Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

The proposal calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

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

The Upper Malletts Stormwater Conveyance Study, which is overseen by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, has identified three major projects to help manage stormwater and control flooding on the city’s southwest side. Two of those projects would affect local parks:

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

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

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, made a presentation to park commissioners on Oct. 15 and answered questions about the project, which is still in the planning phase.

The overall project would require city council approval, and it’s not yet clear when a proposal will be brought forward. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, characterized Sheehan’s presentation to PAC as informational, given the potential impact on some parks.

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

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

Ann Arbor city storm drain in action. (Chronicle file photo)

The meetings are part of a study of the Upper Malletts Creek watershed, being conducted by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner under an agreement with the city of Ann Arbor. The year-long study is supposed to culminate in a final report due to the Ann Arbor city council in February 2014. Water resources commissioner Evan Pratt was on hand at the meeting, along with other members of the project team.

In response to direction from a citizens advisory group that’s been formed for the project, the team used the March 14 meeting to introduce residents to the basic toolkit for stormwater management techniques. The general stormwater management practices described at the meeting – without trying to analyze which solutions might be appropriate for specific locations in the area – ranged from increasing the number of catch basins in streets to the construction of underground detention facilities.

At least 60 residents attended the meeting, and seemed generally receptive to the idea that some money might actually be spent on infrastructure projects to reduce flooding in their neighborhood: “If you want me to sign up for you breaking up my street and putting [stormwater management infrastructure] in there, just give me a consent form and I will sign it tonight!”

The project team is also still in a phase of gathering information about specific experiences that residents have had with past flooding problems. And the same technology platform – an online mapping tool – can be used by residents for logging future flooding events. For help in using a smart-phone app, one attendee volunteered her grandson “for rent” to other residents. Members of the project team also indicated they welcomed information submitted in any format – including letters, face-to-face conversation and phone calls.

But it was a missing follow-up phone call – expected from one resident who’d attended the first meeting on Jan. 29 – that indicated some continuing frustration about the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. The frustrated resident’s experience had been that after an FDD program sump pump was installed in his basement, he’d started having problems with a wet basement – problems he hadn’t experienced before. Project manager Harry Sheehan, with the county water resources commissioner’s office, extended an apology for the missed communication and an offer to arrange a site visit.

The FDD program removes a building’s footing drain connection to the sanitary sewer system and redirects that stormwater flow to the system designed to handle it – the stormwater system. The FDD program, which has been somewhat controversial, is not the focus of the Upper Malletts Creek study. But residents got an assurance that the additional volume of rainwater that goes into the stormwater system – as a result of the FDD program – would be accounted for in all the modeling that’s done as part of this study.

Meeting Overview, Context

This report begins with a legislative overview, and a summary of the introductory remarks from the March 14, 2013 meeting.

Overview: Precipitating Events, Funding

An arrangement for the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to study the Upper Malletts Creek area was authorized by the Ann Arbor city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting. The $200,000 cost of the study is to be paid for with city funds already held by the county water resources commissioner’s office.

The area to be studied, outlined in the agreement between the city and the water resources commissioner, included “the Malletts Creek Drain Drainage District in the Churchill Downs and Lansdowne sub-watershed areas.” Potential improvements mentioned in the agreement include detention, pipe upsizing, and green infrastructure.

Negotiations on that agreement with the water resources commissioner stemmed from a council resolution approved at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. That resolution directed city staff to start negotiations with the county to conduct the study.

The staff memo accompanying the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 resolution mentioned the heavy rains on March 15, 2012, which resulted in street flooding in that part of the city. The city council heard complaints from the public at its meetings after the flooding. A map of historical flooding in the city – obtained by The Chronicle through appeal of an initially-denied request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act – shows that respondents to a survey conducted in the mid-1990s reported they’d experienced street flooding in the same areas that the flooding occurred in the spring of 2012.

Residents at the March 14, 2013 meeting wanted to know how big the March 15, 2012 storm was – from an historical perspective. They noted that on Scio Church Road there was water running through the yard, which hadn’t happened in the previous 20 years.

Ron Hansen, a Spicer Group engineer who’s working on the project, said that given the magnitude of the flooding, it was a very historic event. For many people, it was the most significant flooding they’d ever seen. But he’d heard from other people who said they’d had numerous floods over the last 20-30 years. The rainfall amount on March 15, 2012 was in the range of 1.7 or 1.8 inches in a two-hour period, Hansen reported. That doesn’t mean that the intensity over every house was the same as the intensity measured by the rain gauges, he allowed. And it was in the springtime, when the ground doesn’t absorb as much water – so you get more runoff.

Some frustration about the number of studies that have been done over the years was expressed at the March 14 meeting. And water resources commissioner Evan Pratt led off his introductory remarks at the meeting with an acknowledgment of that sentiment, noting that some attendees might be thinking, “Oh no, another study!”

Overview: March 14, 2013 Meeting Intro

Pratt asked for a show of hands of the roughly 60 residents in attendance – for those who’d attended the Jan. 29 meeting. From that he concluded that there were enough new attendees that it would be worth reviewing some of the information presented at that meeting.

He told the residents that they were in the right place if they wanted to stay engaged and help the project team work toward figuring out some real improvements that could be made so they didn’t have the same problems that they’d experienced last year on March 15, 2012, when there was so much flooding in the streets and in the yards.

Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Pratt allowed that he’d only been water resources commissioner for a few months, but told the group that he had been working on residential flooding issues for about 25 years. [Pratt was elected in November 2012 and took office at the start of 2013.]

One thing he’s learned in that experience, Pratt said, is that the residents at the meeting still know more than he and the consultants do about the problems in their neighborhood. His team is still trying to understand where the problems were and how bad they were on March 15, 2012. He ventured that they had a pretty good handle on it from previous data collected, supplemented by information collected at the Jan. 29 meeting – but the project team is still collecting information. He also offered to arrange that evening to visit anyone’s property if that’s what they wanted.

He ventured that those in attendance would like to head home and say, “Man, we’re done! I understand exactly how everything’s going to get fixed and there’ll never be water in the yard or in the street!” That’s not something he could promise that night, or at the end of the study, he allowed. But the project team would figure out some positive solutions so that if it rains again like it did a year before, residents wouldn’t see the same severity of the problem.

Besides Pratt, other members of the project team introduced at the start of the meeting included employees of the Spicer Group, the engineering consulting firm hired for the study: Ron Hansen, a professional engineer and surveyor; Tim Inman, who works with GIS mapping; and Steve Roznowski, a design engineer.

Handling communications, website and media work on the project are Josh Hovey, a vice president of Truscott Rossman and Lauren Zdeba, an account executive with the same firm. Hovey noted that the location of the meeting, Lawton Elementary, was Zdeba’s old elementary school – so she’d grown up in the neighborhood. [Responding to a query from The Chronicle about the school's mascot, Zdeba confirmed it was the Lawton Leopards. "Our rivals were the Dicken Dolphins!" she said, referring to the elementary school in the neighborhood just to the north.]

Project manager for the Upper Mallets Creek study is Harry Sheehan, with the water resources commissioner’s office. Also on hand at the meeting were city of Ann Arbor employees Cresson Slotten and Jennifer Lawson. Slotten is an engineer and manager of the city’s systems planning department, while Lawson is water resources manager with the city.

In his remarks toward the start of the meeting, Sheehan said the goal of the project is to manage stormwater better and reduce flooding: ” … essentially what we’re looking to do is take a look at what happened on March 15, 2012 and provide solutions to make the effects of that storm much more manageable.”

Overview: Stormwater Management Toolkit

Ron Hansen, engineer with the Spicer Group, described how the goal of the engineering study is to develop a recommended plan that could be implemented to reduce the probability of flooding.

Ron Hansen with the Spicer Group.

The study would eventually identify the estimated cost of the recommended actions and weigh that against the benefit, he said. “It would nice to say we’re going to build a system that is so big that it’ll never flood again, but the reality of it is that would be cost prohibitive. When it comes to rainfall, there’s always the bigger and badder storm.” There’s always a chance of flooding, he said.

He also stressed that the solutions to be recommended should not adversely impact downstream property owners. The goal is not to push the problem downstream, but rather to manage the water within the study area, so that the flooding problems within the study area could be addressed without creating new problems downstream.

The goals are also to implement solutions that maintain or improve water quality, he said. Some of the solutions, he continued, would involve “hard engineering” approaches like installing new pipes. Other approaches are “softer” – such as installing rain gardens and infiltration-based systems. The key is to maintain and enhance water quality, he said. The recommendation should also be sustainable for the longer term – which means that it should be low maintenance.

Hansen then walked the March 14 attendees through a range of options for stormwater infrastructure:

• catchbasin enhancements
• street maintenance
• clean/repair existing drainage infrastructure
• enhance/modify existing detention management
• construct new surface stormwater detention
• construct new underground stormwater detention
• upsize/enhance storm sewer capacity
• bio-retention/rain gardens

He noted that they’d begin with low-cost options, like evaluating catch basins in streets, allowing that these might have a low impact as well.

He also described high-cost options like building underground detention facilities – which he described as big underground concrete boxes – or tearing up streets and backyards. He thought it was likely that some of that type of work might be called for, but the question is where to implement those solutions. And the location and type of facility would depend on the outcome of the engineering analysis and modeling of the study.

Along with the “hard engineering” approaches, Hansen indicated that “softer” approaches – like rain gardens – would be included in the options as well. Softer approaches would be included more than likely in addition to, not instead of, some of the harder engineering approaches, he said.  He drew laughs from the audience when he said: “My gut feeling is you can’t solve this problem with rain gardens.”

Geographic Area of the Study

Harry Sheehan oriented the audience to the area of the study – the northwestern portion of Mallets Creek. He pointed out how I-94 crosses through the area of study. He ventured that most of the attendees at the meeting that night were probably from the city of Ann Arbor, but pointed out that the Mallets Creek watershed, and the area of the study, goes quite a ways past I-94, into the townships. It reaches all the way to The Uplands, he said, west of I-94 and up toward Stadium Boulevard, and in the upper righthand corner of the study area is part of the Pioneer High School property.

Malletts Creek “smart map” showing the study area.

The blue line is Mallets Creek, Sheehan said. Describing Malletts heading upstream (from east to west), Sheehan note that at Landsdowne the creek is open water. But after it crosses 7th Street, it’s a piped system – continuing between Moorhead and Delaware, and across Churchill. It then makes a bend and goes through some backyards on the other side of Churchill Downs near Steeplechase, then goes through Churchill Downs Park. That’s where it opens up, he explained. There are two tributaries that split up in Churchill Downs Park – one of them goes north and one of them goes west, down by the Ice Cube and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Within the study area, the project team has mapped out areas of known flooding, based on previous information, but also based on information gathered at the first meeting on Jan. 29, Sheehan said.

