

Asked what other motivations and speculations he was alluding to, he reported that there’d been emails contending that the resolution had been put on the agenda to take advantage of Mayor John Hieftje’s possible absence on Monday – Rapundalo said that they’d become aware of that possibility only after the resolution was added. Further, it was not certain that the mayor would be absent.

[Editorial aside: Hieftje, who began serving in 1998 on the board of directors of the Huron River Watershed Council, and is currently an alternate member of that body, is seen as at least a mild supporter of the dam-out option. At a recent meeting on the local economy, Hieftje took a third-person view of the situation, when he said that he did not think the Argo Dam would be removed. It reflects the difficulty of his political position. On the one hand, Hieftje's affiliation with HRWC and his interest in staking out the pure environmental ground are an argument for him to support the dam-out option. On the other hand, there's a general consensus that public sentiment is greater for the dam-in option. If the vote on the question happens in his absence, his voting record won't reflect any position on the issue, which gives him maximum political flexibility in the future. So any possible maneuvering based on Hieftje's presence or absence at the meeting could be analyzed as providing Hieftje with a way to avoid voting at all, but could not reasonably be seen as a way to avoid Hieftje's opposition to the resolution. After all, there's nothing to fear from the additional "no" vote the mayor might cast – successful passage of the resolution depends only on getting six votes in support. It's an issue that will be moot if the mayor is able to attend Monday's meeting, or if the decision is postponed until a later time when he's present.]

In addition to rejecting the idea that the mayor’s presence or absence had anything to do with the timing of the resolution, Rapundalo ruled out the possibility that the timing was motivated by an interest in shoring up Marcia Higgins’ re-election chances. Higgins’ opponent in the Ward 4 race is Hatim Elhady, who supports keeping Argo Dam. The success of two candidates in the August Democratic primary – Mike Anglin in Ward 5 and Stephen Kunselman in Ward 3 – has been ascribed partly to their support of keeping Argo Dam in place.

Questions to be Answered

In council deliberations on Monday, the focus could be on the the issue of process as opposed to the merits of the dam-in versus dam-out scenarios.

That’s because, from a short-term practical point of view, a consensus seems to have already emerged that the dam-in scenario is the favored option. As Sabra Briere (Ward 1) put it on Sept. 8, in the week prior to that briefing she’d sensed a shift from a question of whether to keep the dam or not to the question of who pays to mantain the dam. Together with Hieftje’s prediction that the dam would stay, this suggests an acknowledgement that the dam-in scenario has won the day. In that regard, it’s worth pointing out, however, that Rapundalo stressed at the Sunday caucus that the resolution would not preclude ongoing discussions by various environmental groups and that the dam’s removal was not being ruled out for all time.

Briere’s identification of the question on Sept. 8 of who pays was echoed Sunday evening by the watershed council’s Laura Rubin. She pointed out that the dam is currently maintained out of the water fund – something she suggested was probably illegal – and called for the cost to be transferred to parks and recreation where it belonged, because Argo Dam is a recreational dam. Rubin also pointed out that in two years, the dam is due for $250,000 worth of maintenance, a cost that needed to be factored into budget calculations.

Rubin also wanted to know how the legal action was being paid for, which the city was undertaking in the form of the contested order. Rapundalo speculated that it was coming from the city attorney office’s budget but said he’d look into that to get a definitive answer.

Summarizing some questions that might be given some clarity in the course of council deliberations on Monday:

• How will maintenance costs for Argo Dam be funded in the future?
• Have the piezometers yielded data that bears one way or another on the berm safety issue?
• What’s the formal status of the contested order with the MDEQ – has the order actually been contested to the full extent that it can be contested?
• How much has Bodman been paid already, and how much is the legal bill expected to be if the contested order continues to be pursued?
• Out of what fund is the legal fee being paid?

A photo op for students and teachers from Northside Elementary at the Michigan Theater. These fourth and fifth grade students had entries in the Millers Creek Film Festival.

It’s not an image you see on the big screen every day: Close-up shots of dogs pooping, and then of their turds being plopped into an otherwise clear glass of water.

Funny, memorable and making a point – this is what happens (albeit less graphically) when you don’t pick up your dog’s excrement and it finds its way into the Huron River watershed. And by making the point this way, Nani Wolf, a fifth grader at Emerson School, won an award at the 2009 Millers Creek Film Festival.

About 350 people gathered on Friday afternoon, March 13, to see the festival entries at the Michigan Theater. (If you missed it, the winners will eventually be posted on YouTube. Here’s a link to last year’s winners.)

The event, now in its fourth year, is a way for the nonprofit Huron River Watershed Council to promote the importance of stewardship to the river and its tributaries, including Millers Creek. The festival’s three categories are short films (less than five minutes) from adult filmmakers, short films from school-age filmmakers, and 30-second public service announcements.

During introductory remarks, HRWC board member Paul Cousins noted that Hollywood had recently been to his town of Dexter to shoot scenes for a movie (the Hilary Swank film “Betty Anne Waters” filmed at several locations in this area). More movies are being shot in the state because of tax credits that took effect last year, he told the audience, but “we’re way ahead of Michigan in films.”

In addition to Wolf, whose film was titled “You Love Your Dog,” two others were awarded “Millies” – in the form of a glass trophy – and a $500 cash prize. Winners included:

• “Runoff Lemonade,” by independent filmmaker Marty Stano, which won in the category of 30-second public service announcement.
• “60 Second PSA” by John Inwood, a film student at Washtenaw Community College. His short film, which won in the adult category, was about the importance of not dumping oil into the storm drain.

An honorable mention in the student category was awarded to “Mystery of the Dirty Storm Drain,” a claymation film about sewer drains made by fifth graders in Ralph Carnegie’s class at Northside Elementary. They received ice cream coupons from Washtenaw Dairy. Also awarded an honorable mention was Blair Neighbors for “Life is Hectic” in the 30-second PSA category. He received a gift donated by Grizzly Peak.

Judges for the awards were state Sen. Liz Brater of Ann Arbor; Chris Cook, a film writer and producer with Metrocom International; and Steve Francoeur of Eastern Michigan University’s Center for Aquatic Microbial Ecology.

A reception after the film viewing and awards included a table full of plates of homemade cookies baked by HRWC volunteers, which proved especially popular with those in the student-entry category.

Marty Stano won a "Millie" award at the Millers Creek Film Festival on March 13, for his film "Runoff Lemonade." Presenting the award were Joan Martin, festival director, and Laura Rubin, director of the Huron River Watershed Council.