He pointed out that while there had clearly been problems in the southeastern portion of the study area, that was not the only location.

Sheehan also pointed to problems that had been logged on Chaucer Court and up by the service drive on Scio Church Road. There were clearly a lot of locations to look at, he said.

All the red dots on the “smart map” reflect problems reported to the project team at the Jan. 29 meeting, he said. That first public meeting on Jan. 29 was spent primarily collecting that kind of information from residents who attended, Sheehan said. The information would be used to create a model that accurately represents the events of March 15, 2012, and that can be manipulated to model solutions to managing the stormwater.

From the audience came a request that Sheehan define “flooding” – as it was including in the annotations on the map where problems had been identified. As a definition of flooding for the purposes of the study, Sheehan offered: “If the piped system is overwhelmed or surcharged, and the water exits the piped system onto the street and the yards, or if … the water is not able to get into the system.”

By way of additional background, the Washtenaw County online GIS mapping system includes a number of different layers, including aerial photography, topography, flood plains and drains. The following images derive at least in part from that system.

Study “smart map” overlaid on 1940 historical aerial photography. (Illustration by The Chronicle.)

Malletts Creek topographical map.

Malletts Creek historical map

Geographic Area: West of I-94, Detention Ponds

Ron Hansen responded to a question from a resident about the part of the study area that’s west of I-94. The resident wondered if the drainage from that area were eliminated, would it reduce the flooding in the triangle of Scio Church Road, Main Street and I-94?

Hansen said he didn’t have the exact answer to that. The resident gave some further background for his question, noting there’s not a lot of open land within the city limits to create stormwater detention facilities. Even if the school yard at Lawton Elementary were torn up, “that wouldn’t give you what you want,” he ventured. But on the other side of I-94 there’s a lot of open land, he said. He asked if the project team was considering underground detention or detention ponds for that area. On the opposite side of I-94 is one place where those kinds of projects could be undertaken, he felt. The resident ventured that imminent domain would have to be invoked for many of the possible sites, because they’re on private land.

Harry Sheehan allowed that if you remove water from the system or you delay its entry into the system, that will have an impact. So large-scale stormwater facilities and large-scale rain gardens – which is to say, wetlands – are something that could be contemplated in the area west of I-94. Whether eminent domain would have to be used wasn’t clear, he continued, pointing out that there is some public right-of-way and land that can be purchased. There are also some smaller pockets within the city boundary, he pointed out, such as the area just north of Churchill Downs up by Scio Church Road, where the open channel of the creek runs.

The audience member followed up by saying he was a big fan of detention ponds – because he lives next to one, which is bounded by Scio Church, 7th Street and Greenview. Most of the runoff in the neighborhood runs off into that detention pond, he said. During the dry season, the pond level is down and during the rainy season it’s up. The detention pond controls the water in his immediate neighborhood, so he felt the same solution would work in many others. Hansen added that detention could be feasible, but the concept of diverting or shutting the water off is not too feasible – because if you diverted the water coming from west of I-94, that would push it onto somebody else’s property.

Responding to a question about how many acre-feet of detention ponds would be required, Hansen said that’s one of the questions the project team is studying. The goal is eventually to be able to answer all the questions like that – but they wouldn’t be able to provide answers that evening. The final report on the project will be done in February 2014. It will take time to calculate the acre-feet. It’ll take time to identify where feasible stormwater detention facilities could be placed.

Right now the team is still partly in the information-gathering phase, Hansen explained. The team is also starting to do its modeling and monitoring work. After that is done, the team will begin the preliminary analysis phase. At that point they’ll be able to make statements like: If we put 20 acre-feet of detention at this location, here’s the level of service you’d get. That answer is still a few months in the future, he cautioned. He described five or six additional neighborhood meetings that would take place from now through February 2014.

Stormwater Improvements Funding

Residents at the March 14 meeting wanted to know if funding would be forthcoming and when it would be forthcoming.

Stormwater Improvements Funding: Utility Fees, CIP

Harry Sheehan indicated that the funding stream for the city of Ann Arbor is set by the stormwater utility rate that shows up in your water bill. His own stormwater utility bill is about $25 a quarter, he said. In the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), Sheehan explained, the first two years are budgeted. The funding from the stormwater utility fee would come as projects are defined in connection with the Malletts Creek study and placed in the CIP over the course of the next few months. Within the CIP, projects are prioritized, he said, and those that are prioritized for the first two years of the CIP would be budgeted.

The number of projects that are programmed in the first two years of the CIP are those than can be afforded with funds from the current stormwater utility, Sheehan said. It’s been possible to double the amount of projects undertaken, because the city and county use the state’s revolving loan fund, and some grant money that goes along with that. A couple of projects that will include stormwater management components are already budgeted in the neighborhood within the current two-year CIP cycle: Scio Church Road from 7th to Main Street; and 7th Street from Scio Church Road to Greenview.

From the funding summary of the CIP [both projects are scheduled for funding in FY 2016]:

UT-ST-14-13 Scio Church Storm Sewer Improvements (Main to 7th) $750,000
UT-ST-14-22 S 7th (Greenview to Scio Church) $650,000

-
For other projects, Sheehan described how deeper soil borings can be done to find out exactly where the groundwater is, relative to the surface, and to locate any sand seams.

By way of additional background on groundwater, it’s measured on a regular basis at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. In the last 10 years, it’s shown a rising trend – something that factored into a recent discussion by the city’s park advisory commission on issues like the location of a tennis court in Windemere Park. Daily measurements from 1963 through 2012 are available on the USGS website. [Google Spreadsheet and interactive graph]

Groundwater levels measured at Ann Arbor municipal airport since 1963.

Sheehan described collecting video data from the storm sewers and capturing flow data, so it can be determined how much water needs to be stored at different locations throughout the neighborhood.

Stormwater Improvements Funding: Street Projects

Earlier in the meeting, Sheehan had pointed out that the road right-of-way represents an opportunity for stormwater management. Streets have a useful life, and when they have to be reconstructed, that’s a chance to increase the size of the detention and conveyance system underneath the street, he explained.

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

If that kind of stormwater improvement is part of a street reconstruction project, Sheehan explained, it can earn the project additional points in the priority rating system used in the city of Ann Arbor’s capital improvements plan (CIP). If a street needs to be reconstructed because the road surface needs to be replaced – which is typically why a street would be replaced, he noted – it will be placed in the CIP. But if there’s utility work that needs to be done as well, that accelerates the street project within the CIP.

Underneath the roadway, Sheehan said that improvements would be made by installing larger-sized pipes or underground storage – similar to what would ordinarily be found in porous pavement systems. If there’s water coming under the street from another neighborhood, you might not be able to store it all, he said, but you might be able to put in some swirl concentrators to remove some of the pollutants in the water. Those are the kinds of stormwater management systems that would be deployed under roadways.

Responding to a follow-up question from the audience, Sheehan described how anytime there is a street reconstruction project, the different components of the project are funded by their respective funds – street reconstruction, sanitary sewer work, drinking water and stormwater. Only the part of a street reconstruction project that can be associated with stormwater management is paid for out of the stormwater utility, Sheehan explained.

Stormwater Improvements Funding: Can Money Be Spent?

An additional follow-up question focused on the city policy for expenditures on stormwater improvements: Was it the case that money was not being spent on stormwater improvements in this part of town, because they were considered speculative investments – and for that reason they weren’t going to get done? The question was prompted by an Ann Arbor Chronicle report of a May 11, 2011 briefing that systems planning engineer Cresson Slotten had given the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s partnerships committee. In that briefing, Slotten had explained that the basic utility rates could not fund replacement of utility systems before they’d reached the end of their useful life – things like upsizing water mains to support future development.

Cresson Slotten, manager of the city of Ann Arbor’s systems planning unit.

Sheehan gave an assurance that money is being spent every day on stormwater improvements. A project is being done right now on Traver Creek, he said. Four road projects are planned for this construction season in the city that have stormwater management components, he pointed out. It’s not accurate to say that money is not being spent on stormwater improvements, Sheehan said.

The response from the questioner was that it’s music to his ears to hear that stormwater utility money can actually be spent on stormwater improvements: “If you want me to sign up for you breaking up my street and putting something in there, just give me a consent form and I will sign it tonight! You can put it in my backyard – you can put it anywhere you like!”

Stormwater Management Codes

At the March 14 meeting, Cresson Slotten – an engineer and manager of the city’s systems planning unit – was challenged by a resident to describe what the city has done to keep more rainwater from “washing down into this neighborhood.” The resident wanted to know: What have you done? What laws have you put in place?

Slotten explained that in terms of ordinances, rules and regulations, Chapter 63 of the city code is the part that deals with stormwater management. The chapter overall deals with soil erosion, Slotten explained, but a key piece of soil erosion is stormwater and stormwater management. He reported that the first piece of Chapter 63 was put in place in 1979, but since that time, it’s gone through a tremendous evolution. In the 26 years Slotten has worked for the city, he said, it’s been revised at least five times.

By way of illustration, Chapter 63 includes different requirements for on-site stormwater detention, depending on the amount of impervious surface in the project:

Sites proposed to contain:
(i) Impervious surfaces greater than 5,000 square feet and less than 10,000 square feet require retention/infiltration only of the first flush storm events.
(ii) Impervious surfaces equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet and less than 15,000 square feet require retention/infiltration only of the first flush and detention only of bankfull storm events.
(iii) Impervious surfaces equal to or greater than 15,000 square feet require retention/infiltration of the first flush, and detention of bankfull, and 100-year storm event. Detention facilities designed for the 100-year storm event shall include a sediment forebay.

Slotten explained that when a new project is proposed – a new office plaza or a new subdivision – the project must include the required stormwater management facilities to hold the water and to slow it down. To illustrate, he described a little neighborhood on the north side of Scio Church Road for which he’d done the stormwater review back in 1988 or 1989. It was a development with about a dozen single-family homes. A certain amount of stormwater detention was required on the site, he said. The amount of impervious surface was calculated – for the driveways, the roof area, and the little road. From that amount of surface, the required stormwater detention was calculated. Responding to a question from the audience, Slotten said it was not “just a guess” but rather had been calculated out by engineers.

Slotten also noted that in the townships, similar rules apply. Washtenaw County also has a set of stormwater regulations, he said, which the city has now adopted. The resident who’d prompted Slotten’s description of the regulations ventured: “These rules don’t work.” Slotten responded by saying that’s why they continue to evolve.

Footing Drain Disconnect (FDD) Program

From the audience at the March 14, 2013 meeting, some questions arose about the city of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnect program.

FDD Program: Background

The city of Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater conveyance systems.

Where rain goes: 70% runs off, and 23% soaks in, becomes part of underground flows or is absorbed by vegetation. It’s the remaining 7% of the rainwater that causes a problem for the sanitary sewer system – because the sanitary system is not designed to handle that kind of volume. (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

However, during construction of new developments before 1980, footing drains – permeable pipes buried around the perimeter of a foundation, roughly at the depth of a basement floor – were frequently connected directly to the sanitary sewer pipes. Those connections were convenient to make, because the footing drains and the sanitary sewers are buried at roughly the same depth.

However, during very heavy rains, that configuration leads to a volume of stormwater flow into the sanitary sewer system that it’s not designed to handle. That can cause two problems.

First, near the point where the extra water is entering the sanitary system, it can cause raw sewage to back up through the floor drains of basements.

Second, farther downstream at the wastewater treatment plant, the amount of water flowing into the plant can exceed the plant’s capacity. That can result in only partially-treated wastewater being discharged into the Huron River.

It was wastewater discharges into the river that led the city to agree to an administrative consent order with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to establish a way to offset the impact of new connections to the sanitary system required by new developments.

Footing drain disconnect (FDD) priority area in the southwest of Ann Arbor. Other priority areas, where nearly all the disconnections have been completed, lie in the northeast part of the city. The area of study for the Upper Malletts Creek study overlaps a large part of the FDD priority area. (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

That program essentially requires developers who are building projects that place additional burdens on the sanitary sewer system to pay for a number of footing drain disconnections elsewhere in the city, according to a formula. A city council resolution from Aug. 18, 2003 authorized the consent order with the MDEQ.

The footing drain disconnect program was targeted initially in five neighborhoods that accounted for about half of all reported basement sewage backups.

Since implementation, 2,538 footing drains have been disconnected, including nearly all of the houses in three of the five neighborhoods. In the two other areas, between 55% and 60% of footing drains have been disconnected.

The city council decided on Sept. 17, 2012 to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnect program.

And at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the city council authorized a roughly $1 million study of Ann Arbor’s sanitary sewer flows – meant to assess the impact of the decade-long footing drain disconnect program. The point of the study is to see how well the FDD program has worked: Has it had more impact or less impact than expected? Have residents’ preferences changed with respect to how they’d like to see the issue addressed?

The decision to suspend the FDD program came in the context of complaints from residents in the area of the current Malletts Creek study – about overland flooding in spring of 2012 as well as earlier.

The FDD procedure includes the installation of a sump to collect water from the footing drains – which previously fed into the sanitary system – and a pump to move the water from the sump to the stormwater system. And in some cases, the pumps were reportedly not able to keep up with the influx into the footing drains. In other cases, the discharge of the pumps reportedly exacerbated the overland flooding.

FDD Program: Increased Challenge for Stormwater Management?

Responding to a question from the March 14 audience, Ron Hansen said the impact of FDD is being considered as part of the Upper Mallets Creek study. He couldn’t, at this point, say if the FDD program is impacting the stormwater system. He hoped to be able to provide more information at upcoming meetings.

Evan Pratt also responded to the question, saying that regardless of what you think of the FDD program, there’s a sense that if the stormwater pipe is already full, then the water volumes associated with the FDD program don’t really matter – whether it’s a small or large amount that’s being pulled out of the sanitary system and put into the stormwater system. If the pipe is already full, then all of that FDD amount – whatever it is – will not fit into the stormwater pipe, Pratt said. He assured the audience that the study would calculate the FDD amount, and the design of improvements would consider how much water is getting moved from the sanitary system into the stormwater system. “That will absolutely be considered,” he concluded.

Responding to a follow-up question, Pratt indicated his understanding was that the city of Ann Arbor had placed a moratorium on the FDD program. But he noted that a certain number of disconnections had already been done under the FDD program. Pratt said the project team would work hard with the citizens advisory committee to get a clear consensus on the calculated amount of additional FDD water that’s being pushed into the storm drain – over and above what comes off the surface runoff. The design improvements will need to account for that amount, too. Like Hansen, Pratt indicated that he couldn’t at this point say if it’s a huge number or a little number – but in general he didn’t feel like it was an amount that should overwhelm the system.

Related to that, Pratt noted that there was overland flooding in the area before the FDD program was implemented in the early 2000s. It’s the project team’s understanding that during heavy rains in 1971, for example, water flowed down Churchill and Wiltshire streets. But he allowed that the additional FDD flow into the stormwater system was a legitimate concern: If the pipes are full, then any amount of water makes the problem that much worse.

FDD Program: Developer Mitigation

Cresson Slotten of the city’s systems planning unit was called on by a resident in the audience to explain the FDD credit system for developer offset mitigation. Slotten responded by explaining the formula for the developer mitigation program. The formula requires that for every 1,000 gallons of additional sanitary sewer flow a new development might cause, that amount plus 20% – or 1,200 gallons – has to be mitigated by performing footing drain disconnection elsewhere in the city.

Although some dissatisfaction was expressed with the amount of detail provided about the credit system, the resident seemed content to leave the issue for another time.

FDD Program: No Follow-up Phone Call

One resident at the March 14 meeting expressed concern about his experience with the FDD program. Since an FDD sump pump had been installed, he said, his basement gets wet even with routine rainfall. He’d attended the Jan. 29 meeting, and talked to a number of people who’d assured him they’d make a follow-up call: “You know who I heard from? Nobody.”

Harry Sheehan recalled talking with the resident, saying that he’d spoken to the resident and to three other people. He’d wanted to get the resident’s address, to compare it to the database of complaints logged before the FDD program was started. That database goes back to the early 1950s.

Flooding complaint map plotting data as far back as the 1950s. Each black dot is a complaint that was logged about water.

Sheehan said if he’d told the resident he’d follow up with a phone call, that was Sheehan’s error. He’d just wanted to see if there was a complaint prior to the FDD program for any of the four addresses that fit the category of apparently new wet basement problems arising after the FDD program. None of them had a history of prior complaints, Sheehan reported.

Sheehan also recalled talking to the resident about having an engineer come out to the resident’s property. If the resident still wanted to have an engineer come out, Sheehan still wanted to do that. Sheehan apologized for not making the follow-up connection. The resident responded: “You’re going to have a pretty big problem if you don’t call me and my basement floods. I’ve been struggling with this too long, and every meeting I come to I get madder and madder.”

Next Steps?

The project team described next steps, but residents were also interested in finding out if there’s anything they could do immediately to help improve the situation.

Next Steps: Immediate

Some residents wanted to know what could be done right now. Evan Pratt acknowledged that any projects that eventually could be implemented would not be started now, or even in February 2014, when the report was due. As he’d walked through some of the areas of the neighborhood, he’d thought that in some places maybe a big landscape berm could work, but he wasn’t really sure if that would be a good idea.

Harry Sheehan described the March 15, 2012 storm as a 10-year storm in engineering terms. And he said that as the days go by, this area is getting out of a window when rain might be falling on partially frozen and saturated ground. Still, residents wanted to know what they could to mitigate damage, if a similar storm were to strike this year.

Sheehan told residents there were a limited number of things that could be done. If a catch basin on the street is blocked, for example, that could be cleared. He told residents that if they weren’t able to do that themselves, to give his office a call.

Next Steps: Study Process

Sheehan described some of the next steps, including soil borings and flow monitoring, knocking on doors and collecting additional information.

Upper Malletts Creek study timeframe.

Soil boring data, including groundwater levels, will be collected as soon as the weather warms up a bit, Sheehan said. The information collected to date will then be compiled into a draft alternatives analysis to put out to residents and the citizens advisory committee. “It will be rough, but it will be more spelled out than what you’re seeing here, which is just categorical management practices.”

More numbers will be crunched based on reaction to that draft analysis. At that point, a revised draft will be created that will be roughly 90% complete. That version will include some associated costs and expected impact of the improvements. Another public meeting will take place to discuss that draft, he said. After that, a draft of the final report will be made and a public meeting will be held to get feedback on the report. A final report will be made by February 2014, and a public meeting will be held on that final report before it’s forwarded to the Ann Arbor city council.

Sheehan stressed that feedback can also be provided along the way by email if people get tired of attending the public meetings.

The Chronicle could not keep its head above water without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public issues like stormwater management. 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!

The entrance to Washtenaw County's DeVine Preserve on West Liberty Road in Scio Township, part of the natural areas preservation program. It is adjacent to other property that the county parks and recreation commission might buy with NAPP millage proceeds. (Photos by the writer.)

Much of the discussion related to NAPP, including a proposed ordinance change to increase the proportion of funds that can be used for maintaining (as opposed to purchasing) property for natural areas or land preserves. The change would allow the county to set aside up to 25% of annual millage proceeds for stewardship, a significant increase from the 7% currently allowed under the NAPP ordinance. NAPP is funded by a 10-year, 0.25 mill tax that voters first approved in 2000 and renewed in 2010. It generates about $3.2 million in annual revenues.

Commissioners authorized staff to pursue the NAPP ordinance change, which would need to be approved by the county board of commissioners. A June 7 board working session is scheduled on the topic. If approved, WCPARC staff estimate they could set aside enough to build a $6 million fund by 2020, when the current NAPP millage ends.

The commission also approved two new NAPP purchases: (1) $75,000 for the Malikah Muhammad property, 20 acres in Scio Township adjacent to the county’s existing DeVine Preserve; and (2) $245,250 for 33 acres in Northfield  Township owned by J.A. Bloch, contingent on partnering with the Ann Arbor greenbelt program for a portion of the cost.

Related to a project on the east side of the county, commissioners approved a $10,000 payment toward planning for the Eastern County Recreation Center on Ypsilanti’s Water Street site. WCPARC had been briefed on the project at its April 2012 meeting. The planning will be guided by faculty at the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, who will lead a team of six students in developing a conceptual plan for the rec center by the end of December. A grant from UM will pick up $30,000 of the estimated $40,000 in planning expenses.

The commission also got updates on a range of projects, including completion of the extensive Malletts Creek bank stabilization at the County Farm Park, and the receipt of bids for design of the Ann Arbor skatepark, which WCPARC is helping to fund.

Natural Areas Preservation: New Purchases

Two proposed new purchases from proceeds of the natural areas preservation program millage had been given preliminary approval by commissioners at earlier meetings. Tom Freeman, recently retired as WCPARC’s associate director and currently serving as a consultant, made reports on the proposed purchases.

Natural Areas Preservation: New Purchases – Malikah Muhammad Property

The first is the Malikah Muhammad property, 20 acres in Scio Township on the north side of Liberty Road west of Zeeb Road. [Stags Leap, a private road that runs south of Liberty, is at approximately the middle of the property.] The natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC) and several WCPARC staff visited the site several times, and on Nov. 8, 2011, NATAC identified the property as a high priority for acquisition.

Freeman described the property’s several significant features. Honey Creek bisects the property from north to south, flowing into the adjacent DeVine Preserve, which forms a dogleg to the east and north of the Muhammad property. The creek banks are in good condition, as is the creek itself, which is filled with very clear high quality water, Freeman reported. And, he said, the adjacency to the DeVine Preserve is an important feature – there is documented presence of a Native American trail close to, if not right on, the property. Freeman showed slides of the property, and commission members received a road map, an aerial photo, and a topographical map of the site.

The three steps required for due diligence are done, Freeman reported: Bosserd Appraisal Service appraised the property at $75,000 ($3,750/acre); Mannik & Smith Group did a Phase 1 environmental site assessment and found no recognized environmental condition on the property; and there is a boundary survey, including a legal description and certified survey drawing. [On Liberty Road, the property can currently be identified by pink survey tapes at the east and west edges.]

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the motion to authorize purchase of the Muhammad property in Scio Township at a price of $75,000 (approximately $3,750 per acre).

Natural Areas Preservation: New Purchases – J.A. Bloch Property

The second recommended property acquisition coming to the commission on the recommendation of NATAC was a property owned by J.A. Bloch & Co., a land development firm based in Southfield. The 33-acre site in Northfield Township is on the north side of Joy Road east of US-23 and west of Gleaner Hall Road. Freeman noted that Joe Bloch, the firm’s owner, was nearing retirement. [As background, WCPARC records show the purchase of at least four other properties from Bloch, including 23 acres in Ann Arbor Township (across Joy Road and slightly to the east of the Northfield Township site) that WCPARC voted to purchase at its April meeting. At that same meeting, commissioners had given initial approval to buy the Northfield Township property, too.]

The Bloch parcel under consideration is primarily in active agricultural use, Freeman said. It has the advantage of lying directly on the east side of the Northfield Woods Preserve. Its most significant natural feature is a stream corridor, which crosses the property from west to east and then continues south along the eastern border. It contains five wetland areas, he said, two of which are associated with the stream corridor.

NATAC’s report noted “the corridor offers a chance to establish a trail connection between Northfield Woods Preserve and a nearby parcel scheduled for purchase later this month,” and that the acquisition of this Bloch property “offers the chance to connect over 100 acres of protected property.” In addition, Freeman said that the area immediately east may become available for a conservation easement. Finally, Freeman said that the Ann Arbor greenbelt program has indicated interest in contributing 25% of the acquisition cost of the Bloch property.

Freeman showed slides of the property, and went over the road, aerial, and topographic maps in the commissioners’ packets.

The three steps in due diligence are done, Freeman reported, at the expense of the property owner. Bosserd Appraisal Services identified a value of $245,250, or approximately $7,500/acre. Freeman noted this is consistent with the price paid for the Bloch parcel on the south side of Joy Road. Mannik & Smith carried out a Phase 1 environmental site assessment and found no recognized environmental condition. There is a boundary survey including legal description and certified survey drawing.

Before the vote, commissioner Dan Smith noted that this section of the county seemed to be the most valuable, and that he represents it. [Smith serves on the county board of commissioners and represents District 2, in the northeast corner of the county]. That prompted commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman – who also serves on the county board, representing one of the four Ann Arbor districts – to joke that “if we buy enough property out there he’ll run out of voters.”

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the motion to authorize purchase of the J.A. Bloch & Co. property in Northfield Township at a price of $245,500, contingent upon execution of a participation agreement with the city of Ann Arbor detailing its contribution to the cost of acquisition.

Natural Areas Preservation: Stewardship Fund

Bob Tetens, county parks and recreation director, introduced this topic by describing his “recurring nightmare” – that WCPARC acquired acres and acres of land to preserve, but then became unable to maintain it. “What if a millage isn’t renewed?” he speculated, or “what if the county commissioners for whatever reason decided not to ask for a millage renewal?” He then turned the podium over to Tom Freeman to describe the proposed solution: creating a fund that could function like an endowment to support maintenance of the county’s natural areas.

Freeman first provided background. NAPP began in 2000 with the passage of County Ordinance 128 by the county board of commissioners, and a voter-approved 10-year, 0.25 mill dedicated tax to support the program. Voters first approved the millage in 2000 and renewed it in 2010. The county board of commissioners has charged WCPARC with implementing the purchase and management of the protected lands. The ordinance states NAPP’s purpose this way:

The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners declares that Washtenaw County is a desirable place to live, work and visit in large part because of the existence of natural areas within the County. Natural areas have aesthetic as well as practical benefits for County citizens. In addition, the purchase of natural areas can be used to protect fragile lands and environmentally threatened lands. The purchase of natural areas within the County will further these public benefits. Passive recreation would be appropriate use of this land.

So far, the county has purchased over 2,300 acres of land through NAPP (out of 9,077 acres nominated for the program) in 22 new nature preserves. Freeman said that implementing the program “has established strong working relationships with many of the communities within Washtenaw County and with the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy and the Legacy Land Conservancy.” And, he said, the properties “contain many unique areas with critical habitat for birds, animals and plants.”

A side issue developed at this point when commissioner Fred Veigel asked “Why is there no fishing in the preserves? Don’t you need to fish to keep the fish population in control?” Tetens first responded “it’s in the ordinance,” and then agreed that “this is something staff would look into.” Veigel, who also serves on the county road commission, asked that they look into hunting as well, since he feels there are too many deer on some of the properties. [The NAPP ordinance, in the paragraph describing NAPP's purpose (see above), seems to address the matter: "Passive recreation would be appropriate use of the land."]

Freeman then got to the crux of the potential problem: “Establishing these new nature preserves creates a corresponding growth in responsibility for the care and management of the properties, which requires significant resources.” These responsibilities include making and implementing a stewardship plan to provide for “maintenance of trails and boardwalks; monitoring of plant and animal species; habitat restoration including planting of native species; and control of invasive species through prescribed burns and manual removal.”

Freeman moved to the financial aspect of the situation, focusing on the second paragraph of Section 8 of the ordinance [emphasis added]:

The revenues from the deposit and/or investment of the Acquisition Fund along with the revenues from the sale of any natural areas property purchased pursuant to this Ordinance shall be applied and used solely for the purchase of natural areas land (75%) and agricultural development rights (25%) under this Ordinance, provided, however, that no more than 7% of increased millage funds used to purchase land under this Ordinance may be used annually to administer a land preservation program or maintain lands purchased under this Ordinance.

[The projected annual revenue from the 0.25 mill for NAPP is $3.2 million. Of that, 75% is for natural areas purchases ($2.4 million), with 25% for farmland preservation ($800,000), via conservation easements. Prior to 2010, the natural areas ordinance allowed for outright acquisition of land, but not for the purchase of development rights (PDR). PDR is a common mechanism for protecting farmland, letting landowners keep their property for farming but preventing – via a conservation easement – its development. In May of 2010, the county board approved an ordinance revision that incorporated farmland into the county’s natural areas preservation program and clarified the use of PDR for that purpose.

Currently, 93% of the NAPP millage proceeds are used for acquisition of natural areas or conservation easements on agricultural land. The remaining 7% is for stewardship, management, monitoring, maintenance and other oversight.]

Freeman told commissioners that the millage generates $2.4 million for the purchase of natural areas, including about $160,000 (or roughly 7% of $2.4 million) to pay for maintenance. This is enough, he said, to cover the costs of staff who perform the stewardship activities: a naturalist and a park maintenance worker, assisted by two seasonal staff, and other costs such as equipment, supplies and travel.

While the current situation is acceptable, Freeman pointed out two ways in which it is not sustainable.

Tom Freeman gave a presentation at the May 8, 2012 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission about a possible ordinance change related to the county's natural areas preservation program. Freeman recently retired as WCPARC's associate director and is currently serving as a consultant.

First, NAPP continues to make new acquisitions, which must be maintained. Freeman estimated the annual cost of maintaining purchases during the life of the current millage – through 2020 – would be about $240,000. That is, to provide care and maintenance for both current and future properties, WCPARC will need 2.8 full-time permanent staff members and 4 full-time seasonal workers (for 9 months of the year). To arrive at this number, Freeman said, he had consulted with the city of Ann Arbor and Oakland County.

The second danger is “the risk that the existing millage may not be renewed, and without a source of funding, the long-term sustainability of NAPP and the nature preserves it has established is uncertain,” he said.

Freeman then outlined the solution: “establishment of a dedicated reserve that could support a NAPP stewardship program.” As his written report described it, “once established at the necessary level, annual income could be generated similar to that which would be realized from an endowment fund. The principal of the fund would not be spent but would be used solely as the income through earnings generated by interest and dividends.”

[Ordinance 128 requires that "funding for the purchase of natural areas land shall be deposited in a special fund in the office of the Washtenaw County Treasurer...and may be temporarily deposited in such institutions or invested in such obligations as may be lawful for the investment of County money."]

Freeman proposed establishing such a fund “by changing the allocation of 7% of the millage for stewardship to 25%,” which would at present “generate approximately $600,000 per year. After using $240,000 for ongoing [stewardship] activities, $360,000 would remain to be invested in the dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.” Freeman went on to say that by 2020, when the current millage expires, the dedicated reserve would total $6 million.

To clarify the source of the $6 million, Tetens responded to an email query from The Chronicle after the meeting. He noted that the last year for revenue from the 2010 NAPP renewal millage would be 2021. That means there would be nine years with the new ratio of 25% – if approved – and one year (2012) at the current 7%. WCPARC anticipates additional revenue from interest on the principal, and assumes that property values will increase slightly over the term of the millage. Also, he wrote, “similar to our experience during the first ten years, we might receive donations or secure grants to supplement the fund. Six million dollars is our goal, and we think it’s very realistic.”

The Chronicle asked Tetens whether there were any limits on the amount of money that could be accumulated in this manner. He said there are not. Tetens also indicated that there is no specific long-term goal for the amount of land to be acquired through the NAPP program. “What we buy depends on the quality of land, water, and other criteria” in the ordinance, he wrote.

At WCPARC’s May 8 meeting, Freeman told commissioners that “looking ahead, if NAPP had 4,000 acres, we need to be able to maintain that.”

Natural Areas Preservation: Stewardship Fund – Commission Discussion

There was a brief discussion after the presentation, with support for the ordinance change.

Commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman noted that “we won’t buy land forever – there will be a cap. When we go to the board of commissioners, we might add that to the presentation.” Freeman responded that “this [plan] will give the county board options. WCPARC doesn’t want to tell the county board that they have to go for a millage to keep the NAPP program sustainable.” He added that “this money can’t be used for anything but NAPP.”

Tetens reported that the topic is on the agenda for the county board’s June 7 working session.

The rest of the commission discussion focused on the “brilliance” and “foresight” of the plan, and the “critical importance” of stewardship into the future “for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” as commissioner Patricia Scribner put it.

Commissioners then voted on the following motion: ”That the WCPARC support amendment of Ordinance No. 128, allowing up to 25% of annual millage revenues to be dedicated to stewardship, so as to ensure the sustainability of the stewardship of the nature preserves established through the Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation Program.”

Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Natural Areas Preservation: Updates

Tetens’ written report to the commission covered additional items related to NAPP:

• An April 10, 2012, closing on an acquisition of the Pellerito property next to the Meyer Preserve in Superior Township; WCPARC holds a conservation easement and the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy owns the property. [See Chronicle coverage: "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres"]
• An April 20, 2012, closing on the 22-acre Bloch property on Joy Road, approved at last month’s WCPARC meeting. This deal was in collaboration with Ann Arbor Township and the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.
• Start of a Phase 2 environmental site assessment for the 70-acre Baker property in Lima Township.
• Removal of surface debris from the Schrock addition to the Draper-Houston Meadows Preserve; and receipt of a permit from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to construct a boardwalk west of the bridge over the Saline River in the same preserve.
• Completion of construction documents for a parking lot for the Squiers Preserve.
• Continuation of staff work on trail layouts for Osborne Mill, Spike, Draper-Houston Meadows and Trinkle Marsh Preserves. [As background, Osborne Mill, Spike, and Trinkle Marsh Preserves are so new that, pending development of trails, there is little or no public access, nor is there information about the Spike or Trinkle Marsh preserves on the WCPARC website.]

Eastern County Recreation Center

At its April meeting, WCPARC heard an extensive presentation by faculty and students from the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, covering the work they would do on a site plan for a possible recreation center on the Water Street redevelopment on Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti. Parks and rec director Bob Tetens reported on the latest work on the project, which included the first meeting of a steering committee.

Working committees that will advise the planners will start to meet next week, he said. Tetens hopes to create a formal three-party development agreement among WCPARC, the city of Ypsilanti, and the Ann Arbor YMCA, which may manage the center. Tetens agreed to add members of WCPARC to the email list for the planning group. Commissioner Janice Anschuetz, who attended the meeting of WCPARC and Ypsilanti city staff regarding this project, praised city staff for all the information and expertise they brought.

Tetens reported that the total cost of the services provided by the University of Michigan is $40,000, but the cost to WCPARC is $10,000 because the university will cover $30,000 through a faculty seed research grant. Tetens asked the commission to authorize an expenditure of $10,000 to secure the services of the UM faculty and graduate student research assistant team.

Outcome: WCPARC unanimously approved the $10,000 expenditure.

Parks & Rec Updates

At various points during the meeting, parks and recreation staff gave updates on a range of topics, including the Mallets Creek stabilization project, Ann Arbor skatepark, Border-to-Border trail, and events in the parks system that occurred recently or are upcoming.

Parks & Rec Updates: Mallets Creek Stabilization

Director Bob Tetens and associate director Coy Vaughn gave an update on the Mallets Creek stabilization and improvement project. They showed slides to illustrate the extensive work, visible to motorists traveling east on Washtenaw Avenue between Manchester and Platt roads, to stabilize the banks of Malletts Creek, enhance water quality, remove dead and invasive plants, regrade to meet the hydrological needs of the site, and install new paved and unpaved paths.

A portion of the Malletts Creek creekbed that's been stabilized with rocks.

Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner who also sits on WCPARC, added further details – her office has overseen the project. The light tan material that covers the entire area contains seeds of native plants and grasses, as well as annual rye. The rye will sprout first, she said, to provide initial stabilization; then the native plants will emerge to provide permanent color, interest, and cover. Bobrin said the project “successfully withstood the big storm on March 15,” in that water flowed as intended and collected as intended.

Commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman was happy to hear about all the new trees that were planted, laughing as she recalled people asking her “How can you take away all those wonderful trees” as the site was being cleared – of dead and invasive trees – over the last several months.

Tetens added that there will be a grand opening in late July, after a new County Farm Park arch, identical to the one at the entrance from the Platt Road parking lot, marks the Washtenaw Avenue entrance to the park. He also pointed out that the path leading from Washtenaw to the pavilion in the play area will be paved.

Bobrin commented that this phase of the Malletts Creek project extends all the way to Chalmers Road – a road that’s east of and parallel to Huron Parkway, running north to the South Pond of the Huron River.

By way of background, County Farm Park is best known for the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center, which faces Washtenaw and opened in 1991. However, the park contains much more. Its 141-acre footprint is roughly the size of the University of Michigan golf course at the corner of South Main and East Stadium Boulevard. It boasts a large children’s play area, two pavilions, several miles of walking paths, dozens of Project Grow community gardens, a perennial garden planned for nine months of color, and Britton Woods nature area.

The woods, according to the parks and recreation website, “reflect the Ann Arbor landscape in pre-settlement times.” The land has belonged to the county since 1836, and housed a poor house and insane asylum from 1837 to 1917, and a brick hospital called the Washtenaw Infirmary until 1972. Project Grow then began to use some of the land.

The site also holds the WCPARC administrative offices.

Parks & Rec Updates: Ann Arbor Skatepark

Tetens reported the latest step in developing the Ann Arbor skatepark, to be located at the city of Ann Arbor’s Veterans Memorial Park. By way of background, the skatepark is a joint endeavor of WCPARC, the city of Ann Arbor, and Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, a volunteer group.

Six proposals have been received for design of the project, which will be reviewed by a selection committee consisting of representatives from all three groups. Construction is expected to start in the spring of 2013.  Tetens said it will be a “world class” skatepark unlike any most Ann Arborites have seen.

By way of background, just over $800,000 has been raised toward a $1 million fundraising goal for the skatepark. The roughly $1 million cost of the project will be paid for through a combination of private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from WCPARC. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary for the project.

The six proposals are from the following firms: (1) Pillar Design Studios; (2) New Line Skateparks, partnering with Beckett & Raeder, van der Zalm + Associates, and SPA Skateparks; (3) Dan Joseph Architects; (4) Wormhoudt Inc.; (5) Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Midwestern Consulting; and (6) ASD (Action Sport Design) + Stantec.

The proposals are being reviewed and committee members will meet next week to open the bids. Committee members include Trevor Staples, Chris Cassell and Gregg Iddings of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark; Amy Kuras and Colin Smith of the city of Ann Arbor’s parks & recreation unit; David Barrett, a city of Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner; and Jeff Dehring of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation department.

Interviews with finalists are expected to be held during the last week of May.

Parks & Rec Updates: Independence Lake, Pierce Lake, Recreation Center

Tetens described several improvements at Independence Lake Park: a new overflow parking area that will be open all year; the start of construction on a new enlarged “spray and play zone,” which will include areas tailored to toddlers and to teens, separated by a significant difference in elevation; and scheduling of work to clean and fence 10 newly acquired acres.

He also reported that the weather continued to affect attendance at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center and Pierce Lake golf course. Warmer weather discouraged attendance at the recreation center, but enabled Pierce Lake golf course to open two weeks earlier than in 2011 and 2010, bringing in more users and more revenue.

At the golf course, Tetens described an expanded pavilion complete with power and lights. The golf course continues to exceed the last two years in use and revenue.

An information packet provided to commissioners included data on revenues and users for the recreation center and golf course:

Revenues for the MLM Recreation Center and Pierce Lake golf course. (Chart by M. Leary)

Parks & Rec Updates: Border-to-Border Trail

The county’s Border-to-Border Trail, Tetens reported, continues to expand with construction on River Terrace Trail southeast of Dexter, which should be done by the end of the summer. That will enable walking from downtown Dexter to the high school and to Hudson Mills Metropark. In response to a question from commissioner Dan Smith, Tetens said that the village of Dexter is working on a crosswalk at Island Lake Road for residents of the Cedars of Dexter.

Parks & Rec Updates: Events

Tetens described a “wildly successful” Earth Day celebration at the nonprofit Leslie Science & Nature Center, at which WCPARC handed out 400 young trees to children, including white pines, tulip trees, red maples, and sugar maples. And stakes, he added, to mark the trees so parents would not inadvertently mow them.

At the county’s Rolling Hills Park, Tetens said, there will be a ribbon cutting and grand opening of the new “northern parkland and ring road” on Sunday, May 20, from 1-4 p.m. The area suffered some washouts during winter rain events, but they are being repaired while final components of the stormwater management system are still under construction. Construction documents for 50% completion of the Rolling Hills Water Park expansion are ready for staff review, he added.

Park planner Meghan Bonfiglio showed slides of a “River Thing” workshop held April 22, 2012 at Sharon Mills Park. Participating kids wore tall wader boots and used nets to see what they could catch.

Bonfiglio went on to describe a new geocaching adventure for kids in 2012. She said that in addition to 10 adult locations, there will be six for kids. Information will be on the WCPARC website on June 1. Associate director Coy Vaughn underlined the impact the geocaching program has had in bringing people into parks and recreation areas they would otherwise never have known about. [Information about WCPARC's policy and guidelines for geocaching is available online.]

During his report later in the meeting, Tetens also mentioned that:

• In April, staff provided 10 programming days in four parks and two preserves.
• More than 225 children have registered for the summer day camp at County Farm Park, which starts June 19.
• A recent food drive at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center yielded 358 pounds of non-perishable food for the local nonprofit Food Gatherers.

Claims Report

The commission approved payments of $1,079,035.23 for park, facility, and capital improvements; and payments of $445,771.38 for NAPP acquisitions and preserve management. The total for the month of April was $1,524,806.61.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the expenditure of $1,524,806.61.

Meeting Calendar

Bob Tetens recommended changing the 2012 calendar, which included June and August meetings but no July meeting. However, the timing of bids from prospective contractors for the replacement of the bath house and expansion of the Rolling Hills Water Park will require a July meeting. Tetens recommended adding a regular meeting the third Tuesday of July, the 24th; and cancelling the scheduled Aug. 10 meeting. The revised calendar shows meetings on June 12, July 24, Sept. 11, Oct. 9, Nov. 13, and Dec. 11.

Outcome: The commission unanimously approved the revised calendar.

Present: WCPARC commissioners Janice Anschuetz, Barbara Levin Bergman, Janis Bobrin, Robert W. Marans, Nelson K. Meade, Patricia Scribner, Dan Smith, and Fred Veigel. WCPARC staff members Bob Tetens, Meghan Bonfiglio, Tom Freeman, and Coy Vaughn.

Absent: Jimmie Maggard, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 7 p.m. at the parks and recreation commission administrative offices, 2230 Platt Road in Ann Arbor.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. 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!

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, talks with PAC member Sam Offen before the start of Tuesday’s meeting. Offen was the only commissioner to vote against support of a state grant application for the Ann Arbor skatepark. (Photos by the writer.)

The resolution for Gallup passed unanimously, but commissioner Sam Offen – without comment – cast a vote against the resolution for the skatepark grant.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, commissioner Gwen Nystuen suggested forming a committee to look more closely at the Fuller Road Station project – she felt that as stewards of the city’s parkland, PAC should take a more active role in examining the proposed parking structure, bus depot and possible train station. The project, a joint effort between the city and the University of Michigan, would be located on land that’s previously been designated as parkland, though it’s been leased to the university as a surface parking lot since the early 1990s. Nystuen did not put forward a formal resolution, and commissioners took no action on the idea.

The meeting included five presentations from various groups, including updates on the city’s two golf courses, the new Give 365 volunteer program, and a restoration project for a stretch of Malletts Creek near Huron Parkway. Commissioners also heard a proposal for a new Wednesday night farmers market, and got a mid-year financial report on the open space and parkland preservation millage.

Grant Applications for Skatepark, Gallup Livery

Two resolutions were added to the agenda at the start of Tuesday’s meeting, both recommending support for city’s grant applications to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund. The grants – for $300,000 each – would help fund the Ann Arbor skatepark and upgrades to the Gallup canoe livery and park.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, told commissioners that the city would include the resolutions as part of the application package.

[The issue of the city’s grant applications previously emerged during the March 9 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. At that meeting, Tom Freeman of the county’s parks & recreation department told greenbelt commissioners that the county would be applying for a DNR trust fund grant to help buy a parcel in Ann Arbor Township now owned by a subsidiary of Domino’s Farms. The parcel would become part of the county’s natural areas preservation program.

Greenbelt commissioners discussed voting on a letter of support for the county’s application, but were dissuaded by Ann Arbor city councilmember Carsten Hohnke, who felt it would dilute the city’s own chances for grant funds from the state – for the skatepark and the canoe livery. Ultimately, greenbelt commissioners voted to recommend that the city council consider sending a letter of support for the county’s application.]

At Tuesday’s PAC meeting, Gwen Nystuen said she approved of the resolutions, but wondered whether it hurt their chances to apply for two grants instead of one. Smith said they had reviewed the applications and grant awards from last year – out of 160 applications statewide, 117 had received funding, he said – a high success rate. What matters most is the quality and strength of the application, he said. In addition, the two projects they’re applying for are very different, and serve different user groups.

Smith said they need the funding for the skatepark in order to help reach the matching funds needed to secure a $400,000 matching grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. And the funds for Gallup are necessary for the work they need to do to improve safety and accessibility at the canoe livery, he said. They’re hoping to have improvements at Gallup completed by 2012, to prepare for increased activity following a significant upgrade at the Argo dam.

Tim Berla asked for a reminder of what work would be done at Gallup. [Park planner Amy Kuras had most recently provided an update at PAC's January 2011 meeting.] Smith reported that the work would include expanding the facility’s meeting room, improving the safety of the path approaching the livery, and giving people barrier-free access to the facility and dock area. They would also add wayfinding signs throughout the park.

Outcome: The resolution of support for Ann Arbor’s application for a state DNR trust fund grant to fund upgrades to the Gallup canoe livery and park was unanimously approved. A second resolution of support for the grant application to fund the Ann Arbor skatepark was also approved, with Sam Offen dissenting.

Fuller Road Station

During Tuesday’s meeting, Gwen Nystuen asked commissioners to consider forming a committee that would look more intently at the Fuller Road Station project. [Fuller Road Station is a joint city of Ann Arbor/University of Michigan effort to build a large parking structure and bus depot on the south side of Fuller Road, just east of East Medical Center Drive. City officials hope the initial $46 million phase will be followed by a later phase that would include a train station for commuter rail. The city-owned land, which is zoned public land but has been designated as parkland, is currently leased to the university for use as a surface parking lot.]

Nystuen said she’s been looking at this project for months, and is deeply concerned because it would mean a major change for the city’s parks. It’s an issue she’s raised repeatedly at previous PAC meetings for more than a year.

Nystuen described some of the property’s history, dating back to the time when it was a municipal golf course in the 1930s through 1968. Several transfers of ownership and changes in use have taken place over the years, she noted, and it’s time that PAC have a coordinated discussion about the current situation, given their role as stewards of the parks system.

Park commissioner Gwen Nystuen.

One of the big questions is what kind of protection does parkland have, Nystuen said. The city’s planning commission, in its discussions of Fuller Road Station, has identified several protections, she said, such as inclusion of a parcel in the Park and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan, purchase of a parcel with parkland acquisition millage funds. One other way that planning commissioners feel parkland is protected is through oversight by PAC, Nystuen noted – so they are responsible.

The land where Fuller Road Station is to be located was assessed in 2004 by the University of Michigan for $4.25 million – Nystuen passed out a letter sent to the city in February 2004 by Gerald Alcock and Marcel Vidovic, who had appraised the property at that time. At that time, the university was looking at the land to potentially build housing there, she said.

Further, she was concerned that a complete environmental assessment hadn’t yet been conducted. As far as she knew, the firm JJR had done an assessment that was presented as a draft in June 2010. But a final assessment hadn’t been done, nor had a public hearing been held on the issue.

Nystuen also had concerns about how the county’s border-to-border trail would fit into the structure’s design. And there’s a roundabout being considered for the intersection of Fuller Road, Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive, she noted, where the border-to-border trail crosses. At its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting, the city council authorized a $460,139 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. to review previous studies of that intersection and propose a design for its reconfiguration.

A lot of questions remain about the project and its process, Nystuen said. PAC needs a committee so that they’ll be fully informed and can make a recommendation to city council.

Tim Berla asked parks manager Colin Smith what the timeline is for the project. Smith reminded commissioners that he’d given them an update at their February meeting, and nothing has changed since then. The city attorney’s office is still working on the Fuller Road Station operating agreement between the city and the University of Michigan.

Berla noted that some things related to the project weren’t under PAC’s purview. But the border-to-border trail is completely within their realm, he noted, adding that he’d like to see PAC consider a resolution at their next meeting to address that issue. They should go on record identifying that as a problem to be solved, he said. Overall, though, Berla said he supports the idea of a bus or train station.

Smith reminded commissioners that they had already passed a resolution related to Fuller Road Station last summer. His recollection was that PAC gave the project its overall support, but identified some areas of concern, including how the project would be financed and how the border-to-border trail would be incorporated. He suggested reviewing that resolution before taking additional action. [For details on that resolution, see Chronicle coverage of PAC's June 15, 2010 meeting: "Park Commission Asks for Transparency"]

Nystuen said she wasn’t opposed to alternative transportation. But the area where Fuller Road Station is proposed is in a location that the city has identified as a high priority for parkland acquisition – land along the Huron River. It’s a surface parking lot now, but it could be restored and become a beautiful park – it doesn’t have to be covered with cars, she said.

Sam Offen asked Smith to check with Fuller Road Station’s project manager, and perhaps ask him to return to PAC and provide an update. Smith reminded commissioners that they’d be dealing with the annual budget at their April meeting.

Julie Grand noted that the point of the resolution they passed last year was that they wanted to be kept in the loop about the project. This is a good reminder to city staff that PAC be kept informed.

Berla asked Smith whether they could see a copy of the operating agreement when it was drafted. Smith said he would get a copy for them to review.

Nystuen again expressed her interest in having two or three PAC members sit down with the city councilmembers who serve as ex-officio members of the commission – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). [Anglin did not attend Tuesday's meeting.] Taylor said that for his part, he believed things would come to the city council “in their ordinary course.” While getting information is good, he said, information can be “ripe and unripe.” Regarding the border-to-border trail, he agreed that they should ask what the plans are for that effort. He agreed with Berla that there are certain things within PAC’s ambit, like the border-to-border trail. As for the roundabout, analyses are being done that are “ongoing and professional,” he said.

Berla noted that in general roundabouts are fantastic, but it’s hard to envision how someone using the border-to-border trail and trying to cross there could do so easily, given the heavy traffic in that area.

Nystuen did not put forward a formal resolution for her proposal to form a committee, and the discussion came to a close without action.

Golf Courses Update

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners got an update about the city’s two golf courses – at Huron Hills and Leslie Park – from Doug Kelly, the city’s director of golf, and Andrew Walton, golf course supervisor at Huron Hills. Kelly and Walton had previously given a detailed presentation at PAC’s Nov. 17, 2009 meeting.

Kelly began by giving brief descriptions of both courses. Huron Hills is a beautiful tract of land, he said, with vistas overlooking the Huron River valley. As a golf course with a shorter layout, it’s a tremendous asset to the entire area’s golfing community, he said, a much-needed course for introducing people of all ages and economic backgrounds to the game of golf. It’s especially important to provide opportunities for kids, to grow the game. In the winter, Huron Hills also provides one of the area’s best sledding hills, he noted.

Doug Kelly, right, the city of Ann Arbor’s director of golf, and Andrew Walton, golf course supervisor at Huron Hills.

Leslie Park golf course is their pride and joy, Kelly said. It also sits on some of the prettiest land in the city, land that was previously the site of Dr. Eugene Leslie’s farm and orchard. Kelly noted that the golf course’s logo features the red barn that’s still on the property. “We’re very proud of that barn and we love it,” he said.

Leslie Park attracts golfers from around the region. Its layout is challenging, yet playable. Golf Digest magazine has rated it as the best municipal course in the state, he said.

Since the city’s re-commitment to its golf courses in 2008, Kelly said they’ve focused on the “5 Cs”: customer service, culture, course conditions, cleanliness, and community. These are the reasons why people keep returning to the courses, he said – they’re creating a place where people are comfortable and feel like they belong.

Kelly said they are caretakers of the land. He described how last year, Leslie Park was certified by the Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program, and Huron Hills is now going through that process. Certification requires that the course exceed requirements of environmental laws, protect water resources and enhance the maintenance of turf grass and open spaces. It’s harder to get than certification from the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses, Kelly said, which focuses on enhancing the habitat for wildlife. He expects Leslie Park golf course to achieve the Audobon certification later this year.

Kelly showed commissioners some slides of wildlife on the courses, including one of a wild/domestic hybrid turkey watching golfers on Leslie Park’s No. 1 green last summer. He noted that eight bluebird houses had been added throughout the course last year, and so far seven of those are inhabited. Staff is also working with school groups to build bat houses that can be placed on the courses.

Also related to the environment, golf staff work with the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program to do controlled burns in some parts of the courses – three of the four full-time golf employees are volunteer certified burn technicians, Kelly said. Scott Spooner, Leslie Park’s superintendent, is doing outreach with local schools as well, bringing student groups to the course for projects like water quality testing at Traver Creek, which runs through the property.

Walton, who supervises Huron Hills, focused his comments on that course, saying one of the main objectives there is to grow interest in the game of golf. It’s very affordable to play there, he said, and is a crucial course for introducing new golfers to the game. He described several programs aimed at that goal, including junior golf camps, a new parent/child instructional program and a new junior golf league. Adult programs also focus on beginners, he said.

Another goal is to use promotions and events to attract families, young people, seniors, and beginning golfers to the course, Walton said. One of the larger efforts in that regard is allowing juniors to play free on Sunday afternoons, when accompanied by a paying adult. Last season the city also started a program called “Wee Tees” – a set of shorter tees that are meant to make the game more playable and fun. The annual Herb Fowler memorial tournament has become a marquee event, Walton said, and monthly “nite lite” golf – when they illuminate the course after dusk – is becoming popular.

Walton also noted that adding power golf carts has made the course more accessible to seniors and the disabled – and even, frankly, to able-bodied people who just don’t want to walk, he said. Last year was the first full season that the carts were available, and they brought in about $46,000 in revenue.

Both courses also provide a source of revenue for the city’s parks & recreation scholarship fund, Walton said, contributing about $4,000 last year from player donations and tournament proceeds.

Walton compared Huron Hills to the other golf courses in the Ann Arbor region. Of the 12 local courses, seven are either private or provide limited access to the general public, he said, like the University of Michigan course. Three of the remaining five – including Leslie Park – are more difficult to play. That leaves Georgetown Country Club, which only has nine holes, and Huron Hills, which is an 18-hole course. “We are quite a unique facility in the Ann Arbor golf community,” he said.

Kelly returned to the podium for a brief financial overview. Golf rounds at Huron Hills are up 56% since 2007, from 13,913 in 2007 to 22,501 in 2010. At Leslie Park, rounds have increased during that period by 48% – from 21,857 to 31,998. This occurred at a time when average golf rounds were decreasing at the state and national levels, he said. Their goal is to grow rounds of golf played at Huron Hills to 25,000 and at Leslie Park to 35,000.

Revenues during the period from 2007 to 2010 have also increased at both courses. At Huron Hills, revenues grew from $242,677 to $310,602. Leslie Park revenues increased from $615,448 to $851,570. By FY 2013, revenues are projected to increase to $396,050 at Huron Hills and $929,044 at Leslie Park.

[Related to revenues, the city council recently voted to increase fees at both courses – the increases had been initially recommended by PAC at their February 2011 meeting.]

Revenues are trending in the right direction, Kelly concluded, and recognition for the courses is strong.

After the presentation, PAC chair Julie Grand thanked Kelly and Walton for their work. Commissioners had no other comments or questions.

[Neither Kelly nor Walton mentioned the request for proposals (RFP) that the city issued last year to solicit ideas for improving operations at Huron Hills. Two groups submitted proposals, but only Miles of Golf – a Pittsfield Township business – was chosen by a selection committee to move forward in the selection process. The business owners made a presentation at a Dec. 3 public meeting, but were informed later in the month that the city would not be pursuing their proposal.]

Malletts Creek Restoration

Janis Bobrin, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, attended Tuesday’s PAC meeting – along with Harry Sheehan, the county’s environmental manager, and Ron Cavallaro of the engineering firm Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment – to give an update on the county’s Malletts Creek restoration project.

Bobrin began by noting that the county and city have a strong history of partnering, including work on Olson Park, Mary Beth Doyle Park and West Park – a project that’s still underway. [PAC had received an update from city staff on problems with West Park renovations at its Feb. 15, 2011 meeting.]

Bobrin said they were attending the meeting to talk about the Malletts Creek restoration work, which affects the city’s Huron Parkway Nature Area.

From left: Washtenaw County environmental manager Harry Sheehan; Washtenaw County water resources commissioner Janis Bobrin; and Ron Cavallaro of the engineering firm Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment. The three were on hand to give the Ann Arbor park advisory commission an update on a Malletts Creek restoration project.

Sheehan, who’s leading this project, stepped forward to give the remainder of the presentation. He said the county has been working for a decade with the city on improvements to Malletts Creek. The current work will take place along a 1.6-mile stretch of the creek’s stream bank, he said, near the area of Washtenaw Avenue and Huron Parkway. The project focuses on the stream bank’s erosion – he noted the stream is a natural channel and can’t handle the roughly 11 square miles of urban runoff that now flows into it.

Erosion washes downstream and impairs water quality and habitat, he said. Phosphorus from the runoff flows downstream to South Pond and ultimately the Huron River, affecting the city’s drinking water supply. The state’s Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has created a mandate to deal with phosphorus and sediment issues related to Malletts Creek creekshed, he said, and that’s what the project is addressing.

Sheehan described several techniques that will be employed to deal with these problems. Instead of vertical stream banks, they’ll rebuild banks that are staggered back from the creek in tiers to accommodate higher flows. They’ll first stabilize the bank’s base with rock, then revegetate the bank with native plants. Another technique is to create rock structures within the stream – called veins – that direct water flow away from the banks and turn the force of the flow toward the center of the stream.

The third technique is to build different levels of channels within the creekbed – a deeper channel in the bottom center of the creek, with shallower channels carved out at the sides to handle higher flows. Finally, the project will include work to repair and upgrade infrastructure, such as cracked drains.

Sheehan said workers on the project will access the area from spots on Huron Parkway and Chalmers Drive. In response to a question from Sam Offen, who lives in that area, Cavallaro said they didn’t anticipate any traffic issues related to the work.

Sheehan said they’d work with the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) crew to coordinate with the controlled burns that NAP conducts in the area. If there are any areas that are disturbed by the work, the county will revegetate the area with native plants.

The project’s budget is set at a maximum of $4.1 million for the 1.6 miles of creek, Sheehan said. Half of that will come through a federal grant and won’t need to be repaid – it’s in the form of loan forgiveness through the Clean Water Act. The other half will be financed through a state revolving loan program – a 20-year, low-interest loan at 2.5% interest that will be paid by assessing the Malletts Creek drainage district. The city of Ann Arbor accounts for 95% of that district, Sheehan said, and funding for the assessment will come from the city’s stormwater utility fund. [It's classified as an "at large" district, so rather than assessing individuals and businesses in the district, it's paid for by the city collectively.] There’s no impact to the parks budget.

Bobrin later clarified that the other 5% is paid for by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT), because the work benefits state roads. She noted that the project required a formal petition from the city, which city council passed in December 2010. Sheehen added that this project does not involve a rate hike to residents’ stormwater utility fees – it’s a project that was already budgeted, and included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP).

Sheehan said they’re more than halfway through the project’s design, and expect to finish that part by June. They’ll have a contract for the work to be approved by city council in August, with construction starting in September 2011 at the earliest, and running through next spring or early summer.

He said they’ve been in contact with homeowners’ associations in the area to alert them about the project, and also plan public meetings later in the year.

In response to a question from Gwen Nystuen, Sheehan said that Malletts Creek is a county drain, and the county’s office of water resources has regulatory responsibility to maintain its flow and improve water quality. The county has a 66-foot easement on either side of the channel, which has been in place since the 1920s.

Christopher Taylor asked if Sheehan could articulate the water quality benefit they expect to get from the project. It hasn’t been quantified yet, Sheehan replied. About 4,000 pounds of phosophorus load comes into the Huron River every year from Malletts Creek, he said, and the sediment load can be hundreds of times that amount. Those are the two things they’re trying to reduce, he said, and they’ll be calculating how best to do that as they complete the project’s cost/benefit analysis and set priorities about where to do the work.

In response to a question from Tim Berla, Sheehan said water quality monitoring is one way to measure the effectiveness of the project. He said he could provide a report on their work at Doyle Park, which included such measurements. However, they don’t currently have funding to conduct the same types of analyses on the Malletts Creek project, he said. Another way to evaluate the project is to look at how long the changes last – how stable are the stream banks in 10 or 15 years, for example.

Night Market Proposal

Molly Notarianni, the city’s market manager, gave a report to commissioners about plans for a night market pilot program. She had given a similar presentation last week at the city’s public market advisory commission meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "Idea for Night Market Floated"]

The proposal calls for a producers-only market from 4:30-8:30 p.m., operating as a separate entity from the existing Saturday and Wednesday daytime markets, which run from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. The night market would run for a shorter season, launching this year on July 1 – the start of the city’s fiscal year – and running through September or early October. There would be a separate application process for the night market, and there would not be a seniority system as there is for the other markets, which gives an advantage to long-time vendors.

The idea would be to give shoppers more options for shopping at the farmers market, to attract new shoppers to that area, to provide opportunities for more producers to sell their wares, and to increase activity at an underused space. Notarianni said she plans to assign stalls before market day – unlike the current system for the daytime markets, when stalls are assigned on the day of the market just before the market opens. That will provide some consistency for vendors, she said, and shoppers won’t have to hunt for their favorite vendors.

The Ann Arbor farmers market building. On most days, the market is empty and used primarily for parking.

There’s a lot of action in the local food movement, Notarianni said, and this is an easy way to capitalize on that interest at little cost.

Members of the public market advisory commission had been excited about the proposal, she said. The manager for Kerrytown Market & Shops, a complex of stores adjacent to the public market, had a similar reaction, she said. The shops there often stay open later if there are special events in the area – they might keep longer hours on Wednesdays because of increased traffic from the night market.

Sam Offen asked about the logistics of transitioning between the day and night markets. Notarianni said that although the Wednesday market is open until 3 p.m., in reality about 70% of the vendors leave before then. She didn’t think that many of the daytime vendors would stay for the night market – although they could certainly apply to do so. Since they come to the market at 5 a.m., it would make for a long day, she said.

The public market is part of the parks & rec budget. Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, said the additional revenues they expect to generate from stall fees will be reflected in the proposed budget for FY 2011, which PAC will review at their April meeting. Because it will be a change to a well-known, much cared for institution, he said he wanted to bring it to their attention. City staff have received feedback from shoppers that they want to have more options for buying fresh food at the market, and this is an attempt to provide that, he said.

Give 365 Volunteer Program

Gayle LaVictoire, volunteer outreach coordinator for Ann Arbor’s parks system, gave commissioners an update about her efforts since being hired in the newly created job last year.

On March 1, the city launched the Give 365 volunteer program, a new effort to foster a year-round culture of volunteerism for parks, LaVictoire said. They’re publicizing the program in a variety of ways, including posters and brochures at city facilities, through the Ann Arbor parks Facebook page, and by direct outreach to groups like Ann Arbor Rec & Ed and coaches for youth leagues, among others.

Gayle LaVictoire gave a presentation to commissioners about the park system’s new volunteer outreach efforts.

A page on the city’s website – a2gov.org/volunteer – provides more information, she said, and allows people to register online. They’re using the Volgistics database system to handle the logistics. It allows volunteers to sign up for exactly the type of activities they’re interested in, to search for volunteer activities on specific dates or at certain facilities, and to sign up for alerts for more general volunteer opportunities. The system also sends out automated reminders to volunteers prior to the times they’ve signed up for. LaVictoire said she’s a volunteer at the Humane Society of Huron Valley, which also uses the Volgistics database. From a user’s perspective, she said she could report that it’s easy to use.

LaVictoire noted that the last time she talked to PAC, she had outlined four programs she was planning to start. Since then, she’s added several others. They include the Friends of the Field ballfield adoption program; taking photos and writing for the farmer’s market or senior center newsletters; and helping with spring and summer “startups” at the city’s pools and canoe liveries. They’re also recruiting young people between the ages of 13-17 to join a Counselor in Training program at the city’s four day camps, she said. Other volunteer opportunities are listed on the Give 365 website.

LaVictoire noted that she was modeling a T-shirt that they gave to volunteers – she reported that her boss, parks manager Colin Smith, wanted one, but she told him that he’d have to sign up to volunteer first.

David Barrett asked whether the ballfield program could be expanded to soccer fields too. LaVictoire said that in the future, she hoped the program would grow. They’re working with the city’s Adopt-a-Park staff to coordinate those efforts.

Tim Berla wondered whether these volunteer programs could be expanded into the Ann Arbor Public Schools – the city uses some of the school district’s facilities for their programs, and vice versa. LaVictoire said they were starting small but hoped to expand – the possibilities are great, when you nurture a culture of volunteerism. Smith noted that he hoped the schools would partner with the city, but he added that because LaVictoire’s position is funded by millage proceeds, there are certain restrictions about how the money – and her time – can be spent.

Julie Grand asked how the Give 365 volunteer program was different from the Adopt-a-Park program. LaVictoire replied that there’s some overlap, but that her volunteer program focused on parks & recreation facilities and areas adjacent to those facilities – activities like trash pickup, weeding, painting and planting flowers. Adopt-a-Park focused primarily on parkland and open space.

In response to a question from Christopher Taylor, LaVictoire described how Give 365, Adopt-a-Park and the volunteer outreach for the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) coordinate their efforts. The Volgistics database manages all three volunteer programs, but there are categories that volunteers use to indicate their preferences. There are also ways that city staff can “tag” volunteer information to indicate that there might be overlap, she said – those tags aren’t visible to the volunteer, but help staff share information. “Your secret’s safe with us,” Taylor said.

He asked how many volunteers had registered so far, two weeks after the launch. One group and about 10 individuals had signed up, she said, and she’s encouraging existing volunteers to register as well.

Barrett asked what assurances volunteers had that their information wouldn’t be used for other city purposes. LaVictoire said there’s nothing to indicate that the information won’t be used for other things, but that the volunteers have control over what they sign up for. She also noted that if people don’t feel comfortable registering online, they can call city staff and give their information over the phone. The number for the volunteer office is 734-794-6230 ext. 42510.

Millage Update

Ginny Trocchio, a staff member of The Conservation Fund who works under contract with the city to manage the Ann Arbor greenbelt and parks acquisition programs, gave a report on expenses and income related to the open space and parkland preservation millage. The presentation looked at the first six months of the current fiscal year, from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2010. [.pdf file of mid-year financial report for open space and parkland preservation millage]

By way of background, Ann Arbor voters in 2003 passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax for land acquisition – called the open space and parkland preservation millage. On the summer tax bill, the line item appears as CITY PARK ACQ. Though not stipulated in the legal terms of the millage, the city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the city’s greenbelt program. PAC oversees parkland acquisitions, while the greenbelt advisory commission makes recommendations for the greenbelt program.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond so far in FY 2011 year has amounted to $815,288 – the first of two annual payments.

On Tuesday, Trocchio told commissioners that total gross revenues – including millage proceeds, grants and investment income – are just under $3.5 million. Millage proceeds are $2.175 million this year, down from $2.26 million in FY 2010. Investment income is also down – $88,148 compared to $492,576 the previous year. Trocchio said the year-end investment income number will likely be higher. Federal grants total $1.235 million this year – those are reimbursements for greenbelt purchases, she said.

Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember who also serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, asked Trocchio to explain why investment income is down. She said that the city’s treasurer, Matt Horning, would be able to provide a better explanation, but that part of the reason is that the millage’s fund balance has been spent down, so there’s less money to invest. [Horning had provided a detailed explanation of this issue at the greenbelt advisory commission's November 2010 meeting.]

The greenbelt has spent about $5.7 million on purchases – it’s been a busy year, Trocchio said – while nearly $1 million has been spent on parkland acquisitions. The two major parkland acquisitions were property owned by Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian, adjacent to South Pond, for $591,006; and a parcel next to Bluffs Nature Area purchased from the Elks for $369,160.

Administrative expenses as of Dec. 31 were $66,358, and included the contract with The Conservation Fund, IT costs, advertising and other items. Trocchio noted that administrative costs are capped by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues. Over the life of the millage, administrative costs are tracking well under that number. Starting in FY 2005, those percentages each year have trended as follows: FY05, 7.6%; FY06, 5.1%; FY07, 2.0%; FY08, 3.8%; FY09, 4.3%; FY10, 3.5%; and so far in FY11, 0.9%.

At year’s end, about $11.7 million remained in the fund balance, Trocchio said. The bond monies have been spent down – what remains are the funds that have accrued from the millage proceeds. After calculating the one-third/two-thirds split between parks and the greenbelt, that leaves a fund balance available for parks acquisitions of $4.36 million.

Sam Offen observed that it’s difficult to know whether these numbers are good or bad, in isolation. Was there a projection that had been done at the start of the millage, against which they could be compared in terms of anticipated revenues and expenses? Trocchio said she didn’t have that information, but that Kelli Martin, financial manager for the city’s community services unit, was working on that kind of projection going forward. They would provide that information to PAC in the future.

Communications: Parks Manager, Commissioners

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & rec manager, had several updates during Tuesday’s meeting, as did a couple of commissioners.

Smith reported that the city council had approved the Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan at their March 7 meeting – that major project is completed. There are also two parks-related public meetings later this month. A meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23 from 7-8:30 p.m. to discuss the design of a new play area at Winewood Thaler Park. That meeting will be held at Veterans Memorial Ice Arena (in the lobby) at 2150 Jackson Road. Residents who can’t attend are invited to take an online survey. On Wednesday, March 30 from 7-8:30 p.m., a meeting will be held at the Northside Community Center, 815 Taylor St., to discuss improvements to Beckley Park. An online survey for that project is also available.

Smith said he’d recently met with the construction team for a project to build a bypass around Argo dam. [City council had approved the $1,168,170 bypass at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting. It will take the place of the current headrace, which is separated from the Huron River by an earthen embankment. The bypass will eliminate the portage currently required by canoeists. It would also allow the city to comply with a consent order it has with the state of Michigan that requires the city to address the repair of toe drains in the embankment.] The city submitted the paperwork required to secure a state permit on March 7, he said, and site plans are being developed. He hoped to have a schedule to share with the commission about the work within the next couple of weeks, adding that it will be a busy summer.

Finally, Smith gave a brief report in response to a previous request from commissioner Tim Berla to look at how the parks budget compares to the overall general fund. The issue had first been raised by Berla at PAC’s Nov. 16, 2010 meeting, but had emerged again at last month’s meeting, when Smith had reported back to PAC about a city council budget work session. From The Chronicle’s report of PAC’s Feb. 15 meeting:

Smith laid out for the commission the main points of the city council work session presentation:

• Ways that parks and recreation would be meeting its roughly 2.5% reduction target. [Energy savings in FY 2012 and increased revenues due to the construction of the Argo Dam bypass channel, in FY 2013]
• A question about whether to continue a $287,000 supplement to the parks and recreation budget, which began in FY 2008 amid controversy over the interpretation of an October 2006 city council resolution about the administration of the parks capital improvements and maintenance millage.
• Options for the future of Huron Hills golf course.

[For detailed coverage of the work session itself, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor 2012 Budget: Parks, Plans, People"]

With respect to the $287,000 parks supplement, Tim Berla recalled how the city’s chief financial officer had addressed PAC in 2007 in preparation for the FY 2008 budget planning and had explained how the parks budget does not increase at as high a rate as, for example the police department, which has a greater percentage of its costs due to personnel. He also recalled how part of the explanation for the apparent disparity in parks funding that year, compared to other parts of the budget, was related to the idea that a department can’t count savings for activities that had been discontinued.

In broad strokes, the controversy that resulted in the $287,000 parks supplement involved the language of the October 2006 resolution, which indicated that parks would be treated the same as other parts of the budget with respect to any increases or decreases.

On Tuesday, Smith reported that the parks budget had increased 9.9% between FY 2008 and FY 2009, from $6.67 million to $7.33 million. During the same period, the city’s general fund budget grew 10.7%, from $76.75 million to $84.97 million. The parks budget then decreased 4.6% in FY 2010 and 3.7% in FY 2011. By comparison, the general fund budget was cut by 4.7% and 3.9% in those years, he said.

Smith said the finance staff is tracking those figures – they even make the calculations from the floor on the night that city council approves the budget, he said, in case councilmembers make changes that might affect the percentages. It’s very much in line with the intent of the 2006 resolution, he said.

In commissioner communications, Sam Offen invited PAC members and the public to attend the annual Mayfly fundraiser at the Leslie Science & Nature Center. It will be held on May 21 from 6-8 p.m.

Julie Grand reported that she’d met with city staff and the consultants hired to develop a strategic plan for the Ann Arbor senior center. It was a productive meeting, she said, and they’re moving toward a vision of offering services for seniors beyond the physical building where the center is housed. They’ll share the plan with PAC at a future meeting, she said.

Public Commentary

Only one person spoke during public commentary. A.J. Dudas introduced himself as a volunteer steward for the Olson Dog Park, working with Tina Roselle, coordinator for the city’s Adopt-a-Park program. He said that in the future, he’d return to PAC to present to them some recommendations that residents would like to see at the dog park. He would be a liaison between residents and the commission, he said.

Present: David Barrett, Doug Chapman, Tim Berla, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Sam Offen, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: Tim Doyle, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio)

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